World Englishes in English Language Teaching [1st ed.] 978-3-030-13285-9, 978-3-030-13286-6

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-vii
Introduction (Alex Baratta)....Pages 1-23
Variety Within Inner Circle Englishes (Alex Baratta)....Pages 25-36
The Reality of World Englishes (Alex Baratta)....Pages 37-67
Non-inner Circle Englishes Versus Language Errors (Alex Baratta)....Pages 69-116
Three Varieties of Non-inner Circle English (Alex Baratta)....Pages 117-134
Non-inner Circle Englishes in the Classroom (Alex Baratta)....Pages 135-166
Methodology (Alex Baratta)....Pages 167-180
Results and Discussion (Alex Baratta)....Pages 181-271
How World Englishes Can Be Used in the EFL Classroom (Alex Baratta)....Pages 273-308
Conclusion (Alex Baratta)....Pages 309-313
Back Matter ....Pages 315-319

Citation preview

World Englishes in English Language Teaching Alex Baratta

World Englishes in English Language Teaching

Alex Baratta

World Englishes in English Language Teaching

Alex Baratta Manchester Institute of Education The University of Manchester Manchester, UK

ISBN 978-3-030-13285-9 ISBN 978-3-030-13286-6  (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13286-6 Library of Congress Control Number: 2019931747 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: kenkuza_shutterstock.com This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Contents

1 Introduction 1 2

Variety Within Inner Circle Englishes 25

3

The Reality of World Englishes 37

4

Non-inner Circle Englishes Versus Language Errors 69

5

Three Varieties of Non-inner Circle English 117

6

Non-inner Circle Englishes in the Classroom 135

7 Methodology 167 8

Results and Discussion 181

9

How World Englishes Can Be Used in the EFL Classroom 273

v

vi     Contents

10 Conclusion 309 Index 315

List of Tables

Table 7.1 Table 7.2 Table 7.3 Table 8.1 Table 8.2 Table 8.3 Table 8.4 Table 8.5 Table 8.6 Table 8.7 Table 8.8 Table 8.9 Table 8.10 Table 8.11 Table 8.12 Table 8.13 Table 8.14

EFL teachers who are native speakers of an inner circle English 176 Non-native speakers of inner circle English with experience of teaching EFL 178 Non-native speakers of inner circle English who were/are not EFL teachers 179 World Englishes as varieties of English 182 Miscellaneous categories of world English 185 Singlish 199 Konglish 201 Hong Kong English 203 West African English 204 Spanglish 204 Filipino English 205 Thai English 206 Malaysian English 206 A comparison of inner circle English spelling 207 Jamaican Creole 207 Scots 207 The implementation of world Englishes in the classroom 253 vii

1 Introduction

1.1 Overview of Varieties of English The English language has been exported and imported throughout the world, to the extent that it is generally recognised as the (or certainly an ) international language. But like all languages, English is organic, ever-changing and consequently, impossible to pin down to a singular variety (and if we attempt to do so, then we ignore all the other varieties); as Pennycook (2010: 685) states, English is ‘a language always in transition…..a language always under negotiation’. By the same token, there is a need to recognise the importance of using a specific variety of English, as with all languages, that is appropriate for the time and place; this can involve switching from standard English to dialect, or moving from formal English to informal banter replete with taboo words. The plurality of the English language is nothing new, and is seen on a broader level with British English and American English, for example. Going further, we can include other varieties that might be considered linguistic off-shoots of British English, certainly in terms of spelling, such as the Englishes of Australia and New Zealand. Canadian

© The Author(s) 2019 A. Baratta, World Englishes in English Language Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13286-6_1

1

2     A. Baratta

English spelling, however, combines both American and British English influence, seen in examples such as tire centre (and not tyre centre or tire center ). Beyond spelling, we should also consider vocabulary. In a British supermarket, you ask for an aubergine (borrowed from French anyway), whereas in the USA, Australia and New Zealand, one asks for an eggplant. Consider also zucchini, which is an Italian borrowing, whereas in Britain it is called a courgette (French again). I also recall a British student of mine who admitted to being told to leave a store in the USA (presumably, a stationery store) having asked for a rubber, which in the USA refers to a condom, not an eraser as she had otherwise thought. While this example might seem somewhat made-up and possibly connect with existing humour, it was nonetheless a telling example provided by a student and ties in with the real linguistic world of English usage. In addition, we should not forget the differences in accent either, very often the subject of humour. Consider the recently-arrived Englishman in Australia, who was asked if he had come to Australia today, to which he replied, ‘I certainly hope not!’ (‘Have you come to Australia to die?’). A personal anecdote involves my father, who is from the Bronx. He once asked me if we could go to a pawn shop and, because of the nonrhotic accent in New York City (i.e. the ‘r’ is not pronounced unless before a vowel) and vowel merging, both pawn and porn can sound alike in that part of the USA, at least to the naked ear, so to speak. Thus, spelling, vocabulary and pronunciation can all sometimes exhibit significant differences amongst the varieties of English just mentioned, even to the extent that the British, Americans and Australians, for example, can sometimes find it difficult to understand each other. Further, we might also consider grammatical differences, such as the American usage of I had gotten versus British English I had got (while gotten might be used in Britain, it is considered non-standard, whereas in the USA, it reflects standard usage). I’m fairly certain that the readers, regardless of where they hail from and their first language, are aware of these linguistic idiosyncrasies (which of course apply to languages other than just English). What do we make of these differences? I would hope that in this day and age, they are merely regarded as just that—differences.

1 Introduction     3

A unifying factor, however, is that the aforementioned linguistic e­ xamples derive from varieties of English that are found in countries in which English is the ‘native’ language, the language established as the dominant variety. Kachru (1992) of course discussed the English language in toto based on its placement in one of three circles—inner, outer and expanding. The inner circle represents Englishes that are the native language, or certainly a primary language, in countries such as the USA, Britain, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. The outer circle countries are those which use English based on historical imperial expansion which involved English being exported to countries which now, as a result, use English amongst many other ethnic and ­linguistic groups. In such countries, English is often used in higher education and legislative contexts, and includes countries such as Pakistan and India, for example (and in India, English and Hindi are the two official languages). This leaves us with the outermost circle—the expanding ­circle—which represents countries in which English is a language with no clear historical role (unlike, say, India), and yet it is seeing its presence grow. Countries such as South Korea and Singapore would be examples of this particular circle. Thus, if we attempt to conceptualise the monolithic term of ‘English’, it is clear that it is far from monolithic. Just over thirty years ago, Crystal (1985) had estimated that as many as two billion people had some ability in English. Kachru (2005) further indicated that in just India and China, there are over 500 million speakers of English. Crystal (1997: 130–131) also declared the following: Within ten years, there will certainly be more L2 speakers than L1 speakers. Within fifty years, there could be up to 50 percent more. By that time, the only possible concept of ownership will be a global one … An inevitable consequence of this development is that the language will become open to the winds of linguistic change in totally unpredictable ways. The spread of English around the world has already demonstrated this, in the emergence of new varieties of English in the different territories where the language has taken root. The change has become a major talking point only since the 1960s, hence the term by which these varieties are often known: “new Englishes”

4     A. Baratta

This quotation makes it clear that change is inevitable—a change in grammar, for example, when compared with the varieties of English spoken in countries such as Britain and the United States, which might stake a claim on the English language as their sole property.

1.2 Key Issues Regarding World Englishes By the 1980s, the concept, and terminology, of these new varieties of English was growing (Kachru 1985, 1992; Kachru and Smith 1988). Kachru (1992: 11) rightly states that given this plurality, ‘it is indeed essential to recognize that World Englishes represent certain linguistic, cultural and pragmatic realities and pluralism….the pluralism of English must be reflected in the approaches, both theoretical and applied, we adopt for understanding this unprecedented linguistic phenomenon’. This is suggestive of a need to realise that a one size fits all approach to English will no longer work and that students of English do not necessarily benefit from a default setting to inner circle English (Canagarajah 2006; Jenkins 2006). Their everyday English needs may in fact reflect a use of a non-inner circle variety with which they are completely comfortable. Gupta (2012: 256) rightly affirms that ‘once learners are in the real world of English use, they will be exposed to a wide range of usages and they need to be navigated through the complexities of usage’. It is important, therefore, that this is reflected in the classroom. On a practical level related entirely to communication, I think the best summary is in fact provided by Rose (2017: 173): ‘by not exposing learners to the diversity of English, teachers are doing their learners a disservice by ill-equipping them to use English in the future with a wide variety of speakers who will not conform to the unrepresentative standards promoted in traditional English as a foreign language (EFL) classrooms’. Moreover, to declare inner circle standard varieties, or even just one inner circle variety, as the ‘true’ English(es), flies in the face of current trends that, by and large, seek to promote equality and diversity. We should also consider the linguistic diversity contained within a single variety of inner circle English; it is clear that inner circle English

1 Introduction     5

alone is indeed not singular in the first instance. This has particular implications for the EFL classroom, with Matsuda and Friedrich (2011: 338–339) echoing the implications for communication outside the classroom: ‘students must understand that the variety they are learning is one of many and may differ from what their future interlocutors use. If the variety serving as the instructional model is the only variety presented in class, an impression might form that it is the only correct variety. Such an impression is not only inaccurate but could have negative effects on students’ attitudes toward other varieties of English and their confidence in successful communication involving multiple varieties of English’. Furthermore, given this plurality of Englishes and the individuals who speak them of course, the concept of ‘native’ speaker becomes problematic (Higgins 2003; Rajagopalan 2004; Kirkpatrick 2007; Bolton 2008; Christophersen 2008; Mesthrie and Bhatt 2008; Trimbur 2008; Galloway and Rose 2015), precisely because it is no longer practical to approach the term ‘English’ from the sole perspective of an inner circle speaker. Indeed, if a person outside this circle speaks a variety of English, then surely he/she is already a native speaker. Thus, a speaker of Konglish in South Korea surely knows enough about this variety in terms of its relevant lexis and grammar and crucially, when to deploy Konglish as opposed to Korean (and indeed, as opposed to an inner circle variety of English). But we must remember that what is or is not deemed to be ‘correct’ is often in the ear of the beholder. This raises another inherent issue in World Englishes: how do we distinguish between errors as opposed to innovations within the language? This will have implications for our EFL students’ work, particularly in assessment, and so we as educators also need to consider what may indeed be an error in an absolute sense (perhaps a spelling error), versus a use of English that, while not inner circle, is perfectly acceptable within the student’s country of origin. Again, to declare this latter usage as an error can, in some cases, reflect a rather rigid interpretation of ‘correct’ English. As Bamgbose (1998: 3) asks, ‘why should a native-variety-based standard continue to license the norms of non-native Englishes?’ Clearly, then, the belief exists that inner circle varieties should not be asserted to be the standard for Englishes that exist outside this context.

6     A. Baratta

Mukminatien (2012: 224) thereby asks a very relevant question in this regard: ‘Which standard should be adopted in response to learners’ linguistic needs for international communication?’ This, however, suggests that English as an international language (EIL), is designed primarily for international communication. Given that Englishes exist around the world, then it is unsurprising that speakers of such varieties use English to communicate amongst themselves and thus, English can also be used intranationally, as I had implied. Pakir (2000) addresses this by using the term glocal, a blend of global and local. This reflects the fact that English displays an international status, while it also has local identities in the contexts of outer and expanding circle countries. The implications for communication in both contexts are quite different. Mukminatien (2012) declares that as English exists as a lingua franca (ELF), then it is of course used by people who do not share the same first language and as a result, a variety of English is needed which can be used in such contexts, such as that used in Singapore. Thus, Mukminatien argues that native speaker proficiency (i.e. proficiency in an inner circle variety) is not necessarily the goal, but instead, we need to encourage intelligibility between speakers. As Kirkpatrick (2007) reminds us, to focus on just the linguistic and pragmatics norms for inner circle countries, and by extension, their cultures, might not be appropriate for speakers who are residing in countries in which the norms will be based on NICE and the audience will be native speakers of such varieties. Even for international communication, a focus on World Englishes is still valid, given the fact that inner circle speakers themselves, including the teachers, may find themselves coming into contact with non-inner circle speakers while on their travels. Matsuda (2017) raises the need to address such concerns by preparing teachers now for the future EFL classroom and its pedagogical needs, involving an ‘entirely new way of thinking about English language teaching and learning’ (page iv). This points to teacher preparation programmes as the basis for such transformative learning—the learning involved within teacher training and subsequent learning of English by the students. I believe that just as there are many varieties of English around the world, we need to recognise them not merely in textbooks, or as a point

1 Introduction     7

of discussion in conferences; we need to recognise them within the classroom (Baumgardner 1987; Matsuda and Friedrich 2011; Matsuda 2012; Mukminatien 2012). This itself is a pluralistic endeavour. For example, while the teaching of an inner circle standard variety is perhaps still the standard in many classrooms, we need to teach students about the other varieties also. First, we should recognise the importance of inner circle standard English (which I will refer to as standard English hereafter, not to assert a one-sided view, but merely for ease of reference). This variety is the version of English that is used, and expected, in contexts such as academic writing, job interviews, formal business contexts, IELTS/TOEFL examinations, university entrance exams and academic conferences, to name but a few examples. It is also the variety of English that is used and propagated within the context of ‘official’ documents, such as university prospectuses, job advertisements and government documents, for example. The point here is these are some of the contexts in which an understanding of standard English—be it based on reading, writing or both—is taken for granted. By teaching a standard, it need not suggest inherent superiority regarding inner circle standard English, nor the speakers who use it. Rather, it is a means by which all people can be allowed to move forward educationally and professionally, by means of having acquired the variety of language that is expected to get them in the door in the first instance. However, we need to recognise the contexts in which inner circle dialects and NICE also are expected, or certainly appropriate, as standard English is not always the best choice. Milroy and Milroy (1999) illustrate this situation, in which the choice to use a standard form against a dialect would mean, respectively, opting for prestige instead of solidarity. Many speakers of a given language know the boundaries regarding the when, where and who in terms of language deployment and it is not an implausible scenario to suggest that the use of standard English may be seen by some interlocutors as essentially the speaker putting on airs and graces; such a reaction is unlikely to reflect a positive response to an otherwise prestige form. However, what exactly is the standard for EFL classes around the world? Is there even a singular standard that is possible in so many

8     A. Baratta

different countries, let alone coordinating this standard variety? In short, which English do we teach as a foreign language? This is the question that this book will address, by going into further depth on what has been discussed so far, as well as discussing additional topics of relevance, such as the negative views toward non-standard inner circle Englishes; the difference between ‘errors’ within World Englishes and innovations; problematizing the terminologies used (e.g. Chinglish versus China English); a brief presentation of three World English varieties; and a final discussion regarding the implications for World Englishes in the classroom. This will then be followed by the results of my study which obtained the views of thirty six EFL teachers (both inner and non-inner circle speakers), as well as EFL students. Their views are of course highly relevant to the topic of World Englishes from a pedagogic perspective. Finally, the book culminates with a presentation of suggested classroom exercises in which World Englishes, and EFL students’ native languages, can be used as a means to teach the inner circle standard (and non-standard, for that matter). This is not to give the impression that all linguistic roads lead to standard English as used by inner circle speakers. Far from it. Instead, the purpose of using World Englishes as a means to teach inner circle English, or whatever variety is the focus of a particular EFL class, is based on the following goals: • To recognise the need to teach a variety of English in the first instance which will have currency in international communicative contexts, outside the students’ home country, particularly relevant for students who intend to study and/or work in inner circle countries or even beyond them, in which inner circle English might nonetheless still be used (e.g. Germany), and to communicate with foreigners who themselves may only be familiar with the inner circle standard; • At the same time, to recognise the validity of NICE, so as to acknowledge not merely their existence, but also their functions as representatives of the cultures to which they belong; such is in keeping with a reflection of cultural diversity and thus avoidance of an implied hegemonic structure in which one central variety of a language is deemed ‘best’;

1 Introduction     9

• In bringing World Englishes into the EFL classroom, it allows for students from all over the world to take a more active role, part of strategic learning (Gu 2012), in part by placing the student in the role of teacher by virtue of being an authority on the language in question; this helps to ensure a more democratic classroom environment and allows students to act as cultural informants; • By using World Englishes to teach inner circle varieties, it allows for learning to be facilitated as students are exposed to an innovative teaching method which is still somewhat in its infancy, and yet, needs to be developed. Rather than being a gimmick, the use of World Englishes in an EFL classroom is a logical choice and can, for reasons mentioned, be an effective means to help students develop the kinds of English skills that they will need, whether such skills pertain to speaking, writing, IELTS/TOEFL, tourism English or anything else.

1.3 Approach of This Book In terms of my book’s contribution to the subject, I present a three-part approach, as mentioned. The first part consists of a review of the relevant literature; this is followed by the results of my study which captured the views of thirty six EFL students and teachers regarding the inclusion of World Englishes (or not) within the EFL classroom; finally, I present a collection of suggested classroom exercises which can be used to teach EFL with the inclusion of the students’ first language and indeed, NICE. A recent publication by Matsuda (2017) offers extensive coverage on this subject, including information on teacher training programmes; approaches to the teaching of World Englishes; and culminates, as with my book, by providing practical suggestions for classroom teaching. The extensive focus on teacher training programmes which adopt a World Englishes approach is vital, given that we have reached the stage where we need to have concrete and practical suggestions for the future of the EFL classroom, after having discussed the subject for long enough. In addition, Matsuda’s coverage involves the teaching

10     A. Baratta

practices of those who are themselves non-inner circle English speakers teaching within their home country (e.g. Italy, Vietnam, Brazil); at this point, we need to incorporate the cultural practices, needs and values of those who study English, and not just those who speak it and who derive from a particular circle. Thus, we are better positioned today perhaps to address Matsuda’s (2012: 6) comment that ‘much of the critical examination of ELT (English Language Teaching) vis-à-via the use of EIL remains at the abstract level’. In fact, Galloway and Rose (2015) have addressed this as part of further developing the Global Englishes Language Teaching (GELT) framework, whose purpose is to focus ‘on diversity and the function of English as an international lingua franca, rather than traditional approaches to ELT which aim to teach people to speak with native English speakers’ (page 208). I should point out that I do not attempt to find inherent gaps in Matsuda’s (2017) recent work, or any other publication, for the simple reason all publications on this subject matter have ‘gaps’: there is only so much that can be covered. However, I would hope that providing a three-in-one approach as my book does, and notably that it includes the views of the most relevant group—the teachers and students themselves—that educators and students alike can use this book as a means to inform their own teaching, learning and research. Before I close this chapter, a few points are in order regarding key terminologies. First, the term EFL is but one of many that exists in the context of teaching English to those whose native language is not (inner circle) English. Additional terms, which try to get at the heart of the linguistic matter in terms of what is taught, include English as a Second Language (ESL) and GELT, for example. I believe that a more fitting term would be ‘Inner Circle English as a Foreign Language’, as this reflects the fact that it is inner circle varieties that are normally the focus in language learning classrooms. Yet, by considering these varieties ‘foreign’ to the speakers of NICE, it helps to make the point that they derive from different regions of the world and on that level, they represent foreign countries—and cultures. However, I have chosen to use the term EFL as a more familiar way of reflecting the cultural implications of the different Englishes. It is precisely because these Englishes reflect different cultures, who have made English their own, that we

1 Introduction     11

need to promote such varieties, as a means to avoid an otherwise ­unified cultural mindset that is implied within a sole focus on inner circle Englishes. Likewise, I choose to use the term World Englishes, which is just one of many others: English as a Lingua Franca (ELF), Global English(es), international English, localized varieties of English, new varieties of English, non-native varieties of English, second-language varieties of English, English World-Wide (EWW) and New Englishes, for example. My rationale is that the term World Englishes should be used to encapsulate all three circles of English (Jenkins 2009); an early paper by Turner (1984) in fact argued for Australian English as a world language. Moreover, I take on board Saraceni’s (2009) point that World Englishes can be found within the confines of a single nation (such as Ebonics in the USA and Scots in Scotland); we need to consider the vast array of Englishes as not merely those used internationally, but the varieties which can be heard, and used, intranationally. Why should this not include inner circle varieties? However, I recognise, as does Jenkins, that some might feel that the term World Englishes is too inclusive, in that the inclusion of expanding circle Englishes might not be regarded as, at this stage at least, an established group in the same way that outer circle varieties are, given that the outer circle varieties are institutionalised (Higgins 2003). Yano (2008: 139) seems to reflect this belief, explaining that ‘In Japan, English is not used by the majority, nor is it used often enough for it to be established as Japanese English’. This statement, however, requires serious consideration as to what we mean by ‘established’. As I will argue, the fact that we recognise varieties of English across the expanding circle is, in itself, a sign of their establishment. They are established in as much as there are speakers who indeed use lexis and grammatical features on a wide enough scale within their country to the extent that this variety of English is established. If not, then how could people use a language if it does not exhibit a systematic nature? However, when I refer to non-inner circle Englishes specifically within this book, I use the acronym NICE (i.e. if there is a need to focus solely on outer and expanding circle Englishes); otherwise, World Englishes will be used to refer to all three circles.

12     A. Baratta

For many perhaps, this is too loose an approach to linguistic e­stablishment. Many educators might seek out textbooks and dictionaries on a particular variety of English as a means to establish that a language is established—a means to codify the language (which can only really take place if there is something recognisable to codify in the first instance). I will argue that insisting on dictionaries as a means to codify a language is limiting and not reflective of the more modern means of codification, such as social media, and ultimately, the speakers themselves. Do the Japanese people who use their own variety of English really need to be told how to use English for their own purposes? Would this have any real influence on their English usage? To the second question, perhaps it might help to give it a deeper sense of recognition, but it wouldn’t change the fact that varieties of English, from Delhi to Seoul, are being used to communicate already, and not always with the assistance of dictionaries or school-based textbooks. We should not forget, however, the fact that online dictionaries and grammatical guides to all varieties of English are readily available, reflecting again a more modern approach perhaps to codification (a point I will take up later). Jenkins (2006) in fact provides a very detailed discussion of some of the inherent issues with regard to the terminologies in use to describe Englishes around the world, such as the connotations of the term International English, suggestive of a single unified variety. Marlina (2014: 4) prefers EIL, the definition of which encapsulates the topic well: ‘the international functions of English and its use in a variety of cultural and economic arenas by speakers of English from diverse lingua-cultural backgrounds who do not speak each other’s mother tongues’. This definition is one I would equally apply to World Englishes, and as with Marlina, I agree that such a definition avoids singular notions of English, suggestive of a variety which can travel around the world and be understood. Having said that, I argue that standard English, with its historical, and current, focus, in many EFL classrooms, is still the closest thing we have to an international English, and as such, I am not suggesting it is replaced with multiple Englishes (or even some kind of new international standard). Instead, I argue that we need a base variety of English in the EFL classroom, which might still need

1 Introduction     13

to be standard English, but with the addition of other varieties (and indeed, with the inclusion of other varieties of inner circle English). However, I equally concede that we can no longer rely completely (but perhaps somewhat) on a notional standard for international communication the more that non-inner circle varieties grow and are used by individuals to include, perhaps more so for the future, inner circle speakers. In other words, it is perhaps less the case that there is a singular variety of English which can ensure international communicative success in multiple countries, but instead, we need to look to communicative success by using multiple Englishes (well, more than one perhaps) even in the same country. A Korean professor giving a conference presentation in standard English in Seoul might need to switch to a more local variety of English when speaking with his students. While this provides an interesting starting point to how we conceptualise English as used around the world, I have sought to use the term World Englishes primarily as a placeholder concept, beyond its semantic connection with a variety of Englishes used around the world. Ultimately, a more pressing issue is, bluntly put, not so much how we conceptualise and name these varieties of the English language, but what we, as educators, actually do with them in the classroom. Though I say this, I do concede that terminology might be an issue, to an extent. Since the term Chinglish was used by Pinkham (2000) to refer to what I will later discuss to be translation errors, and not the variety of English as used by Chinese people (China English), then perhaps the mere act of blending a country name with the word English has connotations of ‘bad’ English, such as Japlish, Singlish and so on. This might seem like a trivial concern, and indeed, Singlish does have a more formal title—Colloquial Singapore English (Alsagoff and Ho 1998). While very speculative, might it be the case, however, that as long as such informal terms are used, certain varieties of English can never be taken as seriously as they should? Nonetheless, I recognise equally that using terms such as Japanese English, Korean English and so on will not change attitudes overnight, but it might be a start, not in establishing these varieties (I believe that they already are), but in promoting perhaps a degree more respect. In fact, He and Li (2009) concur, arguing

14     A. Baratta

that it is not merely about semantics, but about connotations, with Chinglish subject to ‘social stigma’ (page 71). Instead, they argue for the term of China English (though I will argue that the two terms refer to different things in the first instance). Moreover, English truly belongs to the world and no one can claim it as their sole possession. English has its home across several continents and, as mentioned, it has been modified as it has moved from one country to the next. Thus, we have worldwide ownership of the language and the term World Englishes reflects this. As Strevens (1980: 90) pointed out more than thirty years ago, ‘the native speaker of English must accept that English is no longer his possession alone: it belongs to the world, and new forms of English, born of new countries with new communicative needs, should be accepted into the marvelously flexible and adaptable galaxy of “Englishes” which constitute the English language’ (emphasis mine). To suggest that English is invalidated unless it is used by inner circle speakers (and then perhaps only specific varieties, such as standard English, and English as spoken with specific prestige accents) would go against the societal trend for equality and respect for diversity. In keeping with such a more egalitarian climate, we need to extend this to language in all its varieties. An important point in this regard is captured by Philippson (1992: 47), who believes that by incorporating a focus on World Englishes (notably, NICE) in the classroom, it can be a means to address ethnocentrism and linguicism, which are defined thus: ‘ideologies, structures, and practices which are used to legitimate, effectuate, and reproduce an unequal division of power and resources (both material and immaterial) between groups which are defined on the basis of language’. Given that language is a social proxy for larger societal identities based, for example, on race, ethnicity and class, prejudice toward a specific variety of language is essentially a disguised form of prejudice toward the speaker based on more than just his/her grammar, lexis or phonology. Additionally, the discussion of World Englishes within this book rests largely on the lexis and grammar that distinguish such varieties. This is not to negate the importance of a third factor relevant to the speakers of all English varieties—accent. Indeed, my recent work has focused solely on accent and the potential for prejudice based on the perceptions that

1 Introduction     15

individuals have of certain accents (Baratta 2016, 2017, 2018a, b), as well as acknowledging other notable studies such as Kubota (2001), Coupland and Bishop (2007), and Addison and Mountford (2015). However, I believe that a focus on lexis and grammar makes sense as it is precisely these two factors, grammar more so, that lead to the kinds of negativity that can mark attitudes toward World Englishes. Moreover, having a foreign accent (which is only ‘foreign’, strictly speaking, when outside one’s home region) is more reflective of a comparatively fixed attribute. That is, while it is not impossible to acquire a different accent in adulthood, or to at least modify one’s existing accent to mirror whatever the relevant norms are for pronunciation, our accent is otherwise part and parcel of having been raised in a specific region. As such, I argue that negativity toward this feature of our speech (i.e. toward non-inner circle accents), is easier to counter in the sense that it is an inevitable influence from our childhood. To put it another way: while different accents can sometimes lead to communication difficulties (and regardless of the speakers’ origins), it is perhaps more difficult to challenge someone’s accent as ‘wrong’; grammar and lexis, however, if stigmatised on the basis of not following inner circle patterns, are perhaps easier to address. That is, for those who believe inner circle Englishes are the one standard to propagate and all other versions need to be corrected, then on that level, we need ‘simply’ teach inner circle grammar and lexis to address this ‘problem’. Granted, a focus on inner circle norms is the right approach to ensure this goal, but as I have (and will) argue, we need a variety of Englishes in the EFL classroom. On this basis, I will focus on grammar and lexis, leaving implications for accent for a future discussion (to include which inner circle accents are preferred for EFL teachers—e.g. Baratta and Halenko 2019). Finally, I need to make clear who this book is for. At the broadest level, it is for anybody and everybody who has an interest in the subject matter regarding language teaching and World Englishes in particular. More practically, however, I have written the book with EFL teachers who represent inner circle varieties firmly in mind, though all EFL teachers can ideally find the book wholly relevant to their work too. Marlina (2014), addressing the situation regarding knowledge of EIL with its inherent issues, argues for a gap that still needs to be filled

16     A. Baratta

in publications such as this one. Namely, he states that ‘there is a still a hunger for…..PESTS’ (page 9). That is, practicality, efficiency, standards and simplicity. Combining each of these, Marlina addresses some rather cynical, yet plausible, attitudes; namely, that it is impractical and inefficient to teach different varieties of English, we should just focus on standard English alone and we need to keep things simple. If these kinds of attitudes are still prevalent in some teaching contexts, despite the linguistic reality of a multitude of Englishes with even more communicative contexts, then there is a discrepancy between what we teach compared with what students need to learn. Marlina further argues for a need to obtain the voices of those who are directly involved within the context of English in the classroom—the teachers and students themselves, as this book has done. I would go further, however, and argue that for a successful EFL classroom, students need to be given opportunities to be the teacher, and the teachers need to be prepared to learn from the students. My belief is that we need to incorporate NICE into the EFL classroom and to do that, we need to dispense with a focus on solely inner circle Englishes. This is not to give the false impression that all inner circle English speakers automatically believe that their version of English is the standard in EFL contexts, at the expense of all others. Likewise, I do not claim that non-inner circle English speaking EFL teachers are more likely to want to bring their varieties of English into the classroom. The reality is perhaps far more complicated, and is based on the beliefs of the individual teacher, regardless of his/her English variety, as well as the needs of the students and the degree to which the class syllabus is prescriptive in terms of the kind of English that is focused upon. However, there is a place for NICE within a class that is otherwise focused on an inner circle standard variety. From personal experience, I wish that I had had a better understanding of NICE when I taught English in Korea from 1995–1998, because I would definitely have brought these varieties into my classes and I can see how it would have worked to teach inner circle English to students of all abilities. This could have involved a simple lexical comparison for lower level speakers, such as cell phone (American English), mobile phone (British English) and hand phone (Konglish). For advanced English students, a

1 Introduction     17

discussion, perhaps a debate, involving the desired status of Konglish (or not) would have proven relevant and potentially for me, a chance to learn from the students. Thus, my hope is that for EFL teachers who are about to begin their chosen career, or those who are already established, this book can provide some linguistic and cultural food for thought, as well as practical suggestions for the classroom itself. Indeed, to not give NICE a place within the classroom means that an opportunity is missed for students from all over the world to have a valuable chance to connect with their classmates purely on the basis of language. That is, one unifying factor with NICE in particular is that they have been created by individuals who themselves are not native speakers of inner circle English. Thus, this collective identity is something that can be shared between an Indian student from Delhi discussing Indian English to a Japanese individual from Tokyo who is also sharing his/her variety of English. This allows for more than just linguistic transmission, but also cultural transmission. It is a way to answer the question, ‘just how did you make English your own?’ Within the EFL classroom, the inclusion of World Englishes (including non-standard inner circle varieties) makes sense because they are, after all, varieties of English and thus, for the students who are aware of them and even speak them, they are already part way there regarding their study of the English language. Furthermore, there is the means for the teacher to use such a discussion for pedagogic purposes, such as classroom debates centred on the time and place for inner circle versus outer/expanding circle Englishes. In addition, by providing students with phrases in various World Englishes, students can be challenged to determine the origin of such— which variety of English do the phrases belong to? This in itself could be used as an ice-breaker for students and/or a warm-up to the lesson. Furthermore, EFL students have a chance at more autonomy, for those who might desire such, in the sense that they can become the teacher, helping fellow students, and importantly their teacher, learn more about their country’s variety of English. The teacher could also provide examples of how international varieties of English work, as well as the ­understanding that their speakers have of the English language in the first instance. Consider the following examples to illustrate this latter point:

18     A. Baratta

I am having a car The English language does not allow for progressive aspect to be used with stative verbs—verbs which denote states of affairs such as live, love, have and so on. However, such forms are acceptable in Indian English. From this brief illustration, students can learn a bit more about how some Indian languages use grammar and this can lead to students learning a bit more about how one’s native language influences their country’s version of English. In doing so, students can recognise that no variety of English is inherently ‘incorrect’ (or ‘correct’, for that matter), but is instead operating with specific rules in mind—be they syntactic, morphological or phonological. The EFL classroom is focused on English and it stands to reason that given a student body that might comprise several different countries, it is a good opportunity to learn more than just ‘English English’. Going further, we might consider the ways in which inner circle English is changing, to in fact include the use of progressive forms for stative verbs. Consider the McDonald’s slogan of I’m lovin’ it. While we might call this a case of linguistic coercion, I would simply call it a change in progress, especially with other expressions which, to my ear at least, do not sound ‘wrong’, such as I’m really liking this coffee (i.e. ‘I am really enjoying the coffee that I am in the process of drinking at this moment in time’). Who knows? Perhaps the future of inner-circle English may well include progressive forms for stative verbs, with future generations wondering what all the fuss was about. As an anecdote, I was recently in e-mail contact with an individual whose first language is not English. In his e-mail response to me, he used an example of a progressive verb: I am living in Manchester. How do we interpret this? Personally, I find its use entirely correct. This is because of the semantic implications of using the progressive aspect with the verb to live. In this case, I interpret the sentence above as meaning that the individual is living in Manchester temporarily, whereas ‘I live in Manchester’ would strongly suggest that the person is settled in the city. In just this one instance, the use of the progressive aspect has specific semantic implications and, for me at least, does not go against standard English. This example alone is but one which could easily lend itself to an in-class discussion, seeking out students’ opinions, in fact,

1 Introduction     19

regarding how the sentence ‘feels’ to them. Does their grammatical knowledge and language instinct match up? Skinship The word skinship is used by Koreans, semantically referring to physical touching and caressing, that used between mother and child, close friends, and perhaps intimacy between lovers. However, this word is also an opportunity for EFL students of all backgrounds to practice English skills, by virtue of discussing English morphology. Specifically, the students could be asked to determine the meaning of the suffix –ship, or at least to provide examples of its usage (e.g. relationship, ownership, and so on). Here, then, is an example of Korean creativity, a means by which the rules of English are being applied in a logical manner (well, no more or less ‘logical’ than how inner circle English speakers use words such as friendship ). This can be a more interesting means to teach English grammar, partly by tapping into students’ existing knowledge of such and also, doing so in an innovative manner by having them first consider a variety of English that goes beyond the traditional varieties taught in the EFL classroom. The brief examples provided above regarding two varieties of World Englishes are merely a taster for more in-depth discussion to follow later in the book. The point here is that if we set inner circle Englishes’ grammar (standard grammar notably) as the standard, then this can lead to anything outside of this becoming the linguistic other. Again, in a spirit of (linguistic) equality and diversity, this is something we need to avoid. Not, I must point out, as a reflection of political correctness. Rather, it is a reflection of linguistic correctness. The introduction has thus sought to capture the topic at hand and the inherent debate regarding the status—and prestige (or lack thereof )—of World Englishes (specifically, NICE, but also including non-standard inner circle varieties), both at home where they are spoken and crucially for this book, in the EFL classroom itself. Before the book continues by providing a more in-depth discussion, I summarise some of the main points which this book has touched upon so far and which will be focused on in more detail in the following chapters:

20     A. Baratta

• Linguistically-speaking, all varieties of all languages have a time and a place for their appropriateness of usage; • Thus, to be exclusive in terms of which varieties of English are discussed in the EFL classroom can send a wrong message, suggestive of English being one size fits all when clearly, the English language is anything but; • EFL students need to be taught about the time and place for a variety of inner circle Englishes and outer/expanding circle Englishes; again, the notion of what is ‘standard’ and who exactly is a ‘native speaker’ needs to be further problematized; • Crucial to the above point, EFL students are in a position to be the teacher, explaining to the class about their particular World English; • This in turn allows for a more inclusive EFL classroom, with a discussion of World Englishes and subsequent discussion of culture and the identity that emanates from language; • Finally, World Englishes have a clear pedagogic purpose and can be used to teach EFL students about English in general—including inner circle varieties—in a manner that can be innovative, accessible and thought provoking.

References Addison, M., & Mountford, V. (2015). Talking the talk and fitting in: Troubling the practices of speaking? ‘What you are worth’ in Higher Education in the UK. Sociological Research Online, 20(2), 1–13. Alsagoff, L., & Ho, C. (1998). The grammar of Singapore English. In J. Foley, T. Kandiah, L. Gupta, H. Alsagoff, I. Lick, L. Wee, I. Talib, & W. Bokhorst-Heng (Eds.), English in new cultural contexts: Reflections from Singapore (pp. 215–246). Singapore: Singapore Institute of Management and Oxford University Press. Bamgbose, A. (1998). Torn between the norms?: Innovations in World Englishes. World Englishes, 17(1), 1–14.

1 Introduction     21

Baratta, A. (2016). Keeping it real or selling out: The effects of accent ­modification on personal identity. Pragmatics and Society, 7(2), 291–319. Baratta, A. (2017). Accent and linguistic prejudice in British teacher training. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16, 416–423. Baratta, A. (2018a). Accent and teacher identity in Britain: Linguistic favouritism and imposed identities. London: Bloomsbury. Baratta, A. (2018b). I speak how I speak: A discussion of accent and identity within teachers of ELT. In B. Yazan & N. Rudolph (Eds.), Criticality, teacher identity and (in)equity in English language teaching: Issues and implications (pp. 163–178). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Baratta, A., & Halenko, N. (2019). Putting an accent on EFL. Ongoing research project. University of Manchester, and University of Central Lancashire. Baumgardner, R. (1987). Utilising Pakistani English newspaper to teach grammar. World Englishes, 6(3), 241–253. Bolton, K. (2008). English in Asia, Asian Englishes, and the issue of proficiency. English Today, 24(2), 3–12. Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). Negotiating the local in English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 197–218. Christophersen, P. (2008). ‘Native speakers’ and world English. English Today, 4(3), 15–18. Coupland, N., & Bishop, H. (2007). Ideologised values for British accents. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(1), 74–93. Crystal, D. (1985). How many millions? The statistics of English today. English Today, 1(1), 7–9. Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Galloway, N., & Rose, H. (2015). Introducing global Englishes. London: Routledge. Gu, Y. (2012). Language learning strategies: An EIL perspective. In L. Alsagoff, S. McKay, G. Hu, & W. Renandya (Eds.), Principles and practices for teaching English as an international language (pp. 318–334). New York: Routledge. Gupta, A. (2012). Grammar teaching and standards. In L. Alsagoff, S. McKay, G. Hu, & W. Renandya (Eds.), Principles and practices for teaching English as an international Language (pp. 244–260). New York: Routledge. He, D., & Li, D. (2009). Language attitudes and linguistic features in the ‘China English’ debate. World Englishes, 28(1), 70–89.

22     A. Baratta

Higgins, C. (2003). “Ownership” of English in the outer circle: An alternative to the NS-NNS dichotomy. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 615–644. Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching World Englishes and English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 157–181. Jenkins, J. (2009). World Englishes: A resource book for students. London: Routledge. Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kachru, B. B. (1992). Models for non-native Englishes. In B. B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures (pp. 48–74). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Kachru, B. B. (2005). Asian Englishes: Beyond the canon. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong Press. Kachru, B. B., & Smith, L. (1988). An integrative and cross-cultural journal of WE-ness. In E. Maxwell (Ed.), Robert Maxwell and Pergamon Press: 40 years’ service to science, technology and education (pp. 674–678). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for international communication and English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kubota, R. (2001). Teaching world Englishes to native speakers of English in the USA. World Englishes, 20(1), 47–64. Marlina, R. (2014). The pedagogy of English as an international language (EIL): More reflections and dialogues. In M. Roby & R. Giri (Eds.), The pedagogy of English as an international language (pp. 1–19). New York: Springer. Matsuda, A. (2012). Introduction: Teaching English as an international language. In A. Matsuda (Ed.), Principles and practices of teaching English as an international language (pp. 1–16). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Matsuda, A. (Ed.). (2017). Preparing teachers to teach English as an international language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Matsuda, A., & Friedrich, P. (2011). English as an international language: A curriculum blueprint. World Englishes, 30(3), 332–344. Mesthrie, R., & Bhatt, R. (2008). World Englishes: The study of new linguistic varieties. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (1999). Authority in language. New York: Routledge.

1 Introduction     23

Mukminatien, N. (2012). Pedagogical movements in teaching English in the emerging issues of World Englishes. ELT in Asia in the digital Era: Global citizenship and identity. Proceedings of the 15th Asia TEFL and 64th TEFLIN International Conference on English Language Teaching, July 13–15, 2017, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Pakir, A. (2000). The development of English as a “glocal” language: New concerns in the old saga of language teaching. In H. W. Kam & C. Ward (Eds.), Language in the global context: Implications for the language classroom (pp. 14–31). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a local practice. London: Routledge. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. London: Oxford University Press. Pinkham, J. (2000). The translator’s guide to Chinglish. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Rajagopalan, K. (2004). The concept of “World English” and its implications for ELT. ELT Journal, 58(1), 111–117. Rose, H. (2017). A global approach to English language teaching: Integrating an international perspective into a teaching methods course. In A. Matsuda (Ed.), Preparing teachers to teach English as an international language (pp. 169–180). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Saraceni, M. (2009). Relocating English: Towards a new paradigm for English in the world. Language and Intercultural Communication, 9(3), 175–186. Strevens, P. (1980). Teaching English as an international language. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Trimbur, J. (2008). The Dartmouth conference and the geohistory of the native speaker. College English, 71(2), 142–169. Turner, G. (1984). Australian English as a world language. English in the World, 3, 153–155. Yano, Y. (2008). Comment 5 in the Forum on Colingualism. World Englishes, 27, 139–140.

2 Variety Within Inner Circle Englishes

2.1 Non-standard Inner Circle Englishes This section unpacks one variety of an inner circle English—British English—and in doing so, reveals the variety inherent to this English as used by its speakers. Yorkshire is a county in the North of England and in terms of its specific grammatical features, an example can be seen in the sentence He went t’shops with us. In standard English (to include that used beyond Britain perhaps in other inner circle countries), this would be realised as He went to the shops with me (or the store, in American English). Thus, in Yorkshire dialect, we find reduction of the definite article (so that the is realised as t’ before a consonant or th’ if before a vowel, such as th’idiot over there ). In addition, the plural pronoun us is used in place of the singular form, me. It is unlikely that this variety of inner circle English has, historically at least, played a dominant role in English as a foreign language (EFL) classrooms. Of course, we do need to consider the importance of register, as this can play a large role in the use of any language, whether standard or non-standard. First, we could consider register based on whether the communication is written or spoken. However, this too needs further © The Author(s) 2019 A. Baratta, World Englishes in English Language Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13286-6_2

25

26     A. Baratta

British English Standard British English Non-standard British English

Regional Dialects e.g. Yorkshire

Sociolects e.g. Multicultural London English

consideration, as an email sent to a close friend on the subject of going out for a drink is quite different than using spoken communication for a political speech, for example. The point here is that written registers can be quite informal and spoken ones can be sometimes quite formal. In terms of the implications this has for English dialects, the most important factor perhaps for determining appropriate language use is the audience. Thus, an informal chat amongst close friends, perhaps involving a degree of banter, could easily reflect more non-standard usage, such as article reduction; likewise, if compiling a collection of Yorkshire poetry, then such reductions would be equally at home. We need to also consider the role of accent, further complicating matters. Historically, RP and General American/Canadian were perhaps the ‘standard’ accents for EFL teaching amongst inner circle teachers. I should point out that when I was teaching English in South Korea in the late 1990s, a teacher from New Zealand was not offered a position solely based on his accent, with all the teachers at the institute speaking General American/Canadian. Nowadays, however, we perhaps find more linguistic diversity regarding the teaching materials and teachers themselves. The Headway series, for example, that I used in my own EFL lectures a few years later had in just one listening exercise alone inner circle English accents which derived from London, New Zealand, Scotland and New York City. This is wholly necessary, as this reflects the real world in terms of the accents of inner circle English speakers

2  Variety Within Inner Circle Englishes     27

(let alone NICE speakers). Further, in a recent teaching position in South Korea, I was encouraged in that, besides American and Canadian teachers, we also had a South African and a New Zealander. If we further consider lexis that is part of the Yorkshire dialect, then we might include tha sen, meaning yourself, anyroad meaning anyway and right meaning very. Let us now combine the syntax and lexis that is common to this particular regional dialect and put it to use in a short dialogue, one reflective of an informal spoken register perhaps between close family or friends: Speaker A: Can you give us a lift? I need to go t’shops. Speaker B: Do it tha sen! Speaker A: I’m not right bothered anyroad!

If we add the phonological realisation for the dialogue above, then distinctive features would include the following: /ʊz/ for ‘us’ and /ɹo:d/ or /ɹə:d/ for ‘road’. Now, for the Yorkshire natives who might be reading this book, I do make some concessions which, in themselves, reveal even more linguistic complexity to inner circle Englishes before we have even reached the main focus of outer/expanding circle Englishes! First, the sample dialogue above might be considered somewhat contrived. However, this is due to the need to provide, in a short space of time, grammatical and lexical examples of a particular dialect. To that end, I have hopefully succeeded. Second—and this is an important point to flag up here and now—the more we give examples of how language is used by a particular community, we run the risk of presenting a rather singular view of how a given community actually speaks, suggestive of some kind of monolithic language use by all the members who reside in said community. This is precisely what I seek to avoid in the first instance, given the fact that there is no singular variety of English. In other words, the sample dialogue above is in no way, shape or form reflective of how all (or even most) people from Yorkshire speak all (or most) of the time. While this much is obvious perhaps, it also ties in with the fact that within the county of Yorkshire, age might play a role in the speech of individuals, as is true elsewhere. In fact, some of the features of Yorkshire dialect may be more reflective of the

28     A. Baratta

older generation and not those of school age. In this sense, we could divide Yorkshire dialect into ‘sub-dialects’, which then creates a further dilemma as it suggests that there must be a central (standard?) Yorkshire dialect in the first instance, if indeed there are other (sub)dialects which emanate from it. We can thereby see how even a single variety of an inner circle English has itself many varieties within, the linguistic equivalent of a Russian matryoshka doll. In addition, this illustrates a pedagogical dilemma. Namely, if we try to cover too many varieties of English in the EFL classroom, let alone all the different aspects inherent in language use (e.g. the influence of age on language use), then we run the risk of linguistic overload for students. Further, students might even find this discussion on linguistic diversity a bit too theoretical, and not necessarily practical. The penultimate chapter of my book addresses this, and provides examples of how to avoid such dilemmas. For now, however, I of course fully acknowledge that a happy medium is required (and achievable), that which avoids the two opposites: one extreme that delivers only one variety of (inner circle) English throughout and the other, which involves providing students with too much linguistic variety, and leaves them feeling potentially overwhelmed. Consider of course that Yorkshire dialect is just one dialect within one inner circle country—what about the many other inner circle dialects, from Scots to Chicano English? Where do we begin? Where do we end? There is so much variety within the English language, so how much should we cover in the classroom? As mentioned, these topics will be discussed, by not merely presenting effective classroom exercises, but also the ways in which said exercises by their very nature do not seek to overwhelm students, but likewise, do not ‘underwhelm’ them either by presenting a singular picture of a language that is anything but. As for the sociolect of Multicultural London English (MLE), its usage is tied to a specific group that, despite the location of London as part of the title, makes this more of a sociolect. The relevant factor here is age, not location, as MLE can now be heard throughout England (Kerswill 2014) with the key factor to its usage being British youth and those from working-class backgrounds. Thus, age and class are the more relevant factors here and as such, they are argued to supersede the

2  Variety Within Inner Circle Englishes     29

regional origins of this particular dialect. A distinctive grammatical feature concerns the reduction of innit (isn’t it), which plays a prominent role in tag questions and can be used to seek confirmation, amongst other uses. Thus, He’s a good friend, innit? is essentially asking for confirmation that the individual is indeed a good friend, with innit equivalent in this particular usage to isn’t he. Finally, a lexical example of many more that exist in MLE is the word banging, meaning ‘excellent’. MLE suffers from the same negative perceptions that NICE might, notably in terms of it being regarded as ‘bad English’ and referred to as ‘Jafaican’. Of course, it is all down to who is doing the listening. If MLE is used amongst one’s peer group, all of whom are MLE speakers, then clearly it will, in that instance, have a large degree of covert prestige. Likewise, for speakers of NICE who converse with other such speakers regularly in a World English, then there is arguably no problem at all. But as we know, having perfect communication for some goes beyond understanding what is being communicated; they also focus on the how, tied to notions of linguistic prestige. Again, before we move into a focus on NICE as part of World Englishes, it makes sense to consider the inner circle varieties. Having done so, we again see the linguistic complexity—and richness—that can be found in merely two examples within one country. Within these examples, we have seen how region, class, age and a particular register all combine to influence the way individuals use language and how this leads to the kind of complexity that a singular linguistic approach ignores, whether intentional or not. At this point, I should also point out that I am not in any way suggesting that today’s EFL teachers haven’t already considered the points that I have raised. I realise that much of my discussion so far is perhaps common sense and well known to teachers who themselves may indeed have much experience of not just teaching EFL, but also of other cultures’ use of English, having perhaps taught overseas (as I did in South Korea). However, I feel it is important to not merely talk around the subject, obvious though the subject might already be to readers, but to take the time to provide some necessary illustration. More recently, Sharma (2018) discusses phonetic change in East London amongst individuals of South Asian origin, as compared with white British and those of mixed white and black heritage. This

30     A. Baratta

reveals how three groups, all of whom speak an inner circle English in the same region of England, nonetheless use the language differently (to potentially involve code-switching to Indian languages on occasion). Sharma in fact references a ‘British Asian accent’ (page 171). Simply put: just how far do we want to go when exploring the many varieties of just one inner circle English? Returning to a suggested hierarchy within inner circle Englishes, I start with the variety deemed most prestigious in contexts such as law, business and education: standard English. This pertains, as do all standard forms of a given language, to the variety whose grammar and lexis essentially reflects a usage which is not tied solely to a specific part of the country and is thus perhaps the default representative of inner circle Englishes, be it American, British or Canadian. Beyond the standard, we have of course non-standard varieties (dialects), which themselves can be subdivided further. First, we have regional dialects, those that are spoken in a particular region within the country and then we have sociolects, referring to a particular use of the language by a specific group, whether the group’s identity is based on class, race or age (but not necessarily region). This division has been illustrated already, but let us now go a step further: Standard English: John is happy Ebonics (a sociolect): John happy Mancunian English (a regional dialect): I were feared Standard English (American or otherwise) requires a copula verb (e.g. is, are, seem, appear) with which to join the subject to an adjective or noun. Thus, in standard English, the following sentences all obey this rule and everyone is happy: She seemed scared; Tom is a teacher; the food appears ready to eat. However, in the Ebonics dialect, spoken by some African-Americans, we have copula deletion, so that copula verbs, as seen in the example above, are not required. Finally, in the regional dialect spoken in and around Manchester, England (and perhaps further afield), we can find examples in which the verb to be in the past tense does not behave as it would in standard English, seen with the use of I were as opposed to I was. Furthermore, the word feared in this context is being used as an

2  Variety Within Inner Circle Englishes     31

adjective, which would not correspond to standard English, in which the word feared is used as a verb (e.g. it is feared that he is missing ). Each variety is conforming to its own unique rules of syntax and morphology, as opposed to dialects being regarded as ‘breaking the rules’ of the standard form. However, as long as non-standard varieties are seen in a negative light by some, synonymous with slang or simply ‘bad’ English (or bad any language, for that matter), then there is a continued need to dispel this myth and recognise the validity of all forms of a given language. This also applies to the accents of native English speakers, with RP the historic standard in England, and regional varieties, notably Liverpool and Birmingham, often being perceived negatively (see Coupland and Bishop 2007). Thus, within a suggested hierarchy, one based purely on public attitudes, it might be argued that inner circle Englishes are regarded as more dominant over outer and expanding circle varieties, and within the context of inner circle Englishes per se, standard forms tend to trump non-standard forms. A point to stress again is that all forms of any language are valid and are legitimate, and the choice as to which variety to use, which is appropriate at a given moment, is of course based on the context. This in turn involves many elements, such as the setting, the relationship between the speakers, the purpose of communication and much more. Thus, all people need to exist as linguistic chameleons and might find themselves automatically switching from standard English to dialect in order to obtain more solidarity and credibility with close friends perhaps, and then switching back to standard English when presenting one’s stand at a school debate. Likewise, a broad regional accent might be the ‘standard’ if at a family gathering where all people have such accents, but the same speaker might move to a less broad variety of the same accent when at a job interview (Baratta 2018). Thus, the notion of a ‘standard’ form of language is, in reality, far from standard, certainly if ‘standard’ is referring to a fixed idea regarding the form of a language that will get the speaker the most respect and credibility. If these are, partly at least, the kind of associations supposedly made regarding standard forms, then it is argued that ‘standard’ English as we know it will not always get such results from one’s interlocutor, as language appropriateness is

32     A. Baratta

determined by context, and not any inherent ‘standardness’. Moreover, there is again the need to consider register, as this can have an effect on one’s use of English, written or spoken, standard or otherwise. For example, I was bloody tired is no less standard than I was considerably fatigued; the difference lies in the degree of formality. Perhaps the former expression is deemed more suitable with an audience who might share in the speaker’s feelings, or certainly would not object to the use of a relatively mild taboo word. The latter expression, by virtue of its somewhat excessive formality, might even be used for humorous effect, but that too is part of the contextual consideration. Having thus provided a brief background into the many linguistic layers that are embedded within the language of inner circle Englishes, we now move from the context of inner circle English speakers to the context of varieties which are spoken outside the inner circle. These are varieties which are somewhat contradictory, not in themselves of course, but in terms of societal attitudes. On the one hand, NICE can be regarded as vibrant, a creative means for people whose language is not English to nonetheless take the English language and infuse it with their own linguistic practices, inspired by their mother tongue(s), thus acting as a badge of identity (Alsagoff 2012; Valentine 2015; Young 2017). This also suggests that NICE are a means by which one’s native language is celebrated via its take on an international language and perhaps an attempt, whether conscious or otherwise, to spread one’s native language internationally also, by infusing some of its elements (from lexis to morphology) with the English language. On the other hand, NICE can also be regarded as deviant when compared with inner circle Englishes (Jee 2016), which then raises the question: what exactly is the standard of the English language by which NICE are being judged? If the standard is, well, standard English (i.e. British, American or any other standard form within the inner circle), then what does this say about the myriad of communicative contexts— even amongst inner circle English speakers—in which non-standard forms of English prevail? This is a point that I have already raised. Thus, as there are instances in which standard (inner circle) English is not appropriate, there are also instances in which inner circle English in general is not appropriate and a NICE is needed instead. Language

2  Variety Within Inner Circle Englishes     33

use is not inherently one thing or another; it is the immediate context in which we find ourselves communicating that determines what the appropriate form of language is and if we want to fit in, we had better use such a form. Thus, French might sometimes work better than English, and Ebonics might be a perfect linguistic fit at a time when standard English would not be. In addition, while the use of taboo words would be wholly inappropriate—even blasphemous—in church, such words can be a powerful means to signal solidarity when conversing with one’s friends at a weekend barbeque. Further, regarding varieties of inner circle English, in my own EFL classes I have often taught various dialectal expressions to the students, everything from am you allright? (a greeting used in Birmingham, England) to specific lexis (such as the raging debate regarding what to call a bread roll in England, such as bun, barm, bap, tea cake or indeed, bread roll ). The rationale for this is not necessarily to encourage the students to use dialect while living in England, but to make them aware of how to respond if someone uses dialect with them. An example that always works within my EFL classes is to use the set expression below, which all my students, certainly those from the Far East, are more than familiar with, having learned it during childhood English lessons: A: How do you do? B: I’m fine thank you, and you? If we consider the exchange above, I am not asserting by any means that it is inappropriate. There are indeed formal contexts in which how do you do? would be the communicative norm for some. My point, however, is that it is not necessarily reflective of everyday English communication amongst inner circle speakers. Thus, relying on the exchange above can mean that students sound very formal and polite, but they also sound like a textbook in the process. A more natural exchange, certainly amongst friends within England, might sound as follows: A: Allright? B: Not too bad.

34     A. Baratta

The example above is quite common in Manchester, England, and yet, compared with the first exchange, it does not conform to standard English grammar at all (though I am not sure if it has been officially recognised as being part of Manchester dialect). For example, both ‘sentences’ are not complete sentences at all, as they lack a subject and verb. However, from a pragmatic point of view, one that by definition considers the context beyond mere grammar and the broad topic of ‘English greetings’, the second exchange is clearly appropriate between colleagues and friends and is thus indicative of the informal, yet close, relationships that some EFL students would perhaps like to forge with inner circle speakers, in part by sounding more like them in terms of actual language use (here, greetings). This relies on a more complete understanding of register of course and yet, to an American ear, the question of allright? or are you allright? would arguably be regarded as a more personal question, akin to ‘what’s wrong?’ Likewise, the expected answer of not too bad could mean to an American that the person is actually under the weather, but otherwise hanging in there. A more common American response might be pretty good (see Baratta 2009). Again, even for inner circle speakers of English, there is always the potential for misunderstandings. My point in mentioning this is that we cannot afford to use misunderstandings as a reason to discourage the use of NICE, when even the ‘native speakers’ cannot always understand each other. However, given their ‘native’ status, we seem to accept misunderstandings more readily as merely being based on differences in what is otherwise the same language. This is perhaps captured with the quotation often attributed to George Bernard Shaw, stating that ‘Britain and America are two nations divided by a common language’. Thus, humour is used to capture inner circle English speakers’ misunderstandings with each other and yet with non-inner circle speakers, there is instead perhaps a tendency to suggest that misunderstandings (notably between an inner circle English speaker and a non-inner circle speaker) are somehow a sign of inherent deviance within a language variety, as opposed to it being merely based on differences. The fact that inner circle Englishes have long since been codified in dictionaries, learning materials and grammar books, perhaps allows for more societal legitimacy also.

2  Variety Within Inner Circle Englishes     35

Nonetheless, I stress again the fact that we need to consider the myriad of contexts that exist out there, in which all varieties of many languages are to be heard and used. If the key is to communicate appropriately for the context we find ourselves in, then surely we need to look beyond standard English within the inner-circle English context. While English has been transported to many countries, we cannot expect it to develop in a manner, regarding its grammar and lexis, that conforms to a singular, and perhaps notional, standard, and the focus within this book is indeed on the role that World Englishes of all varieties might therefore play in the EFL classroom.

References Alsagoff, L. (2012). Another book on EIL? Heralding the need for new ways of thinking, doing, and being. In S. McKay, G. Hu, & W. Renandya (Eds.), Principles and practices for teaching English as an international language (pp. 3–6). New York: Routledge. Baratta, A. (2009). A fine ‘how do you do’: Contextual factors within English greetings. In M. Vyas & Y. Patel (Eds.), Teaching English as a second language: A new pedagogy for a new century (pp. 162–179). New Delhi, India: PHI Learning. Baratta, A. (2018). Accent and teacher identity in Britain: Linguistic favouritism and imposed identities. London: Bloomsbury. Coupland, N., & Bishop, H. (2007). Ideologised values for British accents. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(1), 74–93. Jee, Y. (2016). Critical perspectives of world Englishes on EFL teachers’ identity and employment in Korea: An autoethnography. Multicultural Education Review, 8(4), 240–252. Kerswill, P. (2014). The objectification of ‘Jafaican’: The discoursal embedding of Multicultural London English in the British media. In J. Androutsopouos (Ed.), The media and sociolinguistic change (pp. 428–455). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Sharma, D. (2018). Variation and change in a changing world: New perspectives on classic questions. In R. Mesthrie & D. Bradley (Eds.), The dynamics of language (pp. 161–175). Cape Town, South Africa: University of Cape Town Press.

36     A. Baratta

Valentine, T. (2015). A socially realistic view of world Englishes: Reflections on gendered discourse. World Englishes, 34(1), 149–163. Young, R. (2017). World languages, world Englishes and local identities. School of Foreign Languages, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China.

3 The Reality of World Englishes

3.1 Attitudes Toward World Englishes English does not belong just to the English or those in the inner ­circle, as it is now claimed by speakers from literally all over the world. As Kachru et al. (2006: 6) point out, ‘Having recognized variation, as legitimate observers must, a uniformitarian principle must allow – indeed, make it certain – that the same kinds of variations exist across “non-native” Englishes, institutionalized or not’. King (2006: 19) further states that ‘the roots – the origins – are no longer in sight, long since concealed by generations of accumulations of earth and overgrowth of thick underbrush’. This is a useful way to conceptualise English, and for those who speak it as their own variety, clearly the roots of such are more immediate, in that Singlish grew, and developed, in Singapore; this is its home. Thus, the Englishes that have taken root far from the British Isles have become their own varieties, recognised in as much as those who speak them are of course well aware of their presence and function. In fact, Dhillon (2007) discusses the ways in which the Indian influence on English is celebrated by the Indians who speak it, as opposed to being embarrassed by ‘Indianisms’ (such as teacheress for a © The Author(s) 2019 A. Baratta, World Englishes in English Language Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13286-6_3

37

38     A. Baratta

female teacher). Dhillon in fact states that any adherence to s­peaking English as used in England (and then presumably based on standard British English) is ‘a silly hang-up from a bygone era’. Further, Kachru (1997) explains that an increasing number of Asians are not only speaking English, but they are speaking it to each other. This has implications of course for how we determine ‘correct’ English, especially when it is being used amongst speakers who themselves are not inner circle speakers. However, the view that inner circle speakers are somehow the authors of the English language is captured by Brutt-Griffler (2002: 179), who attributes this attitude partly to the age of the English varieties within the inner circle (see also Jenkins 2007). In short, these varieties have been around longer and so they are more ‘established’. Anchimbe (2009), however, references the fact that the presence of English in India pre-dates that of Australia, but, as I will point out in the next section, non-inner circle Englishes are established in their own right, given that we not merely acknowledge their existence and usage, but crucially, that we are able to discuss their linguistic features in the first instance. Schneider (2007: 58) further reminds us that American English ‘went through the same process of linguistic and cultural appropriation that has shaped other postcolonial varieties’; again, however, he references the idea that’ the longer time-depth….. is responsible for its character as more influential and “stable” (ibid.) (though ironically, no language is ever really ‘stable’—language is dynamic and is always changing). Nonetheless, the English language has been used for over two hundred years in southern Asia and this has in turn led to the nativization of the language; this is seen within several varieties which are collectively referred to as South Asian English (Baumgardner 1996; Kachru 2005). A further implication is that the Englishes that have been established, and are being established as I write, within countries in which English was never native to the country’s soil, are somehow not authentic varieties (Jenkins 2000; Galloway and Rose 2015). Kachru (2006) explains this in terms of those who would see inner circle English as being relatively fixed, and thus the farther one gets from this fixedness, the more others are apt to label otherwise far-flung varieties as less established. Of course, we could argue that the ideal approach is not to consider NICE

3  The Reality of World Englishes     39

with any emotion—to neither celebrate nor lament their existence. In other words, to regard them as linguists arguably already do—as mere varieties of a language, nothing more and nothing less. However, it is impractical to suggest such linguistic neutrality is possible on a wide scale, considering the range of emotions that can be attached to language in general. This is certainly true if we consider the links that language has with identity (Joseph 2004; Seidlhofer 2009; Blommaert 2013) and as such, there is a tendency for speakers of a given language to celebrate its status as a linguistic proxy for identity-hood (Lippi-Green 1997; Baratta 2016). Likewise, there might be others who are not in favour, or perhaps even despise, what the language symbolises to them. An extreme example perhaps can be seen with the language of Afrikaans which is currently being debated as to whether or not it should continue in South African universities as a medium of instruction. For some of its native speakers, it symbolises cultural pride, a living breathing remnant of their Afrikaner past (and perhaps notions of being tied to those who ‘built’ the country); for others, it is a symbol of oppression, given its association with the very people who established the Apartheid regime. The purpose of mentioning this is to briefly show that, from a purely linguistic point of view, and amidst what can sometimes be a flurry of emotions on either side, languages otherwise continue on their merry way, oblivious to all this emotional attachment. They exhibit a structure that is predictable and whose syntax and morphology are no more or less ‘logical’ than any other version of language to which they might be compared. However, emotions can run high outside a purely linguistic context, or at the very least there can be attitudes toward language that care little about linguistic structure and regularity. From this background, I now present two opposing viewpoints on the matter of NICE. Quirk (1990) declared that he was opposed to teachers who sought to promote NICE, or certainly those who sought to declare their validity. Quirk’s reasoning was that this would weaken the need for standards, in this case standard English, and that a standard was indeed required as a bedrock for successful language teaching and learning. Quirk was not necessarily declaring that varieties of English outside of the inner circle were of no consequence;

40     A. Baratta

rather, he was asserting that it was the inner circle Englishes—notably British and American—that were of most relevance and importance in education, given that they represent institutionalized varieties. Englishes outside of this context were non-institutionalized, and represented for Quirk non-native varieties. Thus, for Quirk, the distinction was clearly centred on a native versus a non-native variety, which, in itself, need not point to any inherent superiority of one over the other. Nonetheless, for Quirk, it was clear that native (i.e. inner circle) varieties were those which deserved a place in education. Quirk (1990) summed up his position by concluding that ‘the mass of ordinary native-English speakers have never lost their respect for Standard English, and it needs to be understood abroad too … that Standard English is alive and well, its existence and its value alike clearly recognized’ (page 10). That standard English has importance in pedagogy is not being disputed; in EFL classes that seek to promote international communication (which is probably the majority) standard English should be implemented. However, as I shall argue, it should not be implemented as the only relevant variety of English or to the exclusion of other varieties. In contrast, Kachru holds a different view to that of Quirk. Kachru’s (1991) response to Quirk addresses the concerns that Quirk holds. Kachru argues that the existence of NICE reflects linguistic realities, sociolinguistic realities and educational realities and that these realities are distinct from those within inner circle countries, certainly North America and Britain. Kachru strongly suggests that Quirk is applying a linguistic model which serves to unite the three circles, when in fact there is no singular standard that should be applied wholesale, without certainly considering the need for other varieties. Quirk in turn refers to this mindset as ‘liberation linguistics’ and stated that ‘students, “liberally” permitted to think their “new variety” of English was acceptable, would be defenceless before the harsher but more realistic judgement of those with authority to employ or promote them. They have in effect been denied the command of Standard English’ (1990: 9–10). However, the adoption of inner circle English only in the classroom, might also suggest the exclusion of the linguistic realities that exist on the ground in non-inner circle countries.

3  The Reality of World Englishes     41

Wierzbicka (2006: 22) further argues that ‘to deny the validity of the notion of Anglo cultural patterns or Anglo ways of speaking is to place the values of political correctness above the interests of socially disadvantaged individuals and groups’. This might be seen as in keeping with Quirk’s point, in that Wierzbicka is strongly suggesting that it is political correctness that is the driving force behind recognition of NICE, to the extent that they are put on a par with standard inner circle varieties, even perhaps in the classroom. However, it is once again linguistic correctness that is the relevant factor, a need to recognise that there is a time and a place for all varieties of English. If students are equipped with this knowledge and can deploy it on a practical level, then retention of their non-inner circle English does not represent a disadvantage at all. Instead, it represents the everyday ability that we all have to codeswitch—even within a single language—given that no one retains a singular way of speaking. As Hymes (1972: 38) rightly pointed out, ‘no normal person…..is limited to a single way of speaking, to an unchanging monotony’. Huddart (2014: 5) gets at the heart of this issue, when he addresses the idea that if one is a non-native speaker of a given language, here a non-inner circle English speaker, then the individual is somehow excluded from a presupposed ‘collective understanding’ that is shared by an implied collective group of (inner circle) speakers. Huddart goes on to say that ‘it might be argued that non-native speakers should not even want to share in that common understanding. They have their own languages, their own communities with their own shared understandings’ (ibid.). This view is reflective of speakers of English who use a variety within a culture outside the inner circle perhaps and yet, we can extend this view to potential divisions that reside amongst the inner circle speakers. An extreme example perhaps involves a British man married to an American woman who, in a moment of anger, screamed at his wife that the ‘correct’ word was football, not soccer (Jones 2001). The point is that it is not just linguistic norms that cannot necessarily be enforced; there are also cultural norms that are embedded within a given language that might not travel, or translate, well. Pennycook (2010: 199) further references worldliness, which refers to the ways in which ‘globalization on the one hand pushes us towards a worldly oneness, on the

42     A. Baratta

other hand it obliges an understanding that must draw on the multiple worldly localities of its viewers’. Thus, we have two broad oppositions regarding the English language, one which argues for a pluralist perspective against a more singular and uniform one. The latter is often viewed as seeking to impose a one size fits all perspective which would not acknowledge the importance of NICE by means of, in some cases, regarding them as deficient or not fit for (international) purpose; the pluralistic perspective, however, recognises the need to acknowledge the fact that English cannot be expected to adopt a singular variety when it is spoken throughout the world and, as Hildgendorf (2015) reminds us, is open to change. This is reflective of Mahboob (2014) and the need to reconceptualise language, as opposed to using a system of rules based on the ‘native’ variety, here English. Hilgendorf explains that language needs to be understood, again based on socially-realistic linguistics (Kachru 1981), recognising the fact that it is for communicative purposes and on that level, we can say with confidence that one variety is not inherently better or worse than another. If we assume, for example, an RP-accented (standard) British English speaker to find him/herself in a situation where despite the best linguistic efforts, his/her language is not understood, then what prestige is there, despite an inner circle English, standard variety and a historically prestigious accent? Hilgendorf thus reminds us that language is social, reflective of a community and prone to change. In this case, English changes, and is changed, by those who use it. This represents what we might call a common sense and purely objective and accurate view of any and all language varieties. However, while this view perhaps reflects the ‘head’, the heart, for some, is what leads to somehow cringing at certain accents, looking down on those who do not inflect third person verbs and judging a speaker of a non-inner circle English as uneducated. These kind of snap judgements are often the reality for language attitudes which, while common, do not reflect the linguistic reality of language being nothing more than a vehicle for communication. The classroom implication for this recognition of pluralistic forms is that we can help avoid ‘ideology reproduction wherein the instructor’s views are fashioned as self-evident among enlightened or rigid universal

3  The Reality of World Englishes     43

truths’ (Nuske 2017: 383–384). This does not mean that a pluralistic approach equates to anything goes. We need standard forms for a reason. The reason, however, is not to perpetuate linguistic myths, but to employ a linguistic code that can function in multiple contexts of international communication, whether it involves a cover letter for a job, an academic essay or a business meeting. The ideal is not, in fact, to promote one variety over another, so that empowering NICE is not a means by which inner circle Englishes are disparaged. Instead, we need a classroom environment in which we recognise the validity of a variety of Englishes, and this balance is best described by Nuske, advocating an approach for the current, and future, classroom: Teacher trainers could therefore encourage apprentices…..in determining a practical yet forward-thinking method in which NS (native speaker) varieties are not radically displaced from their position of prominence but rather augmented with routine explorations of localized Englishes through film clips, tales of personal experience, and other formats likely to be considered authentic and enjoyable. Such tactics could minimize initial resistance by meeting students’ expectations of studying codes that are viewed as prestigious while subtly challenging assumptions and laying the foundation for the development of more tolerant and self-empowering outlooks in the long-term. (page 385)

There will of course be a discussion of the implications for NICE in the classroom later. For now, I have included this reference to classroom implications because it is precisely within the classroom where the attitudes of teachers and students toward NICE can be shaped, to adopt an ideal response which recognises all varieties as valid, amidst a focus on a standard form. Regarding the beliefs of Quirk referenced earlier, he did hold prior views on the matter: ‘English is not the prerogative or “possession” of the English … Acknowledging this must – as a corollary – involve our questioning the propriety of claiming that the English of one area is more “correct” than the English of another. Certainly, we must realize that there is no single “correct” English, and no single standard of correctness’ (Quirk 1962: 17–18). This would appear to be in keeping with

44     A. Baratta

more modern views on the subject. My own position is that s­tandard inner circle English is very often the focus for good reason—it is indeed a standard for professional contexts which many EFL students may indeed wish to access. But does a focus on this variety necessarily have to mean an exclusion of other varieties? Might students be equipped with more than just one variety of English, especially if they already come to class being knowledgeable of more than just inner circle English? Nonetheless, we can see how Kachru and Quirk present two opposing views, but this need not suggest it is an ‘either-or’ situation. Instead, we might suggest a more balanced approach and one that I aim to present in this book. Such an approach involves the need to recognise a standard form for the EFL classroom—standard inner circle English— in as much as this is the variety of English that, as much as is possible, is understood throughout the world in international contexts of communication. Prodromou (2006: 51–52) states that ‘it would be irresponsible to encourage learners to assume that they can do without standard forms of the language…..students cannot be insulated from the core grammar of Standard English, nor can they be insulated from L1-users of ELF; they will be aware that, outside the classroom (in the media and on the internet), there is such a thing as SE core grammar. In the real world, in contrast to the classroom, an L2/L2 conversation can become an L2/L1 exchange from one moment to the next’. This is certainly plausible, though we can never be certain what kind of communicative situations will arise at any given moment. However, the suggestion that a standard is needed in the EFL classroom is not implying that this is the only variety needed. Canagarajah (2006: 210) explains that ‘students should be ready to transfer their knowledge and competence in the underlying deep structure of their variety to the other varieties they will confront (including standard American and British English)’. Again, we need to prepare our students for the Englishes that they will need, and this might go beyond inner circle and instruction might also need to go beyond the standard variety if otherwise focused on just inner circle Englishes. These two views need not suggest a linguistic blackout of all varieties outside of inner circle standard. Rather, they present a need for

3  The Reality of World Englishes     45

standard English, but do not necessarily rule out the linguistic reality of other varieties, as suggested. What we need is more discussion about pragmatic competence perhaps, in terms of when certain varieties are needed in communicative contexts. Jenkins (2011) clarifies matters further by saying that students’ local varieties of English will perhaps need to change for international usage, but certainly not for intranational communication. This presents a more nuanced picture, one that acknowledges contexts in which one variety is simply more appropriate than the other, not based on any inherent ‘betterness’ but simply based on the immediate context of communication, largely involving one’s audience. Crystal (1997) in fact suggests that for communication purposes, there is a proposed ‘World Standard Spoken English’ (WSSE). While this variety is at this point more of a hypothetical construct, time will tell. Crystal suggests that when speaking with international audiences, non-inner circle speakers tend to avoid words that are specific to their local variety of English, yet retain such if speaking with people from the same community. In principle, we can see how this relates essentially to code switching, which is largely based on knowing the ‘right’ language for the right time, place and audience. As a reflection of the linguistic reality outside the classroom, it makes sense to incorporate a focus on NICE in the classroom, as a means to help acquire inner circle English, or certainly understand the grammar of such in the first instance. This would not equate to somehow muddying the linguistic waters in terms of weakening the established focus on standard English, if indeed that is the main variety as part of a given EFL class. Rather, it acts as a means to teach this variety of English, as well as allowing students to learn non-inner circle varieties in the process. We need to recognise NICE, but not merely in name only. Rather, we need to investigate further the roles that they play in society, between the speakers, and the functions they serve. More narrowly, NICE, influenced by the cultural practices of different countries, simply translate better at times. For example, I was recently reminded by my Chinese students that the term thank you is not used in Mandarin as freely with parents as it might be in inner circle countries. I also know from experience that telling someone in Korea ‘you look tired’

46     A. Baratta

translates (to a Korean at least) as ‘are you OK? Take a break’. It is a question that has nothing but the interlocutor’s best interests at heart. Being told this in inner circle contexts, however (in some instances at least), could be seen as mildly insulting. This is certainly how I responded when a Korean told me that I looked tired immediately upon seeing me; perhaps, then, it was just the timing that was off for me. In addition, Fairman (1992: 24–25) explains how in his early teaching days in Africa, he took it upon himself to teach his students to use the ‘correct’ expression for their use of the word ‘transport’—the fare. What Fairman came to realise is that ‘transport’ in the students’ use of English indeed referred to the fare; if they had wished to borrow or use Fairman’s vehicle, they would have asked for means. Fairman realised that had the students used his version of English, they would have run into difficulties communicating with other English speakers who shared their particular variety. From this experience, Fairman realised that it was of course difference, not deficit, that led to communication misunderstandings. The purpose of these examples is to show how language and culture are intertwined and this is yet another reason as to why we cannot always expect non-inner circle speakers to use inner circle English linguistic norms with others in their community. Indeed, there is a lot that the teacher can also learn from the students themselves in this regard, another benefit of including NICE into what might otherwise be an inner circle English class. However, it is sometimes the case that any stigma attached to a NICE is sometimes perpetuated by the government itself in the country in which the variety is spoken, such as Singlish, the variety of English spoken in Singapore. On National Day in 1999 the then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong cautioned against the use of Singlish, arguing that its continued usage would result in a language that few outside Singapore could understand. However, what about the need for Singlish as a local variety of the language, amongst Singaporeans whose native languages reflect much diversity (e.g. Tamil, Mandarin)? Also, is it perhaps time to suggest that visitors to Singapore, and elsewhere, acquaint themselves with the local variety of English? While it is impractical to travel the world and expect everyone to speak English simply because it is the traveller’s native language, it might be

3  The Reality of World Englishes     47

equally unrealistic to expect English speakers across the globe to speak only inner circle English. Bautista and Gonzalez (2006) in fact provide a detailed account of Singlish, providing ample detail regarding its entirely predictable phonology, for example. I have already made clear that all varieties of a language are predictable in their structure, regardless of inherent variations; otherwise, how could effective communication take place? However, we are talking here about attitudes to language, not linguistics. Having said that, the kinds of discussion that involve the presentation of a language variety’s syntax, lexis and phonology such as that as contained in the study referenced above, might be one way to address linguistic prejudice. By revealing that speakers of a language are merely conforming to different rules, this might be one way to help better understand how language in general works, to include its historical development to its present form (O’Neill 2018). Nonetheless, I concede that such understanding is indeed difficult for many, with Kachru et al. (2006: 7) acknowledging ‘cross-cultural grammar wars’ which have existed for centuries. It is a case of ‘different’ being equated with ‘inferior’. Moreover, what about the Singaporeans who use Singlish with other individuals from Singapore when they are away from home, a means to celebrate their cultural identity, in a way that perhaps other languages cannot when the native language of their friends may, in fact, be Tamil to someone else’s native language of Mandarin (especially given the aforementioned diversity of languages spoken in Singapore)? Indeed, the status of English as a lingua franca is there for a reason, a means to ensure communication between people who themselves do not always share a native language. Moreover, is it even possible to stem the tide of Singlish or any other World English, for that matter? Might we even consider the need for inner circle English speakers to learn outer/ expanding circle varieties, more so if living in such countries? Is it really unreasonable to expect them to do so when the citizens of the outer or expanding circle countries have already learned English and have simply made it their own? Indeed, there is evidence that inner circle individuals are in fact learning non-inner circle varieties of English as a means to communicate with people when on their turf. An article in The Telegraph (2012) explains how British diplomats in India are being

48     A. Baratta

taught the Indian variety of English. This in itself is a positive step, in that it would appear to avoid notions of linguistic hegemony, in terms of inner circle English speakers being regarded (and possibly regarding themselves) as the default standard for the English language, and all others, imposters somehow. In summary, and from a purely linguistic point of view, the view of course taken within this book, no language, dialect, accent or individual word even can ever be inherently one thing or the other. Not ‘good’, not ‘bad’. This does not mean of course that we, as linguists and educators, can afford to ignore the fact that certain varieties of a language—here, the English language—enjoy more respect than others. What it does mean, however, is that all forms of a given language have a predictable structure which, for their speakers, is purely logical and makes sense. As I have mentioned, each language has a time and place for its appropriate usage. These are two important points to consider when discussing the many varieties of World Englishes, each of which is operating under its own rules for communicative success.

3.2 The Need for Codification Revisiting one of the viewpoints from the previous section, McIntyre (2009: 33) claims that ‘the notion that English belongs to Britain and America is simply no longer true (if, indeed, it ever was) and we can fully expect to see other communities worldwide exerting an influence on the development of any new standard’. This represents a view that not only recognises NICE as legitimate, but also suggests that the concept of ‘standard language’ is itself open to interpretation. However, some argue that one of the obstacles to such standardization, or at least a more official status for NICE, is the absence of codification, referring largely to a lack of dictionaries and/or school-based textbooks which focus on NICE. A lack of codification on the matter, in the form of dictionaries and school-based grammar/textbooks, for example, is suggestive to some of a lack of NICE being regarded as ‘official’, expanding circle Englishes in particular perhaps. However, there are several points to make in

3  The Reality of World Englishes     49

this regard. First, it is clear that codification has actually already been ­established to a large extent. If we consider the many textbooks1 that have been written on the subject of NICE, many of which indeed explain the ‘structural unity’ (Hundt and Gut 2012: ix) that these varieties exhibit in terms of predictable syntax and morphology, as well as lexis, then clearly, codification has already taken place. Simply put, if NICE were somehow a linguistic free for all, absent of grammatical rules or simply lacking in agreement amongst the speakers regarding sentence and word structure, then how are so many textbooks able to be written, let alone published, in the first instance? How do we know what the grammars and lexis are? We know because they have already been established and indeed codified through textbooks, such as the one I am writing. There are many more examples of such books of course, including Brutt-Griffler (2002), Kachru (2005), Kachru and Nelson (2006), and Jenkins (2006) points to academic journals on this subject, such as English Today and World Englishes. Nonetheless, Kang (2017: 58) points to the use of authentic textbooks and learning materials in the context of the TICKET teacher training programme in South Korea, materials which provide teachers with ‘worldwide real-life environments with English users from diverse sociocultural backgrounds’. This provides a glimpse of what might be the starting point for codification on a more official level: the teacher training programmes, which of course, inform the EFL classroom in which the teachers will find themselves. Moreover, there is evidence that NICE have been codified via school-based textbooks, such as Korean English, a discussion I will provide in Chapter Five. However, as I point out in the following paragraph, we should not be so wedded to the mass production of dictionaries and school-based textbooks as the definitive example of codification. Second, I realise of course that for many, codification is sought after via dictionaries, grammar books and learning materials for use in EFL

1By

‘textbooks’, I am referring to those, such as this one, that are produced primarily for e­ducators and linguists, for example, as opposed to school-based textbooks (e.g. used in high schools) designed to teach students about NICE per se.

50     A. Baratta

classrooms per se, as opposed to academic textbooks such as this one which otherwise present a largely, though not entirely, theoretical perspective on the matter. As we wait for this to happen, however, might we again consider re-conceptualizing codification? For example, there are also many websites which exist not to poke fun at NICE or regard them as error-ridden, but instead, seek to provide a different kind of codification, and via an accessible medium. One such example is to be found at http://leonsplanet.com/konglish.htm. However, I do of course recognise that it works both ways: if websites indeed point to non-inner circle varieties’ use of grammar as ‘wrong’, then this indirectly serves to codify inner circle grammar in the process (the distinction between an error and a mere difference will be taken up later). One example of such a website is from the British Council and its ‘Konglish corner’: https:// www.britishcouncil.kr/en/english/learn-online/konglish-video-podcast. Given the pedigree of the British Council, then its name brand connected to error correction of Korean speakers’ use of English can only serve to make it clear that their English is wrong, when in fact certain uses might instead be tied to Konglish—the difference being that Konglish is, like any language variety, dependent on regular and systematic usage of specific grammar and lexis (though, I recommend the term Korean English instead, to be explained later). If such regularity is seen with Koreans’ use of English, then we might say that this suggests a kind of societal codification. As mentioned, however, more discussion will be provided later regarding the distinction between errors and differences, a distinction that is not always easy to determine. My argument regarding codification, then, is twofold: first, that it need not be tied to the widespread production and classroom-based usage of dictionaries and school-based textbooks regarding NICE. Second, that we need to reconceptualise codification based on it already having taken place through the aforementioned means of societal codification. This term can of course be used to merely refer to societal usage of language; however, it is precisely because a language is being repeatedly used by a group of speakers that we can say with confidence that it exhibits regularity in its structure and features that allows it to function successfully as a medium of communication. This is not to suggest that I am in any way against language codification seen from a more

3  The Reality of World Englishes     51

‘traditional’ perspective (e.g. dictionaries); rather, I simply make the point that we need not wait for this means of codification to occur on a more widespread level and instead, we should recognise that the speakers of NICE, through their repeated usage of varieties of English, have essentially legitimised and established such varieties. This societal means of codification can be broken down into further categorisation, one example being online codification. For example, Warshauer et al. (2010: 490) explain that ‘an estimated 55 billion emails are sent every day’, with English the dominant lingua franca (Crystal 2001). This can surely have implications for the spread of new forms, many of which can be related to the larger context of technology (e.g. the German word downloaden, which borrows from English, but retains the German infinitival suffix -en ). Legitimacy of English use is perhaps not always about geography, but also concerns the uses of English in cyberspace, which, if enough instances of certain uses can be found, then ‘the spread of a new usage has the potential to catch on and command a mass following’ (Li 2010: 628). In this manner, we see again an example of societal codification by the masses, to also include the term advance booking (Li 2010). As we can see, ‘online Englishes are challenging prior notions of who the language belongs to’ (Warshauer et al. 2010: 491). They are also helping to spread various forms of English on a daily basis or certainly reinforcing existing varieties such as Singlish perhaps. Meriläinen (2017: 762) refers to this spread of certain linguistic features as propagation, indicating the ‘entrenchment of this (new) feature in the speech community’…..which is driven by ‘social factors’. The reference to social factors is broad of course, but surely encapsulates the many ways in which people determine language, and not necessarily dictionaries. Seargeant and Tagg (2011) in fact investigate online discourse involving Thais who use English as part of computer-mediated conversation (CMC). An extract from two young women’s phone conversation shows how this particular medium is its own language perhaps (e.g. a need for brevity, more so for Tweets) but might also contribute to the English language itself. We could consider this on several levels, including the potential for the younger generation to be spreading this particular kind of discourse, including the use of emojis and abbreviations, such as lol;

52     A. Baratta

also, might this particular style of language reflect existing NICE in the first instance? Examples from the study include contractions (don’t, U R for ‘you are’) but tellingly, what one of the participants referred to as ‘Thainess’ (page 505), consisting of the deletion of copula verbs and articles in her phone exchange (but everything too late now; but I want exciting thing ). This relates to what Seargeant and Tagg refer to as ‘vernacular practices of digital literacy’ (page 510), but they assert that this variety cannot be regarded as Thai English per se (though it may reflect this variety, as one participant suggested). This is due to the fact that within this online context, there are a variety of codes, styles and scripts (both Thai and Roman alphabets) which combine. In turn, this suggests that this kind of online discourse, which goes beyond the Thai context and instead relates broadly to online discourse which uses English, does not fit neatly into any of the three circles. However, we might simply ask the question: to what extent are the lexis and grammatical features used in such communicative contexts regularly deployed? The more they are used, and thus reinforced, the more we can argue again for an online codification, part of the broader societal codification. While such varieties may or may not reflect NICE directly, they may certainly be influenced by such and once again, it points toward people communicating without having to explain their use of grammar of lexis, which suggests that both parties understand an otherwise established variety of the English language. Of course, such online usage might also reflect a particular register, one that involves a degree of informality amongst close friends; this might also suggest that amongst NICE, there could be several varieties, with one tied to online usage and one tied perhaps to more formal contexts of communication. Third, as previously discussed, the grammars of NICE are already established and codification has, and is, taking place, albeit in a different manner than we might otherwise have considered. But as Kachru and Smith (2008: 3) explain: ‘codification is not a prerequisite for legitimizing a language. For instance, Australians spoke Australian English for years before a dictionary of Australian English (The Macquarie Dictionary, 1981) was compiled and a grammatical description of Australian English (Collins and Blair 1989) appeared’. Thus, we should be clear not to interpret codification of a grammar and establishment

3  The Reality of World Englishes     53

of such as one in the same; a language necessarily has to have an ­established pattern of grammar and lexical usage before it can be codified via dictionaries, for example. As I have argued, NICE have already been codified—through academic textbooks, journal articles and even on websites—and, as Kang (2017) points out, through the occasional use of classroom teaching materials that perhaps many educators regard as a more ‘official’ means of linguistic codification. However, we don’t need such official means to codify a language and more to the point, the fact that NICE are being used by individuals on a regular basis is, overall, the most important factor with regard to societal codification; in fact, I would even refer to this usage as societal reinforcement. Finally, for those who still argue for the need for NICE dictionaries and grammar books (and I am not against this idea, as I have pointed out), then we should consider who will do the compiling. It seems logical to expect the speakers of NICE themselves to be in charge of this endeavour, and perhaps those within authority such as teachers. However, a telling point is raised by Milroy and Milroy (1999: 45), who argue that ‘standardisation is never complete because, ultimately, language is the property of the communities that use it … It is not the exclusive property of governments, educators or prescriptive grammarians, and it is arrogant to believe that it is’. Nonetheless, the argument for codification from the more traditional view that I have referred to has support—in other words, codification not just in the form of dictionaries and textbooks, but also based on being sanctioned by the government in the first instance and/ or major publishing companies, and for assumed use in the classroom. The impetus for this is a purely practical one tied to the classroom, in order for EFL teachers to be able to distinguish between learner errors and legitimate features of NICE. For this reason, Hamid and Baldauf (2013: 488) believe that it is ‘imperative to push for codification of L2 Englishes’. As I will point out, this is indeed a worthy and relevant concern, as such codification can help to cement features of NICE that bit more perhaps and offer them some officialdom; however, I do not believe that it is necessary at all from the point of view of helping to further establish language varieties that are already recognised, established and fully operational. I will revisit the work of Hamid and Baldauf

54     A. Baratta

later in this chapter, when discussing the distinction between errors and innovations. For now, however, I return to my first point and again argue that NICE, from the point of view of the speakers on the ground, are indeed established and are doing just fine. From this, we might even argue if we even need to go further. That is, for those who are essentially fluent in a NICE, or certainly proficient enough to use it on a regular basis, who are we to suggest a need to ‘put it in writing’, literally and figuratively? I do not speak any variety of English other than inner circle standard, though I occasionally use non-standard English (e.g. ain’t and double negatives). Given that I don’t speak any NICE, perhaps the ones best qualified to compile a dictionary are those who do speak such a variety—but might we even leave it to them to decide whether or not this is necessary in the first instance? As Butler (1997: 285) states, ‘we must await the definitive account undertaken by the speakers of these varieties’. As mentioned, such accounts are already in existence, with the linguistic features of NICE already having been established; but do NICE speakers feel a need to cap it all off with the production of dictionaries? Butler’s point above is hinted at by Mauranen (2012: 6), who states that ‘imposed standards are different from the natural norms that arise in groups and communities primarily in face-to face interaction to regulate interaction in the interests of mutual intelligibility and smooth communicative progress. Natural norms arise from what a speech community adopts, tolerates, or rejects’. In other words, I would suggest that in the midst of much discussion on the need for codification, it has, as stated already, taken place precisely based on the points raised by Mauranen. It has taken place with or without further textbooks on the matter (or websites). It has taken place simply based on the fact that the speakers of such varieties are using them on a regular basis and as such, the continued use ensures perpetual societal codification. Nonetheless, I recognise again the argument for the establishment of NICE dictionaries (Bamgbose 1998). Admittedly, dictionaries can act as a one stop shop for all World Englishes, by providing more than just a list of words, but also examples of the grammatical features and even the pragmatic implications for the English in question. Kermas (2012: 75) further argues in relation to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED),

3  The Reality of World Englishes     55

that ‘lexicographers need to address the culture-specific dimension of ­knowledge sharing in today’s global village and broaden their cultural viewpoint’. This implies the view that those who are otherwise opposed, or at least harbour doubts regarding NICE, may in fact have their views changed by the establishment of such dictionaries. However, I would argue that it is not necessarily possible to change minds by books alone. If an individual fully recognises the validity and legitimacy of NICE, but does not believe they have a place in the EFL classroom, this is one thing. But it would be an entirely different matter to counter prejudiced views regarding NICE by the creation of a dictionary(ies). Görlach (2002: 12–13), for example, describes NICE in terms of being ‘broken, deficient forms of English’, though adequate for the communication functions they were created for. These terms are not what we would expect from a purely linguistic perspective; no language is broken (or ‘whole’) or ‘deficient’ (or ‘fully formed’, for that matter). With attitudes such as this, some might even regard creating dictionaries as spreading ‘bad English’. Again, we cannot always counter such attitudes. But what we can do as educators, is take students’ knowledge of such Englishes, or indeed teach them NICE as we teach them a standard simultaneously. In the meantime, we can leave NICE in the safe hands of their speakers. Speakers of stigmatised varieties may have to accept that the use, and possible celebration, of their local varieties of English, is perhaps the linguistic equivalent of a boy using a torch (flashlight) underneath his bed to read a comic book in secret. Nonetheless, regardless of public attitudes toward certain language varieties, the establishment of a dictionary can be seen as a means to ensure a language becomes ‘institutionalized’. In regard to the Macquarie Australian English dictionary, which incorporates features of Asian Englishes, Butler (1997: 123) explains that ‘this dictionary will shift attitudes in the region to English. Rather than being seen as an alien language, and a conduit of Western culture, it will be evident that English can also express Asian culture. The flexibility of English, its ability to serve as a vehicle for the expression of local culture, has been one of its great characteristics since it left English shores’. In the context of not merely a dictionary, but one that is associated with an Australian university, there is also perhaps a degree of ‘brand power’ behind the

56     A. Baratta

dictionary and as such, it is seen as an official document. Thus, its ­inclusion of outer circle Englishes is not to be regarded as a mere gimmick or tokenistic; instead, such inclusion is reflective of a recognised variety of English and also, its influence within an inner circle country. Bamgbose (1998) further explains that there are several considerations regarding the matter of a variety of English being established and recognised within society, itself reflective of societal codification. One of these is the degree to which the variety has spread within the society. The farther the spread reaches, then potentially the higher the overall acceptance of its usage. In addition, we might consider the social status of those who use the variety, such as those in authority (teachers) and also, those within the media, who perhaps have the power to progress the variety within society. The degree to which the language is accepted by both users and non-users alike is also an important factor, though this is perhaps difficult to quantify. Once again, however, I believe that it is time to turn away from fixed notions of what codification means, or should refer to, and instead consider the many ways in which varieties of the English language have already been codified. Further, we might also question how we define ‘acceptance’ regarding a variety of English. That dictionaries do not exist for all non-inner circle Englishes does not change the fact that they have acceptance at a wide level, implied by the number of speakers. However, would a dictionary necessarily lead to wider acceptance? If we mean acceptance that NICE have their own linguistic features that are merely different from inner circle and that NICE are in no way deficient, it is hard to say. For some prescriptivists, the establishment of a dictionary may be met with scorn, suggestive of propagating bad English—a point I had mentioned earlier. For others, notably the speakers themselves, it might not make a difference in the sense that, they are already using the language and simply getting on with it, regardless of the existence of a dictionary or not. Nonetheless, it would be unfair not to acknowledge the power that dictionaries can carry in society. As Dolezal states (2006: 695), dictionaries confer legitimacy upon a language as a comprehensive concept, or some part of a language, whether we call that register, dialect, lexicon, or vocabulary, to choose some of the more common designations.

3  The Reality of World Englishes     57

“Legitimacy” can be understood as a shorthand for identifying and ­establishing the varieties of Englishes that are used in various locations around the world. English speakers have been accustomed to relying on the dictionary as not just a reference, or look-up tool, but as an authority that tells us whether a certain locution is actually a part of the language: “Is it in the dictionary?”

Though I still argue that NICE are established by means of their recognition, use on the ground, and codification in academic textbooks such as this one, I concede that for the general public, it is perhaps the case that until a dictionary or school-based grammar book is created for all Englishes (perhaps the expanding circle more so), then a particular variety of English is not yet official in their mind; it has not yet ‘gone public’ (but on the other hand, it clearly already has). Görlach (1990: 40) further indicates the obstacles to the creation of a dictionary, and multiple dictionaries in fact to accommodate all the various World Englishes: ‘to launch such projects requires not only the existence of a norm in the eyes of more than just linguistic experts, but also a belief in such a regional standard among ministries of education and school boards’. This quotation again points to what I would call a certain linguistic officialdom regarding NICE. They exist by virtue of the fact that they are spoken by people all around the world. Yet, for some, this is not enough. Some would argue that we need the backing and support of people in high places—officials in education and government—to support the endeavour of creating a dictionary and for them to be behind it. The fact that a given variety might have millions of speakers is somewhat negated in some minds if power in the hands of a relative few does not appear to sanction the language by the creation of a dictionary or in-class textbooks for learning purposes (i.e. the kinds of books used in EFL classrooms). As I have made clear, however, we cannot afford to wait for some kind of Eureka moment when dictionaries on NICE start to appear on a more widespread level; instead, as educators and linguists we need to acknowledge that these varieties are alive and well and spoken in great numbers already; codification is already a reality albeit in different guises; and we can definitely help to cement the status of NICE by means of their pedagogical inclusion within the EFL

58     A. Baratta

classroom. This latter point is a way of helping to further socially codify NICE, as part of an educational validation and establishment. As De Klerk (1999: 315) states, ‘time is the ultimate strategy towards legitimization’ and I would say that sufficient time has passed to have seen NICE established, recognised and certainly for the communicative contexts in which they are used, become legitimized.

3.3 Non-inner Circle Englishes in Use As mentioned, Englishes is the reality (as is Spanishes and Italians, for that matter). However, by prefacing the word Englishes with ‘World’, we immediately recognise the fact that the English language has indeed been on a global journey and as such, has transformed itself and been reinvented into multiple varieties. Considering this fact, it stands to reason that English cannot be expected to sit still and not be influenced by the dominant languages that exist in countries in which English was not originally present. Again, this much is obvious. However, we need to consider this in terms of the arguments against NICE so that we can provide our own students, some of whom ironically may not wish to discuss anything but inner circle English in the classroom, with an understanding of the role that all varieties of English play. Of course, there are perhaps many individuals who would never suggest that NICE are in any way deficient or not ‘true’ Englishes. Clearly, the people who speak such varieties with each other have no difficulty in communicating and making themselves understood. This, after all, is the ultimate purpose of language. However, as with the comments made by the previous Prime Minister in Singapore regarding the country’s Speak Good English campaign, what might the implications be for a given World English beyond the borders of the country in which it is spoken? Is Konglish to be understood outside Korea, is Singlish to be understood outside Singapore and so on? To answer this, we have to further consider some important points. First, and as I have mentioned before, we need to recognise that just as non-inner circle speakers of English are emigrating to inner circle countries, in which case there is a need to learn the variety spoken there

3  The Reality of World Englishes     59

(e.g. Australian English), many inner circle speakers reside in countries in which a NICE is spoken. This residence might involve permanent relocation, a temporary job transfer or a one-year teaching contract (or perhaps even a tourist who is back-packing across Asia). In these examples, why should it be naïve to suggest that such individuals might wish to be equipped with some knowledge of the local variety of English, let alone the local language (be it Italian, Mandarin or Lao)? Obviously, not all these examples of living or travelling overseas necessarily involve inner circle English speakers. It may be the case that the businessman/ woman who is working for Mercedes Benz in Japan is him/herself a L1 German speaker, with the clients L1 Japanese speakers. In many such cases, in which people of different cultures (and languages) come together, whether for business or pleasure, and both are non-inner circle English speakers, perhaps the assumption is that they will not only have to default to English (with the exception of course of Japanese-speaking Germans and German-speaking Japanese), but they will perhaps have standard English, or some kind of notional standard, in mind. This is probably the variety that they learned in school, which itself is almost certainly standard inner circle English, and not, say, Yorkshire English or MLE. This is fine and I concede that as long as they can make themselves understood, then this is all that matters. In fact, is this not one purpose of standard English, in that, by creating a standard, it allows for all individuals to learn a variety which, theoretically, will be understood (or understood better) by individuals who could conceivably be from multiple linguistic backgrounds and derive from all over the world? However, there is a need to look beyond the immediate context of communication (e.g. a business meeting) and look to the larger context of where the individuals find themselves. If in Tokyo, then surely it could be useful to understand a little of the variety of English as used by people there, and not demand inner circle English all the time, and this is even more relevant for inner circle English speakers who teach EFL in Japan. The notion that Japlish is somehow ‘wrong’ and students must be re-educated, certainly for those who use Japlish, is a troublesome one because it fails to recognise the fact that Japlish, like all varieties of any language, is used by its speakers in contexts in which they both recognise its need for use and perhaps do not wish to use any other

60     A. Baratta

variety. For the profession of teaching, such knowledge, and crucially, recognition of local varieties of English, is arguably a central aspect of approaching language with the objectivity required as language teachers. In addition, it can also help students to respect a teacher more if he/she respects their own language use, even if the students themselves do not necessarily use the local variety of English on a regular basis. Whether the locals use a particular World English or not, such varieties nonetheless exist and thus, we, as teachers, need to be linguistically acclimatised to these NICE so as to understand them when we hear and/ or read them. This is perhaps more relevant when we live in the country in which the particular variety of English is spoken, but as I have mentioned, even if we are teaching EFL in our home country, recognising the features of NICE that may be a part of our students’ language is still important, as it allows us, I would argue, to be seen as more respectful of the students’ culture, as well as perhaps more knowledgeable of the subject of ‘English’ in the first instance. I finish this section by raising two more points. First, as has been made clear, we might again consider the potential for communication difficulties between inner circle English speakers who are from different countries, or even different regions within the same country. If we ponder this, and perhaps recall personal examples of such, then this is a way to consider how much harder it might be for those living outside their home country whose first language is not even English to begin with. This can provide perhaps a degree of understanding for the communication difficulties that EFL students might face, as well as interesting anecdotes for the classroom. It also taps into the larger debate as to what is or is not correct English. Below are some of my own examples with regard to communication difficulties between myself and ‘fellow’ English speakers (I should point out that I am originally from Los Angeles). I recall asking for driving directions to New Jersey during a stopover in Philadelphia. The gentleman I asked was clearly a local and this being the first time I had heard a particularly broad Philadelphia accent, he had to repeat himself. This was uncomfortable for me as I felt embarrassed that I hadn’t understood him, yet I was also too uncomfortable to ask him to repeat himself (he did so anyway as he

3  The Reality of World Englishes     61

presumably saw the look of confusion on my face). Same language, same country, different accent. I also provided the example of the momentary confusion I had with my own father, whose accent I am more than familiar with, regarding his pronunciation of the word pawn. Finally, in a restaurant near Manchester, England I ordered a coffee and had to repeat myself twice for the benefit of the waitress who, once again, was a native speaker of English. Same language, but different country and accent. My pronunciation of /kɑfi/ was apparently quite different to hers: /kɒfɪ/. In the non-inner circle context, most of which pertains to my life in Korea, I came across the Konglish expression of Grand Open many times (and often written in English), a term usually seen in public and transcribed on large banners which are often draped across department store buildings. Granted, it was clear from the context what this ‘really’ meant—Grand Opening—so technically there were no communication issues. However, without any knowledge of any variety of English at that point other than those from the inner circle, I ‘corrected’ this expression in my mind by mentally suppling the ‘missing’ suffix of -ing, yet the expression was already correct and fully formed. Yes, it is tempting perhaps to default to our own version of English, whatever that might be, but by spending perhaps millions of Korean Won to produce such banners with the Konglish term displayed, then this means that for all intents and purposes, this particular expression, within a particular variety of English, has indeed been societally codified, and without the need for a textbook to do so. Thus, even when we can understand someone else’s version of a shared language, there is still a further issue, and this relates to notions we might have of what is ‘proper’; in the Korean context, Grand Open is correct and proper, certainly when assuming that it will mostly be Koreans who will see such advertisements for a newly opened store. Put it this way: would we honestly feel justified in telling the department store manager that the Koreans have got it all wrong? Would we even want to suggest that they should ‘correct’ the expression for the benefit of inner circle speakers who live in and/or are visiting Korea? Or for the supposed benefit of the Koreans who plan to study and/or live in inner circle countries? In addition, these public announcements are yet another example of societal codification,

62     A. Baratta

consisting of everything from banners to menus to signs in shop ­windows, in which there is the potential for a local English to be used; as such, this means the potential for continued linguistic, and societal, reinforcement, based on what we might again regard as a ‘non-traditional’ form of codification. This leads me to my second and final point for this section. As inner circle speakers of English, and I do not claim to have the ability of course to speak for all such speakers, I stress again that we need to avoid fixed notions of what is or is not ‘(in)correct’. I admit that without some semblance of standards for teaching a language, then we are left with a linguistic cacophony and indeed, later I seek to untangle what might indeed be classified as language errors in an absolute sense from uses that are not errors at all but are instead, established varieties of a World English. If we tell a Korean student that Grand Open is wrong, then this could potentially lead to a loss of face for the student, but might also be met with wholesale agreement or even a neutral response. Nonetheless, it is wrong to make such a statement on a purely linguistic basis given that Grand Open is in full usage in Korea and as such, it is unlikely to change anytime soon to Grand Opening. However, we might be able to say with certainty that he can swims is indeed wrong in an absolute sense, given that, to my best knowledge, there is no variety of English anywhere in the world in which lexical verbs are inflected if preceded by modal verbs. However, if we see and/or hear repeated instances of what might sound like violations of our own variety of inner circle English, then we might want to stop and ask ourselves if this is merely a reflection perhaps of a codified use of non-inner circle English, codified, in part, by its regular usage and acceptance, or at least overall understanding, by its speakers? It is a tricky business, however, to know when to class something as an error versus a mere difference that is otherwise accepted by its speakers. Clearly, there is nothing wrong with definite article reduction as part of Yorkshire dialect, and more so because it is used in a given region and has been for some time (and not simply because it is an inner circle variety of English). Arguably, given the historical trend of textbooks serving to codify only the standard version of inner circle English, the rules of non-standard forms were often understood

3  The Reality of World Englishes     63

only intuitively by the speakers, given that there were not many, if any, textbooks which sought to clarify the rules for dialects. Nowadays of course it has changed, and one can find books in England, for example, on how to speak various regional dialects, such as the dialects found in Liverpool, Yorkshire and Newcastle, many of which are commonly found at the national bookseller, Waterstones (e.g. Yorkshire English, by Johnson 1990). However, we need to educate ourselves as teachers as much as we can regarding the different varieties of World Englishes, certainly those which are used in the country we plan to teach in if choosing to teach EFL overseas in an outer/expanding circle country. By the same token, it makes sense to arm ourselves with knowledge of more than just the standard variety of English that is used in our own country, as very often EFL students may indeed wish to learn such. Otherwise, we risk, however subtly, giving the impression that our variety of English, whether British, Irish or American, is somehow, by virtue of its inner circle status, the correct one. Yes, our students surely want to learn to communicate like, and with, inner circle speakers of English so that by extension, this would mean that they want to communicate like us (i.e. EFL teachers). However, as I have stressed, there are valid reasons to not only learn the students’ variety of English, if only a few words, but also learn to respect it as a valid language, which it is, in its own right. This also means that if we learn the students’ native language, as I did when I lived in Korea, then this reinforces, somewhat ironically, the need to learn their variety of English too, as often, the vocabulary used in a World English is also part of individuals’ native language. For example, in Konglish, words such as air con, eye shopping and gagman correspond to air conditioner, window shopping and comedian. However, if speaking Korean, these words would also be used and it is important to identify the features of NICE in terms of grammar and lexis and having done so, be better positioned as EFL teachers in terms of identifying for students, and ourselves, what is correct and what is indeed incorrect. Deciding the difference between the two is, as I have mentioned, not always clear cut and thus represents an area in which we may have to tread carefully, if discussing such with our students in particular.

64     A. Baratta

References Anchimbe, E. (2009). Revisiting the notion of maturation in new Englishes. World Englishes, 28(3), 336–351. Bamgbose, A. (1998). Torn between the norms: Innovations in world Englishes. World Englishes, 17(1), 1–14. Baratta, A. (2016). Keeping it real or selling out: The effects of accent modification on personal identity. Pragmatics and Society, 7(2), 291–319. Baumgardner, R. (1996). Introduction. In R. Baumgardner (Ed.), South Asian English: Instruction, use, and users (pp. 1–8). Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Bautista, M., & Gonzalez, A. (2006). Southeast Asian Englishes. In B. Kachru, Y. Kachru, & C. Nelson (Eds.), The handbook of world Englishes (pp. 130–144). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Blommaert, J. (2013). Ethnography, superdiversity and linguistic landscapes: Chronicles of complexity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002). World English: A study of its development. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Butler, S. (1997). Corpus of English in Southeast Asia: Implications for a regional dictionary. In M. L. S. Bautista (Ed.), English is an Asian language: The Philippine context (pp. 103–124). Sydney, NSW: Macquarie Library. Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). Negotiating the local in English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 197–218. Collins, P., & Blair, D. (Eds.). (1989). Australian English: The language of a new society. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press. Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Klerk, V. (1999). Black South African English: Where to from here? World Englishes, 18(3), 311–324. Dhillon, A. (2007, September 16). The rise of Indian English. The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1563290/The-rise-of-IndianEnglish.html. Accessed January 8, 2019. Dolezal, F. (2006). World Englishes and lexicography. In B. Kachru, Y. Kachru, & C. Nelson (Eds.), The handbook of world Englishes (pp. 694–708). Chichester: Blackwell. Fairman, T. (1992). Ergo lingua mihi deficit. English Today, 8(1), 23–26.

3  The Reality of World Englishes     65

Galloway, N., & Rose, H. (2015). Introducing global Englishes. London: Routledge. Görlach, M. (1990). Studies in the history of the English language. Heidlberg: Carl Winter. Görlach, M. (2002). Still more Englishes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hamid, M., & Baldauf, R. (2013). Second language errors and features of world Englishes. World Englishes, 32(4), 476–494. Hilgendorf, S. (2015). Plurality and world Englishes: The social realities of language use. World Englishes, 34(1), 55–67. Huddart, D. (2014). Involuntary associations—Postcolonial studies and world Englishes. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Hundt, M., & Gut, U. (2012). Mapping unity and diversity world-wide. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). London: Penguin. Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language: New models, new norms, new goals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching World Englishes and English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 157–181. Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2011). Accommodating (to) ELF in the international university. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(4), 926–936. Johnson, E. (1990). Yorkshire English. Bristol: Abson Books. Jones, K. (2001). “I’ve called ‘em tom-ah-toes all my life and I’m not going to change!”: Maintaining linguistic control over English identity in the U.S. Social Forces, 79(3), 1061–1094. Joseph, J. (2004). Language and identity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kachru, B. B. (1981). ‘Socially realistic linguistics’: The Firthian tradition. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 31, 65–89. Kachru, B. B. (1991). Liberation linguistics and the Quirk concern. English Today, 7(1), 3–13. Kachru, B. B. (1997). World Englishes 2000: Resources for research and teaching. In L. E. Smith & M. L. Forman (Eds.), World Englishes 2000 (pp. 209–251). Honolulu: University of Hawaii and the East-West Center. Kachru, B. B. (2005). Asian Englishes: Beyond the canon. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong Press.

66     A. Baratta

Kachru, B. B. (2006). World Englishes and culture wars. In B. B. Kachru, Y. Kachru, & C. Nelson (Eds.), The handbook of world Englishes (pp. 446–472). Oxford: Blackwell. Kachru, Y., & Nelson, C. L. (2006). World Englishes in Asian contexts. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Kachru, Y., & Smith, L. (2008). Cultures, contexts, and world Englishes. London: Routledge. Kachru, B. B., Kachru, Y., & Nelson, C. L. (Eds.). (2006). The handbook of world Englishes. Chichester: Blackwell. Kang, S. Y. (2017). US-based teacher education program for ‘local’ EIL teachers. In A. Matsuda (Ed.), Preparing teachers to teach English as an international language (pp. 51–68). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kermas, S. (2012). Culture-specific lexis and knowledge sharing in the global village. In R. Fachinetti (Ed.), English dictionaries as cultural mines (pp. 73–94). Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. King, R. (2006). The beginnings. In B. Kachru, Y. Kachru, & C. Nelson (Eds.), The handbook of world Englishes (pp. 19–29). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Li, D. (2010). When does an unconventional form become an innovation? In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of world Englishes (pp. 617–633). London: Routledge. Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States. London: Routledge. Mahboob, A. (2014). English in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. World Englishes, 33(1), 128–142. Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McIntyre, D. (2009). A history of English: A resource book for students. London: Routledge. Meriläinen, L. (2017). The progressive form in learner Englishes: Examining variation across corpora. World Englishes, 36(4), 760–783. Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (1999). Authority in language. New York: Routledge. Nelson, D. (2012, October 10). British diplomats in India to learn ‘Hinglish’. The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/ 9598949/British-diplomats-in-India-to-learn-Hinglish.html. Nuske, K. (2017). “I mean I’m kind of discriminating my own people:” A Chinese TESOL graduate student’s shifting perceptions of China English. TESOL Quarterly, 52(2), 360–390.

3  The Reality of World Englishes     67

O’Neill, P. (2018). What is linguistic prejudice? Linguistic Prejudice ­conference, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. July 9–10. Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a local practice. London: Routledge. Prodromou, L. (2006). Defining the “successful bilingual speaker” of English. In R. Rubdy & M. Saraceni (Eds.), English in the world: Global rules, global roles (pp. 51–70). London: Continuum. Quirk, R. (1962). The use of English. New York: Longman. Quirk, R. (1990). Language varieties and standard language. English Today, 6(1), 3–10. Schneider, E. (2007). Postcolonial Englishes: Varieties around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seargeant, P., & Tagg, C. (2011). English on the internet and a ‘post-varieties’ approach to language. World Englishes, 30(4), 496–514. Seidlhofer, B. (2009). Common ground and different realities: World Englishes and English as a lingua franca. World Englishes, 28(2), 236–245. Warshauer, M., Black, R., & Chou, Y. (2010). Online Englishes. In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of world Englishes (pp. 490–505). London: Routledge. Wierzbicka, A. (2006). English: Meaning and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

4 Non-inner Circle Englishes Versus Language Errors

4.1 Errors Versus Non-standard Usage in Inner Circle English Before discussing the distinction between errors and innovations from the perspective of NICE, this section serves to briefly set the scene by discussing the matter from the perspective of inner circle English. Thus, this section serves in part to provide evidence of the grey area that exists within inner circle Englishes, namely linguistic features that straddle the border between error and innovation and thus make classification difficult. The overall purpose, however, is to reveal how the concept of what is an error versus an innovation might be made more concrete, certainly for inner circle readers, by means of bringing it to a more familiar linguistic home, yet one that can be compared with the non-inner circle context. I begin with three examples to illustrate: I know he doesn’t think he’s better than the rest of us. % I know he don’t think he better than the rest of us. * He can swims. © The Author(s) 2019 A. Baratta, World Englishes in English Language Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13286-6_4

69

70     A. Baratta

The first example is standard English, which would be regarded as the standard form for all inner circle Englishes. The fact that contractions are used (doesn’t, he’s) does not make the sentence any less standard, merely less formal, and so this is also tied to register. The second example is non-standard, symbolised by the use of the adjacent symbol—%. Specifically, the sentence is an example of the Ebonics dialect and thus, it is conforming to the grammatical rules of that particular language variety, one which is not standard English and as such, it cannot be expected to conform to the rules of standard English. In Ebonics, the verb for third person pronouns is not inflected, and thus the suffix -s is not used with such verbs (and don’t is thus retained for third person verbs). As a result, the following is absolutely fine for Ebonics: He read, she go and he eat. As mentioned previously, Ebonics allows for copula deletion, whereas standard English does not. For this reason, he better is fine, whereas in standard English, we would need to supply an appropriate copula verb: he is better/he’s better. The final sentence is a clear-cut example of a sentence that is clearly wrong for the English language, in a very absolute sense (and an example that I had used previously). It is not wrong merely because it sounds ‘strange’ or because I don’t like it for some reason. Instead, it is wrong on a purely objective level because, to the best of my knowledge, the sentence does not conform to the grammar of any known variety of English at all. If, however, a future group of English speakers, regardless of which circle they reside in, ‘decide’ to inflect (third person) lexical verbs which follow modal verbs, and such a sentence becomes commonly used by said English-speaking community somewhere in the world, then that is a major step towards legitimate, if non-standard, usage. But once again, there are potential pitfalls to be acknowledged. First, is it possible to communicate perfectly well with someone even if an individual’s grammar is not in itself ‘perfect’? The answer is of course, ‘yes’. Thus, if someone stops me on the street and asks ‘for to go to the city centre? ’, I will understand from the immediate context that the individual is asking for directions, more so if they are pointing to a tourist map. While the utterance is not a recognised variety of English perhaps, the ultimate purpose of language has been fulfilled nonetheless: the message has been received as intended. This is perhaps more indicative of the kinds of

4  Non-inner Circle Englishes Versus Language Errors     71

errors we might find ourselves making if speaking in a foreign language and perhaps the kinds of errors that our EFL students sometimes make. As a result, we can certainly have a case of incorrect grammar, but clear (enough) meaning and thus, grammatical fog can still equate to semantic clarity. However, I acknowledge that sometimes, grammatical inaccuracies can of course affect how clearly, or not, the message is understood. This book is designed as a theoretical—practical hybrid, and it can ideally allow for not just more clarity on the matter, but hopefully a degree more respect for not just the status of NICE but respect that is also based on the ability of these Englishes to teach students the very variety of English that they might wish to learn—inner circle. Furthermore, even inner circle English can exhibit grammatical structures that some might call an error, when it is not seen this way by those using such forms (and crucially, I refer to structures which are not necessarily officially recognised as belonging to a particular dialect). For example, unlike Spanish and Italian, English is not a pro-drop language (also known as null subject). This means that personal pronouns are required for English. Let us consider further: Spanish: Hablo ingles. Italian: Parlo inglese. English: * Speak English.

In both Spanish and Italian, the suffix –o is accomplishing what the pronoun I does in English. This suffix, when added to the verb, informs the listener (or reader) that the referent involves the first person singular (I) and the sentence is a declarative in the indicative mood. In other words, both hablo and parlo mean ‘I speak’. While the first person pronoun can be added if so desired (respectively, yo and io ), it is not required from a syntactic or semantic point of view (but from a pragmatic point of view, it might be used to add emphasis). However, I cannot perhaps expect my interlocutors to understand speak English as a declarative and instead, it might be interpreted as an imperative (e.g. along the possible lines of speak English now! ). However, can we honestly say that pronoun dropping is completely unheard of in English? This is not the case and it is for this reason that

72     A. Baratta

we sometimes need to acknowledge what are referred to as register dialects, indicating a use of language that is tied to informal registers perhaps and possibly wide spread enough for it to be regarded, by some at least, as legitimate (i.e. not an error). Gupta (2012), however, considers omission of first person subjects as still reflective of standard English, but merely a more informal register. I would disagree on this point, given that a complete sentence, from my understanding, requires a subject and a verb. That Gupta sees this merely as an issue of register is an interesting point to raise, as it demonstrates the disagreements even within inner circle English regarding what is or is not ‘grammatically standard’. If indeed we do approach pronoun dropping from a purely syntactic point of view, in that it is incorrect, in the absence of a given societal group or region within the inner circle English world that is recognised as making extensive use of pronoun dropping, then this variety is not exactly ‘codifiable’ either, other than occasional instances of its use. Thus, in the exchange below, how would you regard the final sentence? Is it an error (and thus, an asterix is required to mark its status as such) or is it merely non-standard (and thus implying somewhat that it is perhaps used enough in society to warrant it being regarded as correct, albeit non-standard)? Speaker A: Do you want to go out tonight? Speaker B: Sure. Let’s meet at my place first. How about 6:00? Speaker A: Sounds good. I’ll see you then. Speaker B: OK. Meet you later.

The italicised sentence does not use the pronoun I (or here, I’ll, so the pronoun and auxiliary verb are missing). In addition, I can recall many of my own uses of English in which I routinely drop pronouns, in both written communication, such as e-mails to friends, or speaking face to face or on the phone. Such usage is arguably based on informal contexts of communication but in these contexts, pronoun dropping sounds OK to me and furthermore, I would gladly discuss this usage in the EFL classroom as an example of ‘real-world English’. Consider the following further examples, all of which drop the first person pronoun: Had a late breakfast, Seeing my father for coffee and Went to town this morning. It is

4  Non-inner Circle Englishes Versus Language Errors     73

entirely possible that as I write, pronoun dropping in some region of an inner circle English country, or within the language use of a specific group, is already well underway and in time, it may indeed be an even more recognised aspect of a dialect/sociolect that is yet to be recognised. However, while pronoun dropping might not yet be tied to any specific dialect per se, and its status is thus somewhat of a grey area, its usage, as encapsulated by register dialects, allows us to recognise that it does have a time and place and is no doubt understood between speakers. For now, I have discussed this as a means to further illustrate the complex factors that exist already, even within inner circle Englishes, with regard to problematizing the concept of ‘correct’ versus ‘incorrect’ English. Attempting to do so for an outer/expanding circle English is thus more complex, but the sections that follow will continue with this endeavour.

4.2 An Overview of the Error-Innovation Distinction It is important to distinguish between errors in our students’ use of English versus mere differences in their English, differences of course based on using a particular World English. In essence, the differences that World Englishes, notably NICE, exhibit in terms of their grammar can be likened to the differences seen in inner circle dialects. That is, within the classroom, we might not generally encourage dialectal usage amongst our inner circle students (e.g. if writing an essay for a given university course), though we would recognise that it is a legitimate form of English (but used in the wrong ‘place’ in the context of essay writing, for example). The need to distinguish between error and innovation is particularly relevant when we are marking students’ work, be it written or spoken. Essay writing in particular is held to a high standard for language use and standard English is of course the expected variety in this context. As a result, it is legitimate for teachers to flag any non-standard uses of the English language but certainly not mark them as errors. Again, however, can we be certain that a student’s given use of English is indeed

74     A. Baratta

reflective of a World English or an error? If the former, then this has implications for how we draw the student’s attention to the language use in question. Clearly, we want students to understand that such language use is not wrong, but merely not the required variety for the context of essay writing, for example. This can perhaps go some way to helping students negotiate the contextual factors involved with communication and also, realise that their particular use of English is the right language, but it is sometimes used at the wrong time. To begin, Kachru (1997: 228) references three aspects to the error-innovation issue. First, there are indeed innovations, referring to the creativity by which new varieties of English emerge. This can be seen within all varieties of English of course. One such example is the word ‘wuss’, common to this day in American English. It is a blend of the words wimp and pussy, both used to refer to a weak man. The fact that this blend was first coined in the highly popular film Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982) is perhaps testament once again to the power of the media. However, its spread amongst the younger generation, considering that the film was aimed at teens, might not have been met with initial approval from their elders. Does this, however, make it ‘wrong’? Clearly not from the point of view of its speakers, for which the word had, and still has, full communicative power. Nonetheless, Bamgbose (1998) argues that innovations made by inner circle English speakers are regarded as creative and indeed innovative, while in the context of non-inner circle speakers, the same innovations are sometimes labelled as errors. This does suggest a linguistic double standard. From here, we have deviations. This refers to the ways in which two varieties of a given language merely exhibit difference, with the deviation however implying, by differing from a language norm, that it is somehow the linguistic other. For example, I were tired is a deviation from the standard form, I was tired. Such differences would apply to innovations that are no longer particularly innovative in that they have become accepted as regular features of a given language variety, but with the non-standard more likely to be judged negatively within educational contexts, for example. In the broader context of NICE, Meriläinen (2017: 762) states that ‘deviations from “native-speaker” norms have traditionally been characterized as “errors” demonstrating incomplete

4  Non-inner Circle Englishes Versus Language Errors     75

mastery of English. It is well understandable that such approach is foreign to the world Englishes paradigm’. Finally, we have errors—features which we can label as incorrect with confidence, in the knowledge that this is not a negative judgement of someone else’s variety of English or based on personal preference. For teachers, the acid test for this distinction, especially relating to students’ work, is to be certain, as much as we can, that the error in question is not reflective of a linguistic feature of a World English, from non-standard inner circle to the English used in Ghana. This requires, however, much knowledge of many Englishes on the teacher’s part, and we cannot expect him/her to know all the varieties. It is precisely for this reason, however, that we can ask our EFL students to act as linguistic and cultural brokers, in order to offer the class, and teacher, their knowledge of the English variety as used in their country. Let the students do the talking and from this starting point, we can be armed with more knowledge about their variety of English, as well as allowing for a cultural discussion to take place in the classroom. This latter point is very important, and ideas for teaching are of course provided in the penultimate chapter. However, if there is a certain grammatical error which tends to be made by many EFL students, in speech and/or writing, then does this automatically mean that due to its widespread usage, it could be labelled as a feature of their particular World English variety? Possibly. In the Indian context, there are, for example, Common Errors in English (CEIE) guidebooks. These guidebooks are largely for the purposes of Indian students taking post-graduate examinations for the purpose of entering government level positions (Chelliah 2001). This final destination offers clues as to the kind of English that is being propagated through the use of such books—the standard inner circle variety—or at least a variety perhaps that limits its use of features tied to Indian English (to be discussed later). If such guidebooks make clear from the start that they wish to teach standard inner circle English, and for what purposes, then this addresses one of the issues within some of these CEIE textbooks: that the authors cite examples of established Indian English forms as ‘errors’. For example, the use of progressive forms for stative verbs is one example of an

76     A. Baratta

Indian English feature (Srivastava and Sharma 1991) and yet Phillips (n.d.) declares this to be an error. In the context of declaring difference to be deviance it can serve to perpetuate the idea that what is wholly acceptable—and correct—is simply wrong across the board. If, on the other hand, textbooks of this kind not only make clear what variety of English they purport to teach and spread, and if ‘errors’ are merely referred to as established features of a different variety, then the implied message is different. Instead of strongly suggesting, for example, that Indian English is simply ‘wrong’, readers can understand instead that it is correct, but not perhaps the ‘standard’ in the context of high profile careers in India, such as government work, and not the expected standard for academic writing in inner circle countries either. I do acknowledge of course that not all the errors as pointed out in the CEIE textbooks are errors in a more absolute sense, such as he visits his poor relatives once in a blue (Braganza 1998: 25). While Chelliah regards this as merely a typing error, it is still an error. However, some of the supposed errors highlighted by various authors are, in fact, correct within standard English. Hashem (n.d., 422) regards the following sentence as incorrect: the children enjoyed playing in the water, and instead ‘corrects’ it to the children enjoyed themselves playing in the water. It seems that Hashem has overgeneralised the optional use of the reflexive as being obligatory with the verb enjoy, a case of hypercorrection. In fact, both sentences are grammatically correct. Chelliah points out that not only are there errors in terms of authors’ judgements of standard English, but some of the authors are not sufficiently aware of Indian English. Nonetheless, such information is propagated in connection with examinations, however, and the CEIE books are controlled by publishers who have ‘ultimate control over what becomes available to the public…..(and) take advantage of the examination-oriented reading clientele’ (page 172). In doing so, the spread of such textbooks allows for the suggestion that a variety of English that is already established in society is to be regarded as incorrect. As mentioned, if we present more contextually-sensitive textbooks, which discuss anything outside of the standard inner circle as merely different and operating under their own rules, and crucially, remind

4  Non-inner Circle Englishes Versus Language Errors     77

readers of the need to use non-standard/non-inner circle varieties within their own specific time and occasion, then this is a reminder to the readers that their variety is indeed legitimate. While this might sound simplistic, it is in line with classroom practices in the inner circle, such as the USA, in which the stigmatised dialect of Ebonics (Haddix 2012) is used to teach standard English (Rickford 1998; Perez 1999), an approach which can involve contrasting the features of Ebonics with the standard, in order to have a better understanding of its systematic components, as opposed to, worst case, regarding it as a linguistic write-off. This does not mean, however, that I regard codification as being tied to the production of school textbooks and/or dictionaries. This would perhaps be the ideal, and certainly reflective of many educators’ views as to what codification entails, but as I have discussed, there are other ways in which to conceptualise codification. However, that we have academic textbooks which denote errors within NICE strongly indicates that there is a degree of predictability amongst non-inner circle English speakers with regard to their use of English, to the extent that instances of it have essentially been charted (notwithstanding the sentences incorrectly judged to be errors which instead merely pertain to features of NICE). This level of widespread usage is something to ponder as we attempt to determine what are errors and what are established (or to be established) features of NICE. Widespread usage alone is not always sufficient to determine ‘fair use’ from ‘error’, however. Jenkins (2009: 202) argues that the distinction between error and innovation ‘depends on factors such as systematicity, frequency, and communicative effectiveness’. Taking each factor in turn, the need for systematicity is based on the recognition of a predictable nature regarding the linguistic features, which ties in with frequency; that certain features appear frequently is a means by which said features become systematic (or is indeed a reflection of systematicity). In terms of communicative effectiveness, this needs more careful consideration. For example, just because an expression is ungrammatical, or even displays a potentially unintended meaning, this does not stop the ‘real’ meaning from being gleaned by the reader or listener. It depends more on who a speaker of NICE is actually speaking to. If two Koreans are using Konglish, then surely they would not use it unless it displayed

78     A. Baratta

communicative effectiveness in a strict sense (i.e. not being in need of undue processing by the interlocutors). In terms of frequency, Jenkins (2009) references certain features which appear to characterise non-inner circle Englishes, such as not inflecting third person verbs (he play ) and creating count nouns from non-count varieties (furnitures ). This might provide some evidence of the systematicity that she refers to and in doing so, help to distinguish innovations—even common features shared across NICE—from errors. On an anecdotal level, amongst many non-inner circle speakers who I have met in and out of the classroom, there is one particular use of English which comes to mind, as seen in the following construction: he suggested to me that I go. From a purely inner circle perspective, and a standard one at that, the sentence is wrong. In standard English, the verb suggest does not require the use of a preposition with an object form. But if indeed this form is common to non-inner circle speakers from certain countries or indeed across the world, then here is an opportunity to reveal such uses to our EFL students and let them decide what is or is not ‘wrong’. Some students may of course expect the teacher to know, but again, no teacher can be expected to know of all varieties of World Englishes, let alone the slippery balance between innovation and error for all potential linguistic features within our students’ English. There is a practical need to understand what standards we are preparing students for, as well as acknowledging their varieties of English. Lowenberg (1993: 102) reveals what might be a growing trend amongst NICE speakers, particularly in regard to testing. As part of an actual TOEIC exam, a student was asked to identify the ungrammatical aspect of the following sentence: His proposal met with a lot of resistances. Given that converting non-count nouns into count nouns is argued to be a recognised feature of NICE (Brown 1995), then to identify ‘resistances’ as incorrect from a NICE perspective would be, in itself, incorrect. However, without a clear definition of which English is being considered for assessment, then this might be part of the problem. Having said that, the default standard within the inner circle is of course standard English; if this is specified on tests, then this simple act can help to justify words such as resistances as being marked incorrect (or, as I have

4  Non-inner Circle Englishes Versus Language Errors     79

argued, as being correct, but not appropriate for the variety of English that the students are being tested on). As therefore asked by Platt et al. (1984: vii), ‘when is something a learner’s error and when is it part of a new language system?’ Indeed, this is the crux of the matter and for us as educators, one which we need to give our full attention to, but with the help of our students. Moreover, an error is often regarded as such if compared with a linguistic benchmark. Once again, however, we cannot label linguistic features as errors merely on the basis of deviation from standard English and in fact, to do so would mean that the English used by Ebonics speakers, as well as by Indian English speakers, is wrong. In a spirit of linguistic equality, comparison with a permanent marker of ‘standardness’ will not work as an educational, or linguistic, yardstick, unless it is merely for comparative purposes of course. Eventual innovations may have started life as errors, whether based on L1 influence or an acquisition error. This book does not pretend to offer a detailed analysis with regard to language acquisition and instead seeks to cut to the chase: innovations, however they started life, are innovations and thus, form part of a recognisable system within a World English. A further clue to innovations is provided by Gilquin and Granger (2011: 60), who state that the distinction between in and into ‘seems to be slowly disappearing from some indigenized varieties of English’, with an example being ‘there are so many people just coming in the country’ (Mwangi 2004: 28). Thus, what might be an error today may indeed become tomorrow’s (or next year’s) innovation. The key, as was referred to, is a sufficient number of speakers of this particular feature, with sufficient spread and time. Collectively, these aspects serve to establish a feature as an accepted part of a World English, certainly acceptable to the speakers. In this manner, errors can persist until they become recognised as legitimate features of a given variety of English (Gut 2011), to the point that such features, by the speakers at least, are not questioned. Once specific linguistic features are established, then they ‘cannot be called learner errors - however far removed from a Standard variety of English they might be’ (Gut 2011: 121). Titlestad (1996: 168) further states that ‘the random errors of second-language learners at various stages of acquisition do not make a

80     A. Baratta

new English unless a codifiable consistency can be demonstrated’. If indeed random errors do take hold in a language and become accepted and recognizable features, this is argued to be the beginning of codification based on establishment of a language via its societal spread (a link again to societal codification, or certainly societal establishment). The term ‘consistency’ is suggested to point toward the use of the language—grammar and lexis—being used by a given community in the same way. The need for predictability is a large part of a language being recognised as a valid variety, certainly to those who use it, and without such, communication would of course be limited to perhaps just small numbers of speakers, but NICE have of course a wide spread within their countries of origin. The need for this consistency to be ‘codifiable’ needs further clarification, and I have discussed the ways in which it need not be interpreted as being based solely on the creation of dictionaries or more broadly, government- and/or school-based publications. However, it is perhaps purely retrospectively that linguistic features are marked as innovations and thus, accepted and established aspects of a World English. Seen from this point of view, an innovation is not particularly ‘innovative’ by the time it has been determined to be an accepted feature of an English, or any other language. Likewise, Old English was not considered to be ‘old’ at all to its speakers of the time; for them, it was entirely modern. It seems that there are several features, then, that contribute to the distinction between error and innovation: If indeed an innovation started life as an error, if it has nonetheless spread across the community, took hold, and is thus accepted by its speakers, then this is key. In fact, I argue that on a purely practical level, this is sufficient. After all, is language not meant to be a vehicle for communication? If the speakers of a given variety of English are fully able to communicate with each other, notably on a large scale within a community (e.g. Ebonics), if not a country (e.g. Indian English), then this is, or should be, sufficient. However, Bamgbose (1998) implies a need for a higher order of acceptance and as such, codification. This unfortunately relegates the widespread usage of a language to somewhat of a linguistic launching pad, and never fully complete until the variety is used by those in authority and more so codified in dictionaries and/or grammar books,

4  Non-inner Circle Englishes Versus Language Errors     81

perhaps those used in schools especially (in which case, the variety then has ‘government backing’, as I had suggested earlier). On that level, does Singlish cease to be, based on the fact that the government seems not to encourage its usage, part of the Speak Good English campaign? We need to recognise language varieties simply based on the recognition that comes from the speakers within the community, if not an entire country. While dictionaries would be a means to present a more equitable approach to NICE, we cannot wait for this to happen on a larger scale. Instead, society decides the language it will use and in doing so, establishes and codifies such for itself. An example of how an error, or a feature that is not initially acceptable, ends up becoming widely accepted and thus, an established feature of a World English, is now presented; in this case, the variety is Black South African English (BSAE). One particular feature concerns the use of progressive forms for stative verbs. In a study by Van der Walt and Van Rooy (2002), this feature was found acceptable by 96% of BSAE teachers, which represents a huge increase based on the results of a previous study by Gough (1996). Though just two studies, we can see how within a few years a feature has become more accepted, to the point perhaps that it is not even questioned in the first instance. I concede that the use of a linguistic feature by those in authority, here teachers, is understandable as a means to cement a feature’s status that bit more. I have not disputed this per se, but what I have tried to point out is that if a group of speakers has their own variety, it is for them legitimate. If those in authority wish to effectively ban it, this does not delegitimise the variety (but it might do for classroom usage). In other words, the variety will still exist as it is still used as a communicative tool. In Britain, for example there have been cases in which school children have been banned from using ‘slang’ expressions in school, such as you woz, ain’t and innit (https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/24534663). Outside the school gates, however, who is to tell the children that their particular sociolect is not legitimate? They have decided for themselves that it is ‘legit’. If, however, such phrases made their way into their essay writing or oral presentations, then there is a valid reason for teachers to ask students to ‘translate’ their expressions into standard English (as opposed to correcting them).

82     A. Baratta

Another recognised feature of BSAE is the construction could be able to, as in he could be able to go if he has time. In standard inner circle English, this equates to tautology (Crystal 2008), but ‘its very widespread attestation in South African websites (suggests that) this form has become a conventionalized innovation’ (van Rooy 2011: 201). The reference to websites is an important one, as it shows how this medium, which is accessible to many, is often an online means of codification (and more broadly, societal codification). Again, people decide what direction their language will take, and using, for example, e-mails and blogs, the language and its inherent features and forms are spread further. Based on ‘extended opportunities for use’, this allows for a higher chance for new features to become ‘entrenched’ (page 205) (i.e. conventionalized). Indeed, internet usage is affecting our perceptions of what counts as an error. In the European context, Seidlhofer (2001) argues that there is a growing use of a variety of English whose norms of usage will continue to derive from its own usage and not those tied to inner circle varieties of English. An example provided by Modiano (2006) is that of EuroEnglish, in which constructions such as I am coming from Spain (in response to the question Where are you from? ), is finding favour because of its widespread usage and clearly, it is understandable. If this is indeed an emerging variety, then systematic description is possible. Again, this points to a somewhat predictable route—the language variety in question spreads to a large enough segment of the community to the extent that linguistic features and lexis are recognised, regardless of whether they derived from errors or not; from here, we are already able to provide codification in the first place, as mentioned earlier, in textbooks such as the one I am now writing. Furthermore, Li (2010: 621) states that ‘an error is an error if it deviates from the norm. But given that language change takes place all the time, the question remains as to when a deviation may stop being seen as an error and start being considered as (the onset of ) an innovation’. This point has already been suggested, but Li’s quotation again suggests the fact that errors can be lost to time, or indeed become innovations in the making. However, what is not clear is which variety is referred to as the ‘norm’. It may well be standard English, but once again, amongst

4  Non-inner Circle Englishes Versus Language Errors     83

inner circle speakers, standard English is not always the norm for all their communicative needs. For NICE speakers, I am having a house and He could be able to do it are indeed the respective norms for Indian English and BSAE. I refer again to Gilquin and Granger (2011: 59), who provide some insight into what might be considered correct uses of NICE, by regarding prepositions as a ‘mutating species’ in World English, being ‘likely to lead to innovations’. The question that arises is to what extent is this a common feature (i.e. preposition dropping) amongst non-inner circle speakers? If found across both of the non-inner circle regions, then this might be seen as more of a universal feature, one that unites non-inner circle speakers in toto. Or, is it a feature found in certain Englishes only; if so, then this of course could be seen as a feature of, say, Konglish. However, once again we can’t automatically declare an error to be an innovation merely based on its widespread usage; after all, we can have widespread errors too. Essentially, time will tell. Hypercorrection is a common feature of acquiring one’s first language, but this alone does not make it anything other than an error (my daughter, for example, told me when she was nine that she had catched a cold). Moreover, widespread though an error might be, even if it is seen as the norm for the NICE speakers, it sometimes takes just one EFL teacher, or authoritative website, to declare a specific feature as an error to make it so. As Bamgbose (1998: 22) states, ‘if innovations are seen as errors, a non-native variety can never receive any recognition’. Honna (2006) points to a feature of English as used in Japan, specifically the use of my- as a prefix (e.g. I have two my-cars). As Honna states, ‘the use of my- as a prefix may have a rough time winning international approval but will be considered a Japanese neologism if resorted to by a sizable number of speakers ’ (page 123; emphasis mine). Once again, we have a reference to the number of speakers—that is, the more Japanese people who use this feature, the stronger the case for it to be a feature of this particular variety of English. This raises the question as to how many speakers are needed, however; how large a number is sufficiently ‘sizable’ for innovation to be declared? I concede that here is where a dictionary would be useful. Not, as I have discussed previously, as the only means (or an ‘official’ means)

84     A. Baratta

to codify a language, but in this case, merely as a means to help clarify the variety. In other words, if a certain word/grammatical feature makes its way into a World English dictionary, this need not point to the language having finally ‘arrived’; it has already long since arrived by virtue of its widespread societal codification. However, by its presence in the dictionary, it would help to erase any doubts about the language, doubts, I should point out, that are not tied to whether or not this variety is a ‘true’ English (it is), but doubts based merely on whether or not a specific word or feature is, in fact, part of the language. Nonetheless, this then brings us back to the start: surely we would need to define a ‘sizeable number’ of speakers before a feature or word can make it into the dictionary in the first instance. In terms of insights into the division between ‘commonly made error’ versus innovation (which we would expect to be commonly used in the first instance), Li (2010) finds evidence of widespread being used as a noun, not an adjective, as in the widespread of American culture; from one perspective, we could label this linguistic conversion, with one word class becoming another. Li (2010) also cites the example regarding constructions such as he suggested me to do it; this represents a deviation (in standard English terms) from a that-clause. Another example, which I indeed recall from my students’ English (though not just Chinese students) is seen with the following: I am difficult to learn English well. The rationale to correct such uses of language is clear if the students live, work and/or study in an inner circle country, or indeed plan to in the future. But I would want to go further than this, and involve the students in a class discussion, citing anonymous examples of their errors from their assessed work and then asking them to try to shed light on them. Not just from the perspective of whether this is an accepted and ‘standard’ way of using English between two people from China (or elsewhere), but also based on their thoughts regarding the origins of such expressions. Are they based on direct translation from Mandarin or Cantonese? Are they based on a simple misunderstanding of English grammar? Students may not be able to answer such questions, or any others connected with their English usage for that matter. But by exploring their English together with teacher and student input, it can make for a joint discussion, so important to the usage of NICE in the

4  Non-inner Circle Englishes Versus Language Errors     85

EFL classroom in the first instance. Within Li’s study, however, while it is insightful, he asks a pertinent question, in that, while some ‘errors’ should be regarded as innovations, ‘where to draw the line?’ (626). A further study by Hamid and Baldauf (2013) investigates the usage of Bangladeshi students’ written English for acceptability, based on the evaluations of twenty five English teachers. The writing was taken from seventy one feature articles written by journalism students. Hamid and Baldauf (2013: 477) make it clear that ‘nowhere is this distinction between errors and innovations more desirable than in L2 pedagogy’, and as Gupta (2006: 108) observes, ‘teachers should do their best to establish what they should correct firmly, what they should correct tentatively and, what they should accept as correct’. This represents, respectively, pure errors (a concept I will discuss in the next section); instances in which the teacher (and the student perhaps) might not be certain as to a feature’s status; and instances in which a feature is confidently labelled as correct. For this latter category, we need to determine what we mean by ‘correct’ as this term is relative to a large extent. For example, standard English is correct for academic essays, while non-standard English is fine for, say, role-plays involving an informal English register amongst friends. In fact, ‘correct’ can also be synonymous with ‘acceptable’. If seen from this perspective, then all manner of English can find favour, if it is reflective of real life scenarios and contexts in which we might expect a specific use of English to be used. For example, I once gave my EFL students a slip of paper on which an individual scenario was written down for them to then enact as part of classroom role-playing; a student used the expression piss off when enacting his particular scenario. I found this to be wholly appropriate for the context and thus, ‘correct’. Hamid and Baldauf (2013) make it clear that the role of teachers is to provide a gate-keeping role, and also state that some of the students’ language features require support and nurturance. This ties in with the quotation by Gupta, in that the mention of ‘nurturance’ is suggestive of Gupta’s need for teachers to be ‘tentative’ regarding certain features. Indeed, in cases in which a teacher’s understanding of a certain feature is not clear (and perhaps one teacher’s views on this matter differ with those of another teacher), this is an opportunity to have a discussion

86     A. Baratta

with the student(s) in question. If we frame the tentativeness on the teacher’s part from the perspective of NICE, then this equates not to a lack of knowledge of English on the teacher’s part per se, but rather, a means by which we can reconceptualise a student’s use of English. In other words, we can avoid marking students’ work as error-prone as a default category when we ourselves find any grammatical grey areas; instead, by suggesting that the starting point is an example of a particular World English, then this can help students realise that the teacher is avoiding what would be a more absolute approach with regard to errors. Of course, this does not suggest that we are automatically defaulting to another extreme, along the lines of ‘if it’s a grey area, then it must be an example of a World English’. Instead, by merely exploring this possibility, and ideally with the student’s input and potentially, his/her guidance, then we can provide a somewhat fresh perspective to the teaching, and correcting, of EFL. While no book can offer a definitive list of all EFL errors, let alone clarify when an error is not an error (and thus represents an innovation), we can at least engage more with our students on this matter. This alone does not suggest firm answers, but it can lead to more student input, and a feeling of satisfaction that the students’ insights in this area, and themselves, are trusted. As I will make clear in the chapter on teaching suggestions, students are given an opportunity to be the teacher and take charge. Not all students want this role of course, but some might. Hamid and Baldauf (2013: 478) acknowledge that ‘teachers’ judgments may become problematic because many features of L2 English are yet to be codified and disseminated in recognition of the claim to an L2 variety status’. This, as discussed, is a reason to approach the work of students with their input. On the other hand, ‘despite policy prescriptions, teachers often exercise their agency and develop their own criteria and strategies to deal with various pedagogical challenges in response to the reality on the ground in the interests of their students’ (ibid.). Again, this suggests a need for codification in a more ‘traditional’ sense and as I have pointed out, I agree with this (i.e. in terms of dictionaries/grammar books) but merely as a means to clarify what features are accepted aspects of a given English by virtue of inclusion (in other

4  Non-inner Circle Englishes Versus Language Errors     87

words, a means to help clarify what might otherwise be grammatical grey areas). I am not, however, advocating further establishment of dictionaries as a means to codify World Englishes per se; as I have argued, it is time to regard codification from a fresh perspective. A point to address is the extent to which certain constructions or features are more to do with grammar or style; if the latter, then this points to potential examples of pragmalinguistic errors (to be discussed) or merely novel ways to say something with standard grammar otherwise intact. An example from the study of Hamid and Baldauf (2013) concerns the following sentence: Even some good doctors help pathological clinics get patients and business. I leave it to the reader to judge the acceptability of this sentence, with the suggested ‘error’ being tied to the expression get patients and business. For me, this sounds fine in terms of grammaticality; I cannot find anything that goes against standard English (assuming that this variety is the target). It is purely a matter of style. I would find it more acceptable to say, even some good doctors help pathological clinics obtain clients and thus advance their business. My interpretation, however, raises many more issues. It clearly demonstrates that, while teachers are ‘gatekeepers of language standards’ (Hamid and Baldauf 2013: 478), the authors acknowledge that the error/innovation issue is indeed ‘a complex problem’ (page 487). This problem is threefold, certainly as illustrated with the sentence above under discussion: first, there is the issue of students’ English (spoken or written) that, while grammatically standard, is perhaps stylistically ‘non-standard’. This suggests a certain linguistic gut feeling as to what ‘sounds’ natural or not, and this can often bypass grammatical concerns, especially when there aren’t any to begin with. Second, given that stylistic uses are quite personal, in that we may all have quite differing views as to what sounds best, then who here is the ultimate judge? If we believe that it is the teacher, we cannot assume that all teachers, even all inner circle speakers, will agree. I cannot pretend, for example, that my ‘corrected’ version of the sentence necessarily sounds better, or that all readers will even agree that the original version is problematic in the first instance. Finally, we need full contextual information in order to better judge the overall acceptability of the sentence. Is it written or spoken English? Does it require a formal or informal register? Who is

88     A. Baratta

the audience? These questions, and others, combine to provide us with an ultimate judgement of what is ‘appropriate’. In addition, Hamid and Baldauf (2013) do suggest that the use of corpora can be a practical, if time consuming, method to at least identify NICE features which differ from inner circle Englishes, specifically the standard variety. Seidlhofer (2004) outlines several examples of such linguistic features which are common enough within NICE to have been charted; this is half the battle. The other half is to determine if we see such features with regularity in the Englishes outside the inner circle, to be able to then at least suggest that these are legitimate features of such varieties. For pedagogical purposes, this allows us to alert students to features which are not standard English, if indeed this variety is the focus within class (the dominant focus at least). However, we would then approach these features as differences of course, not errors. In terms of what features Seidlhofer reveals, we find instances of non-inflection for third person verbs (he eat ); omission of articles when required in standard English and use of such when not required; and pluralisation of non-count nouns. This information alone helps to, frankly speaking, save us some time as teachers. If we present our EFL students with the full list that Seidlhoder provides (or a similar list), then we are at a good place to initiate a discussion with our students— itself the basis of a class session—as to (a) whether our students recognise such features in their own English in terms of personal use or their country’s use in general and (b) what their views are regarding the error/innovation distinction. We might also make it clear that a use of non-standard and non-inner circle English does not an error make (we can also alert our students that some inner circle Englishes also do not involve inflections for third person verbs, such as Ebonics). Jenkins (2006: 174) argues in favour of accommodation as the linguistic reality, in that students need to avoid a singular variety of English and ‘be able to adjust their speech in order to be intelligible to interlocutors from a wide range of L1 backgrounds’. This again points to a need to be proficient in Englishes, not just English. However, to suggest that a focus on standard English in the classroom implies students are not being prepared for the real world of English, is somewhat flawed. First, standard English, given its dominance historically and

4  Non-inner Circle Englishes Versus Language Errors     89

today (e.g. as seen in EFL summer camps in Korea), is perhaps the variety of English that will be understood best in international contexts of communication, formal and informal, as this is the variety that has been propagated in classrooms. For this reason, it makes sense to approach this as what we might call a ‘basic’ variety of classroom English, for lack of a better term (interestingly, in the Star Wars universe, the English language is indeed referred to as Basic ). However, no matter how many individuals have learned and are learning standard English, this does not mean that this is the variety that will be used when it is needed for communication. If an individual from Rome suddenly has to give directions to a tourist from Ankara, both using English, then while one may indeed use standard English, the other might not. This could be due to local norms for his/her English or indeed based on errors. As long as both parties are understood, then the transaction has been successful. The point though is that while we need a base form to start, we also need knowledge of other varieties. On this point, I do not believe that Jenkins and myself differ in perspective. I would say, however, that understanding different varieties of local Englishes does not always mean we will need to speak them. Indeed, it is plausible that if travelling to Accra, the Ghanaians one meets may use standard English, certainly plausible if they are employed in an international hotel. But outside the hotel, the locals may use Ghanaian English which, as long as the tourist understands, then perhaps he/she can choose to respond in standard English; again, if both parties can communicate, one with standard English and one with another variety, this is the important point. For this reason, I have told my students that they do not need to use local dialect from the Manchester area, but it helps to understand said dialect. Thus, if someone calls them ‘love’ (a common term of affection in Britain in general, not just Manchester), then while they might not use the term themselves, they can at least recognise what it means if used by others and subsequently, respond appropriately (in this case, a smile might suffice). In addition, the aforementioned greeting of am you allright used in Birmingham, England is not, as I stress to my students, an invitation to ‘correct’ the natives’ English; rather, it is merely dialectal and again, to know how to respond (i.e. not too bad, perhaps) ensures communicative competence.

90     A. Baratta

Returning to the discussion on the spread of certain features, ‘it is unclear how widely L2 features have to spread to be accepted as varietal features. Moreover, these criteria may work only retrospectively, that is, after a certain form has spread and been accepted quite substantially’ (Hamid and Baldauf 2013: 488). I had touched on this point earlier and there are no firm answers. For the present time, however, Hamid and Baldauf leave it in the teachers’ hands to decide what is or is not correct in EFL students’ communication, expressing ‘cautious optimism that asking teachers to categorise items giving them a range of options is a step worth further exploring’ (page 489). Such categorisation perhaps largely involves the distinction between errors, variants (including non-standard inner circle English) and standard English, but as stressed, while categorisation is, in itself, simple enough, assigning features to various categories is not always straightforward. This is the crux of their argument for the need for ‘traditional’ codification for NICE, as a means to remove the guesswork. However, this too will rely on a team of educators and linguists having to still perform the same task—categorisation assignment. As I have argued, why can we not allow the speakers themselves to be involved, if we do eventually get to this level of codification? For now, and as part of classroom activity, we can approach this kind of codification by using exercises in which students are assigned to create the beginning of a dictionary, say, Ghanaian English—standard English, or to compile over the course of several classes with their classmates a grammar book on a selection of the students’ Englishes. This is of course not close to what Hamid and Baldauf (2013) are advocating; but the broader implications are that we leave the codification they refer to in the hands of the speakers of the language(s) to be codified, and move away from a need to seek official status solely through the means of classroom textbooks and/or dictionaries. Focus group discussion, interviews and surveys are also advocated by the authors as a means to arrive at a more focused consensus regarding the error/innovation issue, but again, we should focus on the students as well as the teachers in this regard. That languages have changed and continue to do so is part of the normal linguistic development, a point I make in relation to the journey of errors becoming legitimate features. Or, if not errors in terms

4  Non-inner Circle Englishes Versus Language Errors     91

of grammar per se, then what the older generation might refer to as, broadly speaking, bad English. When I was growing up in the 1970s and 1980s, we referred to KFC as Kentucky Fried Chicken and IHOP was referred to as International House of Pancakes. To use the ‘full’ forms now might seem unusual, at least to speakers who use the abbreviated forms. This might illustrate a generational difference in language. Either way, the abbreviations, while perhaps informal, are by no means errors. Thus, they are tied more to register. I also recall evidence from about ten years ago of the word menu being used in the USA as a verb: have you been menued yet? In fact, I can think of many innovations to the (inner circle) English language, which, initially at least, may have been considered ‘strange’, if not errors. They are only innovations when we look back, as mentioned already, but then again, actually trying to observe language change in real time is akin to watching paint dry. Some of these changes, however, certainly at the lexical level, involve many new words. Though adding words to the language might be seen as an obvious change, examples such as bromance, prequel and google have their own specific properties. The first two examples are blends (brother + romance, and pre- + -quel), reflective of a common trend seen with celebrity couples perhaps, past and present: Bennifer, Brangelina and TomKat. Google, specifically used as a verb (google it and see what comes up ), is reflective of the effects of technology on the language, which is its own subject. The point is, however, that these are clear changes, innovations, and while it is difficult to know who coined the new words and how they were spread, the point at which they make it into the Oxford English Dictionary is still often regarded as the defining moment. Not from the perspective of the birth of a new word, phrase or grammatical structure, as that is often lost to time; but the defining moment in terms of making it, to use the word again, ‘official’. But no dictionary can necessarily keep pace with all the new linguistic innovations that arise each and every year anyway, including those within the inner circle, but this does not mean that such innovations are no less legitimate if indeed they are used within a community, however small or large, whose use of the language is sufficient to ensure that all fellow community members understand each other.

92     A. Baratta

4.3 Pure Errors in Real World Contexts In this section, I focus on what I refer to as pure errors, instances of language use which, as far as can be determined, are indeed errors in a strict sense. This discussion will again turn to a focus on the error-innovation debate where relevant, but as a means to determine errors— to include pragmalinguistic errors—in order to subsequently judge our students’ English more accurately. Moreover, this section will also show examples of errors, including what might be considered to be translation errors; this in itself is an important point of discussion, as it ties in with terms such as Chinglish—what I would argue to indeed be a reference to translation errors, as opposed to China English, which is instead a form of English based on innovations, not errors. As such, it is time to reconceptualise our understanding of certain varieties of NICE, based, partly at least, on the terminologies used to refer to them. I turn now to examples of what might be considered to be pure errors, rather than innovations or legitimate features of an established World English. This focus is largely on the English used on public signs within countries which are outside the inner circle. Within the Chinese context, for example, Xu and Tian (2018) discuss the use of English in this particular context. The focus here is on mistranslations, and based on the work of Lyu et al. (2011), Error Analysis and Norms for ChineseEnglish Translation of Signs. Xu and Tian seek governmental intervention in order to correct this issue and this shows how authorities—here, the government—can indeed bring about a certain legitimacy to the use of a language, here English in China (and more specifically, English used on public signs in China). Before going further, we need to start with the term Chinglish. As I had referenced earlier, this was a term coined by Pinkham (2000), in which she was referring to the English used by Chinese people which displayed errors and perhaps caused communication problems as a result. From discussion with my Chinese students (some of whom have in fact been Linguistics lecturers), the term thus carries negative connotations, akin to ‘error-based English’. While some might view all World Englishes in this manner, particularly those which use blends in their nomenclature (e.g. Singlish, Japlish), the term of Chinglish

4  Non-inner Circle Englishes Versus Language Errors     93

has particularly negative connotations. In fact, as I had mentioned in Chapter 1, He and Li (2009) prefer the term China English, which I will retain, as He and Li advocate—the variety of English as spoken in China by Chinese people, which would have no inherent communication problems at all for that context. Wang and Zhang (2016) report on the issue of mistranslations on public signs, accelerated by the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, when a sudden influx of foreigners was to be expected, and involved people who were, as much as possible, united by a common language—English. The use of bilingual public signs specifically are those that, in some cases, cause confusion or indeed, unintended humour. In response to this, the Ministry of Education (MOE), the State Language Commission (SLC) and the Standardization Administration of China (SAC) created the document which sought to address this issue: Guidelines for the Use of English in Public Service Areas (GUEPSA). I argue, however, that examples of these mistranslations, in whatever country they appear, are not examples of NICE. Thus, China English, Korean English, Indian English and all the other varieties of NICE are not necessarily being reflected on bilingual public signs. I say this on the basis of one key factor; NICE are varieties which are used by and large between speakers of the same non-inner circle country. Thus, two individuals from Singapore should have no difficulty understanding each other when using Singlish together. This is the point—NICE are often used for intranational communication; bilingual signs in Chinese and English (or Spanish and English for that matter), are clearly not. Instead, public signs in English within non-inner circle countries are for international use, a means to use a lingua franca that, it is hoped, can be understood by foreigners who are travelling/reside within, the non-inner circle country in question. Based on this, governments have the difficult task of having to use a foreign language that is not merely for the inner circle English speakers, but essentially, for everyone. NICE are not for everyone in this sense, but instead are designed for the speakers of a particular country (though I have of course argued that inner circle speakers should be prepared to learn NICE also). Therefore, I would equate issues with communication in this specific context involving public signs (or elsewhere, such as advertisements, film reviews,

94     A. Baratta

menus and so on) as being based purely on mistranslations which indeed need to be addressed, solely based on the fact that the intended message might not reach the intended audience, or at least might be impeded. This, then, is a key difference in classification: one variety of a language is largely for domestic linguistic consumption; the other is a mistranslation which is otherwise intended for an international audience and on that basis, I contend that the two are separate and distinct. Referring again to China English as a variety in its own right, two features that He and Li (2009) cite are its specific lexis (paper tiger ) and pro-drop tendencies (e.g. Miss you a lot ). Again, given that this represents a variety of English for use amongst the Chinese, then surely it would be avoided in favour of a notional worldwide standard (inner circle standard no doubt) which would seek to rid itself of such influence. If the result is a mistranslation, then this is not China English; it is a mistranslation. Let us now consider this particular context with some illustrative examples, first considering an error scale with which to help clarify the matter: Error scale Errors (with the potential for misunderstanding)

Errors, but clear meaning

Established usage

Though consisting of merely three suggested categories, it is a start in the right direction. Of course, it is not perfect, nor do I claim otherwise. For example, an error in the sense of exhibiting the potential for misunderstanding (by potentially English speakers from all three circles) does not mean that everyone will have difficulties. They may be able to piece together the meaning that was intended from the context alone. Further, the potential for misunderstanding is not, in itself, a criterion for error classification. Rather, misunderstanding is a potential by-product of errors, be they syntactic or semantic errors. Nonetheless, a word choice that, for all intents and purposes, does not seem to sound natural to an inner circle speaker’s ear at least, is perhaps a good contender for

4  Non-inner Circle Englishes Versus Language Errors     95

being classified as an error (i.e. in the context of public signs), though in this case it would be classified as a semantic or even a pragmalinguistic error (as opposed to a grammatical error). An example would be the use of baby back lips which I saw on a menu in a Korean restaurant, and written in the Roman alphabet (as an aside, the category of ‘public signs’ can be extended of course to all examples of bilingual ‘documents’, including menus, travel guides, warning signs on the road and so on). Again, the unifying factor is that public signs and the like are intended for an international audience (if not, then why use the Roman alphabet and an international language?). Of course, is baby back lips really a cause for misunderstanding, if this term is placed, as it was, next to a picture of ribs? In this case, how long would it take for the true meaning to be understood by the viewer? Nonetheless, this is clearly an error from a purely semantic point of view, picture notwithstanding. The example of baby back lips is perhaps due to errors made in pronunciation from the original English and transferred to Korean phonology (or it might even be a typo, of course—we are all guilty of these). Either way, this is a clear-cut example of an error in the clearest sense that I can think of, as we do not eat lips and even if we did, there is no variety of lips that are referred to as ‘baby back’. I should point out that I am in no way intending to ridicule this mistake or the speakers of such. Rather, to properly unpack the notion of language error, then a full discussion and consideration of the language use in question is wholly necessary. To put it another way, does Konglish (though again, Korean English to be more precise) use the word lips for ribs? I think I can safely say that it does not. However, when considering NICE, we need to give further thought to the influence that local pronunciation can have on borrowed words from English. For example, Koreans have borrowed words such as coffee, sofa and pizza, which, when spoken by Koreans, might sound more like cop-pee, so-pa and pi-ja. This is not merely random, as all of us have a system of pronunciation of course. Given that the Korean language lacks the phoneme [f ]—otherwise known as a voiceless labiodental fricative—it stands to reason that this might be replaced with another sound when Koreans borrow certain

96     A. Baratta

English words; hence coffee becomes ‘cop-pee’. I am not suggesting, of course, that Koreans cannot pronounce [f ], but merely that given its absence in the Korean language, another phoneme has been substituted in the cases of certain borrowed words. Thus, an error in spelling, and an error in a semantic sense, causes this example to be placed in the first category on the error scale. Going further within the Korean context, Burberry refers to a trench coat, whereas here in the UK, Burberry refers to a brand of clothing of course. Thus, Koreans, whether consciously or not, have applied the name of a clothing brand to a specific article of clothing. This is an example of overextension. However, there are two points to consider. First, Burberry (both the word as used in Korea and the brand itself ) has taken hold within Korea in terms of what it refers to and thus, such widespread usage means that it is the Konglish word for trench coat. Second, inner circle varieties of English overextend words also. Consider that in the US, kleenex can be used to refer to a tissue, when in fact it is the brand name, and hoover has been used to mean ‘vacuum cleaner’, when once again the name Hoover started life as a brand name for a vacuum cleaner. However, no one seems to regard these are errors, but of course they should not—precisely because they are not errors. Thus, we cannot afford to have linguistic double standards. Therefore, regardless of the origins of the specific features of NICE, once they have become commonly used, identified and understood within a given society, then this is the determining factor as to regarding language use as legitimate, even if certain people within the society (here, Korea) choose not to use their country’s variety of English (but it is highly likely that they will come across it nonetheless in some form). Moving to the second category within the suggested error scale, this refers to translations which are perhaps easier to understand, in that the intended meaning can be understood. That is not only due to the immediate context, such as a specific type of public notice/sign perhaps, but also due to the fact that the intended meaning is simply understandable in its own right, if somewhat unusual. Thus, bravo your life as an advertising slogan is clearly meant to suggest something to the effect of give your life the best chance, make it the best and so on. It goes

4  Non-inner Circle Englishes Versus Language Errors     97

without saying that context of usage is everything and in the context of an advertisement, ‘bravo your life’ makes sense (i.e. the semantic implications are clear), but if I were to say in conversation, my friend bravoed his life, then this might be met with blank stares. In fact, errors of both categories discussed thus far can be seen all over the world, sometimes, but certainly not always, in countries in which English is not an inner circle variety. Again, despite the title of the website below from which further examples are taken, I do not present them for humorous purposes but instead, to offer an analysis of language in use. At http://englishenglish.com/english_funny.htm, we can see further examples of the discussion thus far: Cocktail lounge, Norway: LADIES ARE REQUESTED NOT TO HAVE CHILDREN IN THE BAR. This creates a double meaning, one of which would mean that ladies are not allowed to give birth in the bar area. However, the intended meaning is still arguably quite clear to the reader—children are not allowed in the bar area as they are underage. The fact that only women are given this directive might seem a tad sexist, but semantically speaking the message is clear. If we compare this with the following sign from a Bangkok temple, then hopefully the difference between the two categories, subtle though it might be to some, can be seen: IT IS FORBIDDEN TO ENTER A WOMAN EVEN A FOREIGNER IF DRESSED AS A MAN. What does the sign above mean exactly? For myself at least, it takes a bit more processing time to make sense of this. Are only foreigners forbidden from entering? Are only women prohibited? Foreign women? Or, is it that men and women are indeed welcome, but a woman must be dressed in clothing deemed ‘suitable’ for women? Despite my confusion, I do not doubt that another reader may have already figured this one out. I need to stress the fact that we are dealing with rather imprecise areas at times, concerning notions of right and wrong, errors

98     A. Baratta

versus non-errors, certainly in terms of how we categorise such. Part of the complication indeed lies with the receiver of the message and how he/she processes it. Thus, we could argue that the sign from the cocktail lounge in Norway is perfectly fine, in as much as the intended message is received. After all, is that not enough? For some, it might well be. For others, it would sound ‘better’ with a bit of editing (e.g. adults are requested not to bring their children into the bar area ). With the Thai example directly above, however, the message is ambiguous, at least from my own processing of it. On the other hand, we could simply cut to the chase and assert that the above sign is indeed a pure error on the grounds that it does not conform to English syntax (perhaps any version of English). Maybe some commas would help do the job, but this sign is clearly not what we would expect in an inner circle English country. The issue regarding examples of English use overseas that could be termed errors in a more absolute sense (thus, separate from NICE varieties) needs to be conceptualised in several ways. First, I would argue that the use of English as seen on public signs in non-inner circle English countries is perhaps the best contender for language errors. The example above from Thailand is a good example. The errors in question can not only pertain to grammar, but are ultimately realised on a semantic level (perhaps both). Arguably, however, if the signs pertain to public safety, then semantic clarity trumps grammar. Thus, if a sign in a Japanese forest reads ‘danger of wild animal’, I would not stress over the missing article (danger of a wild animal) or more realistically, the missing plural (danger of wild animals ). Instead, the message would be clear—get out of the forest unless you want to risk being attacked by wild animals of some kind. In fact, let us consider the following message as part of the broad category of ‘public sign’ and consider it on three levels—syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Respectively, does it conform to some kind of English grammatical standard (I will let you decide what ‘standard’ you are applying); does it make sense—do you know what it actually means; and finally, does it sound appropriate for the context—does it sound ‘natural’? Deciding whether it makes sense or not is perhaps the most straightforward consideration, grammar perhaps a close second (that is,

4  Non-inner Circle Englishes Versus Language Errors     99

considering which variety we have in mind, as there are many grammatical ‘standards’). However, whether or not it sounds ‘natural’ may or may not be as straightforward, but here goes: Drive carefully, the road is slippery when very wet

First, the grammar. For me being the pedant that I am, the grammar is not quite spot on. Given that I am including punctuation within this category, then I cannot help but notice that we have a comma splice— two sentences separated by a comma. Does this make any difference whatsoever to the meaning? Not at all. On that level, things could not be simpler—be careful when driving on the road if it is wet. In terms of the overall style, does this work for you considering the context of a road sign, especially one that is designed to protect us from danger? Clearly, the implied meaning, so really more of a pragmatic issue, is that if you don’t slow down, you may have a car accident and possibly be killed—thus, we need to distinguish between utterance meaning and the intended meaning. As such, we would equate driving ‘carefully’ with driving slower in the case of inclement weather. In the end, if the sign gets people to slow down on a wet road and saves lives, who cares? But people do care, and that is why within the broad context of conversing with someone in English, non-inner circle English speakers often give their speech much attention in order to get their English right, from grammatical accuracy to pragmatic competence across many contexts of communication. For me, however, it sounds a bit strange to say ‘very wet’ in conjunction with the road. While I think most drivers can determine for themselves if a given road is ‘very wet’ (certainly a heavy rainfall will contribute to such), to my ear it just does not sound, well, ‘right’. If we are dealing with public safety, then surely we do not want to wait until a road is very wet before we slow down, do we? Instead, when it is merely somewhat wet, we perhaps drive a bit more carefully. Also, I would expect ‘very’ to modify ‘slippery’, not wet. After all, if the danger in question that is caused by the wet road is skidding, then ‘slippery’ needs to be emphasised, as the catalyst for the danger. Thus, ‘very’ works

100     A. Baratta

best before ‘slippery’, in my mind at least. Putting this all together, the following sign reads better for me: Drive carefully! The road is very slippery when wet.

Separating the two sentences is not merely a punctuation issue; it also ties in with style. By now using an exclamation mark as a means to punctuate what is now the first sentence, it draws attention to the imperative—the command to drive carefully. Also, it stands out much better as the words which are crucial to the safety message are now just read as two words, as opposed to blending into the rest of the message. That is quite a lot of analysis for just a few words, but it helps to show how the various aspects of language intersect and how the receiver ultimately makes a judgement as to the accuracy of the language used, based on grammar, meaning and style. A second point to raise is that public signs (and again, public documents in general, such as tourist maps, travel guides, etc.) that are written in English in countries in which English is not the native language are their own category. The primary audience is not the people who reside in the country necessarily, whose first language may indeed be anything from Swahili to Turkish. Rather, given the status of English as an international lingua franca, the audience is essentially international. While I have already discussed this, let us consider further. At the risk of sounding presumptuous, we might expect a Norwegian tourist in downtown Tokyo to be able to understand written and spoken English better than Japanese, certainly in terms of the signs he/she comes across in public, from directions to the Ginza district to signs instructing people where to find a traditional Japanese inn for the night (the tourist may even have to rely on a tourist map written in English and not Norwegian). Likewise, given the plethora of Englishes—written and spoken—in many other countries, we might also be forgiven for assuming that a Russian tourist to Thailand has a better command of English, however basic, than Thai. Clearly, I am not suggesting the linguistic proficiency of the world or trying to overstate the case for English as an international language. When in Korea, I met Nigerians who spoke Korean just fine, as well as English and no doubt at least one Nigerian

4  Non-inner Circle Englishes Versus Language Errors     101

language, such as Yoruba (and maybe even another, such as Igbo or Hausa). Likewise, it would not surprise me to find an Afrikaansspeaking Mexican who has made his/her home in Cape Town. Thus, English translations can be seen in contexts ranging from warning signs, to restaurant menus to directions on the road. Here, English is used wholly for practical purposes, in order to reach a large number of people who rely on English perhaps as a lingua franca. This of course includes people whose native language is not English at all. Thus, if a Finnish tourist is visiting Osaka and looking for the train station, while a Mexican diplomat has just arrived in Beijing and is looking for a meal, surely English will be the common denominator in terms of helping them reach their goals, whether it involves asking the locals for help or indeed, reading the relevant signs and by this, I again refer to multiple contexts, from road signs (Train Station Ahead) to warning signs (No Parking). However, even within otherwise straightforward contexts of communication such as these, in which no linguistic flourishes would be expected, there is the potential for errors to be spread. As English is indeed used overseas as a means to speak to the world, on that level, the use of English outside inner circle countries, notably in communicative contexts which pertain to a wider, more general and international target group, involves a usage that attempts to speak to everyone. Herein lies the aforementioned, yet important, consideration— NICE are largely used to communicate with one’s country people in an outer/expanding circle country. The use of English I have been describing is not and as such, it is perhaps more prone to pure errors that are involved in the translation process. In contrast, a given variety of a World English, however, has essentially been designed, created and is being currently used by its native speakers. Thus, the native speakers of Japlish, for example, know how to use Japlish and what it means precisely because it is an everyday, or certainly frequently used, language variety. As such, its lexical and grammatical intricacies are known to the speakers. However, an English that is needed for an extremely wide target group would result in an inner circle variety being used or approximated, precisely because outer/expanding circle varieties are spoken in only certain regions of the word. Inner circle standard English, however, is the variety propagated

102     A. Baratta

for the whole world, certainly in terms of its target usage within public signs and on the level of international communication. While World English speakers are familiar with their English variety, it is understandable that something gets lost in translation when using a variety of English that is designed to be understood for essentially the whole world. Thus, any inherent errors in this regard are to be understood as errors; any ‘errors’ used within a language use that has otherwise taken hold in a global variety of English are merely differences. In this sense, just as non-standard varieties of inner circle English are often held up against the standard form, NICE are often seen the same way—that is, varieties that are ‘wrong’. However, this is not the case. If we consider two final examples from the same website, then regardless of how we personally process them, I would hope that readers can nonetheless see the logic in terms of where I have placed such examples; in this case, I place them in the middle of the error scale (i.e. standard grammar, but understandable, if also unintentional, meaning): In a Nairobi restaurant: CUSTOMERS WHO FIND OUR WAITRESSES RUDE OUGHT TO SEE THE MANAGER. Unintended meaning: The manager is really rude. Intended meaning: Please report rude staff to the manager. Hotel lobby, Romania: THE LIFT IS BEING FIXED FOR THE NEXT DAY. DURING THAT TIME WE REGRET THAT YOU WILL BE UNBEARABLE. Unintended meaning: People will not like or tolerate you at all. Intended meaning: There will be inconvenience for you while the lift/ elevator is being fixed. Again, these two examples from Kenya and Romania are grammatically proficient, but semantically ambiguous. I say ‘ambiguous’ as a relative term, as I claim again that while they could be interpreted with the unintended meaning, surely our knowledge of such contexts (e.g. customer service, tourism) will force the correct reading and subsequent

4  Non-inner Circle Englishes Versus Language Errors     103

understanding. It is grammar and lexis that form the backbone of my focus on World Englishes, but these illustrations nonetheless help to show another side to the concept of language errors. The final point on the scale refers to language forms which are established and as such, recognised as legitimate aspects of a World English. Of course, this does not mean that they will be understood by all, or even most people, but then again, I state that it will always depend on who the audience is. Dutch pay makes perfect sense to Koreans, at least those who use Konglish (or preferably, Korean English), but it might not make sense to someone who doesn’t speak any English at all or perhaps even inner circle speakers. For inner circle speakers, we might even suggest moving this particular phrase to the centre of the scale, in that its intended meaning will most likely be clearly understood. However, given that this is indeed an established expression, and I assert this based on my experiences in Korea for three years in which I heard the term on Korean television and amongst Koreans themselves, then I argue that this is the more relevant and dominant factor regarding its placement, hence its positioning on the scale. Overall, then, we need to distinguish between aforementioned ‘pure errors’ as opposed to non-standard usage and non-inner circle usage regarding the English language. As mentioned, this is not necessarily an exact science, but it is something we need to consider more as educators and certainly to bring our students in on the conversation. Using inner circle Englishes as another means of illustration, let us consider American and British English. If an American uses the word color for an academic essay in the UK, this is not an ‘error’. In other words, color is not wrong in itself, but its usage in countries which use British English spelling would render its usage perhaps an ‘error of context’. In the same way, if a British person asks for the bill in a restaurant in the USA, this too would be an error of context (and perhaps cause confusion), but the word bill in itself is not an error. Perhaps the waiter/waitress already knows what the word bill refers to, or can at least guess the meaning based on the immediate context. Nonetheless, perhaps the individual would be better placed to ask for the check. Put it this way—if a British person asserted that the American spelling of colour is incorrect (presumably the British

104     A. Baratta

spelling is correct), what would you say? If an American decried the use of the word bill in a restaurant (if referring to the check ) on the basis that the word bill only refers to the letters that come in the mail regarding money due for gas, water, and car payments etc., what would you say? Whether ‘you’ are an L1 English speaker or not, it should not make any difference as to how you answer—surely we can agree that variety in spelling, lexis, phonology and grammar between inner circle Englishes are all correct and none are wrong, but we might wish to use the version based on the country we are in as a means of simply being more mindful of the context of communication. In fact, perhaps non-inner circle English speakers are more objective on the matter, free from the occasional jingoistic mindset that can indeed lead to very rigid notions regarding which variety of English is the correct one. I argue that the recognition of differences afforded to inner circle Englishes needs to be applied to NICE. Just as American English is not wrong compared to British English (or vice versa) based on its differences, then the differences between inner circle Englishes and non-inner circle Englishes as a whole should be recognised on the same level—differences. And just as confusion between inner circle English speakers can arise based on the differences in their versions of English, we might expect the same between speakers of different NICE and between inner circle and NICE speakers. The point is that confusion arising from communication that involves different language varieties is not necessarily based on linguistic errors. As mentioned, even if errors are present—and by ‘errors’, I refer to linguistic features that can be unanimously agreed upon to be errors—communication need not be hindered. Also, it is the case that a sentence that is perfectly understood in one part of the English-speaking world, and is indeed well formed, might not be understood by others. I concede again, however, that for some, the dividing line between an error and a feature of an English that is merely different in some way to our own version, can be a thin line indeed. Unfortunately, it may be the case that some use blanket terms such as Konglish, Chinglish and so on to refer to any and all errors (i.e. from an inner circle perspective) made by EFL speakers when speaking English, which further leads to a loss of clarity with regard to what NICE actually refers to. Is NICE,

4  Non-inner Circle Englishes Versus Language Errors     105

then, a term used to describe the errors made by outer/expanding circle countries in general regarding their use of the English language? Such a belief is not the one adopted here of course, with NICE instead wholly regarded as a usage of predictable grammar and lexis native to a specific part of the world, to the extent that, at present, it has been codified at least in terms of its speakers displaying a certain intuition regarding its widespread usage and certainly, these uses being recognised to the extent that they are recorded, for example, in books such as the one I am writing. Many websites on the matter are indeed informative and helpful, offering examples of the common grammatical errors made by EFL students, notably in academic writing—a context in which the English of both inner and non-inner circle English students will be under greater scrutiny. https://www.scribendi.com/advice/the_10_most_common_ esl_mistakes.en.html. However, if we are dealing with errors from the perspective of a speaker of an inner circle English, then this is one means by which we can classify language use more accurately perhaps. Given that inner circle English is the variety often taught to EFL students, then it remains a wise, and indeed obvious, choice to focus on this to an extent. In doing so, we can help our students to weed out features in their speech and writing which are simply not correct. Again, I refer to notions of errors and correctness as being based on forms which, as much as possible, can be determined by the teacher to be violations of English grammar across the board. The challenge inherent in this, however, is to distinguish between pure errors (e.g. He can cooks ) and forms which are recognised, as least by the speakers, as reflecting merely a language difference within a non-inner circle English. It is possible that certain errors may indeed be a product of negative transfer from the student’s native language. From one perspective, this might be regarded by some, broadly, as reflective of a particular World English. After all, by definition NICE are essentially Englishes which are influenced to some extent by a foreign language and it seems to once again come down to a linguistic numbers game of sorts. That is, if indeed we can ascertain that Chinese students, for example, regularly have problems with article usage when communicating in

106     A. Baratta

English, then this level of occurrence, presumably on a large scale (perhaps a national scale) would be sufficient to determine that article usage (either deletion when required or retention of such when not required) is a feature of Chinese students’ English. However, in terms of China English, might the same ‘error’ (assuming that it is a recurring and predictable feature of China English) be regarded as ‘standard’, again, precisely because any errors with articles, given a hypothesised large-scale usage, might thus contribute to an informal means of codification? One man’s ‘error’ can indeed be another man’s ‘standard’. If Chinese individuals can communicate in a form of English with each other in which articles are not used consistently, and yet the message is still understood, then this would be fine for that context (i.e. within a very broad context of Chinese people communicating in English with other Chinese people, perhaps due to different first languages, such as Mandarin and Cantonese). Once again, the notion of a societal codified language use would suggest a degree of uniformity and predictability perhaps, and errors within any language might thus be distinguished on the basis of there being less predictability in the first instance. This is not to suggest that EFL students, even from different linguistic backgrounds, do not sometimes exhibit the same kinds of errors in their use of English. The point, however, is that, L1 influence aside, it would be unreasonable to expect a certain kind of pure error to be made within an entire EFL group (be it a group of Nigerians or Mongolians), without realising that some will display proficiency in some areas of English (e.g. article usage), while others, even if from the same country, will not. In the case of mere linguistic difference, however, that exhibited within the use of a World English, we might actually expect the opposite—a uniform use of language across the board—as it is suggested that speakers of a World English can be expected to all share the same knowledge of their English variety’s lexis and grammar. In terms of pure errors, however, those that are displayed in English, this might be somewhat predicable, but certainly not uniform and this is the case even within a classroom of EFL students who have the same L1 (Mollin 2006; van Rooy 2011). This is possibly an additional distinction to bear in mind when we consider linguistic difference from linguistic error.

4  Non-inner Circle Englishes Versus Language Errors     107

Thus, if we can perhaps suggest that errors with article usage, by any non-inner circle English group for that matter, are indeed random and ultimately lack a predictable nature, then this might be regarded as more of a criterion for what we as EFL teachers classify as errors in a strict sense—pure errors—as opposed to being a legitimate feature of a World English. Nonetheless, it is more complex than this. After all, how can we expect teachers to know enough varieties of Englishes, notably NICE, in order to clarify errors versus innovations in the first instance, based purely on the kinds of quantitative information they would require regarding errors/innovations in the use of a particular NICE? Going further, Hamid and Baldauf (2013) explain that a feature which is otherwise viewed as a pure error, regardless of the criteria, may become, in time, an innovation, as I had mentioned previously. But this indeed would require a great deal more time than EFL teachers have in the immediate moment of teaching. Melchers and Shaw (2003) further suggest that we should judge our students’ communication based on norms for such at the levels of international, national and local. However, in the end, it still comes down, in large part, to the teacher’s knowledge on this matter, and this is purely a practical issue within the classroom, largely distinct from the more theoretical approaches adopted with the research on this subject. In a study by Hamid et al. (2014) regarding the error versus innovation distinction as made by teachers, it emerged that the teachers in the study regarded lexical items as deserving of recognition, but grammatical deviations as being in need of conforming to standard English. Of course, if the EFL class in question is focused solely on an inner circle standard, then this should be the dominant focus (but not the sole focus). However, the pedagogic focus per se says little regarding the ways in which students’ errors should be labelled by teachers—as errors or merely non-standard (and here, ‘non-standard’ pertaining more broadly to non-inner circle features). We might also consider the claim that ‘second-language speakers in the Outer Circle are becoming “functionally” native speakers….. (and) are acquiring native-speaker intuition on grammatical correctness and acceptability as well as generative ability in their varieties of English’ (Yano 2009: 247). This intuition may point toward grammatical

108     A. Baratta

correctness of a different kind, with intuitive responses arguably a psycholinguistic means of internal codification. As Hamid et al. (2014) reflect, it is largely a case of teacher agency that determines how students’ use of English is judged, and not all teachers would necessarily agree in the first instance regarding what constitutes an error in inner circle varieties (e.g. such as the distinction between compared with and compared to ). We would also expect our students to use articles in the manner deemed necessary for the context anyway, so that if we are teaching them inner circle English, then they would have to adapt to that, including its expectations for article usage. This, however, would not mean championing inner circle above outer/ expanding circle; again, the point is that both deserve classroom recognition and a discussion as to their time and place of usage. Ultimately, as I had referenced earlier, it is precisely because of the potential for confusion regarding errors versus innovations that we might consider bringing our students into the discussion, to include sharing with them perhaps the relevant literature on this very subject as a point of class discussion, useful for advanced EFL classes. This does not paint a black and white picture, however, of suggesting to our students that we as teachers lack knowledge of the very language we are teaching; nor does it suggest that the students automatically know the ins and outs of a particular variety of English spoken in their country. Instead, it can allow for a jointly informed discussion, putting together the theoretical and practical experiences brought to the classroom by the teacher, and students, and use this as a means to then discuss the matter. This does not mean that definitive answers will be produced. But what it can enable is a classroom environment in which free discussion is provided for a live issue and one that, without further discussion, can leave students feeling as if a particular use of English is ‘wrong’, when in fact it might be regarded differently back home. We want to encourage this kind of discussion, even for students who might regard the teacher as ‘all knowing’. The difference between the two classifications (pure errors versus mere established differences) is important, as it will have a direct effect on how we mark our students’ work, as I had mentioned—do we ‘correct’ it or do we simply point out that a particular use of English,

4  Non-inner Circle Englishes Versus Language Errors     109

perfectly fine in its own right, is not the appropriate variety if students are aspiring to acquisition of inner circle English. In this manner, we are merely pointing out that a particular use of English has another time and place and in principle this is no different than instructing our inner circle English students to use standard English in place of dialect in the classroom at certain times. From my own experience, it is common for students of many national backgrounds to not use articles accurately. I cannot pretend to have a definitive list of errors that have been made in this regard, but broadly, the errors appear to involve a lack of articles when they are in fact needed and at other times, students overuse the definite article when the reference to the noun in question is in fact a mass reference which would require no article (Seidlhofer 2004). For example, consider the following: He went on his travels but distance is too far. When people study the English, they might find it difficult at first.

In the first example, the definite article is needed (the distance), as its use serves to signify the fact that it is a specific and recognised distance involved in an identifiable journey from point A to point B. In the second example, the use of the definite article, however, is somewhat confusing, as it raises the question, ‘which English exactly?’ The fact is of course that the referral to English is a purely generic one, in which the semantic implications of not using an article are to signify that we are discussing English in general, regardless of its geographical or regional origins. Given that some students come from linguistic backgrounds in which article usage is not a feature, it is understandable that this is something they can struggle with. It may also be the case that some students perceive this to be a grammatical aspect of their particular World English and mere difference is tied to predictable uses of language. In this manner, it is safe to say that inner circle English speakers will refer to the animal we call ‘dog’ as, well, a dog. If, however, some individuals refer to all dogs as wolves, then this suggests a very unique and wholly unpredictable use of language and is thus not typical, let alone predictable in

110     A. Baratta

nature. On that basis, it is an error: dogs and wolves, though related, are not the same. This would be a semantic error of course and I concede an example of a pure error which is not, perhaps, reflective of what might be less cut and dry examples of such in the classroom. If we consider grammatical errors, then the need for unpredictability is again an important factor in recognising errors, partly at least. This would mean that the grammar in question is an error and classified as such as it cannot be found in widespread, and thus predictable, usage—the kind expected in all varieties of English, whether inner/outer/expanding circle. For example: % He be happy. * My family home to back went.

The first example is not an error, merely non-standard, and represents widespread and predictable usage, hence different (well, only ‘different’ if being compared with the standard version, in which case it would change to He is a happy person in general ). The second example, though somewhat contrived perhaps, represents an error in English as the expected word order of SVO has now been transformed to SOV. This latter word order is likewise correct for Turkish and Korean, whereas SVO would not be correct for those languages. In other words, an inverted word order (outside of poetic contexts perhaps, such as it is you I love ), is a pure error. If future English, or a future variety of English, switches to SOV word order, then it will no longer be an error. Of course, it is possible that some EFL students are not always aware of the specific features of their country’s English so that in such cases, common mistakes made by people from that country regarding their English may indeed be regarded as part and parcel of the English that is used in their country (and likewise, established features of their country’s English might be regarded by students as errors). If so, then where does article deletion stand? Is it a legitimate feature of a particular World English by virtue of its existence in many uses of said English and by extension, its potentially predictable and uniform usage? If so, then article deletion, just like article reduction in Yorkshire English, is

4  Non-inner Circle Englishes Versus Language Errors     111

a difference, not an error. I would argue that the structure of a given non-inner circle English is something that is more intuitively understood by its speakers in the first instance, but perhaps not consciously understood. Conscious knowledge is something that might be tied more to textbook knowledge. Again, dictionaries and classroom guides to NICE need not be regarded as the ultimate means for codification purposes, but merely to clarify if a word/grammatical feature is or is not (at present) an innovative part of the language, for the benefit of EFL teachers. However, we can claim certain language uses which are indeed pure errors, as I have pointed out. It might also depend on who is doing the listening or the reading regarding said language of course. In Korea, for example, I came across an advertisement for an American-style barbeque that promised to be ‘legitimate’. This caused me momentary confusion, until I realised that the intended word was ‘authentic’. Just because I was confused as an inner circle English speaker does not, however, mean I can speak for all such English speakers. However, if this advertisement were used in an inner circle country it would probably be regarded as the wrong choice of word. However, what about the Koreans who saw this ad? Assuming a certain level of English, they may have indeed understood the word as it was intended, while others with higher levels might have understood its inappropriateness in this context. And others, with little knowledge of English, probably would have been more concerned with the pictures of the food, and on that basis decided whether or not to attend the barbeque. In addition, the use of legitimate in this context is more to do with a pragmalinguistic error, errors which involve communication difficulties or worse, can lead to upset feelings. Very often, such errors are caused when individuals speak in L2, but think in L1 (this might also be part of the issue with the use of English in bilingual public signs). For example, the following exchange is ‘correct’ between, say, two Americans (and perhaps we can extend to all inner circle English speakers): Speaker A: My father passed away recently. Speaker B: I’m sorry.

112     A. Baratta

Granted, there may be other ways to respond if someone explains that a loved one has died (e.g. I’m so sorry to hear that, I’m so sorry for your loss, etc.), but in the main, some sort of expression involving sorrow is expected. However, I am told that the ‘correct’ response between two Chinese Mandarin-speaking individuals would be something to the effect of ‘you shouldn’t be so sad’. An expression of I’m sorry in that context would lead to confusion perhaps, but if we translate the expected Chinese response into English, then the bereaved would surely not feel comforted at all, if he/she is an inner circle English speaker. Thus, pragmalinguistic errors are of a different nature though as we have seen with this brief example, grammatically-speaking all is well. However, just as incorrect grammar can still lead to semantic clarity, sometimes correct grammar can also lead to semantic inappropriateness, in this case due to different cultural expectations. Gu (2012) makes this clear, stating that intercultural communication failures can lead to undesirable situations. They need not of course, but this can be the case and certainly, one in which, grammatical competence (standard grammar, for example) notwithstanding, the communication is otherwise ‘wrong’ from a cultural standpoint. Zacharias (2014) emphasises the need to be familiar with the cultures in which one communicates, so that even the use of a familiar language (English), might not mean a familiar way of communicating. The implication, however, is that this need to understand the culture is not just one directional (i.e. non-inner circle speakers’ need to understand the inner circle cultural norms, certainly those expressed through language); rather, inner circle speakers need to understand the norms as displayed in non-inner circle countries. This point, though perhaps obvious, is nonetheless important, as English is multi-national and so is culture. In fact, communication can sometimes be accomplished without saying a single word. I am reminded of my time in Korea when a woman, exiting her car, accidentally hit me in the leg with her car door. My immediate response was to expect an apology; whether delivered in English or Korean did not make a difference to me. Her response was to give me a shy smile and walk away. From a Korean perspective, she had apologised; the smile was akin to a guilty child with his/her hand in the cookie jar and thus, she was communicating that she had done wrong

4  Non-inner Circle Englishes Versus Language Errors     113

and was embarrassed. In my mind at that time, I interpreted her smile as laughing at me having just hit me with her car door. This is a classic case of the need to understand intercultural communication, because, if I had asked her to apologise, even speaking to her in perfect Korean, my Korean skills would not have made any impression; my ignorant attitude would have, however. While I have sought to clarify the topic of errors in language as opposed to mere differences, I realise that there is more needed. This is an area in need of much more unpacking, in order to reveal the multiple layers that exist. Studies which investigate non-inner circle speakers’ thoughts on the matter regarding their country’s English would be a logical direction. However, having hopefully provided some food for thought, I now move on to discuss three specific examples of non-inner circle Englishes, in terms of their distinctive grammar and lexis. Clearly, I do not attempt to provide a deep discussion; many other books have already done so in terms of a thorough presentation of grammatical features and lexis of several varieties of English. Rather, it is deemed sufficient to simply provide a brief sample of vocabulary and grammar to illustrate difference in action.

References Bamgbose, A. (1998). Torn between the norms? Innovations in world Englishes. World Englishes, 17(1), 1–14. Braganza, M. (1998). Common errors in English. New Delhi: Goodwill Publishing House. Brown, K. (1995). World Englishes: To teach or not to teach? World Englishes, 14(2), 233–245. Chelliah, S. (2001). Constructs of Indian English in language ‘guidebooks’. World Englishes, 20(2), 161–178. Crystal, D. (2008). Two thousand million? English Today, 24(1), 3–6. Gilquin, G., & Granger, S. (2011). From ESL to EFL: Evidence from the international corpus of English. In J. Mukherjee & M. Hundt (Eds.), Exploring second language varieties of English and learner Englishes (pp. 55–78). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

114     A. Baratta

Gough, D. (1996). Black English in South Africa. In V. de Klerk (Ed.), Focus on South Africa (pp. 53–77). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gu, Y. (2012). Language learning strategies: An EIL perspective. In L. Alsagoff, S. McKay, G. Hu, & W. Renandya (Eds.), Principles and practices for teaching English as an international language (pp. 318–334). New York: Routledge. Gupta, A. (2006). Standard English in the world. In R. Rubdy & M. Saraceni (Eds.), English in the world: Global rules, global roles (pp. 95–109). London: Continuum. Gupta, A. (2012). Grammar teaching and standards. In L. Alsagoff, S. McKay, G. Hu, & W. Renandya (Eds.), Principles and practices for teaching English as an international Language (pp. 244–260). New York: Routledge. Gut, U. (2011). Studying structural innovation in new English varieties. In J. Mukherjee & M. Hundt (Eds.), Exploring second-language varieties of English and learner Englishes (pp. 101–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haddix, M. (2012). Talkin’ in the company of my sistas: The counterlanguages and deliberate silences of black female students in teacher education. Linguistics & Education, 23(2), 169–181. Hamid, M., & Baldauf, R. (2013). Second language errors and features of world Englishes. World Englishes, 32(4), 476–494. Hamid, M., Zhu, L., & Baldauf, R. (2014). Norms and varieties of English and TESOL teacher agency. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(10), 77–95. Hashem, A. (n.d.). Common errors in English. New Delhi: Ramesh Publishing House. He, D., & Li, D. (2009). Language attitudes and linguistic features in the ‘China English’ debate. World Englishes, 28(1), 70–89. Honna, N. (Ed.). (2006). Eigo wa ajia wo musubu [English connects Asia]. Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press. Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching World Englishes and English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 157–181. Jenkins, J. (2009). World Englishes: A resource book for students. London: Routledge. Kachru, B. B. (1997). World Englishes 2000: Resources for research and teaching. In L. E. Smith & M. L. Forman (Eds.), World Englishes 2000 (pp. 209–251). Honolulu: University of Hawaii and the East-West Center. Li, D. (2010). When does an unconventional form become an innovation? In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of world Englishes (pp. 617– 633). London: Routledge.

4  Non-inner Circle Englishes Versus Language Errors     115

Lowenberg, P. (1993). Issues of validity in tests of English as a world language: Whose standards? World Englishes, 12(1), 95–106. Lyu, H., et al. (2011). Error analysis and norms for Chinese-English translation of signs. Beijing: National Defense Industry Press. Melchers, G., & Shaw, P. (2003). World Englishes. London: Routledge. Meriläinen, L. (2017). The progressive form in learner Englishes: Examining variation across corpora. World Englishes, 36(4), 760–783. Modiano, M. (2006). Euro-Englishes. In B. B. Kachru, Y. Kachru, & C. Nelson (Eds.), The handbook of world Englishes (pp. 223–239). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Mollin, S. (2006). Euro-English: Assessing variety status. Tubingen: Gunter Narr. Mwangi, S. (2004). Prepositions vanishing in Kenya. English Today, 20(1), 27–32. Perez, S. (1999). Using Ebonics or Black English as a bridge to teaching standard English. Race, Class and Culture, 2. http://www.ascd.org/publications/ classroom-leadership/apr1999/Using-Ebonics-or-Black-English-as-a-Bridgeto-Teaching-Standard-English.aspx. Phillips, S. (n.d.). Common mistakes in English. New Delhi: Goodwill Publishing House. Pinkham, J. (2000). The translator’s guide to Chinglish. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Platt, J., Weber, H., & Lian, H. (1984). The new Englishes. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Rickford, J. (1998). Using the vernacular to teach the standard (Working Paper). https://web.stanford.edu/~rickford/papers/VernacularToTeachStandard. html. Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Towards making ‘Euro-English’ a linguistic reality. English Today, 17, 14–16. Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209–239. Srivastava, R. N., & Sharma, V.P. (1991). Indian English today. In R. S. Gupta & K. Kapoor (Eds.), English in India: Issues and problems (pp. 189–206). Delhi: Academic Foundation. Titlestad, P. (1996). English, the constitution and South Africa’s language future. In V. de Klerk (Ed.), Focus on South Africa (pp. 163–174). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. van der Walt, J., & van Rooy, B. (2002). Towards a norm in South African Englishes. World Englishes, 21(1), 113–128.

116     A. Baratta

van Rooy, B. (2011). A principled distinction between error and conventionalized innovation in African Englishes. In J. Mukherjee & M. Hundt (Eds.), Exploring second-language varieties of English and learner Englishes (pp. 189– 208). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wang, Y., & Zhang, R. (2016). From local standards to national standards: A milestone in research on the translation of public signs. Chinese Translators Journal, 37(3), 64–70. Xu, M., & Tian, C. (2018). ‘Open water room’ = ‘hot water room’? Language reality and normativity with respect to the use of English in China’s public service areas. English Today, 1–6. Yano, Y. (2009). English as an international lingua franca: From societal to individual. World Englishes, 28(2), 246–255. Zacharias, N. (2014). The relocation of culture in the teaching of English as an international language. In M. Roby & R. Giri (Eds.), The pedagogy of English as an international language (pp. 129–141). New York: Springer.

5 Three Varieties of Non-inner Circle English

5.1 Konglish Konglish is the variety of English spoken in South Korea (officially, the Republic of Korea). There are several websites dedicated to Konglish and these are accessible and informative for EFL students and teachers alike. Often, such websites have been established by EFL teachers themselves, given that they would be more likely to have been exposed to the English used by Koreans and then might seek to create websites designed to educate individuals on this language variety. Even as a linguist, my concern is less with the origins of non-inner circle Englishes’ use of grammar/lexis and instead, the more practical issue regarding defining what constitutes NICE in terms of their established grammar and lexis, in order to clarify the error-innovation issue. On the Korean radio station Morning Special, there is a section called ‘MS Konglish Dictionary’. In this context, the examples provided are indeed presented as errors to be corrected, but they are not presented in a negative manner. Nonetheless, by implying that the English as used by Koreans involves errors across the board, especially within a medium which can potentially reach many people, it also sends the message once © The Author(s) 2019 A. Baratta, World Englishes in English Language Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13286-6_5

117

118     A. Baratta

again that Konglish, or NICE in general perhaps, are wrong whenever they deviate from standard English. If indeed those who listen to the programme desire nothing less than standard English from their own use of English, then the programme serves a purpose. Koreans perhaps do not need to be taught Konglish if they already speak it. However, the distinction between error and difference could be made more clear, especially within the context of a radio programme which can potentially reach many people. In the June 2000 issue (86–87), here is a list of some of the errors: • Neither of students are coming. • The surgeon who operated the King released new details of his injuries. • I recommend you a walk along the park. Clearly, none of these sentences would cause communication difficulties. Jung and Min (1999: 34–35) also point out that as Korean does not have a distinction between at and in in terms of the distinctions made in English regarding dimension and semantic differences, this can be transferred into English. The example provided concerns the sentence, ‘the writer is a visiting professor in Korea University’. However, given enough time and usage of such expressions, the aforementioned societal codification can indeed take place. Once again, however, I raise the issue of terminologies, as this can lead to different perceptions and counter the negative perceptions that are arguably perpetuated by the use of blends, such as Konglish, Chinglish and so on. Ahn (2014), for example, uses the term Korean English to describe the English used in Korea. While Konglish is also referred to, Ahn is suggesting that the difference between the two is that the former refers to the nativisation of English and the latter refers to changes in the local language due to contact with English (Kachru 1988); as I have argued, Konglish can also be synonymous with incorrect usage of English, or certainly not a high prestige use; thus, Korean English is a more fitting term, alongside the discussion provided by Ahn (2014). This nativisation is further exemplified in ways which might not receive as much attention as grammar. For example, Park (2009) points to the ways

5  Three Varieties of Non-inner Circle English     119

in which Korean cultural values and norms influence Korean English, seen with indirectness, modesty and seniority. This is something else we might consider when we converse with our students, as cultural modesty, for example, should not be understood through a non-Korean lens; to do so might mean that teachers feel a need to tell their students to be more ‘confident’, or the like, when in fact the students need to have their culture considered too. From personal experience of supervising MA students from the Far East (though I do not suggest that this is a monolithic region, of course), many of them use a great deal of deference to me as their teacher (‘I really appreciate your patient guidance’; ‘I’m sorry to take up your valuable time’). Do we reassure them that they are not ‘bothering’ us when contacting us; do they even need such reassurance in the first instance, when their use of language is perhaps more a reflection of cultural norms than insecurity. The aforementioned nativisation is further supported by Shim (1999), who provides evidence of how Korean English has in fact already been codified in the manner often exhorted by educators, in fact referring to ‘a codified variety of Korean English’ (page 247). Specifically, Shim discusses the use of English grammar contained within the High School English Teacher’s Guide (Chang et al. 1989), which was used between 1987 and 1995 in Korean high schools. As Shim points out, ‘a substantial portion of what is learned and tested in schools is different from American English and this codified variety of Korean English now serves as the endonormative standard for English education in Korea’ (page 247). Shim further argues that ‘since these uses of English are definitely being taught in schools and students are being tested on these uses, one can only conclude that codification of these uses has already occurred in the sense that they have become allowable deviations from the native norms’ (Kachru 1985: 18), ‘at least in Korean educational settings if not elsewhere’ (page 247). The opposing argument of course is that these differences are simply misunderstandings, or indeed, errors. Interestingly, Galloway and Rose (2015: 667) suggest that amongst non-inner circle EFL teachers, the form that is taught (at least orally) ‘by default is often a localized or dialectally influenced variety, since teachers are sometimes unaware that what they use (and are inadvertently modeling) is not international Standard English’.

120     A. Baratta

However, akin to a linguistic chicken and egg situation, we might ask if the errors in turn have led to Korean high school students committing them to their own English, certainly since they would be tested on such features in school, or, were the writers of the book merely reflecting the English used in Korean society already, and thus producing a book focused on English for Koreans? Examples include the expression day by day, used as a synonym for ‘daily’ or ‘everyday’ (e.g. We go to school day by day ). In addition, noncount nouns are used as count nouns, and there were further examples in which articles were used in ways that would be considered non-standard in inner circle English: Although it is a hard work, I enjoy it; An old man showed a great patience; Taking a walk is a good exercise. However, I would not consider the final example to be non-standard if the purpose of the article before the word ‘exercise’ is to semantically imply ‘a good form of exercise’ (after all, ‘exercise’ is a count word). Some readers will undoubtedly disagree with me and herein of course lies yet another complexity related to the intuition, to an extent, that EFL teachers may rely on when deciding if a grammatical structure is, or is not, ‘correct’. I now continue this section by providing a discussion of Korean English not from the perspective of lexis or grammar, but from the perspective of style, and thus a connection to what might be more to do with pragmalinguistic issues. The discussion begins by recalling a sign in a department store in Korea which said (in English) hard liquor. This for me sounded a bit unusual, even though it is clear what it referred to—spirits. This alone demonstrates several points. One, we do not need ‘perfect’ English to otherwise have perfect communication and thus, I would place ‘hard liquor’ in the middle of the previous error scale. If I had been looking for a bottle of Scotch, then I would have been in no doubt as to where I could find it and thus, I would have gone straight to the hard liquor section of the store. Who am I to question the use of hard liquor in this particular context anyway? Indeed, it might be seen as a case of linguistic imperialism if I do question it, in the sense that, if the message is received clearly, then just because the expression sounds somewhat unusual to my ear (i.e. only as used in this particular context), then does my

5  Three Varieties of Non-inner Circle English     121

status as an inner circle speaker of English allow me the privilege of ‘correcting’ someone else’s English even when it is not mine to begin with? Likewise, while it is fair to say that native speakers of any language may indeed have an instinct for what does or does not sound appropriate for a given context, I certainly cannot speak for all inner circle English speakers on this matter. For me, hard liquor and spirits are the same thing, semantically. On a pragmatic level, however, we perhaps use hard liquor in a more negative sense, with its potential connotations of seedy bars and skid row, or even a western saloon where a fight could break out at any minute. Such would be out of place for an upmarket department store, but that is merely based on my understanding, not everyone else’s. Finally, while this might be regarded on a purely lexical level, I feel that it goes somewhat beyond this, given that ‘hard liquor’ is more of a set phrase, a kind of collocation, and my perception of its suggested inappropriateness for the context in which it was used ties in with the area of style. Not merely regarding formal or informal, but referring more broadly to expressions which, while not semantically wrong by any means, sound unusual in the context of usage (but might be fine in other contexts of course). This in particular can be a difficult aspect of EFL teaching. This is because it relies more on a certain intuitive factor with regard to language usage and while this is not beyond the capacity of a non-native speaker of inner circle English of course, it takes time to develop this ‘feel’ for language. While this area is not part of the book’s overall focus, it is important to reference it as another aspect involved with the teaching of EFL, but the complexity of style—especially given the potential for differing views even amongst inner circle English speakers—is a topic worthy for a future discussion. On a final note, could we not consider hard liquor as simply Korean English? In order to do so, however, it would require some further consideration. First, we would have to ascertain the usage of the term in Korea. Is the usage widespread to the extent that hard liquor is used in (nearly) every department store, magazine and newspaper in Korea, as well as in conversation between Koreans? I do not have an answer to that important question, but if indeed this usage is nationally recognised and simply used to refer to spirits in general, then this would be a strong contender for the expression in question to be considered an

122     A. Baratta

official part of Korean English, and thus merely ‘different’ from inner circle usage, as opposed to a mistranslation of sorts from the original English (not really a mistranslation anyway, but arguably more of a ‘mis-context’). This might also suggest that the word spirits is not used as part of Korean English, and thus, hard liquor would perhaps be used as a catch-all in place of all the synonyms we have in English for these particular beverages, such as spirits, hard liquor, booze and just liquor, for example. This kind of analysis is time consuming of course, but is wholly necessary, as it reveals the kind of discussion needed in order to eventually reach what I believe is an important goal—to clarify the standards for NICE (as I am using the word ‘standard’ here) in order to leave its speakers, and EFL teachers, in little to no doubt as to what specific lexis and grammar are indeed established aspects of non-inner circle Englishes, as opposed to errors. A study I conducted (Baratta 2013) can hopefully add further light on this matter, in which I investigated the use of English amongst a summer class of ten Korean children, five boys and five girls. I instructed them for three weeks in academic writing and sought to investigate instances in which their English displayed the kinds of errors which, as far as I could tell, were pure errors and not merely Korean English. The students understood that the variety of English that they needed to use was indeed inner circle (American) English. However, by ‘errors’ I was particularly focused on the pragmalinguistic variety, or at the very least, expressions which, in my opinion at least, did not sound as natural as they could and perhaps another word would make a better fit. The more pertinent factor, as I have stated, is not the origins of NICE in terms of specific words or grammar; rather, it is the consistency of usage amongst the speakers and the predictability. Thus, hand phone is not by any means an error; it is indeed the predictable expression that Koreans use, as predictable and widespread—and thus as established—as cell phone is in the USA and mobile phone is in the United Kingdom. I divided the results into three categories: words/expressions which had semantic clarity, but were deemed rather unusual; words with unclear meaning; and instances in which the expressions chosen were not the intended meaning based on what the student was trying to

5  Three Varieties of Non-inner Circle English     123

express. From category one, a student had written ‘other countries’ people’, clearly an influence from the Korean, in which ‘other country people’ (다른 나라 사람—tarun nara saram ) is indeed one of the expressions used. However, as far as I know, ‘other country people’ is not a Korean English expression, and thus can be classified as an error, in this case a pragmalinguistic error. Likewise, Koreans do not take medicine they eat it. To use the English expression of ‘take medicine’ would result in semantic implications of stealing to a Korean, whereas to explain that you eat medicine would suggest a rather different schema for an inner circle English speaker. However, these are again examples which are rather clear cut in that they represent pure (pragmalinguistic) errors, for reasons already made clear. This brief discussion of pragmalinguistic errors is designed to consider the concept of error from a perspective that goes beyond grammar. It is particularly difficult to teach students to avoid such errors, given that to avoid them requires a large degree of what I would call language instinct, referring to a feel speakers have for their first language (but which can be developed for further languages). This kind of focus does have a role to play in the EFL classroom, however, and it can play a large part in helping students to not only choose the ‘right’ word, but in doing so, avoid communicating in a manner that can cause communication difficulties, but not necessarily based on grammatical choices.

5.2 Indian English I begin the section on Indian English with a poem which touches on some of the issues inherent with NICE: Don’t write in English, they said, English is not your mother tongue … … The language I speak Becomes mine, its distortions, its queerness All mine, mine alone, it is half English, half Indian, funny perhaps, but it is honest, It is as human as I am human …

124     A. Baratta

… It voices my joys, my longings my Hopes …

(Das 1965: 10)

The poem perhaps reflects attitudes derived from inner circle speakers, in terms of the ‘distortions’ and ‘queerness’ of Indian English. Respectively, I argue that these terms refer to ‘differences’ and ‘expressions unique to Indian English’. Moreover, the fact that the language is ‘mine, mine alone’ is arguably not speaking of just one individual, but instead, one of many Indians who are conversant in Indian English and have made it their own variety, a symbol of Indian identity. Kachru (1983) defines a standard for Indian English, the variety used by educated Indians, and reflected in the institutions in which such individuals work, such as radio, TV and the government. Such contexts are those referred to earlier within what is perhaps a somewhat idealised concept of codification—that to achieve such, a language variety should be used by the educated in society. While this would certainly provide the language with a degree of respect, it does not necessarily guarantee wholesale acceptance if standard English is still seen by some as the linguistic blueprint for the English language. Moreover, and as I have mentioned, the fact that a language is used by one group over another does not change the fact that it is doing its job as a tool for communication. It is not necessarily language per se—be it an accent, dialect or non-inner circle English—that is the issue behind linguistic prejudice. Rather, language acts as a linguistic proxy for larger social categories, such as race (Mufwene 2001) and class (Baratta 2016), and if such categories are stigmatised, then so is the language that they use. This points to a much deeper issue than just grammar and lexis as such, but it is an issue that needs to perhaps be unpacked within the EFL classroom. This could be a topic of discussion for an advanced EFL class perhaps and a way to confront existing linguistic stereotypes and judgements. While we cannot expect to eradicate such, we should not avoid them either as a topic of discussion in a classroom context where such topics are entirely relevant. In the Indian context, Gargesh (1996) cites the work of Kachru (1965), who posited that Indian English is not monolithic at all and represents a cline of bilingualism. Thus, we might conceptualise Indian

5  Three Varieties of Non-inner Circle English     125

English as something akin to ‘English as used in India’. The scale involving three measuring points consists of the Zero point, represented by Babu English and Butler English; the Central point, consisting of proficiency in the English language and that used by teachers and civil servants; and finally, we have the Ambilingual point, for Indians with native-like competence in English (page 393). This top point is perhaps a reference to those who speak inner circle English, or at least try to approximate it in their speech. Though Kachru’s work is several decades old, it is not any less relevant. To put forward a suggested cline of proficiency with regard to ability in English, with some varieties and proficiencies commanding more respect than others, is still an ongoing issue. It is no doubt common for Indians, as with individuals from other societies, to code switch between not only two different languages (say, Hindi and English), but also to code switch from one variety of English to another. It will depend, as is often the case, with one’s interlocutors and the identity that one wishes to have ascribed to him/her at that moment (Haddix 2012; Akomolafe 2013; Brady 2015). This is a reflection of the real linguistic world of course and why EFL students need to know the time and place for not only a non-inner circle variety versus an inner circle English (which they probably already know anyway); but also, they might need to be acquainted with the types of English even within inner circle countries which they are likely to encounter from the ‘natives’. In terms of the specific grammar and lexis that characterises Indian English, we can consider the following. First, there is the use of the present progressive aspect in conjunction with stative verbs, as mentioned in Chapter 1. Furthermore, there is a recognised lack of subject-auxiliary inversion, as heard in sentences such as What you would like to read? The use of isn’t it is deployed somewhat uniformly in tag questions, such as You went there yesterday, isn’t it? Again, we are able to write about Indian English (and other varieties) in terms of its grammatical and lexical features precisely because they exist and are used in society. Thus, this textbook, to a limited extent, but more so the many others which have provided information on Indian English (Kachru 1983, 1994; Rahman 1990; Sridhar 1994; Bhatt 2004) is again serving to codify

126     A. Baratta

Indian English. I had discussed this approach to linguistic codification previously and state again that for all intents and purposes, codification of NICE, to the extent we are able to explain their grammatical and lexical features, has indeed been accomplished. Lexically-speaking, some of the ‘queerness’ regarding Indian English consists of words such as co-brother, for one’s wife’s sister’s husband; tiffin, meaning lunch; to half fry (an egg) refers to the practice of frying an egg with the yolk facing up (Trudgill and Hannah 1994). This, in fact, has an expression in American English—sunny side up. Other expressions, for which we can indeed see innovation and no more, or less, ‘logic’ than inner circle English, include finger chips for ‘French fries’ (or British English, ‘chips’) and full-boiled and half-boiled egg, for hard- and soft-boiled eggs. Additional words include fourtwenty for ‘a swindler’ (the penal code 420 defines such crimes); secular, meaning ‘respect for all religions’; and trade which refers ‘to exchange’, as in “India, Pakistan trade wanted list” (The Times of India, August 12, 2004: 1). There is clearly the potential to not understand Indian English vocabulary for inner circle speakers who are travelling to India, and in some cases, to misunderstand inner circle words which have undergone semantic shift in India (e.g. secular ). Should we expect, however, that Indians should speak inner circle English? This might of course be the case for those who are proficient in such a variety and on a personal level, wish to practice their skills with an inner circle speaker. But what about those from the inner circle who stay in India for an extended period and may indeed come into contact with a wide range of Indians in terms of their linguistic abilities? Surely, sooner or later, people will be exposed to Indian English. Perhaps the days of ‘speak English’ are now being replaced somewhat with ‘speak our English’. That is, for inner circle speakers, there might be an assumption, for some at least, that inner circle standard English is the one that will be used outside the inner circle for those who speak English in the first instance. I have of course made clear that this particular variety is certainly the one which has the potential to be understood internationally. However, to be acquainted with non-inner circle varieties can go a long way to ease communication and show respect for the local variety. It is not necessarily the case that an individual must speak a non-inner circle variety, but

5  Three Varieties of Non-inner Circle English     127

they should perhaps consider learning it nonetheless, so that they can better understand their interlocutors whose primary, if not only, variety of English may well be a non-inner circle variety.

5.3 Singlish The final discussion of a variety of a non-inner circle English is centred on Singlish, the variety spoken in Singapore. I had earlier mentioned the governmental opposition to this variety, as represented by the Speak Good English campaign. Just as authoritative bodies, such as governments, have been mentioned as catalysts for granting approval of sorts to NICE, they might also play a role in attempting to dissuade the population from using such varieties. What specific effects this particular campaign has had on the use of Singlish is unknown regarding the extent to which Singlish has, if at all, decreased in usage, but perhaps it has not changed much at all, with its speakers proudly defiant of their own brand of the English language, a case even of covert prestige. Moreover, the National University of Singapore also has an agenda of promoting ‘correct’ English, part of the Promotion of Standard English (PROSE). Thus, the government and education, with both intertwined, seek to promote a singular version of the English language in Singapore. In an opposing view, however, Wee (2002) regards the government’s position on avoidance of Singlish as tantamount to linguistic prejudice. Tan and Tan (2008) reference the English Language Syllabus within Singapore (2001) which states on page 2 that ‘pupils will be exposed to…..the different standard varieties of English spoken in other parts of the world’. This is quite broad, however, and as such, it is not clear if the goal is to understand standard Englishes within the inner circle. If so, then ‘standard English’ in this context is being used automatically to refer to inner circle standard English. While I have adopted this approach in my book, I have done it merely for ease of reference and not, of course, to imply that this particular standard is the only one available (or indeed, the variety that should be used at all times). Bautista and Gonzalez (2006) discuss Singlish, in fact, in terms of a continuum, involving a basilect–mesolect–acrolect, which reflects Kachru’s (1992) ‘lectal range’

128     A. Baratta

(page 4), with the basilect used by those with little or no formal education. Herein lies a clue as to why standard English in Singapore (though not unique to Singapore) seeks to emulate a variety of English, standard inner circle, that is of course at the opposite end of this range. Bautista and Gonzalez further go on to say that ‘the acrolect, of course, will approach the standard, and the basilect will diverge very radically from it. Perhaps what is being described here is the English used by average, educated Singaporeans, Malaysians, or Filipinos in social situations where they are concerned with communicating ideas and not paying close attention to language’ (page 133). Seen from this perspective, perhaps the Singaporean government is applying the word ‘standard’ to one that exists within Singapore, but, arguably, it derives its ‘standardness’ from avoidance of the very grammatical, and perhaps lexical features, that otherwise make Singlish recognisable as Singlish. That standard Singaporean English seeks to adopt inner circle grammatical norms, by avoiding the norms of Singlish, is suggested by Alsagoff and Ho (1998: 133ff.), who distinguish between ‘Colloquial Singapore English (the Low Variety which is used in the home and in casual situations and is the native language of children who have learned English from birth) from Standard Singapore English (the High Variety which is used in formal situations, in education, in writing, and is almost identical to Standard English )’. My emphasis in this quotation seeks to draw attention to suggested evidence that the standard in Singapore is essentially based on inner circle grammatical norms. Alsagoff and Ho (1998: 135) outline some of the grammatical features that would indeed characterise Singlish and in doing so, be in opposition to standard Singaporean English, however: • • • • •

Past tense and present tense not morphologically marked. Copula dropped to describe states. Non-count nouns treated as count. Indefinite article dropped. Use of pragmatic particles lah and ah.

Alsagoff and Ho (1998) further discuss the fact that all the characteristics of Standard Singapore English adhere to those of Standard English,

5  Three Varieties of Non-inner Circle English     129

except perhaps for the use of would in place of will to express politeness, tentativeness, and irrealis aspect (e.g. we hope you would come back ). While the standard form is associated with, and perhaps expected in, educational and governmental contexts of communication, Singlish is often used in television comedies, sometimes to depict characters associated with a lower socio-economic status (Foley et al. 1998). This reveals how negative connotations can be perpetuated, even within the context of a fictional television show. The implication is that speaking Singlish, certainly as one’s dominant variety of English, does not lead to strong career prospects and being taken seriously. Linguistic stereotyping is of course nothing new (Honeybone 2001; Coupland and Bishop 2007; Becker 2009) and as I have argued, language in any form serves as a linguistic stand-in for other social categories that go far beyond merely how we pronounce our words, inflect our verbs (or not) and how we construct sentences. Nonetheless, Gupta (1998: 122) makes the point that educated Singaporeans who have mastery of the acrolect use basilectal features in their colloquial speech; she claims that many Singaporean speakers can move at will between standard English and colloquial Singapore English. Pakir (1991: 109–110) further asserts that ‘norm-setter, norm-maker and norm-breaker may all be found in one and the same Singaporean who has been schooled in English from an early age but who speaks several other languages and interacts with speakers of these other languages …’. This points to code-switching and of course there is no reason to believe that a speaker of Standard Singaporean English cannot speak Singlish (and vice versa); rather, it reveals that a singular variety of speech, even with the same language and within the same country, is unlikely to be sufficient to fulfil all our varied communicative needs. It is when the audience and situation change that subsequent language change may indeed be required. A recent study by Leimgruber, Siemund and Terassa (2018) focuses on attitudes toward Singlish amongst Singaporean students who collectively attend a university, a polytechnic and an Institute of Technical Education (ITE), and whose first languages comprise Malay, Chinese and Tamil. While this implies multiple perspectives in terms of socio-cultural, educational and linguistic backgrounds, one finding

130     A. Baratta

is that the university students, those representing a high status group, provided overall positive responses to the use of Singlish. Leimgruber, Siemund and Terassa state that ‘university students can afford and control the use of Colloquial Singapore English besides Standard Singapore English’ (page 304) and this suggests that for those whose main variety is indeed Singlish, such as the polytechnic students, they are lacking in this ability to switch. While this is but one finding from an otherwise in-depth study, it strongly suggests that having a more extensive linguistic repertoire—here consisting of two varieties of English alone—can ensure more communicative success. Perhaps the university students are well aware of the negativity surrounding Singlish, and yet fully appreciate the times in which it is the best choice with which to make one’s point clear, forge friendships and otherwise celebrate an aspect of their cultural identity. A telling comment in the quotation is the university students’ ability to ‘control’ their use of Singlish, implying again that they are fully aware of when to use it and when to use the standard instead. If we return to the English Language Syllabus, on page nine it further states that students ‘will be able to speak and make presentations in internationally acceptable English that is grammatical, fluent and appropriate for purpose, audience, context and culture’. While this is apparently an indirect reference to standard English, it again makes assumptions about the appropriateness of language. First, ‘internationally acceptable’ suggests using the kind of English that will be understood across all three circles. It is fair, as I have also acknowledged, that standard English within the curriculum does make sense, as it allows students to become acquainted, if not proficient, with a variety which seeks to rid itself of regionalisms, such as non-standard dialects, as well as Englishes that are tied to specific non-inner circle countries. In this way, we can hope for a more unified English that can essentially travel well. Within educational settings, standard English is perhaps the more logical choice. However, being ‘grammatical’ in the context of ‘appropriate for audience and purpose’ does not necessarily equate to permanent use of standard English. If using English as part of an assessed academic presentation, I would expect standard English to be used. If conversing with one’s friends after school, then standard English might be retained of

5  Three Varieties of Non-inner Circle English     131

course, if this is the variety so desired. Otherwise, in such informal contexts, a switch to Singlish would be perfectly acceptable for such a time and place, with its inherent grammatical conventions. Bautista and Gonzalez (2006: 137) make it clear that ‘when describing indigenous varieties of English, we can no longer speak of these varieties as somehow following one pattern…..future descriptions will have to give more serious consideration to the variation within the variety to be able to extrapolate the directions these new Englishes will take’. Incorporating a focus on Singlish within the English classrooms in Singapore might seem unnecessary, certainly if this is a variety which many of the students are more than familiar with. The issue again, however, is not necessarily teaching Singlish; it is about validating it further, along with other varieties of English in educational settings. A comparison between the standard variety and Singlish can be used to help students approach language in a more objective manner, by realising that there is nothing more or less logical or ‘better’ between furnitures and furniture, for example. Such a discussion can lead to heightened student interest in language use in general, by allowing them to influence the direction the class takes, for example by discussing their own use of code-switching in society. Teachers could also discuss the arbitrary nature of language, by explaining that standard French also uses words such as furnitures, and allows for double negatives, whereas standard English does not. Of course, it is up to the teachers to decide how to approach the teaching of English, but it is hoped that whatever teaching methods and exercises they use, that room can be made for inclusion of varieties beyond the standard.

References Ahn, H. (2014). Teachers’ attitudes towards Korean English in South Korea. World Englishes, 33(2), 195–222. Akomolafe, S. (2013). The invisible minority: Revisiting the debate on foreign-accented speakers and upward mobility in the workplace. Journal of Cultural Diversity, 20(1), 7–14. Alsagoff, L., & Ho, C. (1998). The grammar of Singapore English. In J. Foley, T. Kandiah, L. Gupta, H. Alsagoff, I. Lick, L. Wee, et al. (Eds.), English in

132     A. Baratta

new cultural contexts: Reflections from Singapore (pp. 215–246). Singapore: Singapore Institute of Management and Oxford University Press. Baratta, A. (2013). Semantic and lexical issues in writings by Korean children. ESL Journal, 1–21. http://www.esljournal.org/files/baratta_-_english_writing_ by_korean_children.pdf. Baratta, A. (2016). Keeping it real or selling out: The effects of accent modification on personal identity. Pragmatics and Society, 7(2), 291–319. Bautista, M., & Gonzalez, A. (2006). Southeast Asian Englishes. In B. Kachru, Y. Kachru, & C. Nelson (Eds.), The handbook of world Englishes (pp. 130– 144). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Becker, K. (2009). /r/ and the construction of place identity on New York City’s Lower East Side. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 13(5), 634–658. Bhatt, R. (2004). Indian English: Syntax. In B. Kortmann, K. Burridge, R. Mesthrie, & E. Schneider (Eds.), A handbook of varieties of English, vol. 2: Morphology and syntax (pp. 1016–1030). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Brady, J. (2015). Dialect, power and politics: Standard English and adolescent identities. Literacy, 49(3), 149–157. Chang, W., Park, Y., Kim, C., & Chang, D. (1989). High school English I: Teacher’s guide. Seoul: Donga Publishing. Coupland, N., & Bishop, H. (2007). Ideologised values for British accents. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(1), 74–93. Das, K. (1965). Someone else’s song. In L. Raghunandan (Ed.), At the turn of the tide: The life and times of Maharani Setu Lakshmi Bayi, the last queen of Travancore. Bangalore, India: Eastern Press. Foley, J., Kandiah, T., Bao, A., Gupta, A., Alsagoff, L., Lick, H. C., et al. (1998). English in new cultural contexts. Singapore: Singapore Institute of Management and Oxford University Press. Galloway, N., & Rose, H. (2015). Introducing global Englishes. London: Routledge. Gargesh, R. (1996). Indian English: Phonology. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), Varieties of English 4: Africa, South and Southeast Asia (pp. 231–243). New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Gupta, A. (1998). The situation of English in Singapore. In J. A. Foley, T. Kandiah, Z. M. Bao, A. F. Gupta, L. Alsagoff, C. L. Ho, et al. (Eds.), English in new cultural contexts: Reflections from Singapore (pp. 106–126). Singapore: Oxford University Press. Haddix, M. (2012). Talkin’ in the company of my sistas: The counterlanguages and deliberate silences of Black female students in teacher education. Linguistics & Education, 23(2), 169–181.

5  Three Varieties of Non-inner Circle English     133

Honeybone, P. (2001). New dialect formation in nineteenth century Liverpool: A brief history of Scouse. In A. Grant, C. Grey, & K. Watson (Eds.), Liverpool’s language, people and places (pp. 106–140). Liverpool: Open House Press. Jung, K., & Min, S. (1999). Some lexico-grammatical features of Korean English newspapers. World Englishes, 18(1), 23–37. Kachru, B. B. (1965). The Indianness in Indian English. Word, 21(3), 391–410. Kachru, B. B. (1983). The Indianization of English: The English language in India. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kachru, B. B. (1988). The sacred cows of English. English Today, 4(4), 3–8. Kachru, B. (1992). Models for non-native Englishes. In B. B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures (pp. 48–74). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Kachru, B. B. (1994). English in South Asia. In R. Burchfield (Ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language (pp. 497–553). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leimgruber, J., Siemund, P., & Terassa, L. (2018). Singaporean students’ language repertoires and attitudes revisited. World Englishes, 37(2), 282–306. Mufwene, S. S. (2001). The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pakir, A. (1991). The range and depth of English-knowing bilinguals. World Englishes, 10(2), 167–179. Park, J. (2009). Characteristics of Korea English as a glocalised variety. In K. Murata & J. Jenkins (Eds.), Global Englishes in Asian contexts: Current and future debates (pp. 94–107). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Rahman, T. (1990). Pakistani English: The linguistic description of a non-native variety of English. NIPS Monograph Series III. Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan Studies. Shim, R. (1999). Codified Korean English: Process, characteristics and consequence. World Englishes, 18(2), 247–258. Sridhar, S. (1994). A reality check for SLA theories. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 800–805. Tan, P., & Tan, D. (2008). Attitudes towards non-standard English in Singapore. World Englishes, 27(3–4), 465–479.

134     A. Baratta

Trudgill, P., & Hannah, J. (1994). International English. London: Edward Arnold. Wee, L. (2002). When English is not a mother tongue: Linguistic ownership and the Eurasian community in Singapore. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 23(4), 282–295.

6 Non-inner Circle Englishes in the Classroom

6.1 The Need for Revised Pedagogy Alptekin (2002: 63) claims that ‘a new pedagogic model is urgently needed’ in response to a move away from inner circle norms amidst a linguistic reality in which many NICE speakers often do not communicate with inner circle speakers. Dinh (2017: 134) further references a ‘dire need’ for teachers to reconsider their teaching materials and practices, in order to allow for a more inclusive linguistic-cultural approach, and Hino (2017: 88) addresses the need for ‘nonnative Englishes as a means of representing indigenous values in international communication’. Hino also addresses the ‘gap between the ideals of EIL and the present realities of ELT’ (page 96), citing exams, for example, which tend to test students’ ability regarding standard English. However, there is, as I had mentioned earlier, forward movement to bring NICE into the EFL classroom. One goal is to allow NICE speakers to use their variety of English with others (who may or may not of course share the same variety of English), but to be understood of course. This represents a happy medium between retaining the need for intelligibility, but without having to adopt someone else’s imposed standard of English. © The Author(s) 2019 A. Baratta, World Englishes in English Language Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13286-6_6

135

136     A. Baratta

I touched on the need to reflect a multicultural perspective earlier, arguing for a balanced approach within the classroom. I do not claim that this is always easy to adopt. For example, amidst the preferences of the students themselves are perhaps what might be rather rigid and established syllabuses/syllabi in the particular school, plus the practical issue as already pointed out regarding the pressure on teachers to recognise an error from an innovative feature. Nonetheless, I have argued for a pedagogic approach that, by focusing on a dominant variety of English (very often, standard English), does not do so to the exclusion of other varieties and can, in fact, use such as a means to (a) teach the dominant variety for that particular class and (b) in doing so, help students to understand the implications for Englishes around the world and ideally come to accept them, if not respect them. Thus, I do not claim that this is a ‘new’ approach per se, but I believe more needs to be done to make the EFL classroom more varied in terms of language and culture (Galloway and Rose 2015). One significant change is discussed by Kang (2017: 54) in the Korean context. The revised teacher education programme in Korea now regards the previous sole standard, American English, as ‘merely one of the varieties of English that can be spoken in the use of English as an International Language’. While previously, only American customs and values were the target for cultural focus, now the cultural norms and values of the students are to be included. Importantly, the students’ success is not dependent on mimicking American pronunciation (and perhaps by extension, the relevant standard grammar); instead, the goal is for effective communication in a global context. While effective communication is a broad term, its use within this context does not presuppose a mastery of inner circle norms (though standard English is, once again, perhaps the variety to use as the base). The key is balance, and in this regard teacher training, which of course reflects itself in future classroom teaching, is not championing one variety over another. To this end, I would not suggest, for example, that a sole focus in the classroom of a non-inner circle English is necessarily the right approach, even if the students’ foreseeable linguistic futures seem to require no other variety. Let us be optimistic that some of the students just might have the opportunities for study or work that would require an inner

6  Non-inner Circle Englishes in the Classroom     137

circle variety. This is not merely a ‘just in case’ scenario, but one tied to the fact that if we cannot rely solely on one variety of English, at least not for pedagogy, then this would apply regardless of the origins of said variety. Most importantly perhaps, if the teachers have their own non-inner circle variety of English validated through this kind of training, then it is easier for them to impart a degree of linguistic pride to the students who speak the same variety. Matsuda (2017) provides a wealth of information on classroom activities within her edited book, though I am not referring to the practical activities found in Part Six, under the heading of ‘Lessons, Activities and Tasks for EIL Teacher Preparation’. Instead, I refer to the activities as part of research-based papers within the book which showcase how the activities are theoretically-driven. While this is not surprising as we would expect classroom activities to have a theoretical basis of some kind, it is important to mention as it shows how the theory of an important area is gradually being made manifest for current, and future, teaching practice, including teacher training. Rose (2017), for example, cites the six principles of the GELT framework as the foundation of the classroom teaching (including an increasing exposure to NICE, respect for multilingualism and even a change in hiring practice for the teachers themselves). Essentially, I approach the classroom activities from the belief that students need to be more involved in their learning, with Rose (2017) in fact advocating an approach in which, in the absence of specific English needs, the teachers should be innovative and allow the students to decide this for themselves. It is clear that we need to make students active participants, and to do this, we need to make them engaged and ready for learning. One way to do this is to give them a chance to speak—not merely oral practice, but being able to reflect on the various issues that are involved with current research and having a chance to discuss their English, as we teach them our version. Not a linguistic stand-off, but a linguistic exchange. Bayyurt and Sifakis (2017) rightfully argue that to create this kind of pedagogical change, we need to start with the teachers themselves, as part of teacher training programmes. They propose a three-part approach, consisting of exposing teachers to the reality of multiple varieties of English in many

138     A. Baratta

communicative contexts; raising awareness of the implications for such within teaching practice; and finally, implementing an action plan to allow teachers to bring the relevant research within this field into their own teaching; in other words, transforming the theoretical into the practical. The end result is one in which teachers can, among other benefits, be creative in bringing innovative approaches to the teaching of a pluralistic language; for the students, they are enabled to ‘be themselves’ (page 12). This is a key aspect of such classes, as they can encourage students to have their specific variety of English and the culture within, acknowledged, as opposed to defaulting to the inner circle model throughout. As Renandya (2012: 65) reminds us, however, teachers need to ‘develop a favorable attitude toward the teaching of EIL’. Indeed, change can be slow, and we cannot always expect teachers, let alone students, to adopt what might be an entirely new viewpoint regarding EFL which might run contrary to what and how they were taught previously. Inner circle speakers might even question the need to go beyond standard English, as might non-inner circle speakers, but we cannot make broad assumptions based on the variety of English a teacher uses. From personal experience, things have now changed in the Korean context of EFL compared with my teaching there from 1995 to 1998. At that time, the preference appeared to be for EFL teachers who were white (and then I would extend this to ‘WASP-looking’); speakers of General American or Canadian, or perhaps southern British. Forward to 2012 when I taught EFL to a group of Korean children, the teachers I worked with represented two South Africans (one black, one white), a New Zealander and an African-American. There was also an American teacher who had a Korean mother and an African-American father. Though it is beyond the scope of this book to discuss inclusivity beyond the immediate recognition of more than just inner circle Englishes in the classroom, the broader implications for a more inclusive classroom regarding the teachers themselves involves recognition of diversity at the level of race, accent and national origin (and by implication, one’s first language). Kirkpatrick (2006) proposes that EFL might be approached based on a lingua franca model, reminiscent of Kachru’s (1992) polymodel

6  Non-inner Circle Englishes in the Classroom     139

approach, which itself does not posit strict notions of correctness, nor is it tied to a single model. Again, this does not suggest a classroom approach without some kind of order; instead, it can be a means to teach the relativity of correctness, akin to a pragmatics class, in which, from my own experiences, we discuss how taboo language can be a means to display friendship, just as excessive politeness can be used to show distance, and perhaps, disrespect. However, to respect the need for, as many classes might, a dominant variety of English, then as I have suggested, this can be facilitated by a focus on varieties often considered ‘non-dominant’ (though this too is relative; in India, surely Indian English is dominant in many everyday contexts). Of course, some have argued that the prominence of inner circle Englishes within the EFL classroom is problematic. First, in non-inner circle countries, perhaps many of the students will not master an inner circle variety unless they wish to live there. In effect, they are being taught a variety which is not necessarily what they hear around them in their daily lives (Cook 2002; He and Zhang 2010). This, however, is somewhat flawed, if we consider a rationale for inner circle English, which I will discuss, that goes beyond the assumption that this variety is taught ‘just because’. Also, Prodromou (1997) estimates that up to 80% of communication using English takes place between individuals who are not inner circle speakers. This might be true, but for the approximately 20% of interactions in which we might have an inner circle speaker present, it makes sense to include this variety too. Nonetheless, in response to the historical and current dominance of standard English, He and Zhang (2010) argue for a different approach within the Chinese context certainly, in which selected features of China English can be used within the classroom while focusing on standard English as the base. This is a means to reflect what the dominant English is within that context and thus, reflect the linguistic reality for the majority of these students. The basic premise once again, however, is that whichever variety is selected to be the dominant model of English in a given EFL classroom, the point is that it is not the only model. In this sense, the students are essentially learning to be bilingual within a single language. Likewise, the dominant model can be taught based on a discussion of other models. These are two principles that are,

140     A. Baratta

for me, the backbone of a well-balanced EFL classroom, regardless of the native language of the student body, or teacher, or where they hail from. I believe that what is also needed is simply more justification for the students regarding whatever model is chosen as the dominant one. Certainly in cases where this is indeed standard English, we should not merely adopt a ‘take it for granted’ approach for this variety’s presence in the classroom. Rather, we should make it clear why it is the dominant model (and its claim to being an inner circle variety does not count in this regard). For example, considering the vast numbers of NICE students who choose to study in an inner circle country, then it makes sense, obvious though it might be, to explain that a focus on inner circle English is most productive for this future academic context. Likewise, what about students who plan to travel in inner circle countries, or elsewhere for that matter? It is not an implausible scenario to suggest that an individual from Beijing travelling in Peru is likely to need English to communicate with some of the locals, again using the language as a lingua franca. Yes, some Peruvians surely speak Mandarin (Lima in fact has a very large Chinese population), and some Chinese people speak Spanish, but we might expect English to travel better. Taking the time to unpack the classroom’s linguistic focus helps students to believe that standard English is the benchmark, which it is within inner circle countries perhaps, but explaining to Chinese students why China English will be incorporated into the EFL classroom likewise allows for this variety to be understood in purely objective terms, and not championing it over standard English (or vice versa). Likewise, Honna and Takeshita (2014) do not argue against the use of an inner circle teaching model, in this case American English. However, they do argue that the expected learning output should be a Japanese variety of English. This could then raise the question, ‘can inner circle speakers learn NICE?’ When Americans and Australians, for example, visit China, India and other destinations in which English is not inner circle, can we expect them to learn the local varieties? I think this is a reasonable request and given that it is a different form of the same language, this should not pose problems. The implementation of such learning could

6  Non-inner Circle Englishes in the Classroom     141

be achieved through phrase/travel books. For example, phrase books for Hindi, Korean and Twi (perhaps part of travel guides for India, Korea and Ghana respectively), as just three varieties, might also provide a section on the local English in terms of common words and grammatical constructions. It might also be the case that inner circle individuals find it easier to navigate the local English than the local (native) language. A positive sign is the growing number of courses in World Englishes which are offered in the United States at several institutions, such as Eastern Washington University (Spokane), Indiana State University (Terre Haute), Portland State University (Oregon), Purdue University (West Lafayette, Indiana), St John’s University (NY City), Syracuse University (NY) and the University of Hawai’i at Honolulu, to name a few. They are also found in other locations such as Chukyo University (Nagoya, Japan), University of Essex (UK), University of Gävle (Sweden), University of Magdeburg (Germany) and the University of Stellenbosch (South Africa). Moreover, there is a growing trend of delivering a World Englishes perspective as part of EFL teacher training programmes (Rose 2017). While my book is solely focused on the implications for the first two points regarding the ways in which NICE can be taught in the EFL classroom, largely as a means to facilitate inner circle English, the fact that NICE are being taught to students in universities, many of whom may indeed be inner circle speakers, illustrates an (ideally) burgeoning recognition of the importance and influence of Englishes beyond the inner circle. According to Brown some time ago (1993: 66), ‘recent TESOL workshops have [also] included courses in World Englishes’, which clearly will have practical importance for future EFL teachers around the world. Matsuda (2003: 438) also reflects on the value of World Englishes pedagogy as a means to promote international understanding, as ‘an incomplete presentation of the English language may … lead to confusion or resistance when students are confronted with different types of English users or uses. Students may be shocked by varieties of English that deviate from Inner Circle English, view them as deficient (rather than different), or grow disrespectful to such varieties and users, which seems counter-productive to facilitating international understanding’. Friedrich (2002: 444) concludes that ‘by bringing awareness to the

142     A. Baratta

different varieties of English that the students will encounter and by teaching them to view these varieties as legitimate expressions of a language in constant change and spread, a world Englishes approach can greatly facilitate learning’. McKay (2002: 125) looks at what she terms a ‘comprehensive theory of teaching and learning English as an International language’, an aspect of which is indeed respect for the local culture and cross-cultural pragmatic competence, in order to establish ‘comity,’ referring to ‘friendly relations’ (page 128). This is part of a larger focus on what she refers to as ‘local culture[s] of learning’ (ibid.). This is a crucial aspect of the future of EFL teaching. While I have referenced the fact that World Englishes are being taught as a subject in their own right and most relevantly, they are being incorporated into the design of teacher training, we need to change minds as well as programme content. This is harder to do though. This is not to suggest that change is not occurring, but both teachers and students alike might resist what they see as a ‘non-traditional’ approach to EFL teaching (and training), but as Galloway (2017: 73) points out, practitioners are ‘agents of change’ and it rests on the teachers in particular to promote an approach which avoids a singular linguistic and cultural focus.

6.2 The Need for Cultural Understanding Cultural understanding is an important consideration and within an EFL class, there may be several cultures represented, including that of the teacher’s and the students’ of course. As such, we are all cultural brokers and there is a need to ensure that cultural understanding is provided with an equal approach. Many of my own students have willingly volunteered information about their home country and culture, and as I have mentioned, such information can prove to be very important for the smooth running of a classroom. Recently, I met with my Chinese students. As we sat down to talk, my umbrella unexpectedly broke when I tried to collapse it. One of the students offered to help fix it but after much effort, the umbrella was perhaps in a worse-off state than before. In response, this individual, and the other students, laughed,

6  Non-inner Circle Englishes in the Classroom     143

though not particularly loudly. I understood what this communicated from the Chinese perspective, but I was nonetheless grateful when one of the students told me that the laughter was a sign of embarrassment, and subsequent admission of ‘guilt’ on the student’s part, and not of course a sign of ridicule. We need to know more about this kind of cultural behaviour, to include non-verbal communication that is on display before individuals even open their mouths. To begin a discussion on cultural norms for communication from a pedagogic perspective, I provide below an example of a business letter written for an Indian client, which is thus mindful of the kind of language (i.e. in terms of tone) that is required for that part of the world. The sample of writing is taken from the book, Executive Writing (Diamond and Fahey 1997: 18). Dear Rashed Our bank conveys its most sincere appreciation for your valued and excellent association. From the humble origins of your business, during the years of its inspirational growth, continuing during its laudable and enviable success today, we have been honoured to serve you. Midtown Bank offers its most enthusiastic congratulations on your business expansion.

This writing sample is presenting an example of the kind of language that would be appropriate to an Indian audience, but not an American clientele. Diamond and Fahey (1997: 18) explain thus: ‘this letter would bring a smile of pleasure to a banker’s Indian client, but would sound strange to that client’s American counterpart’. This brief description is by no means labelling business writing in India (and that which uses the English language) as ‘strange’ of course from an American perspective. Rather, it is merely reflecting the realities between two highly different culturally-based expectations regarding what is deemed to be ‘appropriate’ communication. This example is but one regarding how English can be taught in the EFL classroom from a perspective that is not inner circle centric, but one that incorporates other language varieties—and cultures—simultaneously.

144     A. Baratta

Kachru (1992: 347) makes it clear that Indian English goes beyond grammar and lexis; it also involves style, broad a word though it might be. This is reflective of a type of writing which might sound ‘flowery’ to an inner circle speaker, but is perfectly acceptable to an Indian audience: ‘The rhetorical style of IE thus reflects an attempt to create the Sanskritic noetics in English: it expresses the same cultural meaning that the Indian languages do. In this sense, English in India has truly become an Indian language’. If teaching business writing within the context of an EFL class, it is up to the teacher as to how much depth to include regarding a discussion of intercultural norms, but it is perhaps even more relevant than ever to include a focus on different writing styles within cultures that are nonetheless writing in English. To not do so would assume that one’s business audience will solely be American, or perhaps more broadly, inner circle speakers. In today’s global business world, this is not the reality of course and business English is a common focus within the teaching of EFL nowadays, perhaps a reflection of the global village in which we live, which nonetheless often relies on a dominant language for communicative purposes. Therefore, learning about other cultures’ communication styles is not merely an exercise in cultural awareness and sensitivity, important thought they are. Such a pedagogic focus also has a practical element, as even when using the English language, different cultures may have highly different rhetorical styles. Second, this exercise also makes students more aware of the need for pragmatic competence. From both a syntactic and semantic point of view, the letter is clear (i.e. it uses standard English and makes sense). Pragmatically-speaking, however, it would be a ‘mistake’ if one’s audience is American. This knowledge allows EFL students, perhaps more advanced students, to go beyond syntactical considerations and look further in ensuring that their communication follows the cultural rules for appropriate communication. Diamond and Fahey (1997) go on to say that the preferred American business writing style ‘may be short on charm but is highly effective in its direct, confident approach’ (page 18). Just as the authors are not declaring Indian business writing to be ‘strange’, they are not assuming American business writing to be devoid of charm per se, whatever that

6  Non-inner Circle Englishes in the Classroom     145

might mean anyway. Instead, we are dealing with a case of cultural relativity, and must recognise that different audiences have different expectations, which we must conform to. Thus, an Indian business letter is not ‘flowery’, nor is the American style of business writing ‘cold’; they are merely different. Thus, with language acting as a proxy for categories such as culture, itself quite a broad word, we need to remember that if we mess with someone’s language, we are, to an extent, disrespecting their culture which is firmly embedded within said language. Here is where EFL teachers have an opportunity, and their students also, to recognise such cultural and linguistic diversity within the classroom, and bring it to the foreground of classroom discussion, exercises and overall pedagogy. In terms, then, of the overall approach we can take to bringing NICE into the EFL classroom, it is largely based on a rejection of the idea that there is a singular ‘classroom EFL’. Crystal (2001: 57) makes it clear that classroom approaches to the teaching of EFL must ‘allow for the complementarity of these two functions of language’. Crystal is referring to the notion of bidialectalism or even multidialectalism, which reflects that speakers of English will perhaps have more than one variety of English at their disposal. One of which will be for international purposes of communication, and the other for local contexts. If this is often the linguistic reality outside the classroom, then bringing it inside the classroom can help to make the English class more authentic. Even within English classes that otherwise share a singular culture, such as high school English in Singapore, to bring students’ familiarity with Singlish to the discussion nonetheless acts as a means to celebrate this variety, and in doing so, with or without an overt cultural focus, it allows students, as mentioned, to realise that both standard and non-standard have a role. If the teacher acknowledges this, and allows students a voice in the classroom to discuss their language use, then this can encourage a healthier attitude toward language variety and diversity. Likewise, Crystal is also against what he calls the ‘prescriptivist’ and ‘absolutist concept’ of ‘correct English’ and instead, replace such with more ‘relativistic models’ (ibid.). Crystal continues, explaining that the inner circle standard will not necessarily be the dominant focus in the future of EFL teaching.

146     A. Baratta

Rather, ‘accommodation will dominate ELT ideologies’, and this means that ‘the chief task facing ELT is how to devise pedagogical policies and practices in which the need to maintain an international standard of intelligibility…..can be made to comfortably exist alongside the need to recognize the importance of international diversity, as a reflection of identity’ (page 63). This has been a repeated theme so far—the need for both international and intranational linguistic competence. However, it is more than just this. We also need to reflect on the cultural importance of allowing for a multilingual approach to English, not allowing one variety to be championed over others and even for EFL classrooms in which standard English is the central focus, the acquisition of such can be facilitated by an inclusion of NICE. McKay (2012) argues that it is the responsibility of EFL teachers to ensure that their students are sufficiently prepared to use the varieties of English that will help ensure communicative success. This includes the fact that some speakers’ use of English may in fact deviate from otherwise prescriptive standards. D’Souza (1999: 273) in fact believes that exposing students ‘to as many varieties of English as possible would do more to ensure intelligibility than trying to impose a single standard on everyone’. Bolton (2002) adds to this conversation, stating that the standard within the EFL classroom is not always in keeping with the varieties outside the classroom and indeed, within the world. Thus, while we might assume, or hope for, an international English that can be used throughout the world, we also need to recognise international Englishes, as the focus on a singular norm of English can lack a more linguistically appropriate approach to language. This points to a purism versus relativism war, which reflects on the view that the natural occurrence of language variation and appropriateness being relative to a context, was—and perhaps still is by some— regarded as an ‘anything goes’ mentality. The logic is essentially that in the absence of linguistic uniformity, a standard variety cannot exist. However, attempting to impose uniformity by denying the existence of multiple forms of even a single language is clearly opposed by the theorists mentioned thus far, and more besides. This, then, is one of the central messages with regard to the teaching of EFL, perhaps more so for the future.

6  Non-inner Circle Englishes in the Classroom     147

What, then, are the assumptions that need to be challenged in light of the discussion so far? Certainly, a focus on a singular standard is one of them, but Sridhar and Sridhar (1992: 93–94) reference the belief that a central goal of learning EFL is to develop native-like competence (i.e. to speak as an inner circle speaker). This has perhaps been based on a tendency to teach this variety, in terms of grammar, lexis and at times phonology. However, it has been made clear that, while this variety is of course still highly relevant and will perhaps remain so, there are other varieties to consider. Though speculative, the future may indeed bring about EFL classes which are designed for inner circle speakers, and designed to teach them the Englishes that lie beyond the inner circle. While there is some evidence of this (Kubota 2001), more perhaps is yet to come in the form of classes or perhaps guidebooks on the matter, for businesspeople and diplomats, if not everyone who travels to the relevant countries. Kachru (1995) in fact developed a list of items that should be incorporated into a course in World Englishes. Some of these elements include a focus on bilinguals’ creativity, language in society, and language attitudes. Kachru makes it clear that for these foci, and others, there should be a unified approach in terms of a ‘paradigm shift’ (page 246). This means that each aspect of the proposed class should be approached from the perspective of non-inner circle Englishes and not just from the perspective of inner circle speakers. There are of course two EFL classes, from a very broad perspective: those provided in inner circle countries and those provided outside this region. For the former, the students will of course be studying not just a different variety of English, but they will also be doing so in the language’s representative country. Thus, they are living the culture and interacting with the ‘native’ speakers every day. From the teachers’ perspective, he/she will perhaps be teaching a class that may represent several cultures and languages, and so this offers a greater opportunity to discuss the students’ cultural and linguistic practices. The other type of class, offered outside the inner circle, places the teacher (if he/she is inner circle, of course) in an unfamiliar culture (initially, at least). In such instances, perhaps the class will comprise students who all share this ‘foreign’ culture and they

148     A. Baratta

in turn are better positioned to teach the teacher. In both instances, we have a need to understand what lies beyond the textbook. For example, I have taught my own EFL students about the kinds of everyday expressions used in Manchester, such as no worries and, to their delight, the expression I could murder a Chinese! (meaning that someone is really in the mood for a Chinese meal). What this says about culture might not be immediately obvious, but it reflects the spread of culturally-based expressions, given that Australian soap operas might have played a part in transplanting the expression of no worries (essentially meaning ‘you’re welcome’ or ‘that’s OK’) to Britain. Brown (1995: 237), in promoting the view that NICE should be made a part of teacher education programmes, makes the point that ‘students often enjoy learning vocabulary which is unfamiliar to them such as ‘denter,’ a Pakistani English term for a person who repairs dents in vehicles’. I agree and this can also refer to learning varieties of inner circle English (even for inner circle speakers), let alone varieties of NICE. Furthermore, Brown’s reference to ‘students’ is broad, and rightly so; this could apply to EFL students, inner circle English students taking a university-level World Englishes course and indeed, future EFL teachers, regardless of their L1. On a deeper level, however, we need to understand the cultural implications for the kinds of English we teach to our students, as well as culturally-appropriate materials for use in the classroom. As a result, learning materials, and expressions, may need to reflect the local culture; all the more reason for students to be allowed a larger role in the classroom, certainly for those who desire such. After all, it is not inconceivable that when teaching overseas, EFL teachers may need advice from their students about how to ‘behave’ appropriately. This goes beyond merely learning the local language, or local English. It also pertains to body language, clothing and much more. In such instances, our students are the ones to ask. Omoniyi (2006) mentions the fact that within some African societies, certain discourse features are culture-specific and inner circle teachers might be unfamiliar with them. Some of these expressions are linked to traditional values that centre on the extended family or one’s ethnic group. An illustration of this concerns the use of a greeting ritual that is more elaborate than a mere ‘how are you?’: How is your family….your

6  Non-inner Circle Englishes in the Classroom     149

health…..your journey? Likewise, hedging tendencies, such as would you mind, are considered affected in everyday conversations with family and friends. Moreover, the use of apologies in situations in which someone has an otherwise minor inconvenience, such as stumbling, would not make sense as it would imply the fault of the speaker. Thus, when conversing in English with such expanding circle speakers, it is not enough to speak English; we also need to speak the culture (e.g. withholding offers of ‘sorry’ when they are not expected). In such instances, who is the teacher? The teacher him/herself who has arrived to teach the standard, or those who have already developed their own standard? It is one thing to discuss grammar, but to suggest other cultures’ norms and values, often reflected in their language, are somehow inappropriate, especially when used within the culture in question, is another matter. Consider that in some cultures, a discussion of dating rituals might be seen as culturally inappropriate, certainly if the assumed shared values of Western cultures conflict with the local one. In the northern Sri Lankan city of Jaffna, reports Canagarajah (1999: 87), ‘the situations represented [in foreign textbooks] – such as commuting by plane, cooking with a microwave, or shopping in department stores – assume an urbanized, Western culture that is still largely alien to rural students, and likely to clash with their traditional values’. Doan (2014) also argues against a dominant focus on inner circle cultures in the EFL classroom, as not being necessarily relevant for the Vietnamese students ‘real life’ (page 87). Obviously, no single inner circle EFL teacher can pretend to be a sole authority on how the English language is used even in his/her own country, let alone what is or is not ‘appropriate’ behaviour. Surely we have had experiences in our lives when people with whom we otherwise shared the same language and culture did not behave as expected. I recall in California some years ago that a fellow Californian, or certainly an American (so also inclusive of being, like me, an American, a Westerner and so on) responded with a curt ‘I guess’ to my polite enquiry as to whether or not the seat next to her was free at a roadside café. I would have expected something to the effect of ‘sure’, ‘yes’ and so on, and further delivered in a more polite manner. Nonetheless, I have made a point of telling my students that my suggestions for language and culture are generalisations, not absolutes, but if

150     A. Baratta

we assume too general an approach regarding cultural communication, then we run the risk of, ironically, spreading stereotypical information about how a given culture behaves when in fact we surely seek to avoid such. Yano (2009: 248) further points to common ways in which EFL students might use the English language, which is a direct reflection of their cultural norms. For example, ‘Chinese speakers of English use a lot of face-collocations because mien zu or ‘face’ is an important concept for the Chinese’. We often hear utterances such as: You haven’t showed us the least amount of face; You are simply losing my face; Please stand my face. Furthermore, Japanese students might have a tendency toward passivization and nominalization, seen in sentences such as it was decided to close down the factory, as opposed to we decided to close down the factory (ibid.). This reflects another aspect of EFL students’ communication, perhaps more in writing than speech: the ways in which cultural norms are reflected in their writing and the potential this might have for misunderstandings, or perhaps the teacher feeling a need to ‘correct’ their communication. Using my own students again as an anecdotal, yet relevant, example, the majority of my Chinese students over the years have explained that ‘you gave me the wrong change’ is otherwise ‘standard’ communication within China (albeit spoken in a Chinese language). This is not to say that such an expression is ‘wrong’ in, say, the USA, but it might be interpreted as quite blunt, possibly even rude. The ‘need’ to mitigate might be seen as more of a Western, or American, need, at least in this specific context (e.g. I’m sorry, but I was given the wrong change ). From the Chinese students’ perspective, why apologise when you have done nothing wrong? Therefore, when teaching any language, we need to consider competence on three levels: grammar, meaning and pragmatic competence. The latter is arguably not focused on enough and yet is in some ways more indicative of students speaking real-world English, whatever circle it derives from. It is for this reason that I have taught my EFL students from around the world the local use of English as often heard in Manchester which in some cases may indeed go against the kind of comparatively formal textbook English that they have thus far been accustomed to. Given an EFL classroom with the potential

6  Non-inner Circle Englishes in the Classroom     151

to have several cultures represented, there is much cultural knowledge which can be tapped into and again, a need to do so in a tri-directional way: not just teacher to students, but students to teacher, and student to student. In summary, then, we need to adopt an approach which allows for the following: • Students firstly need to be taught the variety of English that is specified as part of the course description. In the absence of such formal documentation/description, then the teacher needs to simply be mindful of the students’ most pressing and relevant needs with regard to EFL learning, yet allow for student input in this regard. While a central skill may include developing English skills for an international audience, it might require a pedagogy which reflects the local English variety (Brown 1995; Seidlhofer 2004; Kirkpatrick 2007; Galloway 2011, 2013; Baker 2012); • When teaching EFL, the classroom culture(s) which represents the students needs to be respected and acknowledged, as part of pedagogy. This allows for a shift from a default setting to inner circle English, with all of its inherent norms and values for social interaction; instead, it allows for a combination of the varieties and cultural practices that potentially inhabit all three circles; • Importantly, there is the potential for the students to take on a more active role, in teaching the teacher (and their classmates, if the class comprises several nationalities). This gives students a voice, a chance to share their culture with the class, as well as to help acclimatise foreign teachers who are strangers in the student’s(s’) country. This of course goes beyond learning local forms of language, though that is important; it can also extend to learning, and respecting, the local way of, simply put, ‘doing business’. Just as a foreign language textbook cannot teach the intricacies of real world communication, neither can it do so for culture—both are best learned from experience. And for EFL teachers and students, they have this opportunity. Matsuda and Friedrich (2011) suggest an approach in which the teacher selects an established variety of English as the main focus of

152     A. Baratta

instruction; inclusive of this approach is to simultaneously incorporate additional varieties of English as part of an overall and inclusive approach to the teaching of English. This is ultimately the approach that I have advocated, in that it is likely that there will indeed be a dominant English and context of English that will be part of the prescribed EFL class in question (e.g. inner circle English for business). From this approach, students can begin to learn, by stripping the various Englishes to their linguistic bones, that variation—and difference—from the dominant norm is not suggestive in any way of being inferior. Such negative judgements are of course tied to social attitudes, but not linguistic ones. However, Matsuda and Friedrich refer to established varieties as those that meet four criteria: varieties that have been codified; are used for several varieties of communication purposes and contexts; are accepted overall in international contexts for various purposes (e.g. business, entertainment); and have a literature. By adhering to such criteria, however, we run the risk of once again placing inner circle, or at best, only a certain group of outer circle Englishes (e.g. Indian English) as the central focus in the class. The researchers suggest that further establishment of additional outer circle varieties and establishment of expanding circle varieties will allow for their presence in the EFL classroom. However, can we not use the EFL classroom as a means to further ‘establish’ a much wider variety of Englishes? We cannot necessarily wait for literary uses of expanding circle Englishes, especially within cultures that, traditionally at least, have an oral tradition of literature. Thus, to suggest otherwise again gives the impression that we are applying, in part, Western norms within a classroom that is made up of many additional cultures. Further, I have argued that establishment of an English should first and foremost depend on its speakers. After all, they comprise the community who uses a given variety for regular communicative purposes, and so do they really need to wait for a ‘higher authority’ to grant their English a kind of official recognition? If we begin in the classroom to discuss and learn lesser-known varieties, this can be a means to help spread the word. As I have also discussed, the fact we have many textbooks that have already contributed to outlining the lexical and grammatical features of NICE, to include the expanding circle, is its own

6  Non-inner Circle Englishes in the Classroom     153

form of codification. Finally, it could become a class project, for the teacher and/or students, to create for an assessment a linguistic guide book of sorts which provides an introduction to a given World English, a point I had also suggested earlier. Matsuda and Friedrich (2011) further state that whatever the dominant variety chosen, it is important that students are left in no doubt that it is but one of many and it may not be the variety which they come into contact with in the future. Even within inner circle countries, there is of course great variety. While my own Chinese students were quite proficient with both British and American English, and certainly understood the expression ‘thank you’, they had not come across a more informal equivalent used in Britain: cheers. As I had made clear in Chapter 2, even the notion of inner circle English, and even a singular variety such as British English, is far from singular in nature, let alone the outer and expanding circle varieties that nonetheless should also be brought into the classroom to help teach the dominant variety for a particular class, but also to expand students’ linguistic, cultural and communicative competence in the process. To expose students to simply one variety of English, could lead to students devaluing other varieties and lacking confidence in using them (Matsuura et al. 1999), or experiencing difficulties in interpreting such Englishes (Smith and Nelson 2006). In terms of work which outlines classroom activities used to promote the value of World Englishes and culture, as well as understanding of such, an earlier paper by Baumgardner (1987) offers some interesting insights. He discusses the use of English newspapers that are published in Pakistan as a means to teach inner circle English—and Pakistani English—and importantly, to do so by revealing that both have their own predictable rules that are merely different. Crucially, such classroom exercises need to focus on translating one English into another, as opposed to correcting. We should also consider newspapers in English but published outside the inner circle as yet another example of an informal codification. On page 242, Baumgardner offers a sample of text from the Pakistan Times from October 3rd, 1986:

154     A. Baratta

The Secretary, Finance, Punjab, has issued a circular letter under which peons, chowkidars, baildars, watermen, malis, behishtis, sweepers and other work-charged employees have been granted a special benefit. But it is very strange that the Secretary, Finance, has extended this gracious concession to three departments only. Why a step-motherly treatment is being meted out to the poor peons, naib qasids, chowkidars and malis of the Education Department?

I cannot understand this myself, even perhaps with the full contextual picture. But as Baumgardner makes clear, the lexis that is not understood by myself, is clearly understood by Pakistanis who have their own variety of English, with such lexis being ‘a matter of pride’ (page 243) amongst Pakistanis. Given that Pakistani English ‘differs systematically’ (ibid.) from inner circle Englishes, then once again, this points to predictability amongst the language and this is further being codified by, for example, daily newspapers. A particular grammatical feature of this variety includes using a to-infinitive in place of inner circle –ing participles: Thus, they contemplated committing the murder is inner circle; the police are avoiding to enter the campus where the culprits are stated to be hiding (page 245) is a reflection of Pakistani English. For students in Pakistan, surely such features would be recognised and accepted, including of course the specific lexis in use. As Baumgardner makes clear, ‘the majority of news items in the paper concern events in and related to Pakistan’ (page 249) and its linguistic features should be ‘expressed according to local intranational’ linguistic norms (ibid.). When we change contexts to an international audience, then here is where Baumgardner advocates a teaching approach which neither champions inner circle norms, nor devalues outer circle norms (here, Pakistani English). Rather, it involves a mere objective approach for an audience who would require an English that speaks to people from beyond individual countries. Suggested exercises could include students translating one variety into another, an approach mentioned. If students are provided with a plausible scenario, in which they are asked to produce a news article for an American audience, for example, then this is an opportunity to both change the grammar and perhaps even play with the language a little, in terms of finding just the ‘right’ words

6  Non-inner Circle Englishes in the Classroom     155

for those that reflect the lexis of Pakistani English (e.g. chowkidars translates as ‘gatekeepers’, but perhaps there might be another word that fits better, at least if translating the newspaper article above). Feldman and Kinsella (2005) argue that vocabulary is the most important indicator for the success of EFL students. McKay (2003) further argues that there is a need within the classroom for ‘sensitivity to the local cultural context’. If students are studying in an inner circle country, then the ‘local’ culture may of course be the United States (with all its inherent cultures within, such as African-American, Chinese American and so on). However, this does not of course prevent the teacher focusing on the students’ native cultures, perhaps even more relevant if the teacher is working in a non-inner circle country; as a ‘guest’, it is even more important to respect the students’ culture. In terms of lexis, the exercise suggested by Baumgardner is very fitting. Of course, there are many directions this focus can take; we could even ask students to test us as teachers, providing us with a list of their English variety’s lexis, such as teacheress (female teacher, Indian English); scapegoatism (Pakistani English); and dry coffee (coffee without milk and sugar, East African English). If we focus on the word teacheress, then this allows for more than just an understanding of vocabulary; it also reflects cultural differences. To use the term in inner circle countries could easily be regarded as an insult, even sexist. The point here is that we are not telling Indian students that their version of English is inherently sexist. We are simply having a discussion about the ways in which cultures use language differently and as such, celebrating, or certainly respecting, such differences. Therefore, if an inner circle teacher feels that a particular context demands, or at least suggests, that Indian English is wholly appropriate, then there should be no issue in using the word teacheress, despite any personal reservations. Bokhorst-Heng (2012: 206) makes it clear that NICE reflect a use of lexis which in turn is ‘an expression of their unique identity, histories and socio-cultural contexts’ and as I’ve pointed out before, language is never really ‘just’ about language. It is never merely a system based on a particular word order, lexis or phonology. Instead, all of the above are proxies in that they represent the identities of the speakers, whether on a national, racial, ethnic or class-based level (or indeed, a combination).

156     A. Baratta

Thus, I have honed in on merely one word as an example nonetheless of how we can avoid inner circle cultural dominance in the classroom, in terms of how we approach a discussion of this word. Ates et al. (2015) further suggest that if non-inner circle speakers are brought into the classroom, this can be a means to hear their variety of English in action. Of course, an EFL classroom perhaps already has such speakers, another reason to allow students a greater role in acting as linguistic informants, as I had mentioned. However, in the study of Ates, Eslami and Wright, the classroom in question comprises preservice teachers who are inner circle speakers. The authors cite the need to ‘prepare all teachers to affirm linguistic and cultural diversity in their professional practice’ (page 486) and one activity involved non-inner circle speakers, consisting of graduate students enrolled on the ESL Education Program, to come into the classroom and discuss their particular use of English. As a result of this, the preservice teachers reported ‘more acceptance of linguistic variety and diversity’ (page 466). From this, it is suggested that as part of EFL teacher training, it is important to make teachers aware of the different varieties of English. It is perhaps likely that this is something they have already considered or share some knowledge of. However, by coming into contact with native speakers of non-inner circle Englishes, or at least being made aware of the different Englishes as part of class content and discussion (and possibly some kind of assessment), we can hopefully prepare our teachers more for their future careers, in which a singular approach to multiple varieties of a language may not be sufficient. Moreover, it is also about a need to consider the cultural implications when we do not give sufficient coverage to varieties that fall outside the inner circle standard. Crystal (2008: 17) sums up this issue very well: Teachers need to prepare their students for a world of staggering linguistic diversity. Somehow, they need to expose them to as many varieties of English as possible, especially those which they are most likely to encounter in their own locale. And above all, teachers need to develop a truly flexible attitude towards principles of usage. The absolutist concept of

6  Non-inner Circle Englishes in the Classroom     157

‘proper English’ or ‘correct English’, which is so widespread, needs to be replaced by relativistic models.

Crystal’s points lie at the heart of much of what has been discussed and offers sound advice for EFL teachers, whether inner circle speakers or not, to promote linguistic equality within the classroom and in doing so, promote cultural equality at the same time. It is entirely possible to focus on a dominant variety of English in the classroom as the class syllabus, and students’ needs, dictate, while simultaneously recognising others, but again, not merely as passing topics, but as part of a fully integrated discussion and focus. Crystal goes on to say that there is therefore a need ‘to devise pedagogical policies and practices in which the need to maintain an international standard of intelligibility, in both speech and writing, can be made to comfortably exist alongside the need to recognize the importance of international diversity, as a reflection of identity, chiefly in speech and eventually perhaps also in writing’ (page 20). The various ways in which this can be accomplished will be made clear in the penultimate chapter, though there is no definitive list of classroom activities; teachers, therefore, are at liberty to consider their own ideas, based on the specific level and needs of their students, which can achieve the goals set out by Crystal, and others. I stress again of course that as EFL teachers, we surely want to have some kind of linguistic order within the classroom, in as much as we wish to teach our students a variety of English that ensures, as much as possible, that students can communicate clearly with inner and non-inner circle speakers around the world, or certainly in terms of the communicative goals of the particular EFL class in question. There is a need for individuals who use English in some way to get their point across clearly, in communicative contexts that range from conducting business deals to paying for a bunch of grapes. On the other hand, to espouse one variety of English over the many others that exist, such as promoting American English at the expense of British English, let alone asserting that inner circle varieties outrank non-inner circle varieties, creates somewhat of a linguistic hegemony or at the very least, a uniform classroom experience of a language that is anything but uniform in the real world. Having said that, if the EFL classroom attempts to focus on

158     A. Baratta

too many varieties of English, it could lead to somewhat of a linguistic cacophony, which in turn could lead to students perhaps yearning, ironically, for a more uniform focus after all. Again, in considering the societal push for respect for diversity and equality, it makes sense to regard this from a linguistic perspective also, in which the EFL classroom, and beyond, recognises the importance of non-inner circle Englishes (and non-standard inner circle Englishes, for that matter). The link between one’s language(s) and culture needs to be fully considered and to dismiss non-inner circle Englishes, or at least to avoid them within the classroom as topics of discussion, could mean that students who are otherwise proficient in such varieties (or at least familiar with them), feel as if this aspect of their cultural and personal identity, is not relevant. I concede, of course, that for some EFL students, their country’s regional variety of English may be regarded as irrelevant for the EFL classroom, and that they have come to an inner circle country (or are being taught in their native country by an inner circle speaker) in order to learn ‘proper’ English. However, such a belief is part of the issue—the belief that non-inner circle Englishes, which function absolutely fine in their country of origin, are somehow not relevant, or important, for the EFL classroom, or even relevant at all, suggestive of a global push to speak some kind of one ‘true’ English. I do of course acknowledge that non-inner circle Englishes may cause confusion if individuals use such varieties with inner circle English speakers. There is indeed the potential for confusion if someone from Korea uses Konglish/Korean English when, for example, conversing with an English speaker from Los Angeles, such as using the word skinship. Again, however, a central purpose of defining just what is good/ bad, or appropriate/inappropriate language, is based on understanding the time and place for its use, and with that in mind, surely speakers of non-inner circle Englishes can be largely trusted to use a form of English that would be understood by their interlocutor, thereby understanding the ‘when’ and ‘where’ regarding which variety to use. Moreover, one central purpose for including non-inner circle Englishes in the EFL classroom is indeed to determine the relevant contexts for their usage. In this manner, switching from an inner circle English to a different variety is nothing more than code-switching, which in itself

6  Non-inner Circle Englishes in the Classroom     159

is a strategic means to deploy the language that is most appropriate and relevant for one’s audience. This is in contrast to blanket suggestions that a certain variety of language is somehow ‘wrong’ across the board (and thus, not to be used). Moreover, we should consider the potential for the EFL classroom to make students—and crucially teachers— aware of English beyond the inner circle. After all, English as a Foreign Language would, by definition, incorporate more than just inner circle varieties. Therefore, EFL students can be encouraged to share their variety of English within the classroom, as a means to share culture, engage with both the other students and teacher and be able to ideally see that in the end, no variety of inner/outer/expanding circle English is inherently superior, just different. Before we attempt to discuss what is or is not correct usage regarding our EFL students’ spoken (or written) English, we need to consider the importance of context. In other words, what is the context of the communicative act that the student is engaged in and/or is being taught? If we are teaching students academic writing, then clearly, standard inner circle English is the appropriate form to teach and expect of our students. I recall when I was teaching EFL (academic) writing in Britain that any American spelling and/or vocabulary was ‘corrected’ by some of the other (British) teachers, to which I fully agreed. Is American English wrong? Clearly not, but it is inappropriate—in a purely objective sense—for academic writing in Britain (and vice versa), or perhaps questionable at least (though I understand that some universities may indeed allow its usage in Britain, but not a combination of both British and American English). However, this still means that we need to distinguish between errors in a strict sense and those that are merely examples of a variety of English. This, once again, is an important distinction to make as it can make a lot of difference to the feedback we offer our students. It is perfectly acceptable to identify a grammatical error on a student’s essay if we can be certain it is an error, whereas at other times, we would be right to inform the student that his/her variety of English, while legitimate, is merely inappropriate for the context. I have no doubt that we, as teachers, know how to respond appropriately to our students and especially to their assessed work, but the point here is that recognition of an error versus a linguistic choice that is merely

160     A. Baratta

for another context is an important distinction to make. Thus, if teaching our students everyday conversation, a context in which inner circle Englishes often default to more informal and non-standard expressions, then this is a context which, while not perhaps requiring non-inner circle Englishes, nonetheless does not have to rely on formal standard (inner circle) English either. On the other hand, might students be encouraged to consider contexts in which their use of a non-inner circle English might be acceptable? After all, we can’t assume that the person with whom they are conversing is an inner circle English speaker; he/she might well be from outside this circle and someone with whom a shared World English is the norm, and code-switching is a common linguistic strategy between the two speakers. In such cases, it is possible that the insertion of a word(s) tied to a non-inner circle English might be common, especially if it describes a concept that does not exist in inner circle English and is tied to the specific culture that the World English belongs to. Regarding the multitude of Englishes in the world, Yano (2009: 253) suggests a very plausible future scenario for the English language and its myriad speakers, in that ‘English proficiency will be judged not by being a native speaker or not, but by the individual’s level of cross-cultural communicative competence as an English-knowing bi- or multilingual individual’. This clearly indicates a need to learn more than one variety of English, as we may need to be ready to use it at a moment’s notice, or at least to understand it if spoken by others. As Mahboob (2014: 264) states, ‘local varieties may be used in educational contexts, but this should be done without replacing access to the global norms of the language’. Again, it suggests a pedagogic balance, in that we have a central focus on a specific English, but have additional English knowledge in reserve. It also means that inner circle English, even if it is the model of input, does not have to be the model of output. Starting with the most obvious premise of learning any language, which is to be understood appropriately by others (thus acknowledging a need for pragmatic, and not just semantic and syntactic competence), we then need to prepare our students for this kind of communicative competence. Mahboob further offers guidance as to how the contextual complexities play out

6  Non-inner Circle Englishes in the Classroom     161

with regard to another ‘single’ language across several contexts which themselves can involve speakers from within all three circles of English (page 262): 1. Local, written, everyday Friends writing letters to each other; 2. Local, oral, everyday Friends talking to each other about their plans for the holidays; 3. Local, written, specialized Texts written by and for a local group of farmers; 4. Local, oral, specialized Farmers discussing specifics about their crops; 5. Global, written, everyday International news agencies reporting on events; 6. Global, oral, everyday Conversations amongst people from different parts of the world; 7. Global, written, specialized Academics writing research papers; and 8. Global, oral, specialized Conference presentations. This systematic approach to English teaching and learning would surely not look out of place within an EFL classroom. The implication, however, is that it does not need to rely on merely inner circle varieties. While points one and two could easily involve inner circle dialects and sociolects (I’m reminded of the use amongst British youth of the expression well sick, meaning ‘very good’), here are opportunities to use more local English expressions from outside the inner circle. This allows students to inform the teacher how they would communicate when considering point one, for example, which may indeed involve a local English, or even code-mixing involving English and Turkish. The students are thus being encouraged to express their linguistic reality. Point six is especially telling, as it implies a use of English in situations ranging from students being asked directions by West African tourists, to having a conversation with an exchange student from Brazil. The default language may be English, but in such situations, do students need to focus on standard English? That is not to suggest that they might feel free to use their local variety of English with someone who is unfamiliar with anything but the classroom standard; what it does mean, however, is that two individuals who otherwise share a

162     A. Baratta

foreign language do not need to feel pressured in this instance to use only standard grammar, for example, and can surely be understood, and forgiven, if not inflecting third person verbs, as but one example. Summary In closing, I leave the reader with the following points, before moving on to the methodology and subsequent results and discussion: • Perhaps one of the biggest challenges regarding the need for a more respectful stance toward non-inner circle Englishes is to dispel the myth that they represent some kind of broken English; • Indeed, for some, even regular and predictable grammar and lexis within such varieties is regarded as somehow not correct, using inner circle Englishes as the permanent benchmark; • Admittedly, however, we need to clarify the specific instances in which the grammar and lexis of non-inner circle Englishes is indeed predictable and uniform amongst its speakers; such regularity would be a clear example of an established language and as such, it cannot be dismissed as incorrect; • Likewise, we need to correct students’ use of English which exhibits pure errors, unless of course such ‘errors’ are nothing more than another variety of the English language; • Ultimately, distinguishing between errors and mere innovative difference can add clarity to the subject and reflect on informal codification of various NICE, for use in students’ own EFL classrooms and certainly necessary for EFL teachers; • There is a need to use non-inner circle Englishes and a need to use inner circle English(es), and so if students can be taught to appreciate such contextual sensitivities, then they can be guided in the ways that they can shift linguistic gears as and when the context(s) demand; • Ultimately, the link between language and culture is an important one, and highly relevant for a language-based classroom; as such, a respect for the students’ L1 and/or their variety of English, equates to respect for their culture.

6  Non-inner Circle Englishes in the Classroom     163

References Alptekin, C. (2002). Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT. ELT Journal, 56(1), 57–64. Ates, B., Eslami, Z., & Wright, K. (2015). Incorporating world Englishes into undergraduate ESL education courses. World Englishes, 34(3), 485–501. Baker, W. (2012). From cultural awareness to intercultural awareness: Cultures in ELT. ELT Journal, 66(1), 62–70. Baumgardner, R. (1987). Utilising Pakistani English newspaper to teach grammar. World Englishes, 6(3), 241–253. Bayyurt, Y., & Serafakis, N. (2017). Foundations of an EIL-aware teacher education. In A. Matsuda (Ed.), Preparing teachers to teach English as an international language (pp. 3–18). Bristol: Multilingual Matters and Channel Gate Publishers. Bokhorst-Heng, W. (2012). Lexical innovation in English as an international language: Implications for English teaching. In L. Alsagoff, S. McKay, G. Hu, & W. Renandya (Eds.), Principles and practices for teaching English as an international language (pp. 206–225). New York: Routledge. Bolton, K. (2002). Hong Kong English: Autonomy and creativity. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Brown, K. (1993). World Englishes in TESOL programs: An infusion model of curricular innovation. World Englishes, 12(1), 59–73. Brown, K. (1995). World Englishes: To teach or not to teach? World Englishes, 14(2), 233–245. Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Interrogating the “native speaker fallacy”: Nonlinguistics roots, non-pedagogical results. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English language teaching (pp. 77–92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cook, V. (2002). Portraits of the L2 user. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D. (2008). Two thousand million? English Today, 24(1), 3–6. Diamond, H., & Fahey, M. (1997). Executive writing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Dinh, T. N. (2017). Preparing preservice teachers with EIL/WE-oriented materials development. In A. Matsuda (Ed.), Preparing teachers to teach English as an international language (pp. 131–146). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

164     A. Baratta

Doan, N. (2014). Teaching the target culture in English teacher education programs: Issues of EIL in Vietnam. In M. Roby & R. Giri (Eds.), The pedagogy of English as an international language (pp. 79–93). New York: Springer. D’Souza, J. (1999). Afterword. World Englishes, 18, 271–274. Feldman, K., & Kinsella, K. (2005). Narrowing the language gap: The case for explicit vocabulary instruction. New York: Scholastic Inc. Friedrich, P. (2002). Teaching world Englishes in two South American countries. World Englishes, 21(3), 441–444. Galloway, N. (2011). An investigation of Japanese students’ attitudes towards English (PhD dissertation). University of Southampton. Galloway, N. (2013). Global Englishes and English language teaching (ELT)— Bridging the gap between theory and practice in a Japanese context. System, 41(3), 786–803. Galloway, N. (2017). Global Englishes and changes in English language teaching. London: Routledge. Galloway, N., & Rose, H. (2015). Introducing global Englishes. London: Routledge. He, D., & Zhang, Q. (2010). Native speaker norms and China English: From the perspectives of learners and teachers in China. TESOL Quarterly, 44(4), 769–789. Hino, N. (2017). Teaching graduate students in Japan to be EIL teachers. In A. Matsuda (Ed.), Preparing teachers to teach English as an international language (pp. 87–99). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Honna, N., & Takeshita, Y. (2014). English as an international language and three challenging issues in English language teaching in Japan. In M. Roby & R. Giri (Eds.), The pedagogy of English as an international language (pp. 65–77). New York: Springer. Kachru, B. B. (1992). Models for non-native Englishes. In B. B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures (pp. 48–74). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Kachru, B. B. (1995). Teaching world Englishes without myths. In S. K. Gill (Ed.), Proceedings of the international English language education conference, national and international challenges and responses (pp. 1–19). Bangi: Pusat Bahasa Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Kang, S. Y. (2017). US-based teacher education program for ‘local’ EIL teachers. In A. Matsuda (Ed.), Preparing teachers to teach English as an international language (pp. 51–68). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

6  Non-inner Circle Englishes in the Classroom     165

Kirkpatrick, A. (2006). Which model of English? Native speaker, nativised or lingua franca? In R. Rubdy & M. Saraceni (Eds.), English in the world: Global rules, global rules (pp. 71–83). London: Continuum. Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for international communication and English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kubota, R. (2001). Teaching world Englishes to native speakers of English in the USA. World Englishes, 20(1), 47–64. Mahboob, A. (2014). English in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. World Englishes, 33(1), 128–142. Matsuda, A. (2003). “International understanding” through teaching world Englishes. World Englishes, 21(3), 436–440. Matsuda, A. (Ed.). (2017). Preparing teachers to teach English as an international language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Matsuda, A., & Friedrich, P. (2011). English as an international language: A curriculum blueprint. World Englishes, 30(3), 332–344. Matsuura, H., Chiba, R., & Fujieda, M. (1999). Intelligibility and comprehensibility of American and Irish Englishes in Japan. World Englishes, 18(1), 49–62. McKay, S. (2002). Teaching English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McKay, S. (2003). Towards an appropriate EFL pedagogy: Re-examining common ELT assumptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 1–22. McKay, S. (2012). Principles of teaching English as an international language. In L. Alsagoff, S. McKay, G. Hu, & W. Renandya (Eds.), Principles and practices for teaching English as an international language (pp. 28–46). New York: Routledge. Omoniyi, T. (2006). Hierarchy of identities. In T. Omoniyi & G. White (Eds.), The sociolinguistics of identity (pp. 11–33). London: Continuum. Prodromou, L. (1997). Global English and the octopus. IATEFL Newsletter, 137, 18–22. Renandya, W. (2012). Teacher roles in EIL. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 1(2), 65–80. Rose, H. (2017). A global approach to English language teaching: Integrating an international perspective into a teaching methods course. In A. Matsuda (Ed.), Preparing teachers to teach English as an international language (pp. 169–180). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

166     A. Baratta

Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209–239. Smith, L., & Nelson, C. (2006). World Englishes and issues of intelligibility. In B. Kachru, Y. Kachru, & C. Nelson (Eds.), The handbook of world Englishes (pp. 428–445). Oxford: Blackwell. Sridhar, K., & Sridhar, S. (1992). Bridging the paradigm gap: Second-language acquisition theory and indigenized varieties of English. In B. B. Kachru (Ed.), Teaching world Englishes. The other tongue: English across cultures (pp. 91–107). Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Yano, Y. (2009). English as an international lingua franca: From societal to individual. World Englishes, 28(2), 246–255.

7 Methodology

7.1 Defining the Sample The sample of participants whose views on World Englishes are referred to derives from three universities in the North of England. As will be explained, a university setting was felt to be ideal for attracting relevant participants, given the presence of both students and teachers, both local and international, which is quite relevant to the international study, and teaching, of the English language. For the purposes of investigating the role of World Englishes (as the term is applied within this book) in the classroom, I first needed to determine who the sample was; who exactly is perhaps best qualified to discuss the subject of World Englishes and their role, if any, in the EFL classroom? I decided that there were two broad groups whose views would be crucial in order to inform the subject—EFL teachers (regardless of their first language) and broadly, non-native speakers of inner circle English (regardless of their profession and indeed, whether or not they were currently studying EFL at the time of my study). I realised that it would be entirely possible that individuals may indeed belong to both groups, such as current, or even former, EFL teachers © The Author(s) 2019 A. Baratta, World Englishes in English Language Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13286-6_7

167

168     A. Baratta

who themselves, if being non-inner circle English speakers, also had experience with being EFL students. In cases such as this, I suggested to the individual via e-mail to respond to the questions with whichever of the two identities that was felt to be more relevant—that of teacher or that of student. In this manner, whichever of the two EFL classroom experiences was most relevant and perhaps significant in some way, then this is the identity—as a teacher or as a student—that informed the completion of the questions.

7.2 Recruitment I recruited participants from three universities, by means of placing flyers within the various buildings on each campus and by word of mouth (e.g. some participants discussed my research with others who in turn agreed to be involved). The flyers provided a synopsis of my study and my e-mail address. From here, individuals were able to e-mail me asking for further information, should they have needed it, and I then e-mailed the relevant forms back to them: the participant information sheet, consent form and the questionnaire. There were two separate questionnaires, one for EFL teachers and one for those within the broader category of non-native speaker of an inner circle English (or, to use the more everyday term perhaps, non-native speaker of English). As mentioned, deciding which questionnaire to answer for those who essentially belonged to both participant categories (or had experience with both) was a decision that I left to the individuals. Once the questionnaires had been completed, the participants e-mailed them back to me for analysis. The choice was taken to recruit participants from universities for the following reasons. First, it made sense to locate EFL teachers within a school setting. This need not be tied to universities of course and in fact EFL teachers can be found in a number of settings, from language schools to libraries which hire volunteer teachers to teach EFL to the local community. However, of the three universities, all had EFL programmes, such as summer pre-sessional programmes, EFL provision at

7 Methodology     169

a Language Centre and a MA in TESOL programme; combined, this allowed for good exposure to a wide range of EFL teachers. Moreover, this also potentially allowed for individuals who perhaps had much experience in the teaching of EFL, given their decision to engage in an MA in TESOL and/or being currently employed as teachers, for example. For this reason, it was possible that such participants had something to report regarding World Englishes (however inclusive/exclusive they interpreted this term) and ideally from personal experience of coming into contact with such varieties. In addition, a university was felt to be ideal in attracting students from many language backgrounds other than English and as such, individuals who had experience of learning EFL, whether past or present. However, this was not an attempt to focus on EFL students per se. Given their presence on a university campus, it was more likely that overseas students would already have a degree of English proficiency if enrolled on degree courses. Nonetheless, their status as non-native speakers of inner circle English suggested that at some point in time, they would have learned English as a foreign language and therefore, would be eligible for inclusion in my study. I did take into consideration the fact that for some older participants, their previous experience of EFL teaching or learning, or both, might not have been at a time during which World Englishes were a relevant concept—not just the term per se, but also the recognition of regional varieties in outer/expanding circle countries. However, the purpose was to apply the current recognition of such to familiar experiences in the EFL classroom and therefore, it was felt that retrospective though it may be for some, there was the chance for participants to consider their past linguistic experiences from a potentially fresh perspective.

7.3 Data Collection The decision was further taken to use questionnaires as a data collection tool. I was hoping to obtain the highest number of participants as possible and based on this, the questionnaire was felt to be a prudent

170     A. Baratta

choice, and for three reasons. First, given the fact that questionnaires can be completed in a relatively short amount of time and from a convenient location (e.g. at home and/or on campus) without the additional time required to arrange interviews, I had hoped that this alone might persuade more individuals to be involved. Second, given that the questionnaires could essentially be completed on the participants’ terms—concerning the where, when and how—allowed participants to be in charge to an extent. That is, they would be enabled to answer as much or as little as they felt was necessary and to complete the questionnaire as and when they wished, perhaps completing it over the course of a week, if this worked best for them, given that it was completed in privacy and e-mailed back to me at a time convenient for the participant. Finally, a third benefit in the decision to use questionnaires is based on the fact that as there was no contact between the participants and me, then the potential for any of them to feel uncomfortable or feel a need to provide answers that they thought I was hoping for was minimised. Thus, this is suggested to be another means by which the participants were fully enabled to address the questions, and answer them, on their own terms. The questions consisted of two broad categories—personal information such as nationality, age and first language (provided in the tables to follow)—and qualitative questions which focused on the following: participants’ understanding of the term World Englishes; asking them to provide an example of such; participants’ views as to whether or not such Englishes are ‘deviant’ from the standard variety found in inner circle countries; and finally, participants were asked what role, if any, World Englishes might play within the EFL classroom. Recognizing of course the possibility that some participants might not be aware of the term ‘World Englishes’, I provided a brief explanation of two such varieties within the questionnaire, consisting of distinctive grammar (e.g. I am having a car, for Indian English, and Grand Open, from Korean English). I regarded this merely as a prompt and also a clarification of a term that some participants might not be familiar with. While I have mentioned that those with experience of EFL teaching and/or EFL learning might be better positioned to understand this

7 Methodology     171

subject, I also had to consider my position within all this. That is, while I am familiar with the term and know of relevant examples, it was important not to assume too much and in doing so, believe that the broad term of ‘World Englishes’ (though I can think of none better) would automatically ring a bell with everyone. This brief prompting was felt to be necessary to provide clarity. Of course, by using this term, and based on the examples I provided of Indian English and Korean English, it might be seen that participants are being prompted to interpret World Englishes as being, as some indeed argue, exclusive to outer and expanding circle varieties. However, I did not otherwise suggest that inner circle varieties could not be included, and one participant did in fact include the dialect of Scots in his response to the questionnaire, which, whether seen as a dialect or a language, is reflective of the inner circle. Ultimately, then, when referring in the methods chapter to the term of World Englishes, I use this broad reference simply as a reflection of the same term participants were exposed to, but a reflection also of the potential for the term to incorporate all three circles of English.

7.4 Thematic Analysis The four key questions which together addressed the main focus within this book provided the responses from which the central themes emerged. Essentially, we might consider this kind of analysis from a funnel perspective, in which the answers provided by participants can be unpacked in an ever increasingly narrow manner. For example, to the key question of whether or not World Englishes should be used in the EFL classroom—the question whose answers are essentially the bedrock of this book—the response is either a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (or possibly ‘don’t know’). For affirmative responses, there is then the ‘why’ to consider at the next level, and the rationale for the value of World Englishes in the classroom can consist of more than one answer (e.g. some may view them as equal to inner circle Englishes, but some might also value their classroom presence based on a need to teach culture).

172     A. Baratta

Thus, the various reasons for affirming a place in the classroom for World Englishes, or not, can involve different mindsets from the participants and with a careful analysis of the reasons for or against the presence of World Englishes in the EFL classroom, this helps to ensure that the subsequent discussion leaves no one’s views out of the picture. Given the use of open-ended questions, participants were in full control to decide for themselves how to address them and this left me with answers which were in fact quite easy to code for what turned out to be very recognizable and concrete themes, as discussed in the next chapter.

7.5 Positioning It is crucial to approach the data with, as much as possible, an open mind, not assuming, for example, that EFL speakers and/or teachers would automatically warm to the idea of the inclusion of World Englishes in the classroom, or even desire official recognition of such (i.e. along the lines of textbook-based codification used within classrooms in their native countries). Based on my own experience teaching in Korea, in which I came across much resistance to Konglish/Korean English, from Koreans themselves, I believe that this helped me somewhat to not position myself as being on a crusade to declare all Englishes as being in need of a voice. It was up to the participants to declare this for themselves and for me to then analyse the findings. Indeed, for EFL speakers, are they not more in the know in the first instance regarding this matter? That is, they understand the importance of studying, and mastering, inner circle English, a challenge I will never know or understand given that this variety of English is my first language. I do not know the challenges of having to pass a proficiency exam in English (whether TOEFL or IELTS) as a means to determine if indeed I can study overseas in the first instance. I do not know the pressures of sometimes having to pass an English proficiency exam just to enter a high ranking university in one’s native country (e.g. Seoul National University). I’m sure that EFL students can point to many other challenges involved, that I, as an inner circle English speaker, simply do not know of. My purpose in mentioning this is to establish the

7 Methodology     173

fact that I did have to question my position in all this before beginning the research. As I mentioned, to consider myself on some kind of linguistic crusade would be misinformed before even hearing what others had to say on the matter, notably EFL English speakers and/or EFL students. Given the suggested pressure to become proficient in English, more so if studying in an inner circle country, it may indeed be the case that World Englishes, or certainly the variety that a given student is familiar with, are not seen as in need of rescuing. It could even be that some individuals do not feel so tied to them in the first instance in terms of regarding them as some kind of badge of identity, even if they do use an outer/expanding circle English. When I began to consider these possibilities, it made me realise that it would have been very presumptuous to decide the status of World Englishes for those who conceive of them in what might be a very different manner. If so, then this also suggests the potential for broad differences between L1 (inner circle) English speakers, who are themselves EFL teachers, and L2 English speakers, whether students, teachers or anything else in regard to career choice. Of course, the important factor is not to assume anything; indeed, some L2 English speakers may feel that their local variety of English needs to be championed against what might be felt as the dominance and even linguistic imperialism of an inner circle variety. Likewise, it is possible that some EFL teachers, whether L1 or L2 English speakers, may not feel that the classroom is an appropriate context for the discussion, let alone the usage, of a non-inner circle variety. Thus, it was entirely necessary to take a ‘wait and see’ approach to the results I collected and from there, present the results as I found them.

7.6 Participants A total of thirty six individuals volunteered to take part in the research and subsequently completed the questionnaires. Before providing background information on the participants, I first provide a breakdown of the number of individuals who belonged to the relevant categories which were established for inclusion in the study: EFL teachers who are native

174     A. Baratta

speakers of an inner circle English (20); non-native inner circle speakers of English with experience of teaching EFL (11); and finally, non-native speakers of inner circle English who were/are not EFL teachers (5). Unless noted otherwise, the location of EFL teaching for the relevant participants, if referred to as ‘university’ or ‘college’, denotes a British setting; this is also the case, unless otherwise mentioned, for those who taught EFL in language schools. In the instances where EFL teachers taught in colleges/universities, I have chosen not to refer to the institutions by name in order to maintain anonymity. A final point is that, while I did not ask participants to identify their race or ethnic background, some nonetheless chose to do so (e.g. ‘white British’). In all instances, the information provided in the tables below is taken directly from the participants’ completed questionnaires. It is acknowledged that in the case of L2 English speakers who did/ do not have experience of having taught EFL, I asked them for the length of time that they had studied English; I did not ask this of the L2 English speakers who themselves did/do teach EFL. In retrospect, given that they both have a shared identity of being L2 English speakers, then it would have perhaps made sense to ask this question of both groups. The initial rationale for asking the length of time for having studied EFL was as a means to help interpret the participants’ answers with regard to attitudes toward World Englishes. Given the L2 English speakers’ experience with having also taught EFL, then it was felt that this experience was in essence the more relevant factor for them, in terms of how this has influenced, if at all, their attitudes toward World Englishes, in or out of the classroom. Nonetheless, what is perhaps a more important factor is that the study comprises two broader groups—L1 and L2 English speakers—and their views on World Englishes. This is not to suggest that the two groups, simply based on their first language, have inherently opposing views of this subject. However, it makes for a fruitful line of research, I would argue, to investigate how their linguistic experiences might have played a role in their subsequent attitudes toward Englishes which exist beyond the inner circle in particular, though not excluding non-standard inner circle varieties either. On the other hand, it may well be that the

7 Methodology     175

experience of having taught EFL, especially in a foreign country(ies), unifies many of the participants in that they have come into contact with languages, and cultures, other than their own, which in turn can help to encourage a more egalitarian approach to language. Tables are now presented which provide background information on the participants. Table 7.1 contains background information on the participants whose first language is an inner circle English, notably British English, and who are also teachers of English. Table 7.2 reflects the participants who have experience teaching English who are otherwise non-native speakers of inner circle English (or to use another means of terminology, participants who are not native speakers of English). Finally, Table 7.3 contains information regarding participants who are not native speakers of inner circle English and have no experience of having taught English. Thus, participants represented in Tables 7.2 and 7.3 are related in that they are non-native speakers of the English language.

7.7 Limitations Specifically, the decision to use questionnaires might be met with a certain scepticism in terms of the answers that participants provide: are the answers truly reflective of the participants’ views, or are they an attempt to somehow appease the researcher, providing him or her with the answers participants think the researcher wishes to hear? However, given that the participants had no direct contact with me, as mentioned, otherwise providing their completed questionnaires and contacting me solely by email, it was felt that this helped to prevent participants being influenced, however subtly, by myself. This arguably helped to ensure that participants provided the answers that made sense to themselves and also, given the bluntness and honesty with which they responded, it is clear that participants were thinking for themselves. While thirty six participants is not of course a large number, the purpose of this study was

British

British British British

British White British Scottish

British (though as she is of 28 Chinese descent, she also speaks Cantonese as a joint first language) White British 20

British British

P3

P4 P5 P6

P7 P8 P9

P10

P11

P12 P13

Age

20 24

25 20 20

23 57 29

29

22 27

Nationality

Welsh British

Identifier

P1 P2

Not stated Female

Female

Female

Male Female Female

Male Female Male

Male

Female Female

Gender

6–7 months 2 years and 4 months

2 years

5 years

1 year 2 years 2 years

3 years 18 months 8 years

4 years

1 year 5 years

Time spent teaching EFL

Table 7.1  EFL teachers who are native speakers of an inner circle English

(continued)

China (7 months); remainder of time in Britain University University (2 years); South Korea (4 months)

University England (2 years); China (3 years) Spain (2.5 academic years); Netherlands (1 full year); Belgium (1 academic year) England (2 years); Japan (1 year) University England (4 years); South Korea (4 years) Saudi Arabia University China (10 months); University (1 year, 6 months) China (5 years)

Location of EFL teaching

176     A. Baratta

Nationality

British

British

British

British

White British British British

Identifier

P14

P15

P16

P17

P18 P19 P20

Table 7.1  (continued) Age

21 23 49

26

21

23

23

Gender

Female Female Male

Female

Female

Female

Male

Time spent teaching EFL

1 year Under 1 year 20 years

6 years on and off

3 years

3 years

3 years

College (1 year); University (1 year); Three summer camps (Poland/Slovakia); Spain (1 year) Britain (2 years); South Korea (1 year) Britain (2 years); South Korea (1 year) Britain (as part of BA degree); 12 weeks over two summers in British summer schools; Poland (6 weeks) University and South Korea University and an EFL school Thailand (4.5 years); Japan (2 years); Remainder in UK

Location of EFL teaching

7 Methodology     177

Mexican/Spanish

Dutch/Dutch and Norwegian (balanced bilingual) Korean/Korean Norwegian/Norwegian German/German

Chinese/Chinese Cameroonian/French Polish/Polish

Thai/Thai Chinese/Chinese Saudi Arabia/Arabic

P21

P22

P26 P27 P28

P29 P30 P31

P23 P24 P25

Nationality/First language

Identifier

36 Not stated 31

38 22 21

25 23 25

51

39

Age

Female Female Female

Female Female Female

Male Female Female

Male

Male

Gender

Location of EFL teaching

9 years 3 years 5 years

15 years 2 years 1 year

2 years previously Over two years 2 years

South Korea UK/South Korea Germany (2 years); UK (3 summers) China (15 years) College/university China (1 month); University (1 year) Thailand (9 years) China (3 years) Saudi Arabia (5 years)

No longer teaching, but USA (3 months); Mexico (more than 12 years) did it for over 12 years About 4 years previously South Korea (4 years)

Time spent teaching EFL

Table 7.2  Non-native speakers of inner circle English with experience of teaching EFL

178     A. Baratta

25

Spanish/Galician and Spanish

Turkish/British (dual national)/Turkish

Italian/Italian

Greek/Greek

Polish/Polish

P33

P34

P35

P36 30

27

24

45

Age

Identifier Nationality/First language

P32

Male

Female

Female

Female

Female

Gender

Around 10 years

Since 5 years old

15 years

Not specified

15 years

Time spent studying EFL

Table 7.3  Non-native speakers of inner circle English who were/are not EFL teachers School/high school in Spain until 18; university until 22; selftaught since then in both Spain and UK P33 did not learn EFL, but learned English through immersion in an international school (location unspecified) Italy, from the last two years of primary school until university (for the last five years) Greece, from primary to high school, and including a private tutor Poland, throughout the school curriculum; England (private school/college)

Location of EFL study

7 Methodology     179

180     A. Baratta

not to attempt to make broad generalisations, the kind that can only be afforded by large-scale research. Instead, I wished to delve into current attitudes toward NICE, to include inner circle dialects, and how these might be manifest in the classroom. With the cross-section of relevant participants sampled, this goal was largely met.

8 Results and Discussion

8.1 Can You Tell Me Your Understanding of the Term ‘World Englishes’? To this question, the vast majority of participants, perhaps unsurprisingly, referred to World Englishes in terms of difference—that is, versions of the English language used around the world which differ from each other in some way. Thus, it is unsurprising that synonyms which pertain to this understanding appear frequently, involving words such as ‘variety’, ‘type’ and ‘form’. Table 8.1 contains responses from participants that broadly conceptualise World Englishes in terms of being varieties of the English language, representing an overall objective approach (i.e. one free from judgement, positive or negative). Out of thirty six participants, twenty nine responded by referring to World Englishes in terms of their plurality and distinctiveness in some way: ‘the variety of Englishes spoken throughout the world’; ‘the varieties of English around the world’; ‘different varieties of English used around the world’; ‘a variety of Englishes that are spoken around the world’; ‘the varieties of English used across the globe’. P25 was unique as she was the © The Author(s) 2019 A. Baratta, World Englishes in English Language Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13286-6_8

181

182     A. Baratta Table 8.1  World Englishes as varieties of English Variety

Types

Forms

Different

Variation

Kinds

16

4

4

2

2

1

only participant who referred to World Englishes not just in terms of a variety, but as ‘different recognised varieties of Englishes’ (emphasis mine). This italicised word can refer to the simple fact that there are indeed varieties of English which have been recognised to the extent that they have a specific name attributed to them and going further, specific lexis and/ or grammatical features which are unique to said recognised variety and which has been discussed in relevant books and journals perhaps. Four participants described World Englishes by using the word ‘type’: ‘the different types of English spoken around the world’; ‘different types of English spoken in different parts of the world’. Four more participants used the key word ‘form’ to describe World Englishes: ‘different forms of English used across the world’; ‘the different forms of English used around the world’. The word ‘different’, while commonly used to modify words such as ‘variety’ (e.g. ‘different varieties…’), was also used by two individuals more directly, thus describing World English as ‘different Englishes which are used around the world’; ‘different Englishes people speak around the world’. From here, we see ‘variation’ used, such as ‘Englishes that are their own variation of English’ and ‘variations of English as spoken in different countries around the world’. Finally, one individual described World Englishes as ‘the different kinds of English spoken in different regions around the world’. So far, these twenty nine individuals whose views are captured within Table 8.1, understand World Englishes primarily in terms of being different from each other. These responses might appear to be relatively straightforward, as they reflect what is an accurate definition of World Englishes perhaps—Englishes which are spoken throughout the world and which exhibit differences in structure and/or lexis from each other and of course, from standard English. Further, difference is a purely objective manner in which to refer to linguistic variety in the sense that it is purely factual that varieties of English, by definition, exhibit differences from each other and difference does not mean, or imply, deficit, which none of the participants thus far has implied.

8  Results and Discussion     183

If we expand on some of these twenty nine responses, more so those which provided more detailed answers, then there is much we can glean from participants’ understanding of, and attitudes toward, World Englishes. For example, P14 referred to World Englishes as ‘a localised variety that has developed in a specific region, often due to historical contact with the English language’. This might appear to apply to outer circle Englishes specifically, but if we hone in on ‘localised variety’, then this is implying that given a localised version of something, in this case a language, we can perhaps only expect change to take place. We can expect, as these twenty nine participants have alluded to, linguistic difference. The question is then raised, however, as to what World Englishes are different from, exactly. Is there a definitive version, which itself is different from other versions, but by being the definitive version, it is implied that this is the standard to ultimately achieve? Of all thirty six participants, only two specifically mentioned difference in regard to inner circle English. P4 referred to World Englishes as ­‘modified versions of English spoken within a group or nationality of English speakers (who otherwise may not speak English as their native language) which sees rules of grammar changed and lexis carrying different meanings to, for example, British English’. P11 gave a more brief explanation, that World Englishes are ‘different Englishes which are used around the world which differ from British/American English’. For P4 and P11, then, perhaps P11 more so, the implication is that inner circle Englishes are a benchmark of sorts from which other varieties emanate. This, however, does not suggest a negative judgement and in fact only two participants (to be discussed) referred to World Englishes in rather negative terms. For P4 and P11, their understanding is perhaps more reflective of the simple fact that inner circle Englishes have been spoken longer—and are thus more established to an extent—than have their outer/expanding circle counterparts (though I had mentioned earlier that Indian English was established, by virtue of its usage at least, before the Australian variety). Seen from this perspective, there is still nothing to suggest that P4 and P11 are implying that a language is inherently better than another variety merely by having been on the linguistic block longer, merely that it might seem a logical choice to use inner circle Englishes as a point of

184     A. Baratta

comparison. This itself perhaps reflects the fact that within inner circle countries, it is often standard English (British or American) that is seen as the benchmark of sorts from which non-standard varieties deviate. The very use of terminology such as ‘non-standard’ arguably connotes a certain negativity, in that it could be read, though should not be, as lesser in some way, with ‘standard’ seen as the linguistic norm. Sometimes of course the standard variety is the appropriate choice for communication, but sometimes it is not. P4 further made an interesting comment, in that he referred to the ‘modifications’ that World Englishes have made of inner circle varieties as reflective of ‘aspects which speakers may use in their native tongue… to, for example, suit a purpose that they serve in their native tongue’. Words such as ‘modification’ are appropriate in that they avoid negative judgement or an implication of such and instead, merely point to change. Change itself is neither good, nor bad, just change. Languages have changed and will continue to do so, whether it is English or Zulu, and whether it is British English or Indian English. The mention also of ‘suiting a purpose’ in terms of adapting one’s English to the native language is a reflection of linguistic influence. In fact, why should English not be influenced by surrounding languages? English, like other languages, is a reflection of much linguistic influence. Of course, it is unlikely that anyone would necessarily disagree with this, as it is a fact. However, feelings often override facts with regard to notions of what is ‘proper’ and ‘authentic’ English, as I had mentioned before. Other than P4 and P11, no one else referenced difference in regard to a comparison with inner circle Englishes, thereby mentioning difference in more general terms, suggestive of the simple fact that all varieties of English exhibit some kind of difference from each other. As P12 captured, World Englishes ‘have differing accents, dialects and grammar structures due to various influencing factors’. Such a description could of course apply to inner circle varieties also. P19 further echoed the response of P4 in terms of suiting a purpose, as she explained that World Englishes ‘are the adaptation of the English language to suit countries where English is used but is not necessarily the first language of that country’. Likewise, P35 explained that World Englishes reflect ‘the

8  Results and Discussion     185

various forms that English language entails and embraces in each part of the world where it is spoken’. Again, I wish to focus on key words such as ‘suit’ and ‘embrace’. The notion of a language variety ‘suiting’ its speakers is highly suggestive of it, simply put, being a perfectly acceptable means with which to communicate. It makes sense to the speakers, both in terms of grammar and lexis. All languages essentially ‘suit’ their speakers, but not always those who are listening. This in turn reflects the fact that our language use is not always ours to begin with in that, while World Englishes, specifically NICE, have essentially carved out their niche across the world, negativity toward these varieties can lead some speakers to avoid using them. In addition, the word ‘embraces’ would imply that, once again, we are dealing with a language variety which is accepted by its speakers, perhaps even celebrated. I now continue with the results and discussion by exploring the remaining seven participants’ understanding of the term World Englishes. As with Tables 8.1 and 8.2 provides the participants’ responses based on the key ideas that formed the basis of their responses. Table 8.2 represents participants’ responses to World Englishes that are otherwise eclectic in nature, to include mixed responses ranging from ‘global’ to ‘deficiency’. Taking each of the six remaining categories in turn, the first is based on the statement by P29 that World English is ‘the English that is used globally’. While others referenced the word ‘globally’ or phrases such as ‘around the world’, I had placed P29’s response as its own category as it did not include any of the other key words such as ‘variety’ or ‘type’. In this response, then, ‘globally’ is being used as the key word and is clearly illustrative of what might be considered a ‘super-theme’ of sorts regarding the participants’ answers—that being the fact, though obvious perhaps, that World Englishes are indeed representative of how English is an internationally-spoken language. In fact, out of the thirty six participants, only seven did not specifically reference World Englishes in terms Table 8.2  Miscellaneous categories of world English Global

Accessible

Spread of English

Adaptation

L1 influence

Deficiency

1

1

1

1

1

2

186     A. Baratta

of their global status, to include of course related words or phrases, such as ‘around the world’, ‘different settings in the world’ and so on. Of these seven participants, P21, P23, P33 and P36 will be discussed shortly. The remaining three responded as follows: P14: A localised variety of English that has developed in a specific region, often due to historical contact with the English language. P15: The various types of Englishes, such as Singapore English, Pidgin English, Chinglish etc. P17: Englishes that are their own variation of English. Generally influenced by another language. While the three responses above as part of Table 8.2, notably that of P15, allude to a global spread involving the English language, they do no specifically reference it. Again, it might seem unnecessary to discuss what is otherwise regarded perhaps as an obvious fact in terms of the global spread of English. However, it is the implications of such which need to be considered further, one of which is the ways in which the language will inevitably change due to its spread and, as mentioned by P19, the changes will ‘suit countries where English is used but is not necessarily the first language of that country’. This could possibly suggest that English as a foreign language (EFL) students, particularly those who actively use a non-inner circle English (as opposed to merely being aware of it), could feel a degree of comfort in seeing their country’s English on the board and/or made a discussion point in the classroom. The point is not necessarily to teach World Englishes per se (though this is an inevitable by-product), but to use them as a springboard to help students acquire inner circle English skills, or whatever the dominant classroom English happens to be (and this need not focus just on inner circle standard English, but extend to dialects too). In fact, what is also being taught is an understanding of what specific variety of English to use and when and with whom. This helps to make students more linguistically well-rounded, as standard inner circle English will not always be the variety which is appropriate for every context of communication that EFL students might find themselves in.

8  Results and Discussion     187

Continuing the discussion based on the responses in Table 8.2, P33 regarded World English as ‘English being an accessible form of communication where the accent with which you speak is not as important as the ability to communicate’. This is a comment in need of further unpacking as it reflects a broad, though perhaps necessary, perspective. First, P33 is herself a non-native inner circle speaker of English, as are sixteen participants in total. This, so far in the discussion, has not been raised as a particularly relevant point regarding the participants’ answers, and perhaps it is not in the case of P33 either. Nonetheless, by referencing accent, as opposed to lexis and grammar, P33 is implying that it is someone’s voice that might be more of a factor in some way regarding communication. In terms of accent per se, there is much literature that explains that our accent can indeed be a source for positive and negative evaluation (Eckert 1989; Ramsaran 1990; Trudgill 2002; Baratta 2018). In terms of L2 English speakers, a pronounced foreign accent, even with proficient English, can lead to negative judgements by native English speakers (Jaber and Hussein 2011). It could be that this has been a factor in P33’s own experiences of speaking English. Her comment might also be seen as reflective of a more general concern that we should not judge speakers based on how they speak, but more so on what they say. This is strongly suggested based on P33’s comment that we need ‘an accessible form of communication’ with regard to English. Thus, if English is being used, as it is, across the world, and often between individuals who themselves are not native speakers (NS) (certainly not of an inner circle variety), then, from a purely practical point of view, the focus should simply be on making sure one’s message is communicated so that all understand. This would involve a degree of grammatical and lexical precision of course (for the particular English being spoken). While accent could also be considered an important aspect, P33 suggests otherwise. Accent is an important factor in helping to create a sense of personal identity (Becker 1995; Jenkins 2007; Achirri 2017), but it might be that P33 is arguing against what might be a preoccupation with having the ‘right’ accent and instead, focusing on ensuring that one’s message is received regardless of having a native versus a non-native accent.

188     A. Baratta

The word ‘accessible’ could have even deeper implications. It might suggest the need for a variety of English that can be understood by the people who need to use it, which in turn means that such Englishes indeed develop in a way that does ‘suit’ the speakers and makes sense to them, such as retaining progressive forms of stative verbs for Indian English. We need also consider, however, how, given the international status of English, there is a subsequent need for it to be understood internationally. This suggests once again a need to ideally be proficient in more than one English and know which one to deploy at which time. Even monolingual English speakers are not really monolingual, if we consider the different ‘Englishes’ that they might use in a given day, ranging from standard English to dialect, and involving formal to extremely informal registers. As I had mentioned, but it is worth repeating, it is not uncommon for inner circle speakers to have communicative issues amongst themselves. For example, an individual with a strong Liverpool accent may not be understood by a Texan (and vice versa), based not merely on accent, but also regional lexis (such as the use of the word bizzie in Liverpool, meaning ‘police officer’) and even grammar (e.g. give it us for give it to me ). But no single language variety can play a linguistic trump card over another; it is public attitudes that are the basis of such. It seems that allowance is given, to a certain extent, for communication difficulties between inner circle speakers; with those from outside this group, it is arguably the case that for some interlocutors, there exists a mindset of ‘learn (proper) English’. Standard (inner circle) English has a time and place, such as academic conference presentations; in such instances, might we say that this is the most ‘accessible’ form of English given an academic audience from all over the world who, especially as L2 English speakers, are probably most familiar with standard English, and not particular varieties of World Englishes or even inner circle dialects. Likewise, the use of dialect, such as Ebonics, or NICE such as Singlish, at weddings and family parties, might indeed be the most accessible—in this case, the variety which people feel comfortable with. In such informal contexts, if a lone individual chooses to use standard English or an inner circle variety, this might be met with surprise, even

8  Results and Discussion     189

resentment in that the speaker might be regarded as assuming some kind of social superiority. P31 explained World Englishes in terms of ‘Spread English around the world and it becomes as first, second and foreign language’. Based on this response, the word choice of ‘spread’ was focused on, again a reference to the fact that English has indeed moved beyond its inner circle borders but more of interest is the mention of English being spoken as a foreign language. Based on the context of this study, it is clear that the implications are that, while English might be seen as the dominant language in terms of its global influence and spread, we need to again consider the linguistic implications when it nonetheless comes into contact with another (foreign) language. While word borrowings are common in such cases, it need not mean that words will be used in exactly the same way between the languages, or grammar. Again, this is a case of countries and cultures making English their own. P19 referred to World Englishes in terms of adaptation; ‘the adaptation of the English language to suit countries where English is used but is not necessarily the first language of that country’. I had of course referenced this earlier, but I do so again as the key word of adaptation is a reflection of an organic process in which language changes, as all languages do. In this case, we are dealing with a process by which a language, having been introduced to a country with a different linguistic background, is subject to change based on the language which it comes into contact with. This idea was furthered by other participants in their response to their understanding of World Englishes. Both P4 and P26 referred to English as a ‘lingua franca’, with the implication being that such global spread leads to global variety. P22 explained that ‘English is used in many different settings in the world, and each setting gives rise to a slightly different form of English’. Going further, P34 explained that ‘English spoken by Indians is different from English spoken by Germans’. More specifically, P4, in referencing World Englishes, explained that these varieties see ‘rules of grammar changed and lexis carrying different meaning to, for example, British English. These modifications reflect aspects which speakers may use in their native tongue’. These comments reflect an objective and otherwise neutral stance taken

190     A. Baratta

toward what is, as has been clearly discussed, linguistic difference. It is admittedly harder for some to accept such difference with objectivity when social stigma is attached to difference, in this case difference from inner circle English. P21 explained World Englishes solely in terms of varieties influenced by the speakers’ native language. While this notion of linguistic influence was not referred to solely by P21 (indeed, P12 also mentioned linguistic influence), it appeared as a secondary concern with other participants; with P21, however, it was the main aspect of his response. He explained that ‘it refers to English spoken by people from non-English speaking origins and influenced by their different language backgrounds’. This response reflects two points. One is that World Englishes are a linguistic product between inner circle English and other languages (which may or may not be related to English in the first instance). This is a point that has been raised already of course, but is reflected on to restate the linguistic implications of two languages coming into sustained contact with each other. Second, and a point related to the first, we need to consider the influence that one’s L1 (e.g. Spanish) will exert over the L2/foreign language (here, English) and of course, vice versa. The remaining two participants’ views within Table 8.2 are grouped within a category of ‘deficiency’, as I can think of no better way to capture the fact that their concept of World Englishes is based on a rather pejorative understanding. P23, for example, referred to World Englishes as ‘English spoken somewhere in the middle of understanding of English’; P36’s understanding was expressed as ‘speaking English with heavy foreign accent, using grammatical constructs from my native language, using word translated directly from my native language without ensuring its meaning fits the context and at the extreme using my native language’s words and phrases when I can’t think of a suitable English phrase’. P23’s response is suggestive of perhaps a ‘language in progress’, an attempt to achieve competence in an inner-circle English and in this attempt, making errors that are not otherwise reflective of the target language. This is not mere speculation, as P23 then referenced a friend who speaks Singlish and provided the example of ‘where you

8  Results and Discussion     191

go?’ P23 explained that deletion of auxiliary verbs in Singlish is common. Herein, however, lies what is at the heart of the discussion: Are linguistic features that are associated with NICE and that run contrary to inner-circle English to be considered as ‘wrong’? Clearly, deletion of verbs can be found in dialects of inner circle English speakers also, such as Ebonics in which copula verbs are not generally used (e.g. He happy meaning he is happy ). Though P23 did not elaborate further on this point, his response suggests at least that, while he agrees that World Englishes are reflective of the many varieties found around the world, their differences with regard to syntax are reflective, to him, of individuals having not yet mastered the target language. However, I have made the point that someone who is proficient in a World English, here a non-inner circle variety, is, by definition, speaking a legitimate variety and has already linguistically ‘arrived’. P36 also suggests that NICE are in some way reflective of a linguistic deficiency. He implies that having a foreign accent and the existence of negative transfer from one’s first language leads to problems with communication. This, of course, can be entirely relevant. However, this understanding is one that again points toward a deficit view of NICE, somewhat of an unpredictable linguistic situation, when in fact World Englishes, as with all language varieties, are indeed predictable in their structure and lexical usage. This does not mean that communication difficulties do not arise sometimes between, say, a speaker of Singlish and an English speaker from an inner circle country. However, as I mentioned before, given that even inner circle English speakers can have problems understanding each other, then why should this be viewed differently? Misunderstandings between Americans and British individuals, whether based on accent or lexis, arguably are not really regarded as being based on one variety of English being somehow inherently superior over the other. Again, there is an unspoken understanding, I would argue, that unites both varieties and that is based on the fact that they are inner circle Englishes. Of course, it is all relative with regard to people’s language attitudes. It might be that a Received Pronunciation (RP)-speaking Brit regards a broad Liverpool accent (and the speaker) in a negative manner, or that a speaker of standard English—whether American

192     A. Baratta

or British—derides the use of dialect, even if said dialect, such as Yorkshire dialect, is nonetheless spoken by a NS of (inner circle) English. Speculative though it might be, amidst a room full of inner circle English speakers, both standard and non-standard, how might the arrival of outer/expanding circle English speakers be seen, based purely on their version of English? I cannot recall if I have ever been present at this hypothetical linguistic cocktail party because even within a university setting, in which there are lecturers from all over the world, and many of whom are not L1 inner circle English speakers, we all default to one version of English within both the classroom and at meetings: standard British English, regional and foreign accents notwithstanding. This brings me back to a previously mentioned point, that there is a time and a place for all varieties of all languages, and not just English of course. The use of Singlish, for example, amongst two Singaporean friends who are enjoying dinner together in a relaxed and casual atmosphere in an airport restaurant would certainly be appropriate, but if attending a job interview the following day for a position in Austin, Texas, then standard American English would be expected. Determining what is appropriate or inappropriate language is not based on any linguistic inherentness; it is based entirely on the context of communication. Though this is hardly a novel statement, it is in need of reiterating, to avoid the otherwise one size fits all mindset regarding one language variety being higher up than another, be it inner versus outer circle, or standard British English for that matter versus MLE. P8 was the only participant who referenced World Englishes as ‘a variety of English from countries in which English is an official language’. This broad definition would encompass both inner and outer circles Englishes perhaps and this suggests that NICE need not be tied to just the non-inner circle varieties of English. From one point of view, American English is just as much a world variety as is Ghanaian English. Furthermore, five participants described World Englishes as not being tied to any of the circles and thus, their viewpoint might be that any variety of English is by definition a ‘world’ variety, in as much as it represents a given country or region and thus, has its own unique

8  Results and Discussion     193

and distinctive features. I have of course adopted a broad approach to the term World Englishes, as I made clear in Chapter 1, one that involves all three circles. P3, P4, P30, P31 and P32 all referred to World Englishes in this broad manner, with P3 specifically referencing ‘native’ varieties such as American and British English, and the ‘English in former colonies’ such as India and Malta. P3 further went on to describe the use of English in expanding circle countries, in this case Belgium and the Netherlands. English holds no official status in either country, as P3 points out, but he argues that English functions in Belgium as ‘a neutral language of communication’ against a backdrop of ‘divisions between Flemish North and French South’. He went on to explain that the role of English in the Netherlands is borne from ‘historical necessity of trading in a common language and modern-day political role of the Hague’. Herein lies an example of what I refer to as linguistic proxy, referring to the ways in which it is not language per se that connotes positive or negative judgement or values. Rather, it is what the language symbolises or connotes. In the examples provided by P3, notably that of the status of English in Belgium, it is not necessarily that English ‘sounds’ better than Flemish or French, or is even preferred over one’s native language. Rather, it represents neutrality in that neither Flemish nor French speakers can claim it as a first language and therefore, the fact that these groups are both using a foreign language means that they are, by definition, avoiding the use of their native languages in certain contexts. What this subsequently means is that linguistic and cultural braggadocio is avoided, as both parties are speaking a language which has no official status in the country. Thus, the more emotional aspects of both parties’ native languages are removed, emotional precisely because they act as proxies for territory and culture, with the two both intertwined yet separate. The remaining four participants referred to above referenced World Englishes more briefly as varieties that can be spoken by both native and non-native speakers. However, for four participants, P17, P19, P21 and P29, World Englishes were referred to solely as the domain of speakers for whom

194     A. Baratta

English is not a native language, thus in turn referring to outer and expanding circle varieties. P17 explained that World Englishes ‘are generally influenced by another language’, and while generally does not equate to ‘usually’, it nonetheless suggests that another language is a linguistic part of the overall English variety in question. P19 also referenced World Englishes in countries in which English is not the first language of that country; P21, as mentioned, had referred to influence from another language which in turn had a part to play in the formation of World Englishes; and P29 explained that World Englishes are used globally ‘by people who come from different first language background’. This may suggest to some EFL students that inner circle varieties are somewhat more ‘pure’, untouched by other linguistic influences. This of course is a complete fallacy. Linguistic purity, however it is defined, is a term which arguably has nothing to connect with. The language we now know as British English spoken in the country which has given birth to all future varieties of English—including inner circle varieties of course—is anything but ‘pure’ (but of course, neither is it ‘impure’). English came about through a linguistic patchwork quilt of many other contributions, such as Celtic, Romance and of course Germanic. Furthermore, I suppose it depends how far back in time people wish to go. Inner circle English, certainly as spoken in Britain, goes back far enough in time that it is easy to forget its many linguistic influences and borrowings (notably vocabulary). Moreover, as it has been established for much longer than outer/expanding circle varieties, this might also help to partly explain why for some it will always enjoy more respect and be regarded as the ideal to emulate for all non-native English speakers; its longer history of establishment for some suggests more legitimacy perhaps. A final point concerns any apparent trends with regard to the answers provided to the first question based on whether the participant is a native or non-native speaker of (inner circle) English. In the first instance, it is impractical to suggest trends amidst an otherwise small sample of each group (twenty L1 English speakers and sixteen L2 English speakers). However, in an attempt to ensure a thorough

8  Results and Discussion     195

analysis, I decided to revisit the responses with this division in mind. For the most part, the answers provided by both groups are not suggestive of any inherent difference in perspective. The vast majority of responses clearly point to World Englishes as a global variety of the English language, which is arguably an entirely accurate and straightforward definition. However, of note is the answer provided by P33, a Turkish individual. I had already discussed her response, which focused on a need to simply deliver one’s intended message, without undue stress, or at least concern, regarding one’s accent. I had suggested that speaking English with an accent perceived as foreign may indeed be an issue; there is evidence in fact that such speakers, despite their English proficiency, might be regarded as less able to effectively communicate (Pinget et al. 2014). While foreign accents can of course apply to inner circle speakers (e.g. English versus American), the implications are different in part because the speakers both otherwise share a first language. Beyond this, the responses of P23 and P36, natives of South Korea and Poland respectively, provided unique perspectives, if somewhat negative, of World Englishes. As discussed, P23 regarded World Englishes as a mid-ground of sorts, as an individual attempts to otherwise master inner circle English. P36 suggested that a World English is also somewhat of a communicative problem, given a ‘heavy foreign accent’ and implied negative transfer from one’s first language. The mention of a foreign accent suggests that for P36, it is regarded as a liability, but not so for P33. Thus, despite the perceptions of interlocutors (who may/ may not be L1 English speakers in the first instance), as long as the message is communicated clearly from a semantic point of view, this is sufficient; for P36, however, it is a possible hindrance. If we were to take these two responses in particular and imagine that they came from the perspective of inner circle English speakers, the reaction might be very different. For an EFL teacher in particular to regard World Englishes as suggestive of not having mastered a variety of English considered ‘proper’ or ‘authentic’ might imply a certain linguistic imperialism. It would also be quite unusual perhaps for EFL teachers to consider World Englishes as being under the negative influence of the individual’s first language, unless of course this leads to communication difficulties. In

196     A. Baratta

this case, the negativity is tied to misunderstandings of course, and not the first language per se. Those inner circle individuals outside the teaching profession might indeed have such views, but this is largely due to a lack of education on the matter. If individuals have experience in teaching overseas in the first instance (which fifteen of the twenty inner circle EFL teachers had done) and/or being educated on World Englishes as part of one’s degree programme, this can contribute to a greater level of understanding and ideally, respect for linguistic variety. However, it would be problematic for me to label P23 and P36 as being overly critical of World Englishes, or at the opposite extreme, representing views which are wrong. As I had mentioned in the methods chapter, it is not for me, as part of a need to maintain objectivity, to appoint myself as a linguistic crusader for the rights of NICE speakers. From a purely linguistic point of view, NICE are legitimate of course, but for some outer/expanding circle speakers who do not wish to use them in their daily life, perhaps as a means to promote inner circle English above all others, then it is equally wrong to suggest that they need to rethink their views. Regarding the views of L1 English speakers, P8, as referenced earlier, expressed the view that World Englishes are varieties spoken in countries in which English is an official language. These views need not point to L1 English speakers per se, or non-native speakers of English (i.e. it would include the inner and outer circle, but not the expanding circle). There is nothing inherent in these overall responses, then, that would point toward the respondent being of a specific linguistic background, in fact. However, I wish to provide these responses which are arguably of interest if we consider them as being from non-native speakers of English. If this were the case, then it could be suggested that the response of P8 is suggesting that only inner/outer circle varieties of English are perhaps legitimate and ‘true’ varieties. I have attempted to fully unpack the responses to this question. Straightforward a question thought it might be, the responses have provided valuable insights into participants’ views. I now move on to the second question pertaining to varieties of World Englishes which the participants were familiar with.

8  Results and Discussion     197

8.2 Can You Give Me an Example of One Such English (i.e. In Terms of Its Name and Its Specific Vocabulary and/or Grammatical Forms)? To this question, all participants provided an example with the exception of four individuals. P12 (British) did not provide an answer on the questionnaire sheet regarding the question above; P17 (British) responded with ‘no’ to the question; and P24 (Norwegian) responded to the question with ‘I am not sure’. P27, who is from Cameroon, gave the following response, which, while indicative of English in general, was not identified as belonging to a specific English per se. However, this is perhaps her point, in that she answered the question in terms of the broad global spread of the English language and with it, certain grammatical features: ‘English as a lingua franca—tag questions are not used in the correct way. The use of ‘ain’t it’ has become popular and more acceptable in communication. It was more used among youngsters but now even older people use it’. From this response, perhaps the perspective of P27 is that the spread of English is not just seen on the macro-level, involving the language as a whole, but also on a more narrow level, involving specific grammatical features and constructions. In this case, regardless of the origins of tag questions which use dialectal ‘ain’t it’ (as opposed to standard ‘isn’t it?’), the expression can now be heard outside its country of origin, or indeed its specific group of origin, which P27 asserts is young people. This is a broad answer indeed in that it does not point to a specific variety of English, but this is arguably P27’s point—when expressions and grammatical structures spread around the world, it is easy to forget—or to simply not care—who had it first. Instead, the fact that people now claim a feature as their own is more relevant. Also, the fact that this feature can certainly be heard in inner circle varieties, perhaps American English in particular, suggests that P27 is interpreting World Englishes from a perspective that includes inner circle varieties. An anecdotal example concerns the expression of no worries which I had referenced earlier. This is something I had never heard in my

198     A. Baratta

life until I arrived at Sydney airport in 1996; nowadays, however, it is quite common to hear this expression used by British people. This, too, is an example of the phenomenon that P27 is referring to, and both British and Australians alike (perhaps other groups too) can claim this expression as their own. If it is used by them, then we could say that it belongs to them. After all, borrowed words and expressions are unlikely to be returned to their original ‘owners’. The remaining participants provided detailed responses regarding specific varieties of outer and expanding circle Englishes. In some cases, participants gave more than one example of a World English, which will be noted where relevant. I have broken down the responses as follows. First, I have provided a section dedicated to each English referred to, as well as collective examples of such in terms of grammar and lexis (though not all participants provided examples in this regard, but merely the name of the English in question; in such cases, the rows are left blank). For participants’ answers that were especially detailed, I reference such detail in the discussion that follows each table. I have also provided the examples of English in descending order in terms of the number of participants who referenced them. It is also pointed out that I do not claim to be a speaker of any non-inner circle English per se, though I am fairly well acquainted with Korean English. As such, the purpose of the tables that follow is largely to demonstrate participants’ knowledge of World Englishes and not to necessarily confirm it. As the purpose of the examples to follow is to simply provide some specific illustrations of how World Englishes actually use English, then this is accomplished. Table 8.3 provides information on Singlish, offering examples of both its lexical and grammatical properties. The information provided on Singlish was by far the most detailed, though sometimes lacking in clarity. For example, the use of la/lah as ‘a point of exclamation’ suggests that it functions as an intensifier of sorts, yet P8 explains that it is used to ‘soften the speech’, which, though quite vague, might suggest the opposite. The use of this word, however, does indeed function as a marker of emphasis as in what a story, la! Perhaps it could also be likened to the Canadian tendency to end sentences with eh? This, of course, is less an intensifier and perhaps more a means of

Using a mixture of borrowed terms, but I don’t know any examples Blur/terok/lah/aunty (borrowed/re-applied meanings)

Particles (Lah) Vocabulary is mixed of English words used with alternative meanings mixed with language trends found in Mandarin and Hokkien

Certain grammar L1 features are used such as ‘le’ at the end of the sentence Ending sentence with ‘lah’

P10

P16 P19

P28

I am not sure but I think often verbs in the 3rd person are not inflected, articles are left out

Omission of articles, simplified question forms, loss of auxiliary verbs (e.g. you have pen or not?) No subject sentences

Dropping full sentences e.g. ‘go where?’ for ‘where you going’

Grammar

use of ‘la’ in sentence-final position could be arguably referenced more as a grammatical feature as it is not a lexical word per se, but rather functions as a particle. However, as there was little further information provided on this by the participants, and for simplicity’s sake, I class it here as an example of vocabulary

aThe

P29 P33

P25

P14

P8

P5 P6

Vocabulary

Use of ‘la’a A speaker may employ a sentence final lah/lɑ/as a point of exclamation belonging to their native tongue but not English Chop/chicken/snakehead Heavy use of ‘la’ Chop/chicken/dimsum/snake head/black hand… Adding of la+leh at the end to soften the speech

Participant

P2 P4

Table 8.3 Singlish

8  Results and Discussion     199

200     A. Baratta

confirming what has just been said prior, functioning therefore as a tag question. The use of blur in Singlish clearly takes a semantic cue from the English word, though unlike inner circle English, blur in Singlish is an adjective, not a verb. Its meaning equates to ‘confused’ or perhaps even obtuse; terok derives from the Malay language, meaning ‘troublesome’, as in the customer was very terok. Here, then, we see how a word from inner circle English has been appropriated, a case of conversion (here, a verb becoming an adjective) and also, how one of the linguistic influences in Singapore has in turn influenced the variety of English used there. The simplified use of grammar, such as go where for where are you going is perhaps reflective of a need to simplify English for individuals who speak different native languages. In Singapore, besides English, Mandarin, Malay and Tamil are also spoken. Here we have four different languages, belonging to four different language families. Thus, in a desire perhaps to speak a common language, it is plausible that Singlish simplifies the grammatical structure of a language that is not necessarily common to the native population. This would help explain the omission of auxiliary verbs, for example. This also accounts for the borrowing of lexis from the other linguistic influences in the country. Thus, Singlish, like all World Englishes, exhibits a degree of linguistic creativity in its construction, not deficiency, and is of course understood by its speakers. As I mentioned earlier, the concept of a NS of English should not be tied solely to inner circle speakers anymore. In this manner, the NS of NICE are perhaps first and foremost those who speak such varieties with a degree of proficiency. This does not necessarily mean that the particular variety of World English is their first language, but that they are NS in as much as it is within their region or country of origin that the variety they now speak derives. Thus, inner circle speakers who travel or migrate to such regions, such as English or American individuals who live in Singapore, for example, might be expected, or find it wholly necessary, to learn Singlish rather than learning, perhaps, Mandarin. After all, it is still English, albeit a different variety. As a result, we could argue that an inner circle speaker will find perhaps

8  Results and Discussion     201

more similarities with NICE and his/her own variety than might otherwise be initially imagined. Table 8.4 provides information on Konglish, largely centred on lexis. By expanding on the answers provided by P15 and P18, there is much more that can be discovered. P15 is British and had taught in Korea for a year and explained that, regarding the categories of borrowed words and Konglish words (Konglish being the term she used, and so I will use it in this discussion of her contribution), additional respective examples include 초콜릿 (‘cho-ko-lit’) and won-pisu (‘one piece’) 원피스; these words correspond to ‘chocolate’ and ‘dress’. P15 went on to explain that ‘sentences are not taken from English and made into Konglish, it is only single words or object names’. From these examples, it appears that Konglish vocabulary consists broadly of borrowed words from English and words which, though English, sometimes undergo a semantic shift in Konglish usage. Thus, words such as pizza and chocolate are borrowed English words used by Koreans which of course refer to the same objects in Konglish as they do in English. We might then ask what it is exactly that makes them classified as Konglish. The answer lies with the pronunciation, which P15 herself attempted to provide so that pizza becomes ‘pi-ja’ and chocolate becomes ‘cho-ko-lit’, as she described. While accent has not been a focus per se on my discussion of World Englishes, it is relevant to the discussion here, having been raised by P15. As I mentioned, I also spent three years living and working in South Korea and it was not uncommon for Koreans to sometimes make fun of their own pronunciation of English words (and sometimes my pronunciation of Korean words). Table 8.4 Konglish Participant Vocabulary P11 P15

P18 P23

One plus one (said in English) to mean ‘buy one get one free’ There are two types of Konglish, loan words and actual Konglish words; respectively, 피자/pi-ja meaning ‘pizza’ and 바바리/burberry meaning ‘trenchcoat’ Health meaning ‘gym’ Com meaning ‘computer’

Grammar

202     A. Baratta

P33’s comments seem pertinent here, in that accent was deemed by her to not be of central importance when speaking English as an L2 English speaker. For example, if inner circle English speakers wish to converse with the natives of a particular World English, as I have suggested is a practical reality, then surely an accent deemed foreign in this instance (which could well be an inner circle accent, such as London or New York City) will be less relevant than using the correct vocabulary in order to get the message through. In terms of vocabulary provided in Table 8.4, P15 provides two clear examples. In inner circle English, Burberry refers to a clothing brand, whereas in Konglish, Burberry has taken on a new meaning of trenchcoat, as I had mentioned earlier. The fact that this particular British clothing brand has been adopted for this word might reflect the high status that the brand certainly enjoys in Korea. As I had also mentioned, the temptation to label this usage as ‘wrong’ belies the fact that this practice (i.e. overextension) occurs between inner circle varieties also. Given that inner circle overextensions (e.g. hoover meaning to vacuum, or referring to the machine itself ) occurred some time ago, long before Konglish came on the scene, it suggests that acceptability of vocabulary or any aspect of language can sometimes come down to the passage of time. P18 offered some more interesting comments, having also taught in Korea for a year. I provide the example of the Konglish word ‘health’ in Table 8.4, thus another example of semantic shift. Moreover, P18 went further and explained that ‘words relating to concepts heavily influenced by the west have begun to replace Korean words. For example the beauty and fashion industries use many western words. E.g. Traditional Korean word ‘Hwajangpum’ is now widely known as Makeup’. In this case, the fact that the English word is used for the same referent is less the issue than the fact that a perfectly viable Korean word is now perhaps being phased out to an extent in favour of the English word. P18 then provided one final example of semantic shift, saying that ‘hunting’ is used to describe ‘searching for a partner’. Of course, we could argue that someone might say as part of inner circle English that he/she was ‘on the hunt’ for a husband/wife. Then again, the particular

8  Results and Discussion     203

form used in Konglish consists of the gerund, followed by the Korean verb 하다, hada, meaning ‘to do’ (i.e. hunting do, or in English, ‘I do hunting’). P23 had defined World Englishes as ‘somewhere in the middle of understanding English’. While his further comments will be provided in more detail in the next section, I refer to this earlier comment as an example of how P23, while recognising Konglish, did not recognise its legitimacy. In this light, his example of com meaning ‘computer’ was provided as an example of how he feels Konglish is tied more to Korean youth. He explained that it was ‘mostly produced by youth generation, especially university students’. His further point was that the younger generation’s use of the Internet is what has helped to formulate a language variety which is ‘not official’ and the older generation would not understand. If so, then this implicates a division within Konglish (the term he also used) between generations possibly, or it could merely reflect future innovations that have yet to spread further. A further suggestion is that his reference to the Internet provides evidence once again of societal codification, via a branch of such—online codification. P23 is Korean of course, and so his views, while perhaps not agreed with by all Korean youth, are certainly more reliable than any I could offer (even though I lived in Korea). His comments also reflect, as mentioned above, the influence of the Internet, or perhaps social media in general, as a means to spread, and further codify, language. Whether or not the use of Konglish is indeed tied mainly to the younger Korean generation is not something I can assert one way or the other, but it does again reveal the importance of spreading a given language variety via a more modern means of communication. Table 8.5 is focused on Hong Kong English. Table 8.5  Hong Kong English Participant

Vocabulary

P1 P5 P26 P30

‘To chop’ meaning ‘to eat’ ‘chap’ meaning girlfriend Chop/chicken/snakehead ABC means American born Chinese Chicken means ‘prostitutes’

Grammar

204     A. Baratta Table 8.6  West African English Participant Vocabulary P7 P9 P31

Grammar

Belly means ‘pregnant’ Have the same words but have different meanings; ‘balance’ is the change after buying something To chop = to eat

ABC was a term I was acquainted with, having had two Chinese students explain this to me. They also mentioned the use of the word BBC, meaning ‘British born Chinese’. These are words that I have never had occasion to use in conversation, but I did reference them to some of my more recent Chinese students. Their reaction was that of pleasant surprise and this, I believe, is one more reason to bring NICE into the EFL classroom. The fact that a mere mention of the students’ own brand of English can cause them to respond positively is in itself a rationale to use it, though not merely in a tokenistic manner as I have stressed. Instead, it could be used to lead into a discussion of inner circle English and its equivalent vocabulary, such as ‘Chinese American’ or ‘Asian British’. Table 8.6 offers examples of West African English, which itself might appear to be somewhat broad given that this is a large region which would include perhaps sub-varieties (e.g. Nigerian English, Ghanaian English). It is not clear how belly is used as part of a full sentence (e.g. Is she belly?), but the semantic connections are clear enough with inner circle Table 8.7 Spanglish Participant Vocabulary P21 P34

P36

Mixes English and Spanish vocabulary, verbs etc., in regular speech A reference was made to Spanglish speakers constructing ‘utterances in English by using some linguistic calques from their mother tongue’—see full discussion below the table

Grammar

8  Results and Discussion     205

English. Likewise, while balance is used in inner circle English to refer to a monetary amount to be paid off, its usage in West Africa to mean ‘change’ reflects that the customer, for example, is in need of being ‘paid’ the amount that is owed to him/her. This reflects a certain logic in the language, though no language varieties are inherently more or less ‘logical’; rather, it is simply a usage that makes sense to the people who use it. Table 8.7 offers some information on Spanglish. P34 provided a very detailed response regarding this variety of English, which preceded the content offered in Table 8.7. Her discussion seems to touch on pronunciation, and given that she is a linguist, her explanation might be seen as particularly relevant: Since Spaniards do not have words beginning with ‘s’ followed by another consonant, they usually put an ‘e’ before the ‘s’, so that ‘student’ becomes ‘estudent’ or ‘Spanish’ becomes ‘Espanish’. I am not really acquainted with it, but I guess Spanglish is kind of a projection of Spanish onto English. So these people may construct utterances in English by using some linguistic calques form their mother tongue

This more in-depth discussion shows that phonology is an important aspect regarding NICE to P34. The fact that P34 is also a NS of Italian and a linguist might provide her with a more informed perspective on the matter, as well as personal experience of perhaps being evaluated based on her accent with regard to her English. P33 also referenced accent as a key issue with regard to her interpretation of World Englishes and as she is an L1 Turkish speaker, this might play a part in her response. Thus, for these two L2 English speakers, perhaps their self-perceptions, or that of others, regarding their accents being Table 8.8  Filipino English Participant Vocabulary P13 P29

Grammar Pronunciation

Salvage = save fill up this form = fill out this form Pronunciation of /th/and/t/

206     A. Baratta

perceived as ‘foreign’, has contributed to a particular interest in this aspect of NICE. Table 8.8 offers some information on Filipino English. Continuing the focus on accent, P29 referenced pronunciation specifically and it has therefore been included here as its own separate category. Though P29 did not expand on the pronunciation of Filipino English regarding [θ] and [t], it is possible that this is a reference to TH-fronting, so that words such as thin are pronounced as /fɪn/. Once again, we see a reference to semantic shift, in that salvage, meaning to retain something for future use, perhaps an item that was otherwise not really needed, is used with a more general meaning of ‘save’. The phrasal verb of fill out becomes fill up, which of course has a very different usage in inner circle English. The information in Table 8.9, focused on Thai English, offers little information, but nonetheless provides specific details on this variety. The example of Thai English was provided by an EFL teacher who had lived and worked in Thailand. Given the information about word stress, this necessitated the creation of a separate category, one not focused on accent per se, but on a prosodic feature of the language. Table 8.10 offers information that is somewhat broad, but still provides a window into the variety of English used in Malaysia. The reference to the word order being ‘odd’ is of course purely relative and yet is possibly a reference to an order which deviates from English SVO. Many Indian languages, such as Hindi, place the verb last Table 8.9  Thai English Participant Vocabulary Grammar

Prosody

P20

Typified by its stress on the last syllable

Lack of plural ‘s’

Table 8.10  Malaysian English Participant Vocabulary

Grammar

P22

Malaysian word order is sometimes a bit odd, like in Indian English

Does not use as many metaphors/figures as Indian English

8  Results and Discussion     207

(SOV), which is merely different, but perhaps nonetheless ‘odd’ from the perspective of an inner circle English speaker. The reference to metaphors is perhaps more specifically tied to style, though as it ultimately refers to word choices it has been placed in this category. Without more information or illustration from P22, it is unclear how Indian English makes specific use of metaphors and subsequently, how Malaysian English uses comparatively fewer. The example of appropriate communication within the context of business writing that I provided earlier (Diamond and Fahey 1997) perhaps offers some clues as to this use of metaphor within Indian English. It might suggest a usage that to inner circle English speakers is perceived, by them, as ‘flowery’ and for business in particular, perhaps over the top. However, its usage within Indian English conforms to expectation. Finally, the fact that metaphorical usage, however it is used, is referenced with regard to a World English again reveals that amidst a concern with grammar and lexis, we should also turn our attention to what might be considered rhetorical style as evidenced in certain Englishes. This, too, plays a part in the character of NICE and something that our students can be introduced to. Table 8.11, by comparing spellings involved with inner circle Englishes, allows for a more inclusive perspective to World Englishes, and the perspective adopted by this book. Table 8.11  A comparison of inner circle English spelling Participant

Vocabulary

P35

Grammar

Spelling Behaviour-behavior centre-center

Table 8.12  Jamaican Creole Participant

Vocabulary

Grammar

Vocabulary

Grammar

P32 Table 8.13 Scotsa Participant P3 aThis

was a particularly detailed response and a full discussion will follow

208     A. Baratta

P35 had described World Englishes as ‘the various forms that English language entails and embraces in each part of the world where it is spoken’. This is again quite an inclusive definition and as such, would not exclude inner circle varieties. Therefore, it is perhaps unsurprising to find the examples given pertain solely to two inner circle varieties. Table 8.12 references a variety of English, though no examples are provided. P32 was not sure of any particular World English, indicated by the question mark she placed immediately after her answer—‘Jamaican Creole (?)’. Following this, she explained that ‘I do not know any specific examples’. Table 8.13 references the final example within this section of a World English. P3 provided a discussion of Scots, regarding the debate as to ‘whether or not it can be classified as a dialect of English or as a separate language in its own right’. Following this, P3 provided a text written in Scots, followed by the English translation. Even if Scots is regarded as a dialect of English, the word ‘translation’ is, as mentioned, still highly relevant and fitting, as opposed to ‘correction’ (i.e. correcting Scots by writing it in English, thus implying that Scots is somehow wrong): Scots The Royal Society fir the Protection o Birds (RSPB) is pittin oot its ain rid alert pleadin wi awbody that loes wildlife tae gie natur a wee haund. English The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is putting out its own red alert pleading with anybody that loves wildlife to give nature a wee hand. www.scotslanguage.com. Scots, if regarded as a dialect of English, is therefore a variety of English, specifically inner circle English. If regarded as a separate language, we could still argue for its influence by the English language and on that level we could argue that it is heavily influenced by the English

8  Results and Discussion     209

language. The key word is again variety, with all the inherent idiosyncrasies in terms of lexis, grammar and, as some participants referenced, pronunciation. In the case of Scots, a Scottish accent would of course be completely relevant. In closing, the responses to this question show that participants are mostly aware of World Englishes, incorporating all three circles, and referring to grammar and lexis, and in some cases, pronunciation and even prosodic features such as voice stress. The presentation of participants’ answers within the tables within this section mirrors how they were presented within the questionnaire responses—in what might be considered a ‘neutral’ manner, merely charting the ways in which particular English varieties use the English language, and largely providing no judgement on the matter. It is such an otherwise objectively presented guide that can help to remove the stigma that some attach to NICE in particular and in doing so, help people to recognise that such varieties, like all languages, are conforming to expectations in terms of deploying a predictable and systematic usage of language.

8.3 What Are Your Thoughts Regarding the Belief That World Englishes Are Not Correct/Proper? To this question, all participants except one believed that World Englishes, largely understood by the participants as referring to NICE, were valid forms of English. Thus, thirty five participants agreed that these are valid forms of English which are correct. Of this large group, there were three specific themes that emerged: Participants who believed that NICE were valid in terms of being cultural representations of the people who use them (and indirectly in some cases, arguing against an imperialist view regarding the validity of inner circle Englishes) (twenty two); World Englishes as valid simply based on the need to be understood, hence communication and understanding are key factors in their

210     A. Baratta

acceptance (nine); and acceptance of World Englishes, but a need to adopt a context-sensitive approach toward their usage (four). I will now discuss the responses for each of the four themed responses (the fourth theme being based on the one outlier who declared that NICE were not proper English varieties).

8.3.1 World Englishes as Cultural Representatives Language is indeed a stand-in for the culture it represents and for the twenty two participants to now be discussed, declaring NICE to be incorrect is somewhat invalidating the culture who speak it perhaps and/or setting inner circle cultures as the standard in the process. P24 explained thus: I think this (the question posed) is a very Western-centric view on English. The majority of English-speakers worldwide are no longer from the countries we might think of as “native” English-speaking countries (UK, USA, NZ, Australia, Ireland, Canada, South Africa). Demanding that speakers of English mimic the way those speakers speak English and classifying all other variations as improper is no longer something we should do. Who dictates what “proper” English is anyways?

P25 offered similar views: They (World Englishes) are correct and should be accepted by native speakers, even if the sound of them might sound a bit odd. If we do not accept them, presumably, we are still promoting the white supremacy model in the world. I personally believe it is a question of politics and social status rather than ‘linguistic correctness’ of a certain language and its forms.

First, it is pointed out that P24 and P25 are Norwegian and German, respectively. This might have some influence on their beliefs given that they are not NS of the English language. However, their views seem to reflect a larger issue which concerns what might be considered a

8  Results and Discussion     211

linguistic hegemony (Phillipson 1992; Wiley 2000), in which inner circle English varieties are propagated as the standard form to acquire. P24’s use of quotation marks around the word ‘native’ is suggestive of an earlier point I had made, that the concept of NS is indeed problematized when we consider the multiple varieties of English spoken around the world. Given this linguistic spread, then NS can include those who speak NICE. A NS of Korean English is more than likely a Korean individual, whose ‘native’ language is actually Korean, not English. Nonetheless, based on proficiency with a particular variety of the English language, we can see how the NS nowadays are not those tied to inner circle countries as it depends entirely on the particular English variety that is being discussed. The question P24 raises as to who should dictate which variety of English to use has in some way already been answered—it should not be dictated by inner circle speakers of English. There is a sense of the word ‘proper’ being mis-applied, or perhaps applied too narrowly, to a certain group of Englishes when instead, all varieties can be deemed proper from a purely linguistic point of view as tools for communication. From a societal point of view, however, the implications can be very different, as will be discussed. P25, for example, indeed touches on this notion by explaining that attitudes toward NICE are based on political issues and connected to social status. This is not to suggest a kind of linguistic conspiracy to advocate one variety over all others as clearly, students need to be aware of the variety of English that will wield most power in the career world. This is arguably still standard inner circle English, and then the variety most appropriate for the more immediate context (e.g. British or American English). However, when outside of professional contexts, such as business or work, there is perhaps a preference, or certainly contextual allowance, for NICE. In principle, and as I have mentioned, this is not really different from inner circle speakers and the stigmatisation of non-standard varieties. Thus, just as standard (inner circle) English is seen as the standard for L2 English speakers to emulate, the same standard is promoted in inner circle countries. This results in speakers of, respectively, NICE and non-standard inner circle varieties, to feel

212     A. Baratta

linguistically conflicted at times. Thus, notions of ‘speaking white’ for Ebonics speakers who use standard English, and speaking ‘ghetto’ for the use of Ebonics are purely based on societal judgements and not, of course, on any linguistic standards for correctness. But social stigma attached to certain varieties can result in individuals using a more prestige form merely to avoid such stigma. Finally, the reference to white supremacy might seem somewhat hyperbolic, but it does tap into the fact that historically at least, there were indeed racial implications for the use, and spread, of the English language. Those who essentially exported English to countries such as India, for example, reflected multi-faceted identities that included nationality (British, perhaps English more specifically); class (upper/ruling-class); sex (largely, male); accent (largely, RP); and indeed, race— white. Though inner circle English speakers of course reflect a multitude of races, classes and accents, historically-speaking, certainly in terms of the spread of English to colonies, the speakers reflected a more homogenous group and this certainly applied to race. Thus, the reference to white supremacy, while connoting something entirely different perhaps if seen in a modern light, is nonetheless being used to refer to a time in history when colonialism was indeed supported by a view of racial superiority, with language one aspect of what some might regard as cultural—here linguistic—imperialism. There were shorter responses provided by several other participants, which nonetheless reflected clear views as to the status of NICE: P20: I believe they are proper varieties. P21:   I believe that is not an accurate consideration (i.e. that contained within question three). They are just different versions of it (English). These two responses, though brief, nonetheless tie in with the theme under discussion, certainly in terms of referencing notions of difference. In the case of P20, while he offers no support for his answer, his additional discussion is taken into consideration concerning his knowledge of Thai English (as he had taught in Thailand and is therefore aware

8  Results and Discussion     213

of this particular variety). In fact, given that P20 is British, his knowledge of a non-inner circle English, as with other inner circle participants in the study of course, is a means to demonstrate how such varieties are predictable to the extent that, in a presumed absence of classes on NICE, inner/outer/expanding circle individuals are all able to acquire them. This predictable and systematic nature of language makes it ‘proper’ from a purely linguistic perspective. Other participants offered some particularly telling comments which again pointed to the central theme within this section regarding the relationship between language and culture. P9 hinted at the many varieties of English, suggestive of ‘proper’ English being an impractical concept: What is considered proper English? Even native speakers use different words or structures that are considered wrong. What is the norm for these World Englishes to be compared to?

The implication is that if inner circle speakers cannot always agree on what is proper—and indeed disagree with each other with regard to what is the ‘correct’ lexis—then this makes it difficult to have a comparison point in the first instance to apply to NICE. While standard English is the linguistic yardstick by which other varieties are often compared, there are nonetheless differences inherent in the different inner circle Englishes, such as debate over compared to and compared with as mentioned, and more recently, discussion arises over the use of ‘they’ to refer to a singular person whose sex is unknown. What is suggested here is that by means of discrediting rigid notions regarding authentic English and the like, it is in turn crediting varieties which have not always been seen as ‘native’; as I have argued, the speakers of NICE—those who speak a variety and descend themselves from outer/expanding circle countries—are NS. These same views were echoed by P28: They (World Englishes) are spoken by ‘non-native English’ speakers, so how are they expected to be ‘the English’? Who gets to decide what’s

214     A. Baratta

proper? Even within the English speaking countries, there are varieties of the language that some may consider incorrect

P8 further states that, ‘as there is no ‘proper’ or ‘correct’ English, I believe that this statement is incorrect. Although to a NS it (i.e. the variety of English) may sound incorrect, to that non-native speaker it is correct and the entire country is correct’. Here is a more direct reference to the fact that, in a spirit of linguistic relativity, a non-inner circle variety (or even inner circle dialect) is perfectly correct and legitimate for many, if not most, of its speakers. The fact that it is used within a country is P8’s means by which it is correct on that level—implying perhaps that it is recognised on the basis of this and the inherent societal spread within an entire nation. P14 provided yet more insights: I believe that World Englishes in their entirety are correct and proper. As they have developed within a certain community, they are often part of the culture and history of that region, and so to dismiss them would be to dismiss the often complicated historical reasons that the variety of English exists in the first place. In addition to this, as is often reported, there are many more ‘non-native English speakers’ in the world, or those who do not speak the English of an L1 English-speaking country. Therefore the speakers of these varieties of English have a strong claim for their English to be seen as correct and to have the right for this to be used and develop as they see fit…there is no need for bias or prejudice against any other form of English encountered

From the points raised above, we see again a clear message regarding the link between language and culture, even with a reference to the historical development of language. This suggests that as English has been in place in many countries for some time, it has cemented its presence there. P2’s comments that while World Englishes ‘may be seen as not proper in comparison to ‘standard’ forms I believe that World Englishes are correct/proper for that language community’. The sense of a community of language speakers is again raised as a means by which a language not only infuses its speakers with a sense of identity but also, how the cultural identity affects the language, seen, for

8  Results and Discussion     215

example, with lexical and grammatical influence from other languages onto English. P33’s views again reflect a questioning of the notion of ‘proper’ English: ‘I have always struggled to understand the relevance of ‘proper’ accent in English as in this day and age a lot of the communication in the world that takes place in English is between a non-native English speaker and non-native English speaker’. From this, an interesting point is raised in that, given that perhaps a great deal of communication in English involves two non-native speakers of an inner circle variety, who is to say what is correct? The fact that communication proceeds effectively, which we would hope, is key. This response, though focused solely on accent, nonetheless reflects the overall acceptance for NICE that all participants but one have, in that the inner-circle Englishes—and accents—need not be judged as the standard for all English speakers to emulate. Given that P33 mentions that much communication in English is often between two L2 English speakers, then in this particular context, it stands to reason that no one would be likely to profess a ‘correct’ accent (or grammar). Again, this points to a suggested lack of interference from those who would otherwise perpetuate a rather fixed notion, or certainly limited notions, as to what constitutes correct and authentic English. P27 dismissed the need to be correct in the first instance, stressing that ‘nowadays, people care more about the meaning being transferred than the correct way or form of saying something. Therefore, the more we use the improper way of saying something, the more normal it becomes. Many factors such as cultures, accents could have an influence on that as well’. At this point, it appears that cultural influence on a language, in this case English, is something that is regarded with respect, to the extent that recognition of such as a linguistic influence means that the resulting influences on the language should not be regarded as deficient. P27’s response also reflects the means by which errors can become accepted features of a given variety of English, as was discussed. The use of the word ‘normal’ in this regard is reflective of widespread acceptance and I had mentioned that one specific result of this is indeed not to question the status of a given language (e.g. in terms of notions of ‘properness’ or prestige), but to merely use it without further thought.

216     A. Baratta

P3, who had discussed Scots earlier as a World English (but potentially a separate language) made the claim that World Englishes ‘are proper varieties, for they represent the linguistic and societal culture of each respective country’. He provided examples such as ‘the use of ‘yourselves’ in Ireland, Scotland and Northern England to highlight the use of the you plural, e.g. What do yourselves think to this news?’ It is important to include inner circle varieties of English within the broader category of World English, as I discussed in Chapter 1. In doing so, it promotes the inclusivity that the participants thus far are discussing. Also, if we only place outer/expanding circle Englishes into the World Englishes category, then this further serves to place inner circle varieties, however subtly, as indeed some kind of monolithic standard from which all other varieties deviate. P3 continued, ‘through different history of various nations, such ‘idioms’/deviations from standard English are representative of these countries and past and current influences away from current developments of modern-day language influences from popular culture’. Thus, we might regard language as a linguistic patchwork quilt of influence from many other languages and indeed, mediums of communication (e.g. the Internet). That P3 references examples of inner circle English (and others) which are otherwise non-standard, and thus perhaps subject to scorn by some, again ties in with a point made already—such varieties serve their speakers well and work for them. P34 is a linguist and expressed this at the start of her response to the current question. She then went on to explain that ‘I am kind of obsessed with appropriateness and correctness of language…in particular because sometimes I struggle when speaking to people who speak one of these World Englishes. But I also think that we have to deal with them. We should not focus on their correctness, because they exist, people speak these Englishes.’ Herein lies a practical issue, albeit one that exists at times between NS of inner circle Englishes—communication difficulties. However, P34 adopts a pragmatic approach to this, in that the varieties of different Englishes are used on a daily basis around the world, so it is impractical to suggest that they become more in line with inner circle English. Of course, communication problems might also be down to accent differences, but this too is something that can occur between British and

8  Results and Discussion     217

American individuals, for example. P34 goes on to suggest that ‘maybe we should focus on how to improve the communication between people speaking different varieties of English. Since English is used as a lingua franca, no one should expect the same usage of a language from all people around the world. A language (even a lingua franca) is always influenced by the culture of the people who speak that language. We should accept them for what they are: varieties of English’. Nonetheless, as both a linguist and an L2 English speaker, P34 feels that to assert a standard of correctness is not the answer, given that it is someone else’s standard that would be applied to a variety of English which, essentially, has its own standard in terms of grammar and lexis, for example. As such, the key factor that P34 suggests is the need to learn about these varieties of English and in doing so, learn how to better communicate with the speakers, with improved communication the goal that P34 mentions. Her response is also reflective of the literature discussed, one that stresses that international communication need not be, but certainly can be, facilitated by knowledge of standard English. I am not quite ready to dispense with a suggested need for standard English within the EFL classroom in some way, as the basis for many EFL classrooms. But I do agree that the time has come to broaden our EFL students’ minds (and inner circle students’ minds too, for that matter) to the linguistic, and pluralistic, reality that is the English language. Improving communication can be facilitated by exposing people to the variety of Englishes in the world, as suggested by this book, and in this way, people can come to realise that a source of potential communication problems need not be an issue. The acceptance of these varieties by the speakers is again an important factor to bear in mind as it then stands to reason that this relates to linguistic strength in numbers. A variety of English is recognised by its speakers as a means to communicate in specific situations and on that level, it works. P22 followed on from this and again emphasised the importance of having a recognised community (e.g. Singaporeans) who in turn speak a recognised—thus legitimate—language. P22 explained that ‘I think the notions of correct and proper need interpretation. My interpretation is one of respecting other people’s sense of correct/proper as much as my own. Thus, if a group, of

218     A. Baratta

sufficient size gives its members a sense of group identity, uses a particular form of English language as an established way of communicating and identifying themselves, I would accept their form of English as much as any other groups’ English, as correct and proper’. Again, a reference, to an extent, to numbers is made in that once a community is acknowledged (everything from youth speakers of MLE in London, to speakers of English in an overseas city state), then there exists, as I argue, a kind of societal codification of their language. This is true in the absence of more ‘official’ means to codify the language, as the speakers on the ground level, through language use, have already achieved this. P11 offered a linguistic view on the matter, first declaring that ‘I believe that whilst these Englishes differ from what is accepted in US and UK, you cannot call them ‘incorrect’ because they are still using English words to form sentences fully’. The reference to full sentences in English suggests to P11 that this reflects the fact that this is a valid approach to categorising English (or any language perhaps), perhaps because it implies a predictable syntax She continued by explaining, ‘Whilst you cannot say that English is a form of French because we use French words (we do not form full sentences in French), you can say Indian English is a ‘proper’ English because the given example “I am having a car” is all English words forming a sentence so how can we say that this is not a form of English? I truly believe that all forms of English are ‘proper’ varieties of English’. Thus, the big picture for P11 appears to be based on the overall use of English lexis within the context of sentences. In other words, P11 distinguishes from mere code-mixing or insertions involving two languages (e.g. He has a certain je ne sais quoi ) to the use of complete sentences which use a single language consistently— here, the Indian version of English known of course as Indian English. For P30, a reference is made again to the status of English as a ‘lingua franca’ which is used ‘between speakers of different languages, and it is changing’. Language change is just that—change—and given the international spread of English, ‘many English varieties come into being’. Based on this response, and the final comment made by P30 of ‘I personally think World Englishes are proper’, we are clearly seeing a majority view by twenty two of the thirty six participants that English is subject to change, especially when it is transported from its inner circle

8  Results and Discussion     219

homes; especially when it is adopted by speakers of other languages; and once again, the fact we have recognised different varieties, such as Singlish, is testament to the fact that there are predictable aspects of such varieties, everything from the specific use of Burberry to Dutch pay. Likewise, P1 regards World Englishes as ‘simply an evolution of English’. P10 references pronunciation, explaining that ‘there is so much variety in L1 English speaking countries anyway. I personally would find it easier understanding Indian English than someone with a heavy Scottish accent’. This again confirms that inner circle English varieties are not immune from communication difficulties pertaining to accent or other factors, such as differing lexis. P10 further states that ‘I think it depends on the region and the variety, and that we can’t say that all World Englishes are not proper as I don’t believe we can draw a clear line between what is ‘standard English’ and what is not, or even which varieties of English can even be classed as a type of English’. While P18’s views do not point to the cultural implications of language use per se, his views were nonetheless included in this particular section as a best fit. Moreover, he implies that, once again, there is a lack of a definite standard of English. While there is of course standard English, there does not exist a standard form (here, perhaps a broad reference to inner circle English in general) that can be applied across all contexts of communication as a linguistic benchmark; in fact, in his response, P18 indeed references the importance of context as more of an immediate factor in judging what is, or is not, ‘standard’—appropriate English—for various contexts: If we were to use World Englishes in professional settings i.e. business meetings, it would seem odd to me, as I was raised to believe that ‘standard varieties’ of English are more appropriate in this setting. However, I have noticed how dialects are being used more and more widely in these ‘formal’ settings i.e. on the news, and I feel this is positive as it will lead to a more global and less biased view of English

A mention of dialect, perhaps pertaining to inner circle varieties, is broadly suggestive of a push toward a more linguistically egalitarian approach to language, which could, as suggested by P18, influence

220     A. Baratta

attitudes toward NICE in as much as English is seen from a global perspective and not just an (inner circle) national perspective. P35, as a native of Greece, references change within her own language, pertaining to the first person pronoun; ‘In Greek…we have several types of ‘I’ which have changed and simplified as the years have passed by. Thus, two different generations of people might write the same word with two different types of ‘I’ which are both correct and reflect on the grammatical type convention of each generation’. It is not necessarily the case that change within a language, say, British English, is greeted with enthusiasm, but perhaps change from within, as it were, appears to be more accepted than a more global change to the same language. Thus, while some might decry ‘Americanisms’ in the speech of English children (such as the filler like ), I suggest that for these people, such influence might nonetheless be regarded more positively than the changes to English seen within outer/expanding circle varieties, precisely because such varieties are in the hands of individuals who themselves are not deemed ‘native speakers’ of English. This kind of global linguistic appropriation is reflective of the reality of the English language, however. P23, a native of Korea, appeared somewhat affronted with the idea that World Englishes, of which Korean English is one variety of course, are not authentic, or ‘proper’. P23 suggested that their differences when compared with inner-circle English implied that these were features that needed to be corrected, perhaps further suggesting that speaking a variety of English that is recognised as standard in an inner-circle country (e.g. the USA) was the goal. Having said that, his response to the question was that it was an ‘arrogant statement’ and he also explained that ‘all languages have their own traits and characteristics’. He even went on to say that a view of non-inner circle Englishes as somehow not ‘proper English’ was, in his words, ‘BS’, and he also suggested a need to go back to the ‘Norman invasion period’. This was a reference to the fact that British English itself is an amalgamation of multiple linguistic influences. The mentioning of several linguistic influences on many languages, which in the case of the language we now call English stretches far back in time

8  Results and Discussion     221

yet continues to this day, is a means to tie in with the theme here on language as culture. English has its roots in several languages and cultures, all of which have combined to create a language which itself is not singular in variety. Finally, P36 acknowledged that as with other participants, we need to clarify the concept of ‘proper’ in regard to language. He explained as follows: We should have something that is a reference point for ‘proper’ English. However, it depends if we are talking about an English speaking country or not. For example, as a Polish person in Poland I would want to learn a particular way of speaking English e.g. British or American. I wouldn’t want to learn habits that some Polish people develop. This is because when I travel to say UK, I wouldn’t be understood and Polonised form of English is not a language used anywhere officially. However, in the case of India, where I believe English is one of the official languages, if their English naturally evolves to be something slightly different that is fine, it’s their language, as long as it’s called say, ‘Indian English’ and when it is taught it is made clear

From this detailed response, it is clear that a more nuanced and context-sensitive approach is required in order to do justice to otherwise broad terms such as ‘proper’ in relation to language, as well as related terms perhaps such as ‘standard’ and ‘authentic’ (and on a more basic level, terms such as good/bad). P36 makes it clear that in the absence of a (inter)nationally-recognised variety of English, any version that is otherwise spoken in a non-English speaking country (here, Poland) is suggested to be based on errors. This reflects what P36 had mentioned earlier in response to his understanding of the term World Englishes, which he defined in largely deficient terms based on negative transfer from one’s native language. Having said that, it appears that, differences aside, if a variety of English has indeed been established—such as Indian English—then the recognition of such strongly suggests, to P36, that there is less room, if

222     A. Baratta

any, to speak of this variety in negative terms (i.e. along the lines of it being ‘wrong’). P36 suggests that as there is no variety of English (perhaps not yet) such as Polish English, then any differences (say, in pronunciation or grammar) are indeed pure errors in his mind. This goes back to points made in the discussion of the literature, in which I suggested that there is a need to distinguish between what I refer to as pure errors versus differences. The former refers to somewhat randomised uses of English by non-native speakers that are not otherwise found to be uniformly used by members of the particular group (but not always, of course); if indeed such errors are picked up and used in a predictable manner, then that is the basis on which errors can become standard features for that variety and are thus, no longer errors. P36 also referenced the word ‘officially’ with regard to the use of a particular English. As I have argued, if indeed Polish individuals’ use of English is taking on specific features that distinguish it from inner circle English, then in the absence of ‘official’ recognition, it nonetheless functions as a means to communicate when Polish is otherwise not understood between two speakers or simply deemed less appropriate for some reason. This is its own officialdom, though I recognise that this is not how ‘official’ is often interpreted. Instead, some speakers of a given variety of non-inner circle English may in fact still be waiting for inner circle speakers in particular, and those with authority (e.g. educators, linguists), to finally declare their variety of English ‘official’ (e.g. through the establishment of a dictionary). However, this may be a long wait, but language need not wait for such—if it is being used by its speakers, then this is its own codification. As I have argued, who better to create a dictionary, if only as part of an EFL classroom project as a start, than the speakers themselves? This is not suggested to be a viable alternative to an ‘official’ dictionary, but it taps into notions of ‘native speaker’ (here, the speakers of a hypothetical Polish English) and the need for language to be perpetuated by its speakers, and not always rely on dictionaries. For the future, I suggest that sections within travel guides which incorporate a section of the given country’s variety of English are perhaps one of the more accessible means to spread knowledge of a non-inner circle English. Thus, alongside

8  Results and Discussion     223

a section in a Japanese phrase book of useful Japanese phrases/survival Japanese, a section devoted to Japanese English would be a positive step.

8.3.2 World Englishes as a Means of Communication For the nine participants in this category, their responses which tied in with support for, and recognition of, NICE, were based on the practical issue of communication. The point was made clear—as long as World Englishes (here, interpreted as NICE by the nine participants) are understood by the parties concerned, then this is what makes them legitimate. P32 effectively summarised this theme, explaining that ‘I believe every single variety of a language is valid as long as it helps us convey a message and eventually communicate’. P13 concurred, saying that ‘World Englishes are correct to other foreigners. It is when other foreigners are communicating with each other in English that they will understand each other, thus World Englishes is correct for them. It is only seen as incorrect to native English speakers. However the possibility that foreigners will talk to other foreigners is higher than that of NS, thus World Englishes is used and understood’. In this manner, being understood in the context of two speakers of the same language—here, a particular World English—is suggestive of being free, to a large extent, from social judgement (though we should not forget internal campaigns such as Speak Good English). The language works for its speakers. P32 recognises the broader context of speaking a non-inner circle English with inner circle English speakers which suggests perhaps a legitimate need to code-switch to an inner circle variety (or for the inner circle speaker to code-switch to an outer/expanding circle variety). Otherwise, NICE are recognised by P32 as perfectly correct in that they are understood by the speakers, the message is transmitted and relevant action, if required, is taken as a result. P29 also emphasised the need to be understood, thus free from judgement about language prestige and such: ‘As long as you can understand the idea conveyed in the communication, the properness of

224     A. Baratta

English might be a minor point to consider, especially when you communicate with non-native English speakers’. The mention of properness, though not necessarily defined, could nonetheless be interpreted as reflecting notions of prestige connected purely to societal judgements along the lines of language varieties which are seen as ‘better’, but this is not connected to a linguistic judgement, which would indeed refer to more practical and objective criteria, such as the basic need to communicate one’s point effectively and be understood. In this sense, we were tired versus we was tired are both understandable, but depending on one’s audience, the former variety would be seen as ‘proper’. P4 expanded on the communication focus: I believe that World Englishes have been born through a need for communication. Communication necessarily follows understanding and, therefore, the forms of these World Englishes must logically suit understanding in communication. If, in its particular group, these deviations from standard are better understood, and better facilitate understanding, then I see no detriment in these varieties of English. Though they may be thought of as impeding communication with speakers of British or American varieties, considering that their primary function is communication within their own group there should be no harm in them

This explanation ties in clearly with an immediate need to be understood with one’s interlocutors. If meeting with friends in downtown Accra in Ghana, and all present are NS of Ghanaian English, then it makes sense to use this variety. Should the context change suddenly in some manner, then perhaps the same speakers might feel the need to switch to the language of Twi. Of course, I am not trying to paint a rosy picture, suggesting that all individuals familiar with NICE in an outer/expanding circle country are comfortable with it. Some may in fact use it when they feel it is necessary, but make no secret of their disdain for it. Indeed, it would be wrong to suggest that all inner circle English speakers regard NICE as inherently ‘wrong’ and all speakers of NICE otherwise celebrate, or at least fully accept, their country’s version of English. This would of course be a gross oversimplification.

8  Results and Discussion     225

However, judging by the participants’ responses thus far, the suggested issue with acceptance, or not, regarding the status of NICE, seems to be tied to attitudes of inner circle speakers, as opposed to the NS of NICE themselves. Brief comments were provided by three more participants, which are captured below: P16: I believe that as long as within conversation all parties can understand and communicate, the use of World Englishes is fine. P7: As long as it’s intelligible then I believe using World Englishes is fine. P19: I believe that if they are functional and are only used on a local or national level, there is no reason why they can’t be used. Again, the key factor is a need to communicate effectively, though P19 mentions a caveat of sorts by implying that, if used outside their country of origin, NICE might impede communication. The suggestion is perhaps that inner circle speakers will not necessarily understand sufficiently, more so specific lexis maybe. We could of course suggest that inner circle speakers might want to learn NICE for themselves and perhaps things might even come full circle. Though speculative, it is possible that the varieties of English that were created as a result of the migration of the English language may indeed be spread to inner circle countries in the future, not merely by emigration of their speakers to inner circle countries, but by inner circle speakers who reside overseas adopting some of the features of NICE in their own speech, and bringing them back home. P12 reiterates the suggested need to essentially use NICE in their country or region of origin, again making the argument, however subtle, that the key to good communication appears to mean not using a given form of language beyond its borders. This is not necessarily controversial and we could of course argue the same with regard to the variety of dialects that exist in an inner circle country, but which might not be understood outside their region of origin. In this case, ‘region’

226     A. Baratta

applies to a geographical space within a country; with NICE, it might apply to an entire country per se. I believe that as long as someone is intelligible in the situations they encounter in everyday life, there is no real problem. For example, someone may not be very intelligible to a native speaker of English, due to a strong accent or dialect words. But if that person may be perfectly understandable within their region and if they do not come into contact with native speakers often, there is no real reason to force them to change

A final contribution is from P15, who again clarifies the main point made within this section: a need to be understood as the most pertinent factor regarding the use of NICE, and from that perspective, a need to understand the particular variety as used in one’s country of residence. It is in that spirit that inner circle speakers are now learning NICE (Kubota 2001). It is this practice that is arguably helping not just to raise awareness of the variety of Englishes beyond the inner circle world, but also in turn helping to legitimise them by virtue of the fact that people are actually learning them in the first instance. I wouldn’t say those are not proper, because the meaning is not impeded. I remember the first time I saw the words ‘grand open’ in Korea. It made me smile, but I would never think that it was something very wrong. Of course, learners need to be made aware of the differences, and how things are said in Britain if they are planning to come to Britain or are living in Britain but I think this is what makes languages so interesting, as long as the person you are speaking to understands, then I don’t see such a big problem

8.3.3 The Need to Consider the Context of Usage For the following four participants, the central point made revolves around a need to consider the contextual issues inherent with the use of NICE. Clearly, all languages and varieties within have a need to be deployed as and when a particular context arises, so this is not necessarily any more or less relevant to NICE. While P6 clearly references,

8  Results and Discussion     227

as did the participants in the previous section, a need to be understood as the main factor with regard to the legitimacy of NICE, it is the final sentence in his response that determines a different placement regarding his answer. The final sentence in P6’s response below is suggestive of a need to consider the context of usage and clearly, P6 is not suggesting that there is not a time and place for the use of NICE; in fact, his point seems to be that there is indeed an appropriate context of usage, but the classroom is not included: While it is not proper in a traditional sense and may raise some eyebrows in England or America, the meaning is still there and likely to be understood. Therefore, I have no real problems with it. If I was teaching though, I would likely correct it

Clearly, the point suggested above is that NICE, presumably within the EFL classroom (or more broadly, within educative contexts in inner circle countries) is not appropriate. A response to this is that, once again, we can liken this belief to the use of non-standard English in the classroom. Within educational contexts in the English-speaking world, standard English is the variety expected, more so within academic writing. In this sense, ‘correcting’ usage of NICE in such contexts is perhaps not about correction at all; rather, the usage is correct per se, but the particular variety is not being used in the appropriate context. However, if we interpret ‘correct’ in a strict sense, then clearly P6 is stating that linguistic features of NICE are indeed wrong. As I have argued, if we have reached the point where specific features of NICE have become the norm, then these are features which are not, strictly speaking, subject to correction in the classroom at all. P31 also mirrors this suggested two-part response: the first part functions to recognise the legitimacy of NICE, with the second acknowledging potential issues within educational contexts: I think people can use Englishes as to communicate or to show their identity, but it is not to be taught because there are some issues in some aspects such as phonological, grammatical and lexical

228     A. Baratta

The mention of identity is tied to previous participant comments, in that it connects with relevant concepts such as community and culture. One’s language is clearly connected with the identity that is formed as a result, in this case perhaps a group identity which is shared through not just a common language, but the culture which is reflected through said language. On the other hand, P31 does not believe that NICE are appropriate for the classroom. It is implied perhaps that the variety of English that is to be taught is inner circle. However, raising the linguistic properties of NICE as issues, such as the grammar and lexis, might suggest that the ‘issues’ as such are only deemed to be problematic if compared against the suggested communicate power of inner circle Englishes. Taken with the comments about the appropriateness of NICE used in their countries of origin, then if learning English with the purpose of speaking a global language, it is arguably the inner circle varieties that function as a kind of global standard. Not in terms of any inherent linguistic superiority, a point that has been made abundantly clear, but as a variety that can ideally be used across countries and be understood by more people than a variety whose usage is tied more to a given region or country. Thus, the lexis and grammar of such varieties of English can be an issue if they do not allow for maximum clarity of communication which, once again, reflects what is a common point made with several participants, what might even be considered a linguistic acid test of sorts: the need to communicate clearly with one’s audience. The comments from the remaining two participants in this category share the points raised so far by P6 and P31: P26:  World Englishes are OK for communication as lingua franca. However, I don’t think they are proper to be taught in classroom and put into dictionaries. P5: I believe that World Englishes used as a communicative tool within an informal environment, socially among friends is acceptable, but when spoken formally or in written English I think that some sort of standard English should be used.

8  Results and Discussion     229

The use of the word ‘proper’ is seen, but I would argue that this is not suggestive of some kind of inherent ‘properness’, akin to the inherent values hypothesis of language. Rather, it is a context-dependent properness, which recognises the need to use NICE in contexts such as a common language for those who otherwise do not share one. P26 also does not believe that NICE should be reflected in dictionaries which, ironically, would appear to be in complete opposition to those who see dictionaries as a means of official recognition and codification. Perhaps P26 does not regard codification of NICE as appropriate beyond the societal level, which, as I have argued, is nonetheless sufficient for purely communicative purposes, which several participants have discussed. It could be that P26 feels that, despite the large numbers of speakers attached to certain NICE, the function of these varieties need not go beyond the society in which they are used, and to codify them in dictionaries might negate the importance of inner circle Englishes. While speculative, this might reflect P26’s deeper views on the matter. For P5, the use of NICE in formal contexts, which could include business and academic contexts perhaps, is not suggested to be contextually ‘proper’. If the level of formality is tied specifically to inner circle contexts in particular, such as university-level writing or business presentations, then inner circle would be the appropriate choice. However, perhaps P5 is going further, and suggesting that even within the country in which a given English is spoken, such as Singapore, a more standard variety is preferable in such contexts of communication (and Singapore of course adopts a broad approach to its use of English, consisting of a standard variety and of course Singlish).

8.3.4 World Englishes as Invalid Varieties P17 was the only participant who did not consider NICE to be legitimate varieties of English.

230     A. Baratta

I don’t think they are proper English. They are not correct English, if they were they’d be called English, not ‘AnotherLanguage+English’. They are variations of English, and are influenced by another language. I don’t know that everyone who speaks Indian English makes the same mistakes, if they do then maybe at a push…then it could be considered as a variation of English but NOT English

There are three points to be gleaned from the response above. First, P17 appears to refer to the terminology used concerning primarily expanding circle Englishes—that is, the use of blends, such as Konglish, consisting of course of Ko(rea)+(E)nglish. I have raised this kind of terminology as a negative issue and instead argue that certain Englishes should be renamed, and reconceptualised (e.g. such as Korean English [Ahn 2014], for example). In fact, the amusement that sometimes occurs based on mentioning such blends, certainly from my own students, is indicative perhaps of the fact that such terms are not taken seriously in the sense that what they refer to—translation errors, in some cases (e.g. Chinglish)—represents a negative issue. Second, P17 appears to be conceptualising NICE not as varieties of English in the first instance, but forms of communication which have a foreign language as the base and are influenced by English. I would argue the opposite, in that English is the linguistic bedrock of such varieties, which are otherwise influenced, lexically, grammatically, phonologically (or all of the above), by the language(s) which are otherwise native to the country in question and in time, nativisation occurs (Ahn 2014). Of course, it depends how far back we wish to go, as I had suggested earlier. We can trace the development of English back to the Celtic peoples who inhabited what is now England, and then the Latin influence of the Romans, as well as the Germanic influence by the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, to be later followed by Old Norse, with French arriving later. In this manner, English is itself a mixture of other linguistic influences, the difference being of course that such influences are much farther back in time than the much

8  Results and Discussion     231

more recent emergence of non-inner circle varieties of the English language. A final point to make concerns the mention of Indian English in relation to P36’s earlier comments. That is, both participants are strongly suggesting that errors in language use regarding World Englishes (i.e. errors when compared with the grammar and lexis of inner circle English), if predictable and not random (such as Indian English’s use of progressive forms of stative verbs) by linguistic default become correct and a new English is essentially formed. Thus, Indian English is a recognised variety of English in P17’s mind precisely because its grammatical usage, for example, is predictable and as such, it can be analysed and predictably, taught. However, to P17, what are merely differences within language are being regarded as errors instead. As I have mentioned, we could easily hold inner circle Englishes up to the same linguistic scrutiny and find points of contention—some would perhaps—though again, given their status as inner circle, this would arguably act as leverage over the outer/expanding circle varieties. Moreover, to not consider, say, Indian English to be an actual English per se, but merely a variation of (inner circle) English, is not, for me, linguistically accurate. All varieties of English are, by definition, Englishes, but if P17 only regards Englishes tied to the inner circle as fitting for the category of Englishes, then this would invalidate the outer/ expanding circle varieties. If this is the case from her point of view, then this once again places inner circle Englishes as the overall standard and anything outside of this context as essentially mere varieties. Of course, we could argue that this is down to petty semantics on my part, and assuming my interpretation of P17’s final sentence is accurate of course. However, the response is suggestive of somewhat of a lower status for NICE, perhaps by virtue of being from outside the realm of those who speak English as a native language, but this concept of NS has been sufficiently problematized. However we conceptualise NICE, they are of course fully functioning for the speakers and have become their own Englishes per se, I would argue, and not merely varieties of inner circle Englishes. This is an important distinction to make, as it

232     A. Baratta

could affect not only our positioning with regard to NICE but subsequently, how our students regard them also based on our views as the teacher. Consider how it is standard in American English to say write me, whereas British English requires a preposition—write to me. Also, in the USA, as I referred to, have you been menued would not be out of place, whereas no one is ‘menued’ in Britain, but are given a menu instead. Just recently, I recall an example of this linguistic clash from a story told by a British individual who had lived in San Diego. It concerned his son, who having got (gotten?) his hands dirty, was told by his mother in a coffee shop that he needed to wash his hands in the toilet; to a British person, this means cleaning one’s hands in the sink located within a restroom, but to an American, this would be interpreted as very unhygienic indeed, understood as washing one’s hands in the toilet bowl itself (and the Americans in earshot of this utterance indeed responded in surprise, if not disgust). These brief examples hopefully drive the point home—there are semantic issues that can arise between people who otherwise share the same (inner circle) language. But do we consider write me an error that is otherwise correct by default (i.e. by its propagation and widespread usage)? Perhaps, but to Americans, it was perhaps never conceived of as an error in the first instance. The ideal is to regard linguistic difference in outer/expanding circle varieties in the same manner, but to use such differences to characterise them as their own English, long since removed from the inner circle by virtue of having put their own stamp on the English language.

8.4 What Role, If Any, Can/Should World Englishes Play in Today’s EFL Classroom? This question will be presented in two parts. First, I approach it from the perspective of the question directly above; this will be followed by a discussion of how the suggested inclusion of NICE should be

8  Results and Discussion     233

implemented. Clearly, this will only apply to those who feel NICE should be brought into the EFL classroom in the first instance. Regarding the question above, there were three broad responses. Of the thirty six participants, eighteen were in agreement that World Englishes had a role to play in EFL teaching. Fourteen participants also agreed in this regard, but mentioned the need for some considerations first. Finally, the remaining four participants did not agree with the inclusion of World Englishes as part of overall EFL pedagogy.

8.4.1 World Englishes Should Be Used in the EFL Classroom P18 offered a personal experience regarding the benefit of World Englishes in the EFL classroom. She first explained that her Korean students ‘struggled’ with her British accent, as they were used to American pronunciation. Nonetheless, this initial difficulty ‘triggered positive reactions and students were more eager to learn from me and my British colleagues’. This suggests that linguistic difference can act as a novelty of sorts and this can perhaps be harnessed based on the potential for students to be more interested in the lesson as a result. P18 elaborated: I feel like many students who are only exposed to “standard” English could face problems when attempting to communicate with those who use World Englishes in future. It is vital to expose them to these varieties and I have discovered in my personal experiences that students find these interesting and motivating in the classroom

Though just one perspective, the mention of using NICE in the classroom as a means of motivating students can be a powerful rationale for their inclusion. This must be more than just a novelty act of course and

234     A. Baratta

also a means by which students can be challenged, as the case may be, to recognise in a variety of Englishes the linguistic implications (e.g. grammar) and how they compare with standard English that they are perhaps more familiar with. P18’s response also implies that inner circle speakers cannot always expect others, even those who are English speakers, to use an inner circle variety; this has implications perhaps for the future, in which we may see a growing number of inner circle speakers learning NICE as a means to be more culturally and linguistically aware within their EFL teaching, and/or as a means to communicate better in non-inner circle countries. P12 hinted at the learning benefits of NICE. Beyond what might be considered an immediate pedagogical ‘hook’, P12 also mentioned that the inclusion of NICE ‘helps students relate what they already know to new things they may be learning, perhaps making them more confident speakers’. This also connects with a rationale for their inclusion in the classroom in that one of the key points I will make with regard to how varieties of English can be used in the classroom is indeed based on the ways in which students’ grammatical knowledge of NICE can be used to help them understand inner circle varieties. For other participants, there was a clear link mentioned with culture and this was the motivating factor for the use of NICE in some way within the classroom: P30: Language and culture are closely related to each other. Learning a variety is to know about its culture. P32: It is also a part of culture which is always worth knowing about. P33: I absolutely feel this is important for students feeling that their identity and culture and language is being valued and thereby giving them confidence in their learning. Culture is a key aspect of language and so, while this might be reflected indirectly with the discussion of NICE, it nonetheless is a means to celebrate, or certainly acknowledge, the variety of cultural backgrounds which might exist in a single EFL classroom. The response of P33

8  Results and Discussion     235

touches on this in that, if we discuss NICE that are spoken by some of our students, it can indeed serve to legitimise their use of language and subsequently, the culture to which it belongs. It also avoids the traditional focus on inner circle cultures and subsequent norms and allows for non-inner circle cultural norms and practices to be discussed, given that they have their own varieties of English which are representative of said cultures. Within the larger category of agreeing with the inclusion of NICE, four participants cited difference as their key focus and the need for students to understand NICE in terms of difference and not deficit: P2:

 e varieties of English should be discussed in the classroom… Th students need to be aware of the varieties of English to know the ‘goings on’. P7: I believe they should follow a model of standard English and also be notified that there are other varieties and/or even accepted ways of saying things. P9: I think it’s also advantageous for students to be aware of World English and how it might differ from what they have learned and that it’s not incorrect. P29: Student should be aware of the differences…English is taught by various origins of NS and also from the teachers who use variant English like Indian English, Filipino English…. The collective responses suggest a need to be made aware of the Englishes that might be heard outside the classroom walls, as well as reflecting the origins of some of the EFL teachers themselves. P7’s belief that standard English is the foundation of the EFL classroom does not negate the desire to bring in other varieties; rather, it implies a need for a linguistic base for the classroom, amidst an otherwise diversified focus that goes beyond inner circle borders. This is an approach I agree with and one referenced in the literature also; there is a pedagogical place for more than just one variety of the English language and by helping students to approach English from a position of linguistic relativity

236     A. Baratta

(P9; ‘that it’s not incorrect’) then this is reflective of a purely linguistic approach to language which is essentially the most relevant approach to adopt in a language classroom. P13 expanded somewhat on P29’s response, citing the fact that ‘many non-natives talk to each other using World Englishes more so than the native English’. This is a valid point and might even suggest a certain linguistic neutrality, in that, if neither of two speakers can claim the English they speak as their first language, whatever form it takes, then this might be a context considerably more free from judgement regarding notions of correctness. I had referenced this before, but it is a point worth raising in the EFL classroom, as what sounds ‘wrong’ to one group is reflective of another group’s standard language perhaps. For P22 and P34, there was agreement for the inclusion of NICE, though P22 stated a need for ‘more established versions of World Englishes’. This suggests a new perspective on NICE, almost hierarchical in nature. It is beyond the scope of this book to categorise Englishes in such a way, but we might suggest that within the context of NICE, some are indeed more established than others, in that outer circle varieties are perhaps regarded as more ‘official’, relatively speaking, than expanding circle Englishes. We have seen, however, that sometimes governments seek to discourage the use of their country’s variety of English though it otherwise functions on a daily basis amongst many speakers. P34 elaborated on this, saying— Almost all non-native speakers speak a World English….most of the courses focus on the different varieties of English with reference to Scottish, Welsh and so on. But if you are a language mediator or an interpreter who works in the medical field, it is rare to find a native speaker asking for your service. So, it is important to acknowledge their existence without stigmatising them. It is important to lead the students and make them become acquainted to these varieties (at least the most spread ones)

While P34 also indirectly references more commonly known NICE, albeit in a bracket, his larger views on the importance of such varieties are made clear. A valid point is made that once again, not all those who

8  Results and Discussion     237

speak English are NS of an inner circle variety. Within the context of communicating effectively, it makes sense to become familiar with other varieties that might otherwise be dismissed as broken English, hence a need to avoid stigmatisation of other varieties. Of course, the concept of ‘broken English’ (or broken French, German and so on) might be applied to an attempt to speak a language when the speaker otherwise has very limited ability in the language. This, as I have sought to make clear, is not reflective of NICE, which reflect a systematic use of language which is otherwise highly predictable to its speakers (everything from the use of lah to Burberry ). P34 also implies the need for inner circle speakers to learn other Englishes outside of this circle. Certainly, if an inner circle English speaker from London works in the medical field and encounters individuals who are speaking with varying degrees of English proficiency (from little ability to a more established form of NICE), then the inner circle speaker needs to understand more than just standard English also. This would go beyond an additional knowledge of inner circle dialects (e.g. Cockney English) and could indeed incorporate NICE. This approach is an important one for the future: a need for inner circle speakers to themselves learn, for work purposes in particular, a variety(ies) of a non-inner circle English. P21, P24 and P35 echoed a need to make NICE a part of the EFL classroom, largely a means to address concerns regarding the correctness of such varieties, especially if using standard inner circle English as a benchmark. P21 explained that— Including these Englishes in the discussion in the classroom would make students’ understanding of English as a living language much richer. If they are presented in a positive to neutral light, it may help students feel many of the ‘mistakes’ they make are in fact variations to the language that may over time become standard, and thus strengthen their confidence. I think they also favour a humanistic approach to language learning, which I believe is also quite positive

The key mention of reconsidering linguistic errors as linguistic difference is again raised, especially in light of the need for ‘time’

238     A. Baratta

leading to errors becoming recognised as established features of NICE. Furthermore, the possibility of such differences becoming standard also raises the point that the standard form of any language is not inherently ‘better’ or more logical, but once a language has been awarded, if you like, the title of standard, then the connotations of course can become quite positive and this version is embedded with a societal perception that, among other things, regards it as having the most prestige. Singapore is one example of a non-inner circle country which has of course two specific varieties of English—Singlish, considered by some to be the basilect—and standard Singaporean English, considered the acrolect. Of course, this power dynamic is not always positively received. It was discussed how the power afforded to the standard variety of English in Singapore in turn negates Singlish to a lower status. Thus, while a standard gives society a base form of the language as a starting point to work from, it also means that those varieties outside the standard might not be seen as favourably. Further, the views of P24 and P35 are provided below: P24: Make them aware of the differences between the different variations of English, and give them confidence about the “properness” of their own variation. P35:  I think that EFL students, who often speak a World English already, should have this variety discussed in the classroom as part of pedagogy. The use of quotes around the word properness is understood here not to the suggestion that NICE are somehow not proper regarding their differences with inner circle Englishes; rather, the quote marks arguably serve to problematize the linguistic notion of ‘properness’ and ‘correctness’ in the first instance. Perhaps the quotation marks also signal mild sarcasm on the part of P24, suggestive of disagreement with the idea that only one variety can be seen as proper in the first instance. Moreover, the suggested need for confidence in speakers of NICE points toward a feeling perhaps of linguistic marginalisation that such speakers might have, if compared with speakers of standard English (to include standard varieties of English outside the inner circle, such as

8  Results and Discussion     239

Singapore). I have argued that including NICE within the EFL classroom can have the benefit of holding up such varieties to linguistic scrutiny; not as a means to pick them apart, but merely as a means to demonstrate that they are no less valid, or equal, than standard English. This particular discussion may indeed go against what might be opposing views and perceptions of NICE, even for those who speak a non-inner circle variety, but the EFL classroom is the ideal environment to address such concerns on the part of our students. Further views are provided below: P15: Understanding World Englishes is important because it helps the learners understand the differences between the Englishes. It can be a good starting point with beginners too, as they would be more likely to pick up words similar to the ones they already use in their language. P16: The teachers should be understanding of the varieties of World Englishes that students may speak, and potentially give students the opportunities to peer-teach their classmates about the differences. P15 suggests a pedagogical benefit of NICE, again based on understanding differences as just that—differences; moreover, for those who speak a variety of a non-inner circle English, this knowledge might be used as a springboard in helping them to acquire the skills needed for proficiency in an inner circle variety of English. Clearly, this has implications for the classroom, including how such inclusion is implemented, how often and of course reflecting the desires and needs of all students. It is such considerations which form the basis of the section to follow, but for now, the relevant issue is that some participants are able to recognise a valid purpose for the inclusion of NICE in the EFL classroom. The suggestion of peer teaching by P16 is also reflective of student-led learning, and teaching, and I have argued for a classroom that allows EFL students of all levels more of a voice, a means to help them take a more active role. It is not implausible to suggest that in a given EFL class, the students might be more knowledgeable of particular varieties of NICE than their teacher and this is an opportunity that should

240     A. Baratta

not be wasted. The benefits of NICE, as participants have made clear, pertain to familiarity in helping students to learn a variety of English that might be somewhat unfamiliar; helping students to recognise diversity and learn that NICE are just as valid as standard English; and encouraging students to lead at times, to include teaching the teacher, which are all positive steps forward. Finally, P6 declared that ‘it (World Englishes) should be discussed and awareness should be raised. Students should have the right to decide what English they want to use and be taught depending on their needs and situation’. The relevance to needs and situation reflects the simple fact that different contexts have different needs for language usage and thus it is up to the speaker to decide for him/herself which variety of language—be it English or any other—is required for the occasion, as well as considering the specific focus of the class itself. The importance of recognising context as the main factor as to what is appropriate or not regarding language use is reflected here in P6’s response, however brief. Of particular interest is a suggestion that once again points to students being given a more active role—in this case, to dictate, or certainly suggest to the teacher—their specific needs with regard to the English language. This might mean that the teacher, where possible, needs to go beyond the textbook, if not construct a new one with the help of the students. Overall, allowing students the right to decide their EFL futures, as represented in the classroom, is a means forward, as it gives students more power and can allow for more of a joint discussion between teacher and student (and between student and student).

8.4.2 The Use of World Englishes in the Classroom, But with Considerations This section provides accounts from participants who collectively could be categorised as agreeing in principle with the inclusion of NICE in the EFL classroom, but also mindful of various factors which need to be taken into consideration. For example, P10 explained thus, offering some telling insights:

8  Results and Discussion     241

It depends…..in China, students may need to learn English for exam purposes, or want to learn it for personal and career development, and I think for these goals, a ‘standard’ English is needed…..and students should learn that there are different varieties of English, and which are seen as ‘valid’ on the world stage. Even in countries where there is already a World English established, I think people go to an EFL classroom to learn ‘standard English’. Their local variety should probably be discussed, but as a way to differentiate it, not to learn it…..academics can argue for the validity (or not) of World Englishes, but EFL teachers have a responsibility to students. For example, if I know that different accents are judged in society, then I would want to teach my students the kind of English that would help them move further in the world

In P10’s opinion, there is a place for NICE in the classroom and as with other participants thus far, the suggested role is tied to making students aware of linguistic differences. However, P10 is acknowledging the importance of learning a variety of English that will travel across the world, as it were, a variety that carries the most prestige, certainly in professional and academic contexts such as exams and careers, as mentioned by P10. The example provided of accent in relation to a ‘standard’ is somewhat problematic as an official standard for inner circle accents does not exist, though we could suggest that Estuary English has become the de facto standard accent for British English (Trudgill 2002; Hughes et al. 2012). Clearly, then, the reality for EFL students is that, in the very contexts for which their English studies seek to prepare them, standard (inner circle) English is arguably the variety that is necessary. Thus, the inclusion of NICE is, in P10’s mind, valid, though the central focus and purpose of the EFL class is to focus in the main on standard English, as the suggested variety which will carry the most benefits for students’ learning and also for beyond the classroom perhaps. P11 appears to share this belief, stating that NICE ‘should definitely be discussed but as I am there to teach British English, I don’t believe I should have to teach it (i.e. NICE) explicitly. I would acknowledge that they use that variety but not personally incorporate it into my

242     A. Baratta

classroom’. This might suggest a somewhat tokenistic view of the role of NICE and we might also distinguish between teaching NICE as opposed to discussing; the former implies more of a systematic coverage, whereas discussing NICE need not go beyond a one-off approach, in which teacher and students have an in-class debate on the matter, for example. Of course, there are many possibilities for how ‘discussion’ and ‘teaching’ can be realised but the relevant factor here for inclusion in this particular section is that the participants all agree, to a greater or lesser extent, that World Englishes have a part to play in the EFL classroom, however minimal it might be (as implied by P11). P3 makes the point regarding contextual factors in line with students’ future needs concerning the English language. Such needs may of course go beyond the professional and academic context and thus, students ‘should be aware that their version differs from others. The extent depends on whether they are interested in this, whether they will communicate nationally or internationally and their need for ‘correctness’’. From this acknowledgement, it is seen that not only are contextual factors relevant with regard to the use of NICE, but also the students’ own needs for the ‘when’ and ‘where’ of English. Communicating on a national level might imply more potential to use NICE, though this could also refer to an inner circle country of course. But the need for clear communication throughout the world with individuals who represent a variety of first languages, perhaps suggests again that a notional unified version of English is the academic bedrock of the EFL classroom, from which a discussion of other varieties can derive. So we can see how P3, along with P10 and P11, is not against the inclusion of NICE in the EFL classroom. However, the general feeling amongst these individuals is that such inclusion should perhaps be minimal, in favour of a more dominant focus on standard English, for example. P14 concurs, saying that ‘perhaps an inner circle English is needed for international communication (a lingua franca) and so maybe this is to be the focus’, though reserving a place for NICE to be discussed, saying that they should otherwise ‘be incorporated into the classroom’. P14 goes on to say that

8  Results and Discussion     243

This does, however,…depend on the aims of the English course being completed…..this can also depend on the presence of examinations and the criteria to meet, with grammar and phonology. Perhaps skills of self-modification can be incorporated into the classroom. For example, a focus on confidence and language development to allow the students to use a variety of English within their daily lives with ease and to have successful communication, but to then be able to modify their register when the situation arises, for example within examinations

P14 is suggesting that there is a time and place for NICE in the classroom, but also suggests that the students’ immediate English needs must take precedence. The implication is that for examinations and course requirements, standard English is perhaps the likely variety to focus on. This coincides with the comments of P10, who had also referenced the need for students to take, and pass, exams in the English language. For such important assessments, standard English is unlikely to be surpassed by a non-standard variety within the inner circle any time soon, let alone NICE. It is thus fair to focus on standard English for such an important pedagogical purpose—test preparation. Further comments point again to the importance of students’ language needs and the importance of context: First and foremost, students’ needs and reasons for learning English must be taken into consideration. Depending on their needs, one could decide whether it is useful to introduce World Englishes. Teaching English in different contexts requires different Englishes to be taught (P25)

In addition, the context can also be realised based on the country in which one is teaching, in which a particular non-inner circle English may indeed be relevant to the student body and again, function as a means to teach inner circle English:

244     A. Baratta

Depending on the country you are teaching in, I think World Englishes could play a role in an EFL class. You could use familiar terms, vocab to teach English with (P1)

There are further comments regarding the place of NICE. With P28, we see again a familiar pattern of agreeing to their inclusion, but with a caveat: ‘I believe it would be beneficial for the students to be aware of variations of the English language. However, it should not be presented as “proper” or “correct”’. As I mentioned before, the use of quotation marks arguably serves to address the fact that no specific language variety is inherently correct, or more correct than another. However, the societal implications of using one variety over another are clearly understood, very often by EFL students themselves who, as suggested by some of the participants thus far, desire to learn standard English. Thus, perhaps P28 is not suggesting that NICE are not proper in their own right, but as they are not standard English, they should not be promoted as the dominant linguistic focus. P19, reflecting the aforementioned ‘discussion’ versus ‘teaching’ dynamic, offers a further distinction between the two, albeit without specifically addressing the classroom implications for either: ‘I believe that it could be discussed, however I do not believe it should be actively taught. I think it would help students’ morale as many students tend to have an idea that if their English is not comparative to RP they are incorrect’. From this, it may well be the case that for P19, discussion equates to nothing more than a topic for class lecture, but not actively integrating NICE into pedagogy (e.g. along the lines of teaching specific grammatical and lexical implications of different varieties each month, for example). However, the second part of the response clearly points to a benefit of bringing NICE into the classroom, however that is manifest. While boosting students’ morale is an admirable goal, in this case by allowing them to understand the legitimacy of their non-inner circle English, it need not be tied primarily to accent. While I have not intended to make accent a main focus of the book, it has of course been raised within participants’ discussions. It may be the case that for NICE-speaking individuals, accent is a subject of great interest and for some, a subject of

8  Results and Discussion     245

embarrassment. But if RP is still promoted, or at least understood, as the British accent, or at least as a prestige accent to aim for, then this alone would leave the vast majority of English people disenfranchised. There is a wealth of accents to be heard in England and EFL students should be made aware of these in order not to discredit RP, but to instead credit non-RP accents. For several of the participants, we again see opinions directed toward the legitimacy of the inclusion of NICE, but again making clear that standard English should be the main focus: P5: I believe that a discussion regarding the varieties of the students’ World Englishes should be discussed in the classroom so that the EFL teacher is aware of what English is being spoken in the community that he/she is teaching. However, I do believe that probably the English of the teacher is the one that should be taught. P27: I would correct my learners if they use for example ‘ain’t it’ instead of isn’t it and make them aware of when it is acceptable and not. I am for ‘standard English’ and I believe that it is important as a teacher to make your learners aware of slang used in a particular country/region, however, in the classroom, standard English should be the focus. P5 implies that the teacher, whether a NS of inner circle English or not perhaps, is likely to use a variety of English in the classroom that will nonetheless reflect dominant varieties. This is arguably the case as P5 is contrasting the teacher’s language with NICE and thus, we might understand the teacher’s language to reflect the inner circle. A benefit of the inclusion of NICE is that the teacher can become more aware of the students’ local use of English, as P5 states. This is a benefit of an approach to teaching EFL which also applies to the teacher, as he/ she can indeed learn a new English in the process, while students learn standard English. The reference of ‘slang’ by P27 is perhaps used in reference to NICE, but this is unknown. Non-inner circle varieties of English are not of course, collective slang, but regardless of how they are interpreted, they are the linguistic reality for many EFL students. Perhaps the larger point

246     A. Baratta

that P27 is making is that students need to go beyond the textbook and more ‘traditional’ examples of English—which may in fact suggest standard English—and instead, spend time discussing, and learning, ‘real world’ English. This variety is reflective of the kinds of everyday English that is heard on a daily basis on the streets, between friends and essentially, when people are not being judged based on their language use. As a result, we might expect to hear informal English, dialect and even taboo language. How far we go with such categories in the EFL classroom is dependent on the students’ level, age and the individual school’s rules, but such uses of English are perhaps the kind that many students wish to learn, examples of what I have discussed as ‘authentic’ English. P17 explained that ‘it may be helpful for students to be made aware that they may encounter these varieties of English, if and only if the students are going to be coming across it regularly. I don’t even know what ‘Konglish’ is and I’m a NS. I don’t come across it and I would never teach my students it or worry them about other variations of English’. While indirect perhaps, this response suggests that NICE in the EFL classroom are necessary only in as much as students may be exposed to such in the future and if so, a classroom inclusion of NICE would be a purely practical issue. Nonetheless, this still conforms to a general view regarding their inclusion in the classroom. Otherwise, P17 suggests that bringing NICE into the classroom is perhaps unnecessary. P8’s views below seem to emulate those of P17: I believe that students should be made aware of the varieties and which country they should expect to hear it from. However, I do not believe it should be highly focused on in the classroom

This again points to NICE being brought into the classroom in somewhat of a supplementary, if not complementary, role. By not making them the main focus, then this raises the question as to what variety of English is targeted as the main focus for the EFL classroom. By implication, it would perhaps be standard English. I have of course discussed in detail that students’ needs should come first, but the classroom syllabus and their needs are not necessarily one in the same. That is why we need

8  Results and Discussion     247

to engage with the students regarding what they feel they need to learn from their EFL class, especially for the future. If they plan to live, work and/or study in inner circle countries, then this is an important focus for the classroom. However, their everyday English needs may well involve a non-inner circle variety and to bring this linguistic familiarity into the classroom can be a method to engage them as they prepare for other varieties, such as standard English or even more specifically, the English needed for specific tests, such as IELTS. Finally, P36 offers a more detailed outlook regarding his response to the question: I think we should not confuse people. If you are a teacher you can teach whatever English you like, but be clear what you are teaching from the outset and stick to one type of English. That is for private teachers. In terms of any public language course such as language support for people immigrating to a particular English speaking country, such programmes should only teach local forms of English. Not doing so will have a negative impact on assimilating with the local culture and will have a detrimental effect to the individual professionally and socially at least

P36 is perhaps advocating a more wholesale approach to a focus on NICE in that unlike most of the other responses in this section, he does not regard it as supplementary but, if tied explicitly to students’ English needs, he advocates a complete focus on a particular variety of English(es). Thus, P36 suggests perhaps that what is most helpful for EFL students is the variety of English that will be needed the most in their daily lives. P36 adopts a one size fits all perspective somewhat, but one that is tailored to the students’ needs and not instead to a specific variety of English for all students. Thus for some, a non-inner circle English may indeed be most relevant and less so, if at all, an inner circle variety. P36’s response, though relevant to this section of inclusion, is somewhat of an outlier in that he advocates fully a variety of English that is based on the micro-level regarding the student’s communicative needs and also, reflecting a meso-level, based on the context of teaching—private versus public. We might in turn suggest that the macro-level in this instance could involve advocating standard

248     A. Baratta

inner circle English across the board, as other participants have done. A clear factor for P36 is that he strongly suggests that the English that is focused on should involve a unified approach involving one central variety. In the public context of teaching, it may of course be highly impractical to suggest just one variety of English given the potential needs of several different students with regard to their English learning, but P36 is clearly suggesting that even in such a diverse environment, teachers need to pay attention to the individual needs of their students with regard to the kind of English they will need for their future. The need to avoid confusing students is something I agree with, referred to earlier as a kind of linguistic overload. Clearly, a balance is needed, with a dominant variety focused on, the variety which, for perhaps several reasons, will be most practical for the students; within this focus, however, there is a need to incorporate other varieties. Class size, differing levels even in the same class and different individual needs might not fit well with a desire to accommodate our students as a whole, but the inclusion of other Englishes from outside the inner circle can be a welcome change.

8.4.3 World Englishes Should Not Be Used in the Classroom For four participants, NICE were not regarded as appropriate for the EFL classroom. This goes beyond the viewpoint of advocating a focus on standard English, with discussion of some kind allowed for the inclusion, however brief, of NICE. Instead, we have here four participants who believe that the EFL classroom should focus on inner circle English in its entirety. P23, a Korean participant, was annoyed at the suggestion that Konglish was not a true variety of English; he had expressed his views in response to the notion that NICE were not ‘proper’ varieties of English. Nonetheless, while he recognises this particular variety from his home country, he did not believe that it had a place in the classroom, EFL

8  Results and Discussion     249

or otherwise. P23 had explained that it was ‘a bit premature to introduce the concept of World Englishes into Korean classrooms’, further explaining that it was ‘not official’. This suggests that in the absence of a nationally-recognised and perhaps fully accepted NICE, that the conditions for it being taught are missing. That is, while P23 pointed to forms of Konglish that are indeed used (such as ‘com’ for computer ), he made it clear that this was an English used mainly by the younger generation and as such, the ‘elder generation wouldn’t understand’. Thus, he implies that Konglish, without being necessarily understood, let alone spoken, by Koreans as a whole, is not yet firmly established to be taught per se. This establishment refers more to the fact its suggested base is the younger generation, thus arguably functioning more as a sociolect. Ahn (2014) also suggests that Konglish is tied more to the younger generation, though as I had referenced earlier, she distinguishes between Konglish and Korean English, explaining that ‘Konglish is being used by virtually all Koreans, and plays a wide range of significant functions in Korean communities’ (page 199). It might again point to terminologies, in that Konglish (and by extension, blends such as Chinglish) connotes negativity. This negativity can range from not being ‘real’ English to issues with English ‘invading’ our language. Perhaps the expanding circle world needs to reconceptualise the very terms they use; as I have argued, what many consider to be Chinglish is largely based on mistranslations whereas China English, like Korean English, is not. P4 gave a very contextualised account of the inherent issues with attempting to bring NICE into the classroom: I believe that the use of World Englishes in the classroom is difficult to approach as it relies on several factors: the teacher being aware of whether what they are saying is right in that student’s own variety; the other students’ need to know this variety; the type of interactions the students are learning English for. I believe that a variety perhaps could be presented but, in my opinion, it may not necessarily fit what the class needs—nor how they use or hear English

250     A. Baratta

Granted, P4 does not prohibit the use of NICE across the board, but this account is nonetheless included in this particular section as from the overall discussion offered, it is arguably the case that P4 is, however subtle it might be, proscribing the use of NICE. Of course, P4 raises legitimate concerns. If teaching an EFL class that is made up of students from numerous countries and languages—and subsequently, numerous varieties of NICE—then we might suggest that any teaching of outer/ expanding circle varieties is on a ‘need to know’ basis. In other words, what are the contextual factors that might require an Arabic-speaking student to learn Korean English or a Japanese student to learn Ghanaian English? Clearly, such contexts do exist of course, but P4 is suggesting that it is overall a complicated matter, whereas the teaching of inner circle English is perhaps not. On another level, we could suggest that how participants interpret the question will clearly affect their answering of it. On the one hand, teaching these varieties, as other participants have mentioned, could be used purely for the purposes of demystifying them and helping students to understand that no one version of English is inherently superior than another; this kind of focus also allows students’ cultural backgrounds to be acknowledged as a result; and the teaching of inner circle English can be facilitated with an inclusion of NICE. However, if we consider the teaching of NICE in a more absolute sense, suggestive of teaching them as the main focus of the EFL classroom and/or teaching their grammatical and lexical make-up without reference to inner circle English, then this might be regarded as an imbalance. As I will argue in the following chapter, the inclusion of NICE in the classroom should perhaps generally function as a supplement to an overall focus on inner circle English (standard in the main, but also including non-standard varieties), not a substitute for it. P31 had earlier referenced her opinion that NICE exhibited errors in terms of grammar, lexis and phonology; based on this reasoning, she made it clear that ‘I don’t think they should learn Englishes as I mentioned above there are some grammatical and phonological mistakes’. From another perspective, and as several of the participants have stressed already, a rationale for including NICE is indeed to reveal their grammatical and lexical details as a means to showcase their differences

8  Results and Discussion     251

as opposed to errors. However, perhaps P31 is approaching NICE from a more rigid viewpoint in that using inner circle English as the overall standard, means that she is then equating outer/expanding circle varieties as incorrect as a result. While this viewpoint is not correct from a linguistic point of view, it is a view that is indeed held, even perpetuated by some, to the extent that inner circle English is regarded as perhaps the only legitimate variety of English to teach. P31 also references phonology, but this is a more complex matter. Again, when is the phonological influence of one’s first language seen as a mistake by virtue of it not reflecting inner circle pronunciation; when is it instead regarded merely as difference, for precisely the same reasons? This is a question I cannot answer, but it is more complex than just focusing on NICE anyway. For example, amongst inner circle speakers, what is the ‘correct’ pronunciation? Is tomato ‘correct’ when pronounced thus /təmɑ:təʊ/ or thus /təmeɪɾoʊ/? Complicating matters further, the two pronunciations represent RP and General American, but there are many more accents to be heard in both the UK and the USA, such as Cockney English: /təmɑ:ʔə/. My own recent research (Baratta and Halenko 2019) unpacks the topic of pronunciation within inner circle EFL teachers, with broad Northern English accents arguably deemed to be, if not ‘incorrect’, then certainly not standard for the EFL profession. Though I had earlier suggested that the mere status of a variety of English as inner circle might give it more credibility in EFL contexts than outer/expanding circle varieties, there exists a hierarchy within inner circle varieties too, in which standard forms tend to be regarded more positively than non-standard forms, and specific accents are regarded more positively than others (Baratta 2018). Thus, while I do not wish to avoid a more thorough discussion of the role of linguistic influence on one’s pronunciation of NICE, it is beyond the immediate scope of this book, which instead focuses on lexis and grammar in the main. Nonetheless, to reference pronunciation as ‘wrong’, while itself is not ‘wrong’ given the potential for EFL students to apply the wrong syllable stress perhaps and/or use phonemes that English does not generally use, is a topic for which more discussion is clearly needed. Finally, P26 had this to say with regard to the suggestion of bringing NICE into the EFL classroom in some way: ‘I don’t think so. In

252     A. Baratta

my opinion, a teacher should pay attention to the difference between a World English and standard English, and help students to learn the latter’. The response could suggest that P26 is not advocating an outright ban on NICE, as it were, in keeping with the responses within the previous section. However, on closer analysis, the response contained in the first sentence makes it clear that for P26, there is no reason to include NICE. Moreover, the suggestion is made that any inclusion of NICE is to allow for the main focus to be on inner circle English. While this also mirrors some of the responses in the previous section, the answer provided here is suggestive of using NICE merely to teach standard (inner circle) English. Again, this is suggestive of advocating the use of NICE in the EFL classroom, but arguably, the answer provided suggests using this variety merely to contrast it with the ‘correct’ version—inner circle. For other participants, however, their responses suggested a more egalitarian approach, in which NICE were to be regarded as more legitimate. While inner circle English was advocated as the main focus, such a focus is not to suggest that NICE do not have a pedagogic purpose beyond functioning as a compare and contrast with inner circle Englishes.

8.5 How Should the Inclusion of World Englishes Be Implemented in the EFL Classroom? To this question, nine participants did not provide an answer; this was a reflection in some cases of their response to the question prior, as to whether or not World Englishes should be included in the classroom in the first instance. More specifically, P4 (British), P23 (Korean), P26 (Chinese) and P31 (Saudi Arabia) all agreed that NICE should not be part of the EFL classroom in the first instance. As such, they did not respond to the question above. P2 (British), P11 (British), P27 (Cameroonian), P34 (Italian) and P36 (Polish) collectively believe that the inclusion of NICE is

8  Results and Discussion     253

something that, while possible, should be minimal. As a result, their suggestions for implementation were quite broad: P2: Th  e varieties of English should be discussed in the classroom… students need to be aware of the varieties of English to know the ‘goings on’. P11: As briefly mentioned, I don’t think it should be taught explicitly. P27: It is important as a teacher to make your learners aware of slangs used in a particular country/region. P34: I think that different varieties of Englishes should be discussed in the classroom. I always have been taught a certain variety of English, which should correspond to the British English. But the truth is almost no one can speak English as a NS. P36: It can only be mentioned as an interesting fact that other Englishes exist. All participants are EFL teachers, except for P34 and P36, though only P11 references her teacher identity in relation to her response. She is all for a discussion of NICE, but not explicit teaching as she states that ‘it’s Table 8.14  The implementation of world Englishes in the classroom Vocabulary chunks

P17, P1, P12, P5, P8, P6, P10

Pronunciation differences Reference book/texts

P12, P5, P7 P12, P22, P9, P24, P15, P3, P19, P20, P14, P30, P25, P10 P9 P8, P25 P28 P35 P16 P29 P18

Dictionary Use of YouTube to teach listening Grammar Approach Peer teaching Vocabulary Phonetics and morphemes taught as part of context-based lessons Tables which show vocabulary differences in terms of meaning and pronunciation Showing variation and offering a cultural explanation Accent teaching

P13 P32, P21 P33

254     A. Baratta

my job to teach British English. Just in the same way that I wouldn’t teach American English because it’s not my job’. P27 seems to conflate NICE with a collective slang, but is nonetheless advocating their use in the classroom. P27 also is not against the usage of NICE, but reiterates the need for a singular focus ‘teaching one type of English’. This response is reflective of her earlier comment that regarded NICE as being susceptible to negative influence from one’s first language and as such, P27 perhaps believes that things should not be, as she puts it, ‘mixed up’. For P34, she referenced her own background as an EFL learner and her mentioning of most English speakers not being NS was a reference to the use of NICE; ‘almost all non-native speakers use a World English’. Her point seems to be that, given a focus on what might be considered a lesser used English (i.e. inner circle) to students who might be proficient in external varieties, it makes sense perhaps to incorporate such outer/expanding circle varieties in the classroom. However, as with the other four participants (i.e. P2, P11, P27, P36), P34 does not provide anything more specific regarding said inclusion of NICE. Perhaps there is a divide between those who advocate a discussion of NICE and those who advocate the teaching of such, a distinction I had referred to earlier. It is unclear what the dividing line is between a discussion and teaching per se, especially since they both essentially involve elements of each other. However, it might be more an issue of quantity; ‘teaching’ would imply an extended period of time perhaps, involving a more systematic approach to the topic under discussion (e.g. analysing the grammatical composition of certain NICE). A discussion need not be quite so structured of course, and could involve nothing more than a brief acknowledgement of the topic. For the remaining twenty seven participants, they offered more specific information regarding the implementation of NICE. I have provided the overall suggestions in Table 8.14. Given that some participants offered more than one suggestion for classroom implementation of NICE, their participant number appears in more than one column. Following the table, I will elaborate on participants’ suggestions based on their comments in regard to this final research question. I do not present the responses for all the participants who are mentioned in the table, however. This is simply because in the main, their answers are

8  Results and Discussion     255

contained in their entirety in the table, given that most did not elaborate on their answers beyond a more direct and immediate response (which, as mentioned, is provided below). However, in cases in which participants did go a bit further in their responses and offered some elaboration or justification for their suggestions for implementation, I have provided such for the reader. Table 8.14 offers a detailed response to the ways in which Englishes can be used in the classroom. Clearly, a book of some kind was felt to be an important method of implementation, as was the teaching of vocabulary (though for this category, several participants did not specify the need for a textbook to teach vocabulary). As an example of a more detailed response, P4 said that he recommended ‘a reference book with tables divided by grammar point, vocabulary chunk and pron differences’. This would arguably fit the description of a somewhat typical student textbook in a language classroom. For this reason, such a textbook would allow NICE to perhaps be seen in a more positive light and less of a novelty (or worse, as deficient). P6 did not specify the need for a book as such, but did suggest the use of ‘a lexical based approach….teaching the language through lexical chains and chunks’. Thus, these two responses, while very similar, differ somewhat in the fact that one participant advocates a textbook per se. P12 agreed with the need for a focus on ‘vocabulary chunk and pronunciation differences…a reference book is still a good idea’. From this suggestion, it appears that a reference book is not absolutely required, but might be a good way to help encapsulate the teaching of NICE. This does not mean of course that people are more inclined to accept the validity of NICE as a result of textbooks on the subject; in fact, some might feel that such a publication will encourage ‘bad English’, as I had suggested earlier. Nonetheless, to have a discussion of NICE with the aid of a textbook can only help to clarify the lesson’s content and for some students, validate their use of English that perhaps takes place outside the classroom. A textbook can also serve to help the teacher understand the local English and as a result, avoid declaring the students’ English to be wrong based on mere differences. I have also suggested that the creation of a textbook of some kind can become a class project, a means to create a resource,

256     A. Baratta

whether in print or online, which can be added to by each successive class and teacher. Though this may be a ‘homemade’ version, it can help to clarify matters one school at a time. P9 also mentioned the need for a ‘grammar reference book and dictionary; therefore they (the students) can learn on their own as well’. This is an important point as it makes clear that NICE need not remain in the classroom for pedagogic purposes. For many students, local varieties exist entirely outside the classroom in the first instance in terms of their usage. It is important to recognise that there appears to be an implied continuum regarding the ways in which NICE might be used in the classroom. For some, there is an acceptance that such varieties can indeed be discussed, but beyond this, nothing more is mentioned. This suggests that discussion, given the broadness of this word, can take whatever form the teacher (and perhaps students) feels is needed. Discussion, therefore, might be nothing more than a ten-minute conversation to fill the last few minutes of the lesson, with the content of said discussion being based on students’ views. However, a discussion might also be more substantial, and feed into a classroom debate on the pros and cons of the use of NICE. Other participants, however, are clearly advocating the need to actually teach NICE. As I have mentioned before, teaching implies much more than a discussion. Instead, there is a need to perhaps involve lesson planning, materials and have at least a more firm direction as to the purpose of such a class—what are its benefits? From here, we could subdivide further—do we teach NICE as subjects in their own right (e.g. teaching inner circle speakers how to speak such varieties) or do we teach inner circle Englishes via a focus on NICE? Or do we do both? However we interpret ‘discussion’ versus ‘teaching’ and however we further plan the relevant content for either category, the fact that most participants suggest the need for the actual teaching of vocabulary and/or the inclusion of actual textbooks, would strongly suggest that more than just a mere discussion is advocated. In Table 8.14, P15 suggested the need for a reference book with tables outlining grammar, for example, explaining that ‘students would enjoy reading the similarities and differences between the Englishes’. This also ties in with a benefit of the inclusion of NICE, or, to an

8  Results and Discussion     257

extent, a subject perceived as ‘different’ (but in the context of EFL, nonetheless relevant). P13 suggested the need for tables which outline the differences in pronunciation and meaning for various Englishes. Clearly, this could be part of a textbook or simply written on the board (or used as part of the school’s online resources). Either way, the rationale for this inclusion was that ‘nowadays many non natives talk to each other using World Englishes (i.e. their own versions of English) more so than native English’. This is a relevant point and suggestive of a need to recognise the varieties which are spoken and represent, and respect, the ways in which people throughout the world have appropriated the English language. P33 had focused on accent within her earlier answers and did so in response to the question under discussion. She explained that ‘it would be useful for teachers to exemplify different dialects or make students aware that there are a variety of ‘native-English’ forms like the Scottish accent or the Australian accent…..it would be very unnatural for all learners of English to speak in a specific dialect/variety, like the British standard pronunciation’. While the focus is on accent and dialect, and suggestive of differences in both within the inner circle context, P33 nonetheless is touching on a broader issue—that being the dominance of one specific variety of English—be it British or American—against the linguistic reality of many varieties, including those in the inner circle alone. Anecdotally, it is the case that much of my EFL teaching here in the UK has been informed by students, notably from the Far East, who explained that American English was the variety that was perpetuated since they first began to learn English in their native countries. While spelling and lexical differences are perhaps more straightforward, accent is perhaps not. As I have mentioned, even NS of inner circle English, based on accent differences alone, can have difficulties understanding each other at times. If indeed American accents (and then, perhaps General American more so) have been the norm for students’ EFL learning since childhood, then exposure to accents such as any of the multitude found in the UK, for example, can cause initial problems with understanding. Given time, however, individuals can become more familiar with accents initially regarded as the linguistic other, and here I reference

258     A. Baratta

inner circle accents. Nonetheless, Galloway (2014) discusses the extent to which accent ‘norms’ within EFL are maintained, focusing on an Eastern European EFL teacher in Japan who was instructed to use an American accent for her teaching. Moreover, the importance placed on accent, to the extent that it is a focal point of NICE in its own right, is captured in a quotation by Sobkowiak (2005: 141), who regards an approach to pronunciation based on English as a Lingua Franca (ELF), for example, as one which will ‘bring the ideal ([RP], perhaps General American also) down into the gutter with no checkpoint along the way’. This view seems quite dated, though it is fairly recent. While there is nothing controversial in helping our students improve their pronunciation so that they are more understandable, to assume an accent that is used by a minority of speakers within England is not reflective of linguistic reality at all. Of course, this then raises the question—whose pronunciation is the standard for our EFL students to emulate? The reality might well be a lack of a standard and instead, multiple accents are used within the classroom leading to different consequences for EFL students’ speech; difference, however, need not always mean unintelligibility. As I had stated, accent is not a focus of this book as such, but is commented on in relation to my participants’ own comments of course and thereby deserves to be addressed. In regard to this quotation, the suggestion is that the ideal is to speak English ‘without an accent’. Linguistically-speaking, this is impossible; everyone has an accent. As I have argued recently (Baratta 2018), the notion of ‘not having an accent’, even among inner circle English speakers, is tied to using an accent which removes the linguistic features (such as glottal stops) which makes others perceive it as ‘broad’. In doing so, we sound less like our region of origin (be it Singapore or Liverpool, England), yet trade off part of our identity in the process (see Jenkins 2007). Exposure to a more wide variety of accents, ideally by having a wide variety of EFL teachers in the first instance, can help prepare students for what is the reality on the ground, notably for those who plan further study in countries such as the United Kingdom or Australia, for example, or any region whose accents are otherwise unfamiliar to the students. From my earlier teaching days in Korea from 1995 to 1998,

8  Results and Discussion     259

the institute in which I taught employed Canadians and Americans (not as a matter of policy as such, but this was the make-up of the teachers). Accent-wise, this equated to what I would describe as General American and General Canadian. As I had referenced earlier, a teacher who came one day for a job interview was not hired solely on the basis of his New Zealand accent. This was, in my opinion, a missed opportunity to help students of all levels hear an accent that they were otherwise unfamiliar with and in doing so, expand their English listening skills. P14 suggested the need for ‘varied exposure’ to both inner circle and NICE varieties. While he advocated the use of a textbook, he offered more detailed discussion beyond this. For example, beyond the textbook, P14 explained that showing how language works ‘in the ‘real-world’ beyond the classroom’ was important, as well as ‘cultural knowledge from the teacher…..can also be extremely valuable’. P14 overall made clear that within this suggested variety, this would also include standard English, needed for contexts such as ‘a standardised exam setting’. The point overall is that variety means just that, but this term, by definition, would include standard forms of the language also, as well as not excluding others. P8 suggested the use of a video, with P25 suggesting, similarly, the use of YouTube. The use of video (though perhaps DVD/BluRay in this day and age) was suggested as a means to show students the differences in the use of vocabulary, as was YouTube. With both media, students are able to perhaps get a better feel for the use of a wide variety of Englishes, from all circles. This need not be tied solely to films of course as there are, in fact, many postings on YouTube of ‘everyday’ people offering their views on varied subjects, and sometimes, actually demonstrating their accent and/or dialect. There is much support for visual pedagogy (Baratta and Jones 2008; Khan 2015; Kabooha 2016) and given that the goal is to help EFL students develop their English skills and overall learning in the classroom, a medium which can help to engage them—such as visual aids—can be useful indeed. P32 made an important comment regarding the manner in which NICE should be implemented. Specifically, she explained that teachers could ‘take advantage of the students’ background and knowledge and input’; this suggests that the students themselves could be given a degree

260     A. Baratta

of autonomy and placed in a position in which they can teach the class, or at least draw on their own English-speaking background as relevant for the class. P32 then cautioned, however, that while we should allow such a focus in order to distinguish differences and NICE should be ‘shown proudly’, teachers must be careful not to patronise the students. I agree entirely, recognising that if we over-stress the differences as merely differences and perhaps celebrate students’ cultures in part via their variety of English, it can, ironically, become somewhat condescending, as if we are trying to overcompensate perhaps for the negativity that some feel toward NICE (including the students themselves). By taking a more linguistic-based approach, not merely in terms of class content (e.g. grammatical differences) but also in terms of adopting a purely neutral manner, we therefore can avoid a somewhat emotional display, for lack of a better term, and present the varieties of language in purely matter of fact terms (i.e. it is a matter of fact that all varieties of the English language conform to their specific rules, both grammatical and pragmatic, and thus function as a means of communication). P18 suggested a culture-based lesson, by means of ‘integrating phonics and variating morphemes through context-based lessons i.e. giving situations and real life materials of local users speaking slang and students will have to identify differences’. The reference to slang is again suggestive of a reductionist interpretation of NICE, though perhaps P18 is referring more broadly to the local uses of a specific inner circle English also, be it based on regional dialects or sociolects. From another point of view, and tying in with the notion of ‘real life English’, we could suggest that P18 is advocating the teaching of English that is generally not covered in EFL textbooks or lessons. This need not point to anything controversial, such as taboo language, but merely more everyday expressions (such as how’s it going? in place of how are you? ). P16 suggested the inclusion of peer teaching. He said that ‘in multilingual classrooms standard English should be taught as it currently is, but the teachers should be understanding of the varieties of World Englishes that students speak’. This understanding is suggested to be something that can be harnessed, by way of giving students ‘the opportunities to peer-teach their classmates about the differences’. By putting students in a comparatively active position, it is understood of course

8  Results and Discussion     261

that some may not feel entirely comfortable, especially if they are the only representative in the entire classroom of a specific English variety. However, there are certainly some students who would enjoy this opportunity and if there are several students in the classroom who understand a particular non-inner circle English, then they could discuss as a group. This can allow for a certain X-factor, in that such an inclusion, and led by the students, can bring some new life into the classroom. It might even be included as part of a weekly session, in which students discuss their countries’ varieties of English and in doing so, obtain wholly relevant experience in developing their English skills, perhaps even used as part of an oral assessment. Finally, I wish to explain what the implications are for P35’s suggestion of the need for a certain ‘approach’ to the inclusion of NICE. P35 in fact explained that NICE ‘should not be approached as a matter of implementation but as a matter of ‘approach’’. By this, she was referring to the way in which the subject is conceptualised in the first instance: Flexibility and openness in today’s ‘World Englishes’ might be a way to deal with this issue…..each language has specific characteristics that a new learner needs to be taught in order to be capable of reproducing the language. However, it might be fruitful to take into consideration the fact that even the native speakers, especially the youth, have invented and still use a slang language that may differ or be ‘full of mistakes’ in terms of grammar conventions…(this) shows how a language could be evolved and changed as the years pass by

Again, it is not clear how some of the participants are conceptualising World Englishes and/or NICE, or even the word ‘slang’ which has been used in conjunction with a discussion of World Englishes thus far. However, the broader discussion appears to be focused on the natural course of language development and change. This is an inevitable aspect of all languages, but with such change comes new rules, new uses and thus, even when a certain group speaks a specific language variety (e.g. MLE), the language will come with its own built-in rules for grammar and pragmatic conventions for how the language variety is to be used. The quotes around P35’s reference to ‘mistakes’ is suggestive of the fact

262     A. Baratta

that as long as a language is conforming to its own rules, then this is not reflective of mistakes per se, but merely differences from another variety (usually the standard, to which most non-standard varieties are often compared to). This point has been referenced several times, namely that all varieties of English, or any language, can never be inherently ‘better’ or ‘inferior’ than another. Comparing one variety of language to another variety as a means to merely showcase difference and the rules within each, as opposed to showing difference in the light of errors, is indeed a relevant and entirely accurate way to approach linguistic difference, in this case perhaps focused on inner circle versus outer/expanding circle varieties of English.

8.6 Overall Discussion In this section I present an overview of the responses provided, drawing conclusions based on participants’ responses to the questions asked, that serve as the framework for my study. The first question was perhaps the most straightforward, as were the answers provided. For the thirty six participants, World Englishes, almost unanimously interpreted as NICE, are regarded as mere varieties of the English language. Twenty nine participants provided their responses with the key focus being one of variety or related words such as ‘type’ or ‘kind’. P8, a British individual, was the only participant, however, that extended this approach to the subject as inclusive of inner circle countries, so that American and New Zealand English, for example, are also deemed to be World Englishes. From one point of view, this is entirely correct, as English is indeed spoken around the world and inner circle varieties are reflective of this in as much as outer/expanding circle varieties are. Five further participants described World Englishes more from the perspective of their characteristics, such as ‘global’ and ‘accessible’; three more participants recognised World Englishes based more on their linguistic origins: an adaptation of English within foreign countries; a variety based on the spread of English in the first instance; and a variety under the influence of the speakers’ first languages. For these

8  Results and Discussion     263

five individuals, World Englishes are conceptualised from an obvious perspective focused on linguistic variety. There was not found to be any specific correlation between the responses and the first language background of the participant. Indeed, thirty four of the participants, regardless of first language background and whether or not they had EFL teaching experience collectively approached the subject of World Englishes from an objective point of view, largely based on being a variety of English. It was only the responses of P23 and P36, respectively a Korean and a Polish national, that regarded World Englishes as some kind of linguistic deficiency. This was based on viewing them as incorrect when held up to inner circle varieties in terms of grammar and pronunciation and viewed as, essentially, incorrect. If of course the goal in the EFL classroom is to speak, and use, standard inner circle English, then from this perspective, students who otherwise consistently use an outer/expanding circle variety have not succeeded to meet the pedagogic goals of the class. However, if we consider the everyday use of NICE, perhaps very often used in contexts outside of academia in the first instance, then on this level, as I have stressed, they should not be evaluated in relation to another variety, including inner circle, that is otherwise not immediately required for the communicative context in which the deployment of NICE is otherwise perfectly acceptable. With regard to participants’ knowledge of a specific variety of non-inner circle English, all provided examples except for P12 (British); P17 (British) and P24 (Norwegian). These three participants did not claim to know of any such variety. P27, who is from Cameroon, did not describe a specific variety per se, but discussed instead the broader issue of the fact that certain grammatical structures, such as ain’t it, have spread based on the status of ELF. Again, this is far too small a number to attempt to draw inferences regarding the participants’ status as L1 versus L2 English speaker. Having said that, I did not approach the analysis with a pre-set belief that experience teaching EFL as opposed to learning it, would automatically cause an inherent predisposition to respond a certain way. Likewise, I did not assume that one’s status as a NS of an inner circle English as opposed to a non-native speaker (or

264     A. Baratta

being a NS of a non-inner circle English, which no one admitted to being in the first instance) would result in notably divergent answers. To make such assumptions is indicative of bias, on a basic level, but it would also run counter to one of the study’s central purposes—to avoid assumptions on any level as to do so, would suggest that NICE are in need of rescuing, on one extreme, to the opposite extreme of deeming them somehow academically unfit for purpose. Indeed, as I have mentioned, I sought to let all the participants, regardless of background, present their views as individuals, but felt it wise to obtain information such as national origin, for example, as a means to then help interpret the results, if indeed it was clear that background information, such as one’s native language, was a relevant factor in participants’ belief systems. In such cases, this was made clear in the first instance by participants themselves in their answers, however. For example, I discussed the response of P11, a British EFL teacher with experience teaching in China, who stated that NICE should not be made a prominent focus in the classroom, as she was there to otherwise teach British English (and by implication, inner circle English). This response from an inner circle English speaker is not, however, necessarily championing her version of English over others; rather, it might be seen entirely as a response based on her previous contractual obligations. Regarding a somewhat more provocative question regarding the suggested ‘properness’ (or lack thereof ) regarding World Englishes, the responses were almost unanimously centred on recognition of World Englishes (i.e. NICE) as legitimate varieties. Thus, thirty five participants stated that NICE are valid and by extension, correct forms of English. Within this group, the three themes within were centred on the cultural manifestations within the English variety in question. That is, NICE are a product of the culture in which they are used. As such, to invalidate the English is to perhaps invalidate the culture to which it belongs. This might seem a strong interpretation, but if we look specifically to the linguistic culture of the country in question, then we could make a case for support, as twenty two participants essentially did. One example is the use of Indian English, which, as mentioned, uses progressive forms with stative verbs. This is a direct influence from languages such as Hindi and thus, Indian English is, to an extent, obeying the

8  Results and Discussion     265

linguistic properties (one of them, anyway) which is a feature of one of India’s official languages. From this perspective, to dismiss the linguistic influence of other languages on NICE is to somehow dismiss the very feature(s) that is found in the speaker’s native language. This feature of Hindi, and subsequently Indian English, is no less logical or any more ‘strange’ than the use in inner circle English of not using progressive forms for stative verbs; by the same token, the fact that the majority of the world’s language exhibit SOV word order does not negate the few languages that use VSO word order, such as Irish. Nine participants regarded World Englishes through the lens of a need to communicate clearly—to understand others and to be understood. Clearly, all varieties of English serve that purpose for their community of shared speakers. For these respondents, the central issue was simply to ensure effective communication and if this is the case, then NICE, as with any other varieties, have served what is arguably the central purpose of language. Four participants expressed the view that World Englishes were not incorrect, but there were contextual factors to consider. These four individuals (P5, P6, P26, P31) all had experience of EFL teaching, with the first two participants being British and the last two respectively Chinese and Saudi. Thus, it could be from a purely teacher-based identity that their views derive but again, with such a small number it is impractical to attempt to dig too deeply to attempt to find a more meaningful rationale for their answer. The collective answer was that while NICE are legitimate as a communication tool amongst the relevant speakers, they are not entirely appropriate for the context of classroom teaching, which P6 and P26 agreed with, with P31 declaring that they were not appropriate for the classroom based on errors with grammar and lexis; and P5 believing that a more formal context of communication, that which is perhaps focused on more in the EFL classroom, is inappropriate for the inclusion of NICE. As I mentioned earlier, it is relevant, though perhaps obvious, to consider the way in which participants interpret the questions or even more relevantly, how they conceptualise the topics within the questions. In this manner, P31 who declares that World Englishes display errors with regard to grammar and lexis, for example, is perhaps influenced less by linguistic notions (which would not declare a language variety as wrong

266     A. Baratta

merely based on comparison with another variety of the same language); instead, it could be that as an individual with experience of being an EFL student, perhaps her teachers’ view on this matter influenced her own beliefs and this might also be relevant to public attitudes in her native Saudi Arabia regarding non inner-circle varieties. This much is unknown, but to adopt a rather hard line regarding NICE might be based on previous influences in which the classroom focus on standard inner circle English implies that other varieties (to perhaps include inner circle dialects) are, partly based on their absence in the EFL classroom, ‘incorrect’. P17 was the only participant, a British EFL teacher, who viewed World Englishes as not being a legitimate variety. She had defined World Englishes thus: ‘Englishes that are their own variation of English. Generally influenced by another language’. While she did not provide an example of such a variety, her rationale for not viewing them as ‘proper’ varieties was perhaps based on her definition of them as being ‘influenced by another language’. As she later explained, ‘They are not correct English, if they were they’d be called English, not ‘AnotherLanguage+English’. English is itself made up of many linguistic influences of course, but for P17, this influence of other languages on NICE suggests a certain lack of clarity and perhaps impurity, given the mixing of two, or more, languages. On the other hand, we could say that, to a large extent, are EFL teachers, regardless of language background, not expected to use, and promote, standard inner circle English? This would of course supersede their personal views on NICE perhaps, if indeed the focus is to emphasise inner circle English, to the extent perhaps that the influence of outer/expanding circle English on students’ classroom English is to be weeded out. Indeed, P6 had admitted that she would ‘correct’ such uses of students’ English if teaching EFL, though otherwise accepting the correctness that is inherent to NICE varieties. Moving on to the question of whether or not World Englishes should be used in the EFL classroom, eighteen participants agreed that they should. A further fourteen also agreed, though with considerations in mind, such as determining the students’ overall EFL needs. This means that overall, thirty two participants believe that the EFL classroom has a place for the inclusion of World Englishes (again, almost

8  Results and Discussion     267

entirely interpreted by participants as NICE), from at least holding a discussion of such (however that is manifest) to using NICE more explicitly as a pedagogic tool. Thus, only four participants did not agree with the inclusion of NICE. Regarding the rationale for their inclusion, five broad themes emerge: The need for students to be aware of the diversity of the English language; the need for both students and teachers to be aware of the diversity regarding the speakers of such varieties, to include the EFL teachers themselves; the need to recognise the validity of NICE and realise that they are not incorrect; the use of NICE to recognise the cultures to which they belong; and finally, the use of NICE as a means to help students learn inner circle English. These suggested benefits link with relevant themes in today’s society, such as equality and diversity, and by recognising the validity of linguistic diversity, we are on our way to acknowledging linguistic equality. By extension, we are also recognising the cultures who have created these varieties of English, as a criticism of the language can be seen as an indirect criticism of the people who speak it, along the lines of a failed attempt to master English. In reality, they have mastered English, but a variety tied to a given area. The consideration raised in ensuring that students’ English needs are met in the classroom is a valid one. In this manner, by ensuring that students are provided with an adequate grounding in standard inner circle English, with due consideration also given to their own variety of English, then the students are also being schooled in pragmatic competence. This of course refers to being able to distinguish when, where and with whom to use one variety over another. While this is something the students are certainly knowledgeable about, by discussing NICE as legitimate varieties, it helps students that bit more to understand that their use of such is not, as some might feel, something to hide. Instead, there is a time for their use and indeed a time for standard inner circle English, which is, after all, perhaps the dominant variety of English taught. It is not, however, the only variety to rely on at all times. Thus, teachers and students alike appear to share the majority view that NICE are not off limits within the EFL classroom, and views are

268     A. Baratta

provided for this belief which indeed reflect current societal focus in terms of respecting diversity and promoting equality. While this is but one consideration for the allowance of NICE in the classroom, it is an important one. In terms of the final consideration regarding the implementation of NICE into the classroom, five participants provided rather broad information that merely pointed to agreement with discussing these varieties (and four participants did not agree with their inclusion at all). For the remaining twenty seven participants, however, there were some very specific ideas presented regarding the ways in which NICE can be used, within the context of a systematic framework for such inclusion in the EFL classroom. In the main, the suggestion was for textbooks of some kind, which, presumably like language textbooks in general, would function to provide students information on the grammatical, lexical and phonological properties of various NICE. Some participants did not perhaps feel a need to suggest textbooks as such, but nonetheless agreed that the content of the lesson should focus on the linguistic aspects which function as the basis of any language class—grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary. This also included a suggested need to discuss culture, which is so relevant in the EFL classroom, to include a means to help students avoid pragmalinguistic errors and understand the rationale behind the linguistic practices of people from cultures different to one’s own. The suggestion of using YouTube is very much reflective of addressing a more modern classroom, with a visual pedagogic approach and social media often being a staple of such as a means to engage students (with the British Council offering tips in this regard for relevant social media-based pedagogy). Clearly, then, participants, both EFL teachers and learners, and L1 and L2 English speakers, overall believe that World Englishes, largely understood as NICE in this study, should be treated with the same respect as inner circle standard varieties and this appears to extend to pedagogic respect. By this, I refer to the fact that the majority of participants advocated the use of textbooks of some kind, which clearly is the norm with EFL classrooms and indeed most, if not all, others. However, even in the absence of textbooks, the very fact that participants suggest the need to treat NICE no different from inner circle

8  Results and Discussion     269

varieties is a clear indicator of their attitude to their inclusion. Here, I am referring to the obvious fact that all taught languages, regardless of teaching methods, necessarily involve laying the foundations, such as grammar (both syntax and morphology, with the latter more or less relevant depending on the language) and vocabulary. Thus, if American English is the norm in the EFL classroom in a given country, then the relevant focus in class of such a variety (e.g. vocabulary) would also need to extend to, say, Singlish. A final point worth mentioning here is that the default assumption is not based on the use of NICE for the benefit of EFL students. We need to also consider the benefit of such for inner circle speakers. Thus, a course in Hindi for an American who is relocating to Delhi for a year on business would be highly relevant, but so would a course in Indian English. In this case, surely Indian English would be easier to acquire in the first instance. Also, if in the Indian context the individuals who the American individual is conversing with are themselves fluent speakers of English, or at least proficient in the language, then it might be the case that the inner circle speaker should be open to their version of English in the first instance as opposed to expecting an inner circle variety. I am reminded of the film Outsourced (2007), in which an American, Todd, is sent by his Seattle-based company to work in India. I cannot recall specific instances of Indian English, but confusion arises when Todd uses words such as redneck and kitsch. This illustrates of course the need to understand variety in language, here terms used in American English in particular, but also a need for Todd to be willing to adapt to Indians’ use of English. This is clearly seen regarding the use of accent, which reveals a certain expectation on the part of Todd. Todd explains to the Indian workers employed at a call centre for a US company to adopt a more Americanised accent, suggestive of the Midwest accent, and as such, Chicago is realised somewhat as /ʃɪka:goʊ/. In response, one of the Indian workers, Asha, points out that the Indian pronunciation of ‘internet’ is in some respects more accurate than the US pronunciation, given that Indians would tend to pronounce the initial ‘t’ unlike many Americans. She further advises Todd to learn about India, with the implicit point being that he should not expect a room full of

270     A. Baratta

Indian call centre workers, especially in India, to automatically adopt an Americanised accent, and culture, the implication perhaps being that their native accent, despite their proficient ability in English, is somehow not the correct way of speaking. Granted, a call centre and the accents used within is a context in its own right, but the film nonetheless raises pertinent points, however subtle at times, regarding cultural expectations, to include the use of language. As Asha rightly points out, English originally ‘belonged’ to the English and was exported to the USA, just as it was in India, and from that perspective, no one truly ‘owns’ it, but have merely appropriated it for their own usage. In closing, then, we need to consider World Englishes of all varieties, and not just tied to one circle, as vehicles for teaching and learning from a variety of perspectives, as well as the need for inner circle speakers to rethink English from a more global perspective. The chapter that now follows outlines several ideas for classroom teaching that integrates a variety of Englishes, and even students’ first languages, within EFL pedagogy.

References Achirri, K. (2017). Perceiving identity through accent lenses: A case study of a Chinese English speaker’s perceptions of her pronunciation and perceived social identity. MSU Working Papers in Second Language Studies, 8(1), 5–19. Ahn, H. (2014). Teachers’ attitudes towards Korean English in South Korea. World Englishes, 33(2), 195–222. Baratta, A. (2018). Accent and teacher identity in Britain: Linguistic favouritism and imposed identities. London: Bloomsbury. Baratta, A., & Jones, S. (2008). Using film to introduce and develop academic writing skills among UK undergraduate students. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 8(2), 15–37. Baratta, A., & Halenko, N. (2019). Putting an accent on EFL. Ongoing research project, University of Manchester and University of Central Lancashire. Becker, P. (1995). The etiology of foreign accent: Towards a phonological component of identity (Unpublished master’s thesis). Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Diamond, H., & Fahey, M. (1997). Executive writing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

8  Results and Discussion     271

Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks and Burnouts: Social categories and identity in the high school. New York: Teachers College Press. Galloway, N. (2014). “I get paid for My American accent”: The story of one Multilingual English Teacher (MET) in Japan. Englishes in Practice, 1(1), 1–30. Hughes, A., Trudgill, P., & Watt, D. (2012). English accents and dialects. Croydon: Hodder. Jaber, M., & Hussein, R. (2011). Native speakers’ perception of non-native English speech. English Language Teaching, 4(4), 77–87. Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kabooha, R. (2016). Using movies in EFL classrooms: A study conducted at the English language institute (ELI) King Abdul-Aziz University. English Language Teaching, 9(3), 248–257. Khan, A. (2015). Using films in the ESL classroom to improve communication skills of non-native learners. ELT Voices, 5(4), 46–52. Kubota, R. (2001). Teaching world Englishes to native speakers of English in the USA. World Englishes, 20(1), 47–64. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. London: Oxford University Press. Pinget, A, Bosker, H., Quené, H., & de Jong, N. (2014). Native speakers’ perceptions of fluency and accent in L2 speech. Language Testing, 31(3), 349–365. Ramsaran, S. (1990). RP: Fact and fiction. In S. Ramsaran (Ed.), Studies in the pronunciation of English: A commemorative volume in honour of A.C. Gimson (pp. 178–190). New York: Routledge. Sobkowiak, W. (2005). Why not LFC? In K. Dziubalska-Kołaczyk & J. Przedlecka (Eds.), English pronunciation models: A changing scene (pp. 131–149). Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Trudgill, P. (2002). Sociolinguistic variation and change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Wiley, T. G. (2000). Language planning and policy. In S. L. McKay & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 103– 147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

9 How World Englishes Can Be Used in the EFL Classroom

9.1 Some Considerations of Using World Englishes in the Classrooms Bringing in students’ World Englishes, or indeed their native languages, can be an interesting addition to the classroom. McKay (2012: 36–37) argues that ‘teachers need to examine how they can judiciously use learners’ other languages to promote the learning of English as well as to encourage a better understanding of the role all of the learners’ languages play in their personal and social identity’. McKay advocates the use of code-switching in fact, one benefit being a means to compare syntactic and lexical features between English and the students’ first languages. Moreover, by exposing students to the languages, and Englishes, that might be represented in an EFL classroom, it allows for classroom-based social research (CBSR), as discussed by Peirce (1995). This can take many forms, and certainly many different classroom exercises, but broadly involves a joint effort between teacher and students to investigate how language is used by others, notably English as spoken between two L2 English speakers. It allows for self-reflection and a chance to

© The Author(s) 2019 A. Baratta, World Englishes in English Language Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13286-6_9

273

274     A. Baratta

understand language on a purely linguistic level, ideally divorced from the more negative social judgements that students might have of NICE. As I have mentioned, linguistic prejudice is a stand-in for a prejudice toward the speakers, based on their race (Ebonics), class (e.g. non-standard English use amongst Britain’s working classes) or national origin (e.g. Korean English). Thus, to be able to gather data informally (e.g. by having NICE speakers come into the class or discussing their own struggles with the English language), it can allow for a critical awareness of power relations, identities and ideologies (Alim 2015). However, I do acknowledge three important points, which I discuss first as pedagogical disclaimers. First, if bringing students’ native languages into the classroom is done to excess, it can easily become gimmicky. Students may feel this way and perhaps even yearn for what they might see as more ‘traditional’ EFL content. However, the point is that inclusion of World Englishes, and native languages, is meant to be a supplement, but a very important one, which has clear pedagogical implications. It also allows students a chance to better understand cultures other than their own and make cross-cultural comparisons. For example, McKay (2012) discusses a lesson about the American ‘garage/ yard sale’ (in British English, ‘jumble sale’) as a means to learn about the US culture, but more importantly, compare how such a sale is conducted in the student’s country. Just as ‘students reflect on their own culture in the process of learning about other cultures’ (page 41), they can also use their native language, and ‘native English’, as a means to learn the dominant variety of English within the classroom. There are suggestions in fact for classroom discussion, such as asking students their views on an English-only policy in the classroom, and the advantages/disadvantages of incorporating students’ native languages in the classroom. The overall purpose is clearly to bring students into the conversation more, by discussing their language, their English and their culture, as a means to give them more of a presence within the classroom as they simultaneously develop their English skills. Such linguistic inclusion is up to the teacher in terms of how often and indeed, how, it is used in the classroom, more so given the fact that there are so many World Englishes to choose from. It is of course down to the teachers themselves to quantify how much is too much—what is

9  How World Englishes Can Be Used …     275

‘excess’ in this regard and what is the right amount? This is ­something I am of course in no position to clarify for EFL teachers. Rather, I merely wish to state that as teachers, we are all aware of the need to maintain a pedagogical balance, thus ensuring everything from a good mix of both speaking and writing; general and academic English; and on a more narrow level, the need to decide when, where, how and how much to bring World Englishes, from inner to expanding circle, into the classroom. Having said that, given the potential interest and even investment that the students themselves have with World Englishes, we should also draw on their own ideas and opinions in this regard—what do they think in terms of how, and how much, such English varieties can play a part in the classroom? Second, I am also in no position to tell teachers how to teach. I am not attempting to do so, of course. Instead, the suggestions that follow are just that—merely suggestions for potential classroom exercises that involve the use of NICE/students’ L1 and exercises which by and large are suitable for all levels, though there may be some tweaking involved based on EFL students whose level of English is very low or very high. I expect that some of the teachers reading this have a few more exercises that you could also share and that indeed work well for your students. I also imagine that if you have got to this stage of the book, then you, as EFL teachers, do not need convincing about this pedagogical function of NICE. Overall, then, these are exercises that have worked for me and they might work for your class too and as mentioned above, I present these classroom exercises merely in a spirit of sharing my ideas with fellow EFL teachers. Finally, and somewhat ironically, some of our EFL students may not use anything but inner circle English in the first instance, even in their native country. Perhaps others may not even be aware of their country’s variety of English, but even if there is a lack of usage or even understanding of some World English varieties by the students who hail from the relevant country, it is still the case that students can benefit from their inclusion in the classroom. Moreover, one of the purposes of including NICE within the EFL classroom is to allow all the students to learn a bit more about English from a global perspective. Thus, for the Indians, Koreans and Ghanaians, for example, who have only ever used inner

276     A. Baratta

circle English, this does not mean that there is no place for Indian English, Korean English and Ghanaian English in the EFL classroom, as the inclusion of World Englishes is indeed for the benefit of all EFL students. However, and related to the point directly above, what about the possibility for our students to experience ‘linguistic overload’? I had referenced this before, and Manara (2014) indeed raises this as a potential issue. This is seen with questions posed by her own students, having given them a discussion of the political implications of standard English hegemony: “So what do you want us to do? Learn all Englishes?”, “Write in our own English which is not the Standard?”, “I can’t write in my own English, the uni[versity] says I have to use their English. So what do you want us to do?” (page 198). It may well be that some of our students want to simply study a singular variety for the practical reason of getting a good grade, passing a test or even that they don’t particularly care about the dominance of standard English. They may also express a preference for just one variety of inner circle English as the focus, with Giri and Foo (2014: 246) explaining that inner circle varieties other than American English ‘are often looked down upon’. In response to the questions posed by her students, Manara concedes that she did not have answers, but insists that learning is about contemplating and reflecting on one’s learning, not just, perhaps, following the dominant models or indeed the teacher. This has cultural implications also, as some students come from cultures in which silence in class (i.e. not responding to teachers’ questions when a question is presented to the class, or otherwise not getting more ‘involved’) is a reflection of respect for the teacher. For Western teachers, this can be seen as passivity, even apathy (Marlina 2009). However, if we implement an inclusion of NICE to teach the otherwise dominant English (i.e. relevant to the individual class), then students are learning with an approach which can still involve the teacher, such as the teacher presenting examples of differing grammatical systems, while still explaining the need to write essays in standard English. On the other hand, for students who desire a more active role in the classroom, the door is left open for this opportunity and for those who would prefer a more ‘passive’ role, they are nonetheless still able to learn from fellow classmates and not just their teacher.

9  How World Englishes Can Be Used …     277

9.2 Sample Exercises In the section to follow, I provide some suggested exercises for EFL students to develop their understanding of English, both written and spoken, but with the added inclusion of outer/expanding circle varieties of English or, as will also be seen, with the inclusion of students’ native languages. In terms of the time required for each exercise, this will often be dependent of course on the class size. However, based on my experiences of teaching classes which ranged from fifteen to fifty students, the suggested time is a good starting point.

9.2.1 Writing the Introduction of One’s Academic Essay Goals: To help students develop their awareness of not simply how to write the introduction to an academic essay, but to also consider the rhetorical functions of the various components, such as the thesis statement. Background: Here I explain my use of an exercise which literally gets the students on their feet and moving around, allows for a great deal of student involvement and certainly development of writing skills. The focus here is specifically on constructing the introduction paragraph for one’s academic essay. I use this exercise only after I am certain that the students have developed a full understanding of the components of writing their introduction, at least conceptually. At that point, it is a good time to then use this exercise which asks for students to write the paragraph in their native language (but a variety of a non-inner circle English can equally be used). However, this still clearly ties in with the overall goal of this book—to recognise and promote all language varieties as being fully legitimate in their own right, more so as a means to celebrate the cultures from which they derive. In this light, a classroom exercise in which EFL students can literally see the native languages of their fellow students can indeed be a means to achieve such linguistic celebration. For this exercise, it may of course be the case, especially if teaching overseas, that the student body is made up of the same nationality

278     A. Baratta

and hence, the same language (e.g. if teaching EFL in China). In such ­contexts, students can be divided into groups. Therefore, while they all share the same language, they will nonetheless produce different written work, with each group being asked to write an introduction paragraph on the board. A starting point is of course to have a topic to write about. I leave this to you, as I do with many of the smaller details of course. In the end, this exercise, like all others, can be modified and adjusted in any way you see fit. For my own classes, I gave students the added freedom of choosing their own topic, even a personal one if they desired (e.g. ‘Reasons why I chose to study my major’). Of course, if the students in a particular group are studying different subjects in university, it might be the case that they will need to collectively agree on a subject for this exercise. If the students are high school age, then perhaps they can pool their various shared interests together to complete the introduction for a hypothetical essay in this exercise. Even if the subject chosen is inherently personal, such as ‘why I choose to study English’, the exercise nonetheless expects students to write in an academic style (i.e. obeying the conventions of essay introductions) and as such, gives them valuable experience in a style of writing that will have much relevance in their academic lives. If we are assuming an average length essay of 1500–2000 words, then a paragraph is indeed sufficient for the introduction. Time: Thirty—forty five minutes

9.2.1.1 Procedure 1. Once a topic has been decided upon, I leave the students to work in groups (or alone as the case may be, for a student who is the only representative in class of a specific language). Given the potential for group work, students have back-up, as it were, a chance to bounce ideas off each other and, at the risk of sounding hyperbolic, display their language with pride, as linguistic and cultural representatives. Even for those working alone, they still have the potential to enjoy this exercise, as do all the students, by being able to think in their native language and indeed write it in, without the worry of making mistakes. Indeed, if mistakes of any kind are made, it is entirely

9  How World Englishes Can Be Used …     279

down to the students to identify them, unless others (including the teacher) recognise mistakes in the foreign language. Thus, with the pressure off, they are perhaps more free to simply write. 2. Once they have completed their paragraphs, they are then asked to come to the board and write them for all the class to see. Once the paragraphs have been written, students are then able to potentially see a wealth of languages, in some cases very different from their own. When I first used this exercise in the summer of 2003 in a class of fifteen students, the end result was a display of several languages written on the board, including Arabic, Mandarin, Japanese, Korean, Thai and Greek. The students were amazed to see the diversity of languages in front of them, perhaps more so for those which used a different writing system, and this certainly helped to grab their attention. However, that is merely the desired starting point. 3. Each student or individual group then talked me and the rest of the class through their paragraphs. This consisted of explaining the various components of what we would expect in an introduction paragraph. Rather than have students translate the paragraph from start to finish, I instead asked them to talk us through the paragraph component by component, based on the generally accepted structure of an introduction: Hook; Background; Essay Plan; and the Thesis. First, we were told what the topic of the paragraph was (and by implication the essay itself ). From here, the student(s) explained the significance of the first sentence, in terms of whether or not they had attempted to provide the opening hook, such as a rhetorical question or statistic. I realise of course that discipline-specific writing will be of complete relevance to this lesson, given that the hard sciences will have less use for rhetorical questions and figures of speech than, say, the Humanities perhaps. Presumably at this point in the overall focus on academic writing, this has already been covered. From here, the use of background information was discussed, which we would expect to find in an introduction. The student(s) explained what they had written, but at this point it is important to point out that this exercise is more than just a bit of an initial attention-grabber followed by a mere translation: instead, the students were being asked to explain the significance of their introduction’s various components.

280     A. Baratta

9.2.1.2 The Hook Thus, if a rhetorical question had been used for the opening, what was its purpose? I reminded students that a question, no matter how interesting it might sound, still needs to link to the sentence that ­follows and connect with the overall topic (again, assuming that rhetorical questions are appropriate for a given discipline). While this might seem obvious, I recall a student (an L1 English speaker) who wrote an essay about Ernest Hemingway, and began her essay with the expression, ‘a matter of life and death’. This is a good opening, yet none of the sentences that followed, let alone the content of the essay itself, referred to or connected with, that opening. At best, the significance of the hook was perhaps implied somewhat by the discussion of Hemingway’s risk taking in life and his overall adventures. However, as I explain to my students—L1 and L2 English speakers alike—the teacher should not have to fish around for what the student is trying to say—make it clear.

9.2.1.3 Background The discussion of the background helps the student(s) hone in on what aspects of background they deem most relevant to the subject—and why. Background information can of course involve a great deal, such as historical information about the topic, a definition of what it means and perhaps how the definition of a topic has changed over the years and ideally, providing an illustration.

9.2.1.4 Essay Plan The so-called essay plan is merely a sentence which captures the order of the topics within the essay and what they are (e.g. the essay will discuss A, B and then conclude with… ). I would not suggest that this is an imperative inclusion for one’s introductions, but it can certainly help to make the essay easier to follow.

9  How World Englishes Can Be Used …     281

9.2.1.5 Thesis Statement Finally, the thesis is the central part of the entire essay, a statement of the student’s essay subject and importantly, what the student’s intentions are regarding said topic. A suitable thesis might be the purpose of this essay is to discuss child language development, in order to support the most likely hypothesis regarding language acquisition. In fact, in order to emphasise the importance of this one key sentence, I ask the student(s) to underline it. Not merely a means to identify a sentence in a language, or even a script that others cannot understand, but to reinforce the need for this one sentence in particular. From my experience of teaching academic writing (to both L1 and L2 English speakers), it is often the case that introductions lack a central thesis and instead, rely on background information only. This leaves the reader essentially asking, ‘what is your essay’s point in all this?’ While I have problematized the nature of the thesis statement (Baratta 2012, 2017), it is not necessary to do so here. Instead, I leave it to the teacher to decide what is, or is not, a suitable thesis statement for essay writing (e.g. should it merely state one’s intentions or should it provide an opinion?). This exercise allows for the class to become fully engaged, even learning a few new words of another student’s native language, and using this novel approach, students are able to have the components of good essay writing stressed once again and perhaps internalise them even more.

9.2.2 Cultural Influence on Writing Of further relevance is the subject of the ways one’s culture informs the manner in which people write. Kaplan (1966) brought attention to this area, suggesting that even when writing in English, L2 English students nonetheless write in an overall manner that befits their culture but might not fit the dominant discourse norms of the suggested AngloAmerican model. For example, Kaplan suggests an Oriental model of

282     A. Baratta

writing, supposedly capturing the academic writing patterns of students from China, Korea, Japan and Thailand, and suggestive of a more circular writing pattern, as opposed to the more linear pattern favoured within the Anglo-American model. While Kaplan’s research has been criticised, it nonetheless gives us food for thought regarding the need to not only focus on language per se (here, the development of written English), but to also consider the rhetorical patterns of writing expected within classroom contexts. As with the brief discussion of the thesis statement above, I again leave it for the teachers to consider such topics. This is not to simply dismiss them as unimportant (clearly, they are important) or to avoid further discussion; rather, given the overall focus here on the benefits of bringing students’ home languages to the classroom, it makes sense to foreground this as the more relevant topic of discussion. For this exercise, I begin by drawing on the board the writing patterns for the various cultural models that Kaplan discussed. Alternatively, we could leave it to students to explain to us what is expected of them in terms of how they must write academic essays in their native country; how much does their information reflect, or not, the work of Kaplan, or others, with regard to suggested rhetorical patterns in essay writing? This exercise is not just visual as clearly, it involves a discussion, albeit using visuals as a prompt. But discussion is integral to the classroom, not just EFL teaching, given that it allows for multiple views to be shared and considered, or rejected, and it allows for students and teachers to have a joint meaning-making session. This can go some way in making the class more authentic, to an extent. Given the connection that writing patterns have with students’ native cultures, this exercise is an opportunity to recognise more than just the suggested Anglo-American model of writing, and help students to realise that there are others that exist too. In this way, we are not championing a specific pattern of writing as some kind of essay blueprint. Rather, we are merely discussing it in relation to a certain part of the world (which may of course be a university in the USA) and likewise, seeking students’ views on their country’s/culture’s preferred style of writing which may, or may not, be very different.

9  How World Englishes Can Be Used …     283

9.2.3 Finding the Right Words in Academic Writing Goals: To encourage students to consider their word choices in English from a more pragmatic point of view, in order to help them select words which have the most appropriate meaning and overall, produce the best style. Background: Despite the heading, this exercise can also apply to students’ oral English communication. I discuss it with an eye cast to writing, however, given the fact that in one’s academic writing, the choice of language, given that it is written down, is somewhat more ‘permanent’. In a conversation, language errors (to an extent) can be forgotten seconds later, but in an essay, all students (again, whether L1 or L2 English speakers) must strive to create the most effective and sometimes creative expressions that they can, and they are of course judged for it by means of their final score. This section is focused on what I believe is a particularly difficult area to teach—that of stylistic competence in writing. Grammar is, by and large, about right or wrong (though even in standard English, we do find disagreement in some areas in this regard). In the case of academic essays, standard English is the variety that is expected and so the rules of such are to be learned and used in one’s writing. This includes everything from appropriate article usage to not inflecting lexical verbs which follows modal verbs (e.g. he can eat well, and not he can eats well ). This is not to suggest that it is always a simple case of learning the rule and applying it in one’s writing, as memorising rules is perhaps not as difficult as being able to apply them. However, stylistic competence is different. What I am referring to specifically are instances in which a given word chosen to express one’s meaning might not be the best fit. At this point, we are beyond grammatical concerns as it is of course wholly possible to have a grammatically well-formed sentence that nonetheless does not use a word(s) which expresses the desired meaning in the most appropriate way. This is hard to teach EFL students precisely because I would argue it is based less on thinking about what to say, along the lines of grammar, but more about feeling one’s way to what is or is not the best lexical fit(s) for what we are trying to communicate.

284     A. Baratta

I am not asserting of course that L2 English speakers cannot develop this linguistic intuition and use it to find, and use, the right word for the right time; far from it. However, it may indeed be the case, especially for beginner EFL classes, that students are far from this ideal. I begin now by illustrating three specific examples of not using the ‘right’ words (even amidst grammatical proficiency) and the implications for such (see Baratta 2013). Time: Thirty minutes

9.2.3.1 Procedure 1. First, I present students (either on the board, via Power Point slides or a handout) with a list of words/expressions whose usage represents pragmalinguistic errors, or certainly words which are not the best fit. The categories are as follows: Intended meaning understood, but inappropriate meaning expressed as written I fondled my cat

Unclear meaning

There is a kind of minority food in the world today

Clear meaning, but expressed in an unusual way

…..in each area there is some information about the animals such as the living area, number and if they are in danger or not

2. I then ask students to work in groups, to see if they can understand both why the words were assigned to their respective categories and what a more suitable choice might be. This latter part of the student-led analysis encourages students to consider a range of vocabulary which might be fit for purpose. I realise that some EFL teachers might find the examples provided above, which represent each of the three categories, somewhat subjective. I concur that it is a subjective business at times when we are focused on the level of style, whereas grammar is comparatively more straightforward (though there are sometimes some grammatical grey

9  How World Englishes Can Be Used …     285

areas too, of course, as I had pointed out earlier). However, subjectivity aside, the main point here is that surely we all agree that some words simply work better than others. To this end, while we might not agree on which words/phrases work best, we can agree perhaps that many of the original choices do not work particularly well to convey the most appropriate meaning. 3. I then ask the students to present to the class the replacement words which their group chose for this exercise, explaining at the same time the issues involved with the original words. These new words can be written on the board for all the class to see. 4. After having taken all the groups’ new words, we then discuss as a class, essentially deciding which sound best. From here, the teacher is then able to present his/her own suggestions, not to imply that this is the definitive answer, but merely one more possible answer amongst many. Below are some suggested examples of improved word selection: I stroked my cat There are some types of food that aren’t eaten much by people nowadays …..in each area there is some information about the animals such as the habitat, number and if they are in danger or not

My own suggested solutions are not one size fits all, but they do function better than the original choices. In terms of how to help our students choose the best words and expressions in their English output, whether written or spoken, we can draw once again on their native language. I recall seeing many students often using their dictionaries in class to try to find that (sometimes elusive) ‘right word’. Indeed, within a study I referred to earlier which I conducted with ten Korean children, they cited the use of dictionaries as a reason why they sometimes choose English words which might not be the best choice; it is a case of not knowing enough of the word’s contextual usage that can be the issue, and not necessarily semantics per se. Thus, in this exercise, students can be exposed to such examples of misplaced words, being challenged to provide the teacher with the word(s) which might fit better. In addition, students can be asked to provide words from their

286     A. Baratta

native language, or NICE, and then explain how such words do, or do not, translate exactly into English (more on this later).

9.2.4 Considering One’s Audience in Writing Goals: To encourage students to consider the importance of context before deciding what is or is not ‘good’ or ‘bad’ language. More to the point, the issue here is for students to understand what is or is not appropriate language. This exercise can thus help students to develop pragmatic competence. Background: For this exercise, I once again put students in charge, and this is an especially useful exercise for younger students (say, teens). If teaching overseas and/or teaching a group who all share the same first language, then this exercise is especially useful, as the students will be required to write in either their own variety of World English and/or their native language. The specific purpose of this exercise is to indeed consider the context of communication as the means to then determine which variety of English, or their native language, is appropriate. This in turn can help students to appreciate the role of context more and also, their own language and/or English variety. Time: Forty five to sixty minutes

9.2.4.1 Procedure 1. To start, I give students, working in groups, a simple scenario. I ask them to imagine that they are writing an e-mail to their best friend, who is perhaps overseas or otherwise away. I ask them to truly consider their best friend and the relationship they have together, one, I would assume, that is based on closeness and open communication. Once the proposed text has been written in their particular World English (or indeed, written in the students’ first language), I then ask one of the group members to write the text on the board. From previous experience, the text tends to be written in

9  How World Englishes Can Be Used …     287

an informal, casual style of language, sometimes even using taboo words. I purposely tell students to write as naturally as they would if this were the real thing, but otherwise leave it to them to interpret this as they wish. 2. After the samples of writing have been written on the board, I then ask members of each group to talk the class through the text. Again, this does not mean translating word by word; instead, I ask them to focus on what they see as more relevant aspects which relate to the context of e-mailing a friend (e.g. the type of greeting used, specific word choices which reveal shared information, etc.). For example, in one particular class of Korean teens, they chose to write the text fully in Korean, with no inclusion of Korean English vocabulary. If students have used their native language, then more so than writing a text purely in a variety of English, there will be the need to translate it. But here is the key—the students are translating the text for the teacher, as the other students who share the same language are otherwise already ‘in on it’ and know exactly what the text means. Thus, the students are now firmly placed in the role of teacher and can develop their confidence as a result; they are of course using English in order to explain the text to the teacher; they are also involved with translation; and they come away, as mentioned, with a greater appreciation of context in relation to what is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ words. This, of course, is common to all languages. In the example from a previous class of Korean children, a particular group of Korean teens had written the word ‘fart’ in reference to a joke they were sharing with their proposed best friend in the text. They identified the word for me as part of their overall translation, perhaps a bit nervously at first, but they soon realised the importance of this exercise when we discussed the fact that, given the context of the e-mail (namely, being sent to a close friend), is the use of a taboo word, and overall informal communication, really ‘bad’? Would their friend be upset or angry, or, would he/she indeed feel comfortable? Their immediate response to this prompt made it clear that the communication was in fact, ‘good’. When I asked the next question, they

288     A. Baratta

definitely ‘got it’, in terms of the function of this exercise, assuming they had not understood it already, with the question being: ‘Would you write like this to your parents? ’ As if on cue, they said a collective, and quite vocal, ‘no!’ At this point, I have them translate the same e-mail text into a variety of their native language which would be deemed appropriate if the intended audience were their parents. Once completed and written on the board, I then ask them if this version would be the one sent to their best friend. Once again, they tell me it clearly would not be. I ask them how their friend might feel to receive a comparatively formal e-mail. They told me the friend might think it was a joke or perhaps even feel annoyed at the excessive formality. Is language truly so fickle, that instantaneously it can transform from ‘good’ to ‘bad’? Or, is it more the case that the context, which is indeed multi-layered, determines what is good or bad (‘appropriate’ and ‘inappropriate’ being perhaps more accurate words)? Clearly, we know it is the second factor, as did my students. This can hopefully lead them to appreciate their own use of English, rather than writing it off as somehow ‘inappropriate’. Of course, to ask students to write a message in a variety of a World English means that they must be aware of it in the first instance, not just conceptually but also practically. But again, the exercise has the same benefit—the students are given a more active role, they are positioned to explain language to their teacher and of course they do so using English. If using NICE for this exercise and not students’ native language, then I have approached it slightly differently: I asked students to first determine when they would use NICE in their e-mails in the first instance. Even if they have not done so before, with knowledge of the English variety in question, we can at least expect students to consider an appropriate context for its use in writing. Thus, armed with a clear understanding of context, students can then write in a World English and once again, be prepared to tell the teacher why this particular English is necessary in a particular context. Likewise, we can ask students to explain to us why inner circle English might not be appropriate for this context.

9  How World Englishes Can Be Used …     289

9.2.5 Translating Words from L1 into L2 English Goals: To help students to develop their semantic and pragmatic competence in English by considering words in their native language, or native variety of English, which do not exist in inner circle Englishes; the challenge, then, is to consider the most appropriate word in such cases to use in inner circle English. Background: While a given word may not exist in a language, this does not mean that the concept or item which the word otherwise describes cannot be understood, on a conceptual level at least, in said language. For this exercise, it would make sense to choose words which indeed represent the students’ native language(s), but do not exist in English. For example, I have been told by my Chinese students that there is a word in Mandarin which is equivalent to the German Schadenfreude. The challenge here is creating a word or phrase in English to describe something that other languages already have words for, though English does not. Perhaps you can easily think of some classroom exercises which can help to illustrate the problem involved with translation and you are already using them for your teaching. I provide one suggestion below which can help to bring light to this, notably the dilemma that exists when words exist in one language, such as the student’s, but not in English. Time: Thirty minutes

9.2.5.1 Procedure 1. First, I present a list of words in various languages (by all means, the students’ native language(s) should be included too) which do not necessarily exist in English (though the concepts themselves arguably do). Students can be provided with the words and then asked to identify the language. Or, both language and definition can be provided (as I have done below), but then we can ask students to consider how they would ‘translate’ the words into English in their own way and also, how they could then use the translation in a complete

290     A. Baratta

sentence. The point here is that, if students are faced with a word from their native language for which no exact equivalent exists in English, then they may in fact have different ways to try to translate, difficult thought that may be. This in itself is good practice for developing critical thinking skills. Hiukaista: to crave something salty (Finnish) Metro-boulot-dodo: tube-work-sleep (French) Schadenfreude: to take pleasure in someone else’s misfortune (German) Meraki: to do something with one’s soul, creativity and love (Greek) Hygge: a feeling of cosiness and contentment (Danish) Komorebi: sunlight seeping through the trees (Japanese) 2. Once students have presented their versions of ways to translate the word list into English to include how to use the translated word in a sentence in English, I then write them on the board (or ask students to do so). From here, we have a discussion and attempt to determine which suggested answers might work best. For example, in English, there is no singular word which describes a craving for salt. However, does this mean that English speakers have no way to express what might be considered a fairly universal craving (from time to time, at least)? Of course not. Instead, students can think of a way to translate hiukaista into a complete English sentence, with several potential examples: I really want something salty I’m in the mood for salty food I could murder something salty right now!

Likewise, hygge is a word which seems to be slowly creeping into people’s consciousness, at least in England, notably in IKEA stores where I have seen it mentioned (and there are even books dedicated to this concept). It translates as ‘cosiness’ I suppose, but herein lies the irony: how can you adequately translate a word using the very language in which the word does not exist? I will try. My understanding of hygge is the

9  How World Englishes Can Be Used …     291

sense of cosiness derived from a warm fire in winter drinking a cup of coffee or hot chocolate, or watching your favourite movie in bed on a day off. Clearly, if neither of these seems ‘cosy’ to you, then you will have to find your own hygge. Further, my understanding of this word seems to point toward the cosiness that is derived (for me at least and possibly many Danes) from an enclosed space, such as a comfy chair in a small (hence, cosy) study, or a small cottage. I think we get the idea—but how to express this in English? How would a Dane translate it? Does ‘cosiness’ even do justice to the Danish concept of hygge? Only a Dane could probably answer this question. However, here are some useful expressions in English which hopefully come close semantically and indeed sound ‘natural’; this represents step three in this exercise, in which the teacher can present his/her own suggestions for translation/ sentence formation: I feel really cosy curled up with a good book I was snug as a bug The room is really cosy and welcoming

Clearly, there are further contextual considerations as to when to use the above phrases, depending on one’s audience, the setting and so on. This can be discussed further in class. But the immediate goal of this exercise is to put students in the linguistic frame of mind in which they consider the importance of choosing the right word, more so when it does not exist in the language they are translating to and yet, the dictionary might suggest otherwise. For the French example of metro-boulot-dodo, the literal translation of ‘tube (subway) – work – sleep’ might seem initially confusing. However, it is pointing toward the daily commute, which for some involves getting on the metro, then working, then coming home to sleep. Presumably, this expression would also apply to those who go to work by car, as the bigger picture seems to be focused on the daily work life of many people. This is a more obvious example perhaps of an expression which clearly would not be understood, initially at least, by English speakers. To translate into English, however, we could suggest the daily grind as an acceptable expression. Going further, how would

292     A. Baratta

this expression be used syntactically? We might be creative and suggest some examples, or better still, have students think of their own. It is then up to us as EFL teachers to judge the acceptability of the students’ expressions, or not. In this case, not just on the level of grammar, but also on the level of style; does the expression sound ‘natural’? I’m tired of the daily grind Every day, it’s the same old (daily) grind Same old, same old

4. Finally, we can take this even further. We could also ask our students to explain to the class the meanings of words in their native language (or NICE) which do not exist in (inner circle) English. Not only is this practice of course with classroom speaking, but it once again allows the student to speak from a position of authority. Even if describing such vocabulary is challenging, the fact that the starting point is the student’s native language and/or English ensures that the student, and not the teacher, is the focal point and also, his/her language and knowledge of such. To put it this way, who is the ‘teacher’? The EFL teacher who is fluent in inner circle English, but who might know little of the student’s language and culture, or the student, whose English might not be fluent, but whose knowledge of his/her native language/English, and culture, is fluent. If indeed we wish to focus on words in students’ L1, more practical perhaps if the students all share the same first language, then this accomplishes several goals: • It allows the students to be the teacher by virtue of having them lead, partly at least, the discussion between words in their language which do not exist in English; • This in turn allows for a cultural discussion to be had, thus leading to a classroom that is decidedly less ‘English-centric’ than it needs to be; • It helps to drive home the point that students need to think carefully about the words they choose to communicate meaning in English, perhaps when (over)relying on dictionaries in particular.

9  How World Englishes Can Be Used …     293

For the last bullet, some might argue that the point about correct and natural communication via one’s lexical choices does not have to be ‘driven home’. However, I do not think that this is something that should be mentioned briefly merely in passing either. To explain this particular issue in the detail suggested by the exercise above allows for students to better understand the concept of developing a natural style, no matter how far away from this achievement that they might be at present. Moreover, a sense of engagement with the lesson can be achieved, and this is arguably an important factor in developing such lessons.

9.2.6 The Use of Titles and Honorifics Goals: To help both teacher and students develop an appreciation for each other’s cultures, whatever they may be, and to further understand how culture is communicated via language, whether an L1 or a variety of World English. Background: This section is devoted specifically to languages, such as Korean and Japanese, which involve honorifics, essentially a means by which social ‘rank’ in vertical societies is revealed through verb affixes and, more relevant to this section, titles. Inner circle Englishes at least, collectively representative of cultures in which such respect and politeness for those in authority is not built into the language so overtly, can indeed lead to communication issues, notably in the classroom. Time: Thirty minutes

9.2.6.1 Procedure 1. First, I would leave the discussion entirely open to the students, allowing them to inform the class how their language differs from inner circle English in the specific regard of honorifics. In this way, students are leading, but the class is also able to understand the importance of how culture and language are intertwined.

294     A. Baratta

To give a quick example, Korean uses words for ‘older brother’ and ‘older sister’, given the respect and deference for older people in society. Thus, even a twin who is merely five minutes older than his/her younger brother or sister, would need to be addressed by the younger sibling as ‘older brother/sister’ for life. For boys, an older brother is addressed as hyung 형 and an older sister as nuna 누나; for girls, an older brother is addressed as oppa 오빠 and an older sister as onni 언니. In English, we simply say ‘brother’ or ‘sister’, regardless of our age or theirs. In fact, I would suggest that it is somewhat unusual to refer to a sibling’s status as ‘older’ or ‘younger’ for the most part in inner circle English countries. Herein lies a cultural issue that is ripe for unpacking in the EFL classroom, by asking relevant students what such titles mean to them. 2. Once examples have been provided for the class by students and/or the teacher, the stage is set to have a classroom discussion. This of course can go in many directions, but the underlying issue is that students, and teacher, are being educated on a relevant topic for language learning. To some English speakers (or those who do not speak an honorifics-based language), using titles with siblings might suggest distance and not a sense of closeness. This reveals how our use of language, in keeping with the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, can influence our view of the world (or in this case, our perception of someone else’s language). To a Korean speaker, however, the use of such titles for siblings indeed equates to closeness, equivalent to addressing one’s parents with titles such as ‘mum/mom’ or ‘dad’ (but rarely would we address them by their first name). 3. For a follow-up discussion, perhaps teachers can explain to the class their own examples of how EFL students have spoken to them in English but in a way that tends to reflect cultural influence from their first language. For example, I have noticed how Chinese, Japanese and Korean students share one thing in common—they often address me as ‘teacher’ (even here in the UK). Clearly, they are speaking a second language, but thinking in their first. The point here is that even

9  How World Englishes Can Be Used …     295

at the university level in the Far East, it is arguably still the case that students would, and perhaps must, address their teacher as ‘teacher’. Many of my own teachers during my university days were generally addressed by their first name, and this is certainly the case in terms of how British students address me here in England when teaching. I have explained that my understanding of the title of ‘teacher’ is to show respect for one’s teacher and indeed, some of my Chinese students have even referred to me as ‘my dear professor’ in e-mails. On the other hand, I have explained that to address one’s teacher as ‘teacher’ can sound impersonal, even to the extent that it comes across as rude. Herein we see two cultural mind sets expressed through language. If Chinese students address me as ‘Alex’, it might seem rude (to them) by virtue of it not showing respect for my role as a teacher, though to me it shows closeness when I am indeed seeking to create a close, comfortable learning environment. To address me as ‘teacher’ would be the appropriate choice for some students as a means to show respect, though to me it creates distance and could be seen as unfriendly. Thus, a discussion of this title alone is a good starting point to initiate a cross-cultural focus in the classroom and in doing so, better understand each other’s cultural, and subsequent linguistic, viewpoints. The relevance is of course to give due respect and recognition to each other’s cultures; and once again, language, as a by-product and symbol of culture, is a good place to start.

9.2.7 Considering the Interface of Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics Goals: To help students develop their understanding of English language and overall competence in using the language, using an approach which shows how three separate linguistic branches intersect and relate to each other. Background: The above three branches of linguistics can indeed intersect, and to break down our EFL instruction based on consideration of all three as separate, yet interrelated entities, can again help students

296     A. Baratta

learn how best how to communicate in English in a manner that is indeed natural and crucially, completely appropriate for the context of communication. There are many ways that this suggested ‘formula’ can be applied, but I begin by demonstrating how students’ English varieties can be the focus as a means to better appreciate the inner-circle variety and also, how this can help students to learn that they are not ‘correcting’ their countries’ Englishes into ‘correct’ English; rather, they are merely translating one variety of English into another. Time: Thirty—forty five minutes

9.2.7.1 Procedure 1. First, I provide a quick breakdown of this interface, using a previous example of a commonly taught English greeting: A: How do you do? B: I’m fine thank you, and you? Students can even be asked to ‘perform’ the dialogue above, a dialogue which many are indeed familiar with. From here, the teacher can then explain the exchange based on the suggested interface of syntax, semantics and pragmatics. The above exchange is syntactically proficient (in terms of standard English); semantically clear; but pragmatically speaking, it might be seen as unnecessarily formal, even affected, certainly for the majority of casual and informal situations between close friends, or perhaps even for first time meetings between young people, in which a more informal register might be expected. To my ear at least, this sounds more like textbook English and not necessarily real-world English. 2. From here, we can replace the exchange with an example of inner ­circle English that is tied more to the teacher’s home region, which he/she may of course share with the class, if both the teacher and ­students are from a country outside the inner circle.

9  How World Englishes Can Be Used …     297

For example, if we replace the above with allright? //not too bad, then students can be encouraged to look at this from the three perspectives once again. In terms of syntax, we do not have standard English and instead have a non-standard form of language tied to the Manchester area of England, and perhaps farther afield in Britain. Semantically, the exchange could cause confusion initially to both L1 and L2 English speakers. An American student currently in England who I recently met told me of his confusion with the term allright (when used as a greeting). He explained that he was having a particularly bad day and a neighbour, who happened to bump into him on the street, addressed him with allright? The issue for the American student was that he interpreted this one word to mean, ‘Is everything OK? Are you allright despite the problems you’re having? ’ In Manchester of course, it simply means, ‘how are you?’ Likewise, to my American ear, the common British response of not too bad could be misinterpreted by Americans at least as, ‘things aren’t particularly good, or bad, at the moment’. Thus, the response sounds as if the person is not in a good place. In reality, it means, ‘I’m OK’. Considering the potential for confusion between speakers of different varieties of inner circle Englishes, a point I had made before, it stands to reason that we must educate EFL students in this regard too. Thus, by teaching something as basic, yet important, as a greeting, and in a manner that pragmatically-speaking, is much more common and indeed ‘natural’ within a given region, students can begin to understand real-world inner circle English. 3. Now, how can we accomplish this same approach using NICE? One of the important considerations in all of these exercises is the attention it brings to students’ home cultures and also, the fact that as a result of this, students are put into a more proactive position within the EFL classroom. This is not to suggest that EFL students are generally passive listeners in the first instance, or that they necessarily desire to be put in a position in which they are given centre stage. However, the EFL classroom is already designed to put students in a position of centre stage by virtue of the fact it prepares them, amongst other things, to speak with confidence. This, of course, requires practice, and to test the waters in a safe space such as the

298     A. Baratta

classroom is a means to allow students to ideally develop their skills for future speaking, when they will need such skills for real. In this manner, it makes sense to allow students to do the talking. It would therefore be wise to ask them to provide examples of a particular World English that they are familiar with, either their own or another variety. The next step is to then elicit from students examples of the specific contexts, however obvious they might be, when a World English is indeed ‘standard’ for the communicative context. Another rationale for such an exercise is to help all students realise that all language varieties have a time and place and when we take the time to expose language varieties for what they are in terms of their specific lexis and grammar, then it is easier to see the differences as merely differences and not tied to any inherent notions of ‘good’ or ‘bad’. If we consider an inverted triangle, then a particular variety of World English might be considered, at the broadest level, as being appropriate for its country of origin. The inverted triangle approach is one I have often used with my EFL students, and drawn it on the board. In essay writing, for example, I use this diagram to inform students that their introduction paragraphs should be written from broad to narrow, in terms of the information that they provide to the audience. Likewise, using the inverted triangle, we might consider a deconstruction of China English. At a macro-level, representing the top end of the triangle, we have of course the use of a World English within China (or between Chinese individuals wherever they might be). At a meso-level, we might consider the speakers involved in the language exchange. At this point, it is perhaps more for the native speakers of NICE—who might not include the L1 English-speaking teacher—to educate the class, and the teacher. When is China English, for example, likely to be deployed in China, or amongst Chinese people, in terms of who uses it? Are the younger Chinese generation most likely to use it with each other? These are questions that the relevant students might indeed know more about and can inform the class, even if the Chinese students in question do not use China English. At the micro-level of the triangle, what about the setting? Is China English, for example, more likely to be used between two twenty something Chinese people

9  How World Englishes Can Be Used …     299

enjoying an informal get together in a park, presumably away from the eyes, and ears, of those who might look down on this variety of English? 4. From here, we can give the classroom as a whole a linguistic prompt, consisting of an expression in a World English and then letting them fill in the blanks: What does it mean? What grammatical rules are being followed? When might it be used? Consider the following examples, which represent Nigerian English: Watchnight I need money to enable me buy a car My father has travelled

Once students have been given about five minutes or so to mull over the examples provided, we can then ask them to apply the interface of syntax-semantics-pragmatics. First, from a syntactic point of view, only the first example is ‘incorrect’ (by default) in that it does not form a complete sentence of course but can be used merely to test students’ lexical understanding. In other words, can students use their knowledge of inner circle English to determine the meaning of an outer/expanding circle English? What might the implications be of combining the word ‘watch’ (itself either a noun or a verb) with the word ‘night’? Then we can ask students to consider the second sentence from the perspective of grammar. I suggest not explaining to students that they are looking at a non-inner circle English. In this way, it can reveal how students’ analysis will probably default to inner circle English and as such, declare that the grammar in sentence two is incorrect. However, we can then ‘correct’ students and alert them to the fact that the second sentence is indeed correct from the perspective of Nigerian English. It is from this perspective that we must analyse the sentence and not from the perspective of an inner circle English, in which the ‘missing’ preposition—to—must be supplied. In Nigerian English, the rule is that the construction ‘to enable me to do something’ does not require the second preposition, ‘to’. If we set students the goal of translation and not correction, as I mentioned before, then they can gradually learn to

300     A. Baratta

see NICE in a new light, one that is more objective and rational and not based on automatic knee-jerk reactions based on using inner circle English as the worldwide standard. Likewise, in an inner circle English, my father has travelled might mean something to the effect of ‘my father has had the experience of travelling in his life’. However, in Nigerian English, it means that ‘my father is away’. Thus, the word ‘travel’ is being semantically extended, to refer not necessarily to a holiday as such, but to the fact that someone is absent at this particular moment (thus, the expression in inner circle English might be ‘my father’s out right now’). These kinds of changes to the English language represent innovation, not degradation, and they make perfect sense to the native speakers—in this case, the native speakers being from Nigeria. Watchnight is a word which does not have an equivalent in inner circle Englishes, with the exception perhaps of watchnight services at certain church denominations. As used in Nigeria, the word refers to a night in which someone stays up late to celebrate a festival, such as the New Year. We could see a semantic connection with the idea of staying up to watch the festivities or the like. In this sense, much is communicated via this one word and in a more economical manner than inner circle Englishes, which might have to resort to comparatively complex expressions such as ‘I’m staying up all night to watch the fireworks’ or something to that effect. Having said that, the suggested economy within Nigerian English in this example does not make it ‘better’ than inner circle Englishes. Until we thoroughly rid ourselves of such notions regarding one language’s inherent ‘betterness’ or ‘purity’ over another language’s inherent ‘worseness’ and so on, then there will always be a need to correct students’ English when in fact, it might not be wrong. To recognise the context of communication, however, as a more objective means to determine which variety of English is appropriate at that time, is another matter. 5. We can wrap up this exercise by asking students to determine for themselves when watchnight (or any of the expressions used for this exercise) is wholly appropriate, if not required, as a means of expression, and when preposition dropping might be inappropriate

9  How World Englishes Can Be Used …     301

for a speaker of Nigerian English, even when conversing in English in Nigeria. In this instance, students are putting the context ahead of the language used, as it should be, as a means to determine not ‘good’ or ‘bad’ language, but merely appropriate or inappropriate. Thus, there is a time for standard inner circle English use amongst Nigerians in Abuja, just as there is a time for Nigerian English in downtown New York.

9.2.8 Lexical and Grammatical Understanding Goals: To help students develop their awareness of non-inner circle Englishes for communication purposes; appreciation of variety and linguistic difference; and developing students’ speaking skills in the process via classroom discussion. Background: This exercise provides students with a chance to focus once again on the need to transform their linguistic thinking from correcting to translating and in doing so, help them to appreciate that NICE display of course different ways to say the same thing and get the message across. Time: Thirty minutes

9.2.8.1 Procedure 1. I provide students with a list of expressions and/or vocabulary in several varieties of NICE. From here, students can be left to simply get on with it, discussing with their classmates what the expressions mean and crucially, translating them into inner circle English. As with many of the exercises presented thus far, I am not suggesting that we should not use the NICE which reflect the students in the classroom. Rather, we should use a good mix of NICE, some of which our students will be familiar with (and in fact speak) and others that they will not be familiar with. The overall purpose of course is familiarity notwithstanding, students are being encouraged to conceptualise, possibly reconceptualise, a need for correction with a need

302     A. Baratta

for mere translation (i.e. translating from a non-inner circle English to the relevant inner circle English, or even to another non-inner circle English, say Ghanaian English to Indian English). Below are some examples: Co-brother Open the light Ghana is sweet for you?

2. Students can then be left to work in groups in order to determine the meaning of the three varieties of English above, respectively Indian, Singaporean and Ghanaian. Each example represents a different facet to the ways in which inner circle English has been appropriated and in turn, lent itself to a new variety. After students have been left to discuss the examples for several minutes, they can then be called on to explain to the class their understanding of the NICE. If their translations are inaccurate, then we can explain what the examples actually refer to, once all groups have had a chance to present their understanding of course. Students’ knowledge of English affixes can be used, based on an understanding of the use of the prefix co-. This is a prefix which, when attached to words, can create the meaning of being in some way partnered, happening together. One of my students guessed this word to mean a close friend, someone who is like a brother. This is a logical guess, but the meaning is actually brother-in-law, an example referenced earlier in the book. Nonetheless, such guesswork first involves a mental processing of English morphology, akin to the earlier example of the word skinship. The second example can also serve to highlight pragmalinguistic errors in English (or other languages). The expression of open the light allows students to take an educated guess at the meaning by considering equivalent expressions in inner circle English, such as turn/switch on the light. In this case, ‘open’ can be regarded semantically along the lines of ‘activation’. However, the aforementioned pragmalinguistic error is only really an ‘error’ when a Singaporean uses the expression

9  How World Englishes Can Be Used …     303

open the light in an inner circle English country (or elsewhere) when the interlocutors themselves do not know this variety of English; within Singapore, this expression is indeed ‘standard’ amongst Singaporeans who use it (but perhaps not their government, who might otherwise encourage standard English in the more absolute sense of Standard Singaporean English). The final example can cause momentary confusion perhaps for those unaccustomed to this variety of English. From a syntactic point of view (that is, inner circle syntax), the sentence is constructed as a declarative, suggestive of a statement of fact. However, a rising intonation in the prosody of this sentence might give away the fact that it is functioning as an interrogative. In inner circle English, such a sentence would involve an inversion, becoming Is Ghana sweet for you? In terms of the meaning of this sentence, it essentially translates as you do like Ghana, don’t you? Thus, it is not merely an interrogative, but it is actually a tag question. A function of tag questions is to elicit agreement from the interlocutor, as well of course as being part of casual, everyday banter (e.g. it’s a nice day, isn’t it? ). 3. As a follow-up discussion, students can be encouraged to consider the syntactic properties of NICE, thus being helped to see that such varieties have their own rules to obey in order to construct ‘logical’ sentences and are not simply breaking the rules of inner circle English. Perhaps from here, students can be encouraged to translate examples of inner circle English into particular varieties of NICE, a chance to then develop their understanding that bit more. We have considered several examples of linguistic variety within the English language and how it can be used to help EFL students consider not just said variety, but more importantly the ways in which different versions of the English language all function with their own rules for usage. Encouraging students to consider the context of all their communicative acts as the ultimate determiner as to what is appropriate communication is a more objective and fair means to choose one’s language, as opposed to adopting a more exclusive perspective along the lines of there being varieties which are fixed in terms of enjoying, or not, a permanently positive status simply based on the countries in which they are spoken.

304     A. Baratta

4. Another spin on lexis is to give each student a slip of paper on which a word is written that belongs to a variety of World English. The student of course may not have any idea what the meaning is, but all the students will understand that it is indeed a variety of English. The trick will be to guess the meaning. This could be facilitated by a group discussion at each desk, in which all students help each other to determine the meaning of the words. Ultimately, the teacher provides the correct meanings, which may lead to some kind of semantic Eureka moment for the students. Again, these exercises are designed to get students thinking, talking and sharing, and, of course, speaking English. We can also expose students to non-standard varieties of inner circle Englishes, something I have done with my own students. I do this not merely for the sake of showing diversity, but also as a means to improve communication between students and the L1 English speakers. That is, by understanding how different regions in England, for example, use English, it allows EFL students to know how to respond as a result. For example, the greeting am you allright? is heard in the city of Birmingham (England). Does the fact that this is an inner circle variety mean that, despite its ‘unusual’ grammar, it nonetheless is still seen as legitimate by EFL students? Again, the key relevance here is that am you serves to mean are you, at least in the context of greetings. Once again, we have a sense of predictability of usage within a commonly used expression and this, as I have argued, is a key factor in the establishment of any variety of a language.

9.2.9 Linguistic Show and Tell Goals: To develop students’ English-speaking ability by discussing, as part of an oral presentation, a specific World English, as well as gaining a grammatical understanding of the variety in the process. Background: This suggested classroom activity allows students to develop their English skills by discussing with their class their knowledge of their own country’s English variety and/or NICE in general.

9  How World Englishes Can Be Used …     305

This activity goes beyond a casual discussion of a variety of English and/or the students’ knowledge/use of such. After all, we can probably find this out when discussing it in class as part of a teacher-led lecture. Instead, the students can be asked to come to the front of the classroom and deliver a lecture on a World English—ideally a variety that they use or at least have knowledge of—and in doing so, the students are once again given an opportunity to lead. Whether or not this forms the basis of an assessment is another matter to decide. Time: Three-five minutes per student

9.2.9.1 Procedure For this section, I present an overall summary of the exercise, as opposed to breaking it down into steps. I feel this is a better approach for this particular exercise and teachers are of course free to adapt it however they see fit. Essentially, we can give each student three-five minutes to discuss their own World English variety in front of the class. From this, students not only practice their speaking skills, but they can also develop confidence and once again, have an opportunity to truly ‘do the talking’ as they are ideally speaking on a topic for which many of them may indeed have first-hand experience. Even if such experience is lacking, students could be asked to conduct research on a World English—its country of origin and the specific lexical and grammatical properties which make it what it is and in doing so, set it apart from inner circle Englishes (and other World Englishes too). In fact, each student, or perhaps each individual group of students if it is a large class, could be presented with a World English that they are then responsible for researching. The end result could be an oral presentation, or it could even be part of an essay assignment. If the latter option is assigned to students, then the valuable skill of academic writing is being developed, alongside an appreciation for NICE. The essay option also provides students with experience in conducting literature searches, even more relevant if this is an assessment. Moreover, if researching an English variety that they are not familiar

306     A. Baratta

with, then this can help the students to approach the subject with ­perhaps a degree more objectivity, which is so crucial when discussing one’s research. Students can even be directed to some of the various websites which discuss EFL teachers’ experiences with their students’ errors. This would make for an interesting discussion as the student from the relevant country being discussed online could provide his/ her points of view as to the teachers’ views on the topic. It may well be that students feel that the teacher has got it wrong—and this chance for ‘reversal’ in the classroom, in which students become the teachers—is one of the underlying factors which I believe can lead to student engagement. It stems of course from the belief that our EFL students may well be more knowledgeable on the subject of particular non-inner circle varieties of English than we are as teachers, and this is something that we can, and should, pedagogically tap into. In other words, while an L1 English-speaking EFL teacher indeed has relevant expertise regarding the errors made by Korean students in their English, and has subsequently posted examples of such online, we need to also consider the expertise of the L1 Korean-speaking individual in this regard. Again, such exercises allow students to take a greater role in the EFL classroom, one which is based on recognising and respecting their linguistic knowledge. In fact, who is the ‘expert’? Truthfully, both teachers and students bring relevant expertise—cultural and linguistic—to the EFL classroom. Going further, we could also consider the use of phrase books in foreign languages in terms of how accurate the translations are in English. As I write, I am looking at a Polish phrase book for English-speaking tourists (for an upcoming trip), and based on this, we could also create an exercise in which our students judge the accuracy of the expressions in their native language. For example, the phrase book states that the expression in Polish of co słychać equates to ‘how’s life?’ Understand that I am not questioning the accuracy of phrase books, but merely suggesting that to have a real-life Polish person in our classroom might be an even better means to obtain accuracy in the language. This could include other similar expressions in Polish and/or expressions in English beyond the singular ‘how’s life?’. The students can also tell us how to use such expressions—the when, where and who. Overall, then, students are being relied on and trusted

9  How World Englishes Can Be Used …     307

to express their views and this can make for a more dynamic classroom, and teaching (and learning) atmosphere. I have also given students freedom to choose their assessed oral presentations and most students tended to default to either a discussion on some aspect of their home country, be it travel, politics or history; or, some discussed their choice of subject at university. As I explained to my EFL students, notably those on pre-sessional summer courses before they began their undergraduate degrees, it really does not matter, certainly not in that pedagogic context, what they discuss for their oral presentation. There will be plenty of time later, I told them, to talk about particular issues within their field of study. For now, the more relevant issue at this early stage of overseas education is to get to grips with confidence in speaking—everything from having a clear voice and delivery and maintaining appropriate eye contact and body language. From this perspective, delivering an oral presentation successfully is less about the chosen topic and more about the delivery itself. This is not to negate the importance of World Englishes as a potential topic of discussion; rather, it is to address concerns by some that this is not a suitably ‘academic’ subject (compared with, say, the student’s current/future degree course). I now close this chapter having hopefully offered some ideas as to how we can develop EFL students’ understanding of the lexical and grammatical aspects of inner circle Englishes, by discussing such varieties in tandem with NICE and/or students’ native languages. I believe in the inclusion of NICE in the EFL classroom, as there are several benefits to such a pedagogic approach, which can engage students and help them to appreciate the role that all Englishes have to play.

References Alim, H. (2015). Hip Hop nation language: Localization and globalization. In J. Bloomquist, L. Green, & S. Lanehart (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of African American Language (pp. 850–862). London: Oxford University Press. Baratta, A. (2012). The implications of bringing Freshman Composition to a British university. Journal of Academic Writing, 2(1), 35–47.

308     A. Baratta

Baratta, A. (2013). Semantic and lexical issues in writings by Korean children. ESL Journal, 1–21. Baratta, A. (2017). Considering the Anglo model of writing for the development of critical thinking. Double Helix, 5, 1–21. Giri, R., & Foo, J. (2014). On teaching EIL in a Japanese context: The power within and power without. In M. Roby & R. Giri (Eds.), The pedagogy of English as an international language (pp. 239–256). New York: Springer. Kaplan, R. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning, 16(1–2), 1–20. Manara, C. (2014). “So what do you want us to do?” A critical reflection of teaching English as an international language in an Australian context. In M. Roby & R. Giri (Eds.), The pedagogy of English as an international ­language (pp. 189–202). New York: Springer. Marlina, R. (2009). “I don’t talk or I decide not to talk? Is it my culture?”— International students’ experiences of tutorial participation. International Journal of Educational Research, 48, 235–244. McKay, S. (2012). Principles of teaching English as an international language. In L. Alsagoff, S. McKay, G. Hu, & W. Renandya (Eds.), Principles and practices for teaching English as an international language (pp. 28–46). New York: Routledge. Peirce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9–31.

10 Conclusion

Standard English, perhaps over any other variety, has the potential to ensure that individuals from a multitude of language backgrounds will nonetheless be (hopefully) understood if having to use English in a specific international setting. After all, the purpose of language is to communicate and if a variety exists whose purpose is to ensure uniformity to the extent that speakers from all over the world can understand, and be understood by, people from all over the world, then on this level, we of course need a standard. However, the modern, and future, EFL classroom does not need a standard to the detriment of all other varieties. The English language is pluralistic and this needs to be reflected in the classroom, using a top-down approach. Moreover, while I still believe that standard English is the closest variety that we have to a global means of communicating successfully in English, we cannot expect it to always work this way. This is precisely why NICE are needed in the classroom, so British tourists can understand Ghanaians on a market trip to downtown Accra, and likewise, why Ghanaian hotel managers can use an inner circle variety of English with said British tourists perhaps.

© The Author(s) 2019 A. Baratta, World Englishes in English Language Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13286-6_10

309

310     A. Baratta

We first need to consider the specific goals of the EFL class in q­ uestion; if this is not set, then it will be up to the EFL teacher to take it upon him/herself to choose a linguistic focus that suits the needs of the students as best as possible. The suggestion is that a dominant variety of English may indeed be the required focus and this might be best served as a non-inner circle variety. The key issue, however, is not which variety serves as the central focus within the class. Instead, the approach is one that incorporates several varieties within this otherwise central linguistic focus. This ensures that students are equipped with an English variety that will serve their needs best. If teaching EFL academic speaking within an inner circle country (e.g. as part of a pre-sessional programme), then clearly, an inner circle English, and the variety tied to the country in which the students reside, is most relevant. If teaching IELTS or TOEFL, then once again inner circle English is needed, but not merely that for academic purposes; for the oral section of the assessment, students might sound more natural if using non-standard expressions and perhaps even those tied to the local area. Otherwise, the use of formal, academic speech runs the risk of sounding rehearsed, even if otherwise grammatically proficient (i.e. based on formal standard English). If teaching EFL in an expanding circle country, then the EFL teacher, who might potentially be outside his/her native country, has a need to understand the local variety, as a means to then discuss notions of ‘errors’ with a more accurate, and culturally sensitive, approach. However, in any of these scenarios, and many more besides, we should consider the overall communication needs of our students that might go beyond the dominant linguistic focus within the particular class. If students are planning to study in an inner circle country, then it would be useful for them to appreciate the varieties of English that are local to the country, and not just the standard variety. For example, if planning to study in Australia, then beyond standard Australian English, we can make students aware of the English used within the native Australian community, for example. This would be a good idea, not just as a means to understand this variety if exposed to it; in addition, such a focus would allow students to understand a culture that goes beyond the dominant white Australian variety. Moreover, learning

10 Conclusion     311

Australian English means acquiring a variety of lexis specific to that country, to include becoming acquainted perhaps with expressions such as G’day, fair dinkum and gallah. In fact, here in Manchester, I see an advertisement on a daily basis which is placed on buses. It is catchy, notably by its use of three large words printed in bold and all written in capitals as follows: Footy? Telly? Tenner? English, yes, but largely not understood if someone is from outside Britain, even if an inner circle speaker. To translate into American English, we would then have: Soccer? TV? Ten pounds (or presumably, ten dollars)? Arguably, however, this translation would still not make perfect sense, at least on a cultural level, as most Americans do not follow soccer/ football with the same passion as in Britain and so watching it on TV or even a live match would not have the same hold as an American football game for many perhaps. Once again, translating between two inner circle varieties of English surely means that this is sometimes needed for non-inner circle varieties. This also means that whatever the dominant variety of English that is required for the EFL class in question, it stands to reason that one or two more varieties might be needed too. As part of bringing the students into the conversation more, we can seek their own input on this matter. There is nothing to say that an EFL student from Budapest residing in Los Angeles might not wish to learn something about, say, Indian English. This is not to suggest that EFL teachers need be responsible for each and every variety of English; rather, it is suggested that the more we become familiar with a variety or two outside our own, or possibly a variety that resides outside our particular circle, then we are better positioned to understand language and cultural variety that bit more, and share this with what could be a culturally diverse classroom. On the other hand, when I once asked my EFL students, who were from all over the world, what specific desires they had regarding their English that went beyond the syllabus, I was surprised by some of the answers: how to pick up girls; small talk; and even sweet talk. None of these answers necessarily pertain to any one variety of English and each variety will in fact have its own implications for these three categories. However, the main point is clear: students may wish to learn the kinds of English that go beyond the syllabus and

312     A. Baratta

the textbook, and we should consider these kinds of Englishes that will serve them well, especially for daily life in an inner circle country. For example, I have also shared with students the kinds of borrowed words and phrases that have made their way into the English language, both British and American, such as the contextual implications for je ne sais quoi; cajones; and chutzpah; respectively, French, Spanish and Yiddish, yet sometimes heard in otherwise English conversations. I made the point earlier that our EFL students may not wish to use such expressions, but if they hear them, on the street or within Hollywood films, then they will be able to understand what is really being said, amidst the code mixing (and amidst what might be questionable translations, if the film in question uses subtitles in the students’ native language). A final point is that we as educators are perhaps best placed, along with our students, to drive forward the focus on NICE and spread the word by incorporating them within the EFL classroom; allowing our students to take the lead in this regard sometimes, as I had pointed out; and ultimately making it clear that multiple varieties of English are here to stay, with or without a more ‘official’ means of codification and as such, bringing them into our classroom and helping to change minds on this matter is something we are in a position to do. Who knows how many more varieties will emerge over the next fifty years or so? While English is perhaps unlikely to lose its international grip, the Englishes of the inner circle might, which does not mean, as some purists might otherwise think, that standards will be abandoned. We will always need ‘a’ standard, certainly one whose central purpose is to allow for international communication as much as is realistically possible, amidst what is otherwise a global Tower of Babel. However, deciding what the standard is rests entirely on the immediate context of communication, and as such it can change from one minute to the next. To be truly global citizens on a linguistic level, we will all need to speak perhaps more than one language, but this also means speaking, or understanding, more than one English. To equip our students with this knowledge, and ability, so that they can shift from inner circle standard to inner circle dialect, for example, is a means to reflect the

10 Conclusion     313

linguistic reality outside the classroom, the reality that we are preparing them for which is not always just about academic writing, test taking and future careers. Likewise, if we can perhaps allow our students to teach us a thing or two about their Englishes, it will ensure a more egalitarian perspective regarding linguistic diversity, and one which we can continue to spread starting with the EFL classrooms around the world.

Index

A

B

Academic essay 43, 85, 103, 277, 282, 283 Academic writing 7, 76, 105, 122, 159, 227, 279, 281–283, 305, 313 Accent(s) 2, 14, 15, 26, 30, 31, 42, 48, 60, 124, 138, 184, 187, 188, 190–192, 195, 201, 205, 206, 209, 212, 215, 216, 219, 226, 233, 241, 244, 251, 257–259, 269 American English 1, 2, 16, 25, 30, 32, 38, 40, 44, 63, 74, 103, 104, 119, 122, 126, 136, 140, 153, 157, 159, 183, 184, 191–193, 197, 211, 221, 232, 254, 257, 269, 276, 311, 312 Anglo-American model 281, 282

Black South African English (BSAE) 81–83 British English 1, 2, 16, 25, 30, 32, 38, 40, 42, 44, 63, 103, 104, 126, 153, 157, 159, 175, 183, 184, 189, 192–194, 211, 220, 221, 232, 241, 253, 254, 257, 264, 274, 312 C

China English 8, 13, 14, 92–94, 106, 139, 140, 249, 298 Chinglish 8, 13, 14, 92, 104, 118, 186, 230, 249 Classroom-based social research (CBSR) 273

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 A. Baratta, World Englishes in English Language Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13286-6

315

316     Index

Code switching 30, 41, 129, 131, 158, 160, 223, 273 Codification 12, 48–54, 56, 57, 62, 77, 80, 82, 86, 87, 90, 106, 108, 111, 119, 124, 126, 153, 162, 172, 222, 229, 312 Colloquial Singapore English 13, 128–130 Cultural norms 41, 112, 119, 136, 143, 144, 150, 235 Cultural understanding 142 Culture(s) 6, 8, 10, 20, 29, 41, 46, 55, 59, 60, 112, 119, 130, 136, 138, 142–145, 147–149, 151–153, 155, 158–160, 162, 171, 175, 189, 193, 210, 213–217, 221, 228, 234, 235, 247, 260, 264, 267, 268, 270, 274, 276, 277, 281, 282, 292, 293, 295, 297, 310 D

Dialect(s) 1, 7, 26–31, 33, 34, 48, 56, 63, 70, 71, 73, 77, 89, 109, 124, 130, 161, 171, 180, 184, 186, 188, 191, 192, 208, 214, 219, 225, 226, 237, 246, 257, 259, 260, 266, 312

88–90, 104–108, 110, 111, 117, 119–125, 135, 136, 138–152, 155–159, 161, 162, 167–174, 177, 179, 186, 194–196, 204, 206, 217, 222, 227, 233–242, 244–248, 250–254, 257–260, 263–270, 273–278, 282–284, 292, 294, 295, 297, 298, 303, 304, 306, 307, 309–313 English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) 6, 11, 44, 47, 189, 197, 218, 258, 263 English as an International Language (EIL) 10, 12, 15, 100, 135– 138, 142 English as a Second Language (ESL) 10, 156 English World-Wide (EWW) 11 Error(s) 5, 8, 13, 50, 53, 54, 62, 69, 71–92, 94–98, 101–111, 113, 117–120, 122, 123, 136, 159, 162, 190, 215, 221, 222, 230–232, 237, 250, 251, 262, 265, 283, 306, 310 Expanding circle 3, 6, 11, 31, 47, 48, 57, 149, 152, 153, 171, 193, 194, 196, 198, 230, 236, 249, 275, 310 F

E

East African English 155 Ebonics 11, 30, 33, 70, 77, 79, 80, 88, 188, 191, 212, 274 English as a foreign language (EFL) 4–10, 12, 15–20, 25, 26, 28, 29, 33–35, 40, 44, 45, 49, 53, 55, 57, 59, 60, 63, 71, 72, 75, 78, 83–86,

Filipino English 205, 206, 235 G

General American 26, 138, 251, 257–259 Ghanaian English 89, 90, 192, 204, 224, 250, 276, 302

Index     317

Global English(es) 11 Global Englishes Language Teaching (GELT) 10, 137 Glocal 6 H

Honorifics 293, 294 The Hook 280 Hypercorrection 77, 83 I

Indian English 17, 18, 75, 76, 79, 80, 83, 93, 123–126, 139, 144, 152, 155, 170, 171, 183, 184, 188, 206, 207, 218, 219, 221, 230, 231, 235, 264, 265, 269, 276, 302, 311 Inner circle 3–11, 13–17, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32–34, 37–41, 44, 46, 47, 50, 54, 56, 58, 59, 61–63, 69, 71, 73, 75–78, 82–84, 87, 88, 91–94, 96, 97, 101, 103, 107, 108, 111, 112, 121, 122, 124–128, 135, 136, 138–141, 143–145, 147–149, 152–159, 161, 170, 171, 173, 174, 184, 187–189, 191, 192, 194–197, 200, 202, 208, 211, 213, 215–220, 222, 223, 225–229, 231, 232, 234, 235, 237–239, 241–243, 247, 248, 251, 252, 256, 257, 259, 262, 263, 266, 268–270, 276, 296, 303, 304, 309, 310, 312 Inner circle English(es) 4, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15–20, 25–28, 30–35, 38, 40, 42–48, 58–60, 62, 69–75,

82, 88, 93, 98, 102–105, 108, 109, 111, 112, 120, 121, 123, 125, 126, 138–141, 148, 151–154, 158–160, 162, 167–169, 171, 172, 174–176, 178, 179, 183, 184, 186, 190–192, 194–196, 200, 202, 204, 206–209, 211–213, 215, 216, 219, 220, 222–224, 228, 229, 231, 237, 238, 242, 243, 245, 248, 250–252, 256–258, 260, 263–267, 275, 276, 288, 289, 292–294, 296, 297, 299–305, 307, 310 Innovation(s) 5, 8, 54, 69, 73, 74, 77–80, 82–87, 91, 92, 107, 108, 126, 203, 300 International English 11, 12, 146 Introduction paragraph(s) 277–279, 298 J

Jamaican Creole 207, 208 Japlish 13, 59, 92, 101 K

Konglish/Korean English 5, 17, 50, 58, 61, 63, 77, 83, 93, 95, 96, 103, 104, 117–123, 158, 170–172, 198, 201–203, 211, 220, 230, 246, 248–250, 274, 276, 287 L

Lingua franca 10, 51, 93, 100, 101, 138, 140, 217, 228, 242

318     Index M

Malaysian English 206, 207 Mancunian English 30 Multicultural London English (MLE) 28, 29, 59, 192, 218, 261 N

Native speaker (NS) 5, 6, 14, 17, 20, 34, 39, 43, 61, 101, 107, 121, 156, 160, 173, 175, 176, 187, 192, 200, 205, 210, 211, 213, 214, 216, 220, 222–226, 231, 235–237, 245, 246, 253, 254, 257, 261, 263, 298, 300 New Englishes 3, 11, 80, 131, 231, 245 Nigerian English 204, 299–301 Non-inner circle 4, 6, 8, 13, 15, 34, 40, 45–47, 50, 58, 61, 69, 74, 77, 78, 83, 93, 103, 112, 113, 119, 125–127, 130, 137–139, 155–157, 173, 191, 192, 214, 231, 234, 235, 238, 239, 245, 247, 306, 310, 311 Non-inner circle Englishes (NICE) 6–11, 14, 16, 17, 19, 27, 29, 32, 34, 38–43, 45, 46, 48–60, 62, 63, 69, 71, 73, 74, 77, 78, 80, 81, 83, 84, 86, 88, 90, 92, 93, 95, 96, 98, 99, 101, 102, 104, 105, 107, 111, 113, 117, 118, 122–124, 126, 127, 135– 137, 140, 141, 145–148, 152, 155, 156, 158, 160, 162, 168, 180, 185, 186, 188, 191, 192, 196, 198, 200, 201, 204–207, 209–213, 215, 219, 220, 222– 256, 258–269, 274–277, 286, 288, 292, 297–299, 301–305, 307, 309, 312

Non-standard 2, 8, 17, 19, 25, 26, 30–32, 62, 70, 72–75, 77, 87, 88, 102, 103, 107, 110, 120, 130, 145, 160, 174, 184, 192, 211, 216, 243, 250, 251, 262, 297, 304, 310 Non-standard English 54, 85, 227, 274 Non-standard inner circle Englishes 8, 25, 90, 158 O

Online codification 51, 52, 203 Outer circle 3, 6, 11, 31, 47, 56, 107, 152–154, 171, 183, 192, 194, 196, 198, 236 Outer/expanding circle 17, 20, 27, 47, 63, 73, 101, 105, 108, 110, 159, 169, 173, 183, 192, 194, 196, 213, 216, 220, 223, 224, 231, 232, 250, 251, 254, 262, 263, 266, 277, 299 P

Pakistani English 148, 153–155 Pragmalinguistic error(s) 87, 92, 95, 111, 112, 123, 268, 284, 302 Pure error(s) 85, 92, 98, 101, 103, 105–108, 110, 111, 122, 162, 222 Q

Questionnaires 168–171, 173–175, 197, 209

Index     319 R

Received Pronunciation (RP) 26, 31, 42, 191, 212, 244, 245, 251, 258 Register 25, 27, 29, 32, 34, 52, 56, 70, 72, 85, 87, 91, 188, 243, 296 Register dialects 72, 73 Rhetorical question 279, 280 S

Scots 11, 28, 171, 207–209, 216 Singlish 13, 37, 46, 47, 51, 58, 81, 92, 93, 127–131, 145, 188, 190–192, 198–200, 219, 229, 238, 269 Social media 12, 203, 268 Societal codification 50, 52–54, 56, 61, 80, 82, 84, 118, 203, 218 Speak Good English campaign 58, 81, 127, 223 Standard English 1, 7, 8, 12–14, 16, 18, 25, 30–35, 39, 40, 44, 45, 59, 70, 72, 73, 76–79, 81–85, 87–90, 101, 107, 109, 118, 119, 124, 126–131, 135, 136, 138–140, 144, 146, 161, 182, 184, 186, 188, 191, 212, 213, 216, 217, 219, 227, 228, 234, 235, 237–248, 252, 259, 260, 276, 283, 296, 297, 303, 309, 310 T

Teacher training 6, 9, 49, 136, 137, 141, 142, 156

Teaching 6, 7, 9, 10, 15, 16, 26, 27, 29, 39, 46, 53, 59, 60, 62, 75, 86, 107, 108, 121, 131, 135–138, 140, 142, 144–148, 150, 152, 154, 159–161, 167, 169, 170, 172, 174–176, 178, 196, 227, 233, 234, 239, 240, 242–245, 247, 248, 250, 253–258, 260, 263–266, 269, 270, 277, 278, 281, 282, 286, 289, 295, 297, 307, 310 Thai English 52, 206, 212 Thesis 279, 281 Thesis statement 277, 281, 282 W

Whorf-Sapir hypothesis 294 World English(es) 4–6, 8, 9, 11–15, 17, 19, 20, 29, 35, 47–49, 54, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63, 73–75, 78–81, 83, 84, 86, 87, 92, 101–103, 105–107, 109, 110, 141, 142, 147, 148, 150, 153, 160, 167, 169–174, 181–198, 200–203, 205, 207–210, 213, 214, 216, 218–221, 223–225, 228, 231, 233, 235, 236, 238–245, 249, 252–254, 257, 260–266, 268, 270, 273–276, 286, 288, 293, 296, 298, 299, 304, 305, 307 World Standard Spoken English (WSSE) 45 Y

Yorkshire dialect 25, 27, 28, 62, 192 Yorkshire English 59, 63, 110