World Englishes
Author(s): Rakesh M. Bhatt
Source: Annual Review of Anthropology , 2001, Vol. 30 (2001), pp. 527-550
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3069227
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual
Review of Anthropology
This content downloaded from
132.174.248.224 on Mon, 06 Jan 2025 22:05:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001. 30:527-50
Copyright () 2001 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
WORLD ENGLISHES
Rakesh M. Bhatt
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois 61801; e-mail: rbhatt@uiuc.edu
Key Words language spread, language contact, language variation,
language change, English language studies
* Abstract This essay is an overview of the theoretical, methodological, pedagogical, ideological, and power-related issues of world Englishes: varieties of English
used in diverse sociolinguistic contexts. The scholars in this field have critically examined theoretical and methodological frameworks of language use based on western, essentially monolingual and monocultural, frameworks of linguistic science and
replaced them with frameworks that are faithful to multilingualism and language vari-
ation. This conceptual shift affords a "pluricentric" view of English, which represents
diverse sociolinguistic histories, multicultural identities, multiple norms of use and
acquisition, and distinct contexts of function. The implications of this shift for learning and teaching world Englishes are critically reviewed in the final sections of this
essay.
INTRODUCTION
This article focuses on major current theoretical and methodologica
to what has been characterized as "World Englishes." In the past
the study of the formal and functional implications of the global
glish, especially in terms of its range of functions and the degree
in Western and, especially, non-Western societies, has received c
tention among scholars of English language, linguistics, and liter
writers; language pedagogues; and literary critics. It is in this co
late Henry Kahane remarked: "English is the great laboratory of
olinguist" (1986, p. 495). There is now a growing consensus amon
there is not one English language anymore: rather there are man
1998), most of which are disengaged from the language's early J
tradition. The different English languages, studied within the con
work of world Englishes, represent diverse linguistic, cultural, a
voices.
The field of study of world Englishes-varieties of English used in diverse
sociolinguistic contexts-represents a paradigm shift in research, teaching, and
application of sociolinguistic realities to the forms and functions of English. It
rejects the dichotomy of US (native speakers) vs THEM (nonnative speakers) and
0084-6570/01/1021-0527$14.00
This content downloaded from
132.174.248.224 on Mon, 06 Jan 2025 22:05:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
527
528 BHATT
emphasizes instead WE-ness (McArthur 1993, 1998, Kach
the logo acronym of the journal World Englishes (1984),
p. 334) interpreted the field most succinctly when he obse
equals here." The pluralization, Englishes, symbolizes the
variations, the divergent sociolinguistic contexts, the ling
and literary creativity, and the various identities Englis
sult of its acculturation in new sociolinguistic ecologies
1992). The pluralism is an integral part of world English
especially in the past three decades, critically examined t
ological frameworks based on monotheistic ethos of ling
placed them with frameworks that are faithful to multil
variation (Kachru 1983, 1986, Lowenberg 1984, 1988,
Magura 1984, 1985, Mesthrie 1992, Bamgbose 1982, Bamg
conceptual-theoretical shift has extended the empirical
English. English is regarded less as a European language
nent of Judeo-Christian traditions and more as a pluricentr
diverse sociolinguistic histories, multicultural identities, mu
acquisition, and distinct contexts of function (Smith 1981
1982, Kachru 1982, Kachru & Quirk 1981). Linguistic and
English is determined less by the usage of its native spe
usage of nonnative speakers, who outnumber native spea
McArthur 1992).
The world Englishes paradigm raises several interestin
ory, empirical validity, social responsibility, and ideolog
inquiry into world Englishes invites (a) theoretical appro
English that are interdisciplinary in orientation, (b) meth
sitive to multilingual and multicultural realities of lang
and (c) pedagogies that respond to both intra- and inter
English (Bailey & Gorlach 1982, Ferguson 1982, Chesh
Foley et al 1998). The philosophical-theoretical assumption
of world Englishes are grounded in what has come to be
guistics (Labov 1972, Kachru 1991, Bhatt 1995a, Milroy &
1992, Lippi-Green 1994, 1997). Liberation linguistics, as a
eral forms of linguistic beliefs and practices that accent t
sions of language variation, is rooted in contexts of soci
to transform these contexts radically in the interest of th
tongue"-the nonnative speakers (Bhatt 2001a,b, Kachr
Parakrama 1990, 1995, Viswanathan 1989, Phillipson 1
1998, Canagarajah 1999). The liberation linguistic-theore
displaced and discredited the trinity of ENL (English as
(English as a second language), and EFL (English as a fore
presented instead a model of diffusion of English that is
to historical, sociolinguistic, and literary contexts (McAr
1986).
This content downloaded from
132.174.248.224 on Mon, 06 Jan 2025 22:05:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
WORLD ENGLISHES 529
SPREAD AND STRATIFICATION
The Spread of English
The transformation of a tribal language to Standard English in the nineteent
tury is well documented (Platt et al 1984, McCrum et al 1986, Machan &
1992, Burchfield 1994, Crystal 1995). Its spread is arguably "the most st
example of 'language expansion' of this century if not in all recorded hist
has far exceeded that other famous case, the spread of Latin during the
Empire" (Platt et al 1984, p. 1). And now, at the dawn of the twenty-first ce
we are witnessing John Adams' prophecy coming true: that English will
the most respected and universally read and spoken language in the world
1992a).
The global spread of English is popularly viewed in terms of two diasporas:
In the first, English was transplanted by native speakers, and in the second,
English was introduced as an official language alongside other national languages
(Knowles 1997, Kachru 1992a). After the initial expansion toward Wales in 1535,
Scotland in 1603, and (parts of) Ireland in 1707, the first diaspora of English took
place-the movement of English-speaking populations to North America, Canada,
and Australia and New Zealand. Each of these countries adopted English as the
language of the new nation, which resulted in English becoming one of the major
languages of the world, along with Arabic, French, German, Hindi, Russian, and
Spanish, though it was still not, as it is now, a global language, numerically or
functionally.
The global status of English became established in its second diaspora. This
diaspora brought English to "un-English" sociocultural contexts-to South Asia,
Africa, and Latin America-which resulted in a significant alteration of the earlier
sociolinguistic profile of the English language. It was in this second diaspora that
English came into contact with genetically and culturally unrelated languages:
in Asia with Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages, in Africa with languages
of the Niger-Congo family, and in Southeast Asia with Altaic languages. The
contact of English with such diverse languages resulted in the development
of regional-contact varieties of English, e.g., Indian English, Malaysian English,
Singaporean English, Philippine English, Nigerian English, and Ghanian English
(Kachru 1965, Foley 1988, Lowenberg 1986, Bautista 1997, Bamgbose 1982, Sey
1973). It was also in this second diaspora that a new ecology for the teaching
of English was created, in terms of linguistic input, methodology, norms, and
identity.
Several attempts have been made to model the spread and diffusion of English as a global language (Kachru 1988, Gorlach 1991, McArthur 1987, Crystal
1997). Kachru's (1988) concentric circle model (Figure 1) captures the historical,
sociolinguistic, acquisitional, and literary contexts of the spread and diffusion of
English.
In this model, the inner circle refers to the traditional bases of English, where it is
the primary language, with an estimated 320-380 million speakers (Crystal 1997).
This content downloaded from
132.174.248.224 on Mon, 06 Jan 2025 22:05:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
530 BHATT
Figure 1 The concentric circle model. [Adapted from Kachru (19
The outer circle represents the spread of English in nonna
it has been institutionalized as an additional language, with
300 million speakers. The expanding circle, with a steady in
of speakers and functional domains, includes nations where En
ily as a foreign language, with an estimated 100-1000 milli
1997).
The impact and extent of spread is not easily quantifiable because many varieties of English are used for both inter- and intranational functions. Table 1
presents a list of countries where English is used as an "official" (loosely defined)
language.
Exponents of Stratification
The stratification of English, especially varieties in the outer circle, has been interpreted in two ways: as a polylectal continuum (Platt 1975, Platt & Weber 1980,
Platt et al 1984, Mufwene 1994, 1997) and as a dine of English bilingualism
This content downloaded from
132.174.248.224 on Mon, 06 Jan 2025 22:05:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
WORLD ENGLISHES 531
TABLE 1 Countries in which English has official statusa
Antigua and Barbuda Irish Republic Seychelles
Australia
Jamaica
Sierra
Leone
Bahamas Kenya Singapore
Barbados
Lesotho
Botswana
Brunei
Liberia
Malawi
Cameroon
Canada
South
Sri
Africa
Lanka
Surinam
Malta
Mauritius
Swaziland
Tanzania
Dominica New Zealand Trinidad and Tobago
Fiji
Nigeria
Uganda
Gambia Papua New Guinea United Kingdom
Ghana Philippines United States of America
Grenada St. Christopher and Nevis Zambia
Guyana St. Lucia Zimbabwe
India St. Vincent and the Grenadines
aAdapted from Crystal (1985, p. 357).
(Kachru 1983, Pakir 1991, Bamgbose 1982). In term
& Weber (1980), following Bickerton's (1975) model of
scribe Singapore English (Singlish), identifiable with
spanning from the standard variety of the lexifier-id
the basilect, its polar opposite. The sociolinguistic acc
Indian English (Mesthrie 1992), Caribbean English (Wi
Englishes (Singler 1997) offer more evidence for the
case, the basilect is the variety of English used by peop
English and no formal education, whereas the acrolect,
ence from the colonial form of English, is the variety
people.
The dine of bilingualism, on the other hand, is related to the users and uses.
One end of this dine represents the educated variety of English; the other end
represents, among others, Nigerian Pidgin (Bamiro 1991), basilect in Malaysia and
Singapore (Pakir 1991, Lowenberg 1991), and butler English (Hosali & Aitchison
1986). These varieties are not only spoken, they are also used in literature to
characterize various types of interlocutor identities, socioeconomic classes, and
the local cultural ethos.
There is also a functional aspect of this dine, as found most visibly in the
context of outer-circle varieties of English (Quirk et al 1972, Kachru 1983).
Kachru (1983), for example, has identified four functions of English in South Asia:
This content downloaded from
132.174.248.224 on Mon, 06 Jan 2025 22:05:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
532 BHATT
(a) instrumental-English as a medium of learning in e
(b) regulative-English in administrative and legal systems
English as a link language between speakers of mutually u
or dialects in sociolinguistically plural societies, and a
ism and modernization; and (d) imaginative-English
genres.
Linguistic Imperialism or Language Pragmatics
The third phase of English expansion, the second diaspor
ated controversies about the processes and consequences o
English into what clearly were un-English contexts. The r
during the third phase has been explained at least from
not mutually exclusive, perspectives. According to one pe
of English in nonnative contexts was actively promoted,
teaching (ELT) agencies such as the British Council, as
foreign policies of major English-speaking states. This the
linguistic imperialism (Phillipson 1992), argues that Engli
posed by agencies of linguistic coercion, such as the Brit
(Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages),
impose a norm, Standard English, through which is exer
those groups that have both the means of imposing it as
monopoly on the means of appropriating it (cf. also Penny
cordingly, linguistic imperialism results in the emergence,
asymmetric relationship between producers and consumers
natural, normative, and essential and, on the other hand, o
archical) arrangement of languages, pervaded by hegemo
material and symbolic investments, and ideologies that rep
of those in power [for detailed critiques of this perspect
English, see Kibbee (1993), Brutt-Griffler (1998), Davi
(1999)].
The other perspective on the spread of English is the e
proposed by Quirk (1988) and defended in Brutt-Griffler
olution, trade practices, and commercial exploitation of th
early nineteenth-century England created conditions wher
develop as the language of the world market, the "comm
With England and the United States at the epicenter of i
the nineteenth century, it was natural that English became
commerce. Especially after World War II-with the establ
Nations, World Bank, UNESCO, UNICEF, World Health Or
years later, the Commonwealth and the European Union-it
general competence in English in different political, social,
markets would continue to grow rapidly (Mazrui & Mazrui
This content downloaded from
132.174.248.224 on Mon, 06 Jan 2025 22:05:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
WORLD ENGLISHES 533
1998). The success of the spread of English, tied to the economic c
created the commercial supremacy of the United Kingdom and the U
guaranteed under the econocultural model by linguistic pragmatism
imperialism.
The educational system in the colonies was the most important
the reproduction of English symbolic capital because schools1 had
over the reproduction of the market on which the value of linguis
depends (Bourdieu 1977, Goke-Pariola 1993). In colonial South
Africa, where education was the only source for the acquisition of
and apprenticeship into the "fellowships of discourse" (a la Fouca
principal medium of that initiation was English. The recognition of E
bolic capital is most clearly evidenced, for example, in the second
missionary phase-of the spread of English in South Asia, which w
the demand and willingness of local people to learn it (Kachru 198
prising, therefore, that prominent political leaders in colonial Ind
Pariola (1993) reports, Nigerians in many parts of that country, cont
indigenous languages in the schools because it was perceived as den
linguistic capital necessary for the accumulation of both econom
powers.
When the colonizers left, they left behind the linguistic habitus an
market conditions their intervention had created; but their depart
new ecology for the teaching of English in terms of (nonnative) li
local (Indian, Nigerian, etc.) norms, multiple identities, commun
tencies and methodologies that respect language variation.
'It is in schools, argues Giroux (1981, p. 24), that the production of hegem
"hides" behind a number of legitimating forms. Some of the most obviou
claim by dominant classes that their interests represent the entire interests o
(2) the claim that conflict only occurs outside of the sphere of the politic
conflict is viewed as non-political; (3) the presentation of specific forms
beliefs, attitudes, values and practices as natural, universal, or even eterna
2Cultural capital here refers to the "system of meanings, abilities, language f
that are directly or indirectly defined by dominant groups as socially le
1978:496, Bourdieu 1991).
3The function of "the fellowships of discourse" is, according to Foucault (
"to preserve or to reproduce discourse, but in order that it should circulat
community, according to strict regulations, without those in possession b
by this very distribution. An archaic model of this would be those groups
possessing knowledge of poems to recite or, even, upon which to wor
transformations. But though the ultimate object of this knowledge was ri
was protected and preserved within a determinate group by the, often ext
exercises of memory implied by such a process. Apprenticeship gained
group and to a secret which recitation made manifest, but did not divu
speaking and listening were not interchangeable."
This content downloaded from
132.174.248.224 on Mon, 06 Jan 2025 22:05:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
534 BHATT
LANGUAGE NATIVIZATION AND
BILINGUAL'S CREATIVITY
As the English language spread, through linguistic imperialism and linguistic
matism, to nonnative contexts and came into close, protracted contact with
ically and culturally unrelated languages, it went through a process of lin
experimentation and nativization by the people who adopted it for use in
ent functional domains, such as education, administration, and high socie
Kachru 1992a). Nonnative English speakers thus created new, cultural-se
and socially appropriate meanings-expressions of the bilingual's creativi
altering and manipulating the structure and functions of English in its new
As a result, English underwent a process of acculturation in order to com
local linguistic markets that were hitherto dominated by indigenous lan
Given the linguistic and cultural pluralism in Africa and South Asia, lingui
novations, creativity, and emerging literary traditions in English in these co
were immediately accepted.
Linguistic Creativity
To understand the structural variation in English across cultures, two questio
to be answered (Bhatt 1995a): What is the structure of "nonnative" English
how did they come to be the way they are? With respect to these questions,
ning has already been made toward explorations into the structure of oute
varieties of English. Y. Kachru (1985) has provided valuable methodologi
well as theoretical insights into the structure of Indian English discourse. Me
(1992) work on South African Indian English and Bhatt's (1995a,b, 1997,
and Sridhar's (1992) work on Indian English provide a framework for sy
descriptions that has implications for cross-language transfer and bilingu
petence. Mohanan (1992), Chaudhary (1989), Hancin-Bhatt & Bhatt (1993)
Bhatt (1995a,b) have provided accounts of various aspects of the sound pat
of Indian English. The theoretical approaches adopted in all these studie
clear methodological agenda-to describe the structure of a "nonnative" v
in its own terms, not as descriptions of aborted "interlanguages."
Bilingual's creativity in world Englishes, especially in the outer circle,
captured using the methodological premise that a descriptively adequate gr
of English, in "nonnative" contexts, must address the relationship betw
forms that English manifests and its speakers' perception of reality and the
of their cultural institutions. This premise yields an interpretation of langua
constrained by the grammar of culture (cf. Bright 1968, Hymes 1974, D
1988). The theoretical insights in the works of Halliday (1973), Kachru (
Sridhar (1992), and Bhatt (1995a, 2000) provide a framework of linguisti
cription that not only allows the simplest interpretation of English lan
use across cultures, it also accommodates, in the most economical way, lin
cally significant generalizations of the grammatical structure of world En
This content downloaded from
132.174.248.224 on Mon, 06 Jan 2025 22:05:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
WORLD ENGLISHES 535
Consider the use of undifferentiated tag questions in Indian Eng
strate how the theoretical assumptions and methodological insigh
above provide socially realistic descriptions of the bilingual's gra
world Englishes context. In English, tag questions are formed by a ru
a pronominal copy of the subject after an appropriate modal auxil
example is "John said he'll work today, didn't he?"
Tags have also been analyzed as expressing certain attitudes of
toward what is being said in the main clause, and in terms of spee
performatives. Functionally, tags in English behave like epistemic
as probably, presumably, etc.: (a) "It's still dark outside, isn't it?" (b
dark outside."
Kachru (1983, p. 79) and Trudgill & Hannah (1985, p. 111) discuss the use of
what they call undifferentiated tag questions as one of the linguistic exponents of
Indian English: (a) "You are going home soon, isn't it?" (b) "You have taken my
book, isn't it?" Their description, however, leaves out the important pragmatic role
the undifferentiated tags play in the Indian English speech community. In most
cases, the meaning of the tag is not the one appended to the meaning of the main
proposition; it is usually the tag that signals important social meaning. In fact, tags
in Indian English are a fascinating example of how linguistic form (of the tag) is
constrained by cultural constraints of politeness. Bhatt (1995b) has in fact argued
that undifferentiated tags in Indian English are linguistic devices governed by the
politeness principle of nonimposition: They serve positive politeness functions
(a la Brown & Levinson 1987), signaling deference and acquiescence. Notice,
for example, the contrast between Indian English-(a) "You said you'll do the
job, isn't it?" and "They said they will be here, isn't it?"-and Standard British
English/American English-(b) "You said you'll do the job, didn't you? and "They
said they will be here, didn't they?" In contrast to the b examples above, Indian
English speakers find the a examples nonimpositional and mitigating. This intuition
is more clearly established when an adverb of intensification/assertion is used in
conjunction with the undifferentiated tag: (a) "Of course you said you'll do the
job, isn't it?" (b) "Of course they said they'll be here, isn't it?" The result is,
predictably, unacceptable.
In a culture where the verbal behavior is severely constrained, to a large extent,
by politeness regulations, where nonimposition is the essence of polite behavior,
it is not surprising that Indian English has replaced Standard British English tags
with undifferentiated tags. To understand why Indian English has chosen to use the
undifferentiated strategy, the notion of grammar of culture (Bright 1968, D'souza
1988) becomes relevant.
Undifferentiated tags are not exclusive instances of the interplay of grammatical and cultural rules in Indian English, where one finds the linguistic form
constrained by the grammar of culture. The influence of the grammar of culture on linguistic expressions in Indian English can also be seen in the use of
the modal auxiliary "may." In Indian English, "may" is used to express obligation
politely-"This furniture may be removed tomorrow"; "These mistakes may please
This content downloaded from
132.174.248.224 on Mon, 06 Jan 2025 22:05:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
536 BHATT
be corrected"-in contrast to Standard British English-"Th
removed tomorrow"; "These mistakes should be corrected
1985, p. 109).
The linguistic checklist of innovations in the outer-circle
endless. Several studies on linguistic acculturation and crea
outer circle have convincingly demonstrated that world En
syntactic and logical structure, constrained both by cogni
rations and by social-functional requirements (Platt & Web
Sridhar 1992, Mesthrie 1992, 1997, Bokamba 1992, Bhatt 1995a,b, 2000, Bao
1995).
Sociolinguistic Creativity
There is also a sociolinguistic dimension of bilingual creativity, viewed in terms
of acculturation and nativization of the use of English in the outer circle. The
study and analysis of English language use in outer-circle varieties resulted in
the following types of cross-cultural and cross-linguistic research: (a) discourse
analysis, discourse strategies, and stylistic innovations (Richards 1979, Smith
1981, 1987, Gumperz 1982, Magura 1984, Y. Kachru 1985, 1995, 1997, Valentine
1988, 1991); (b) speech acts (Y. Kachru 1991, 1993, D'souza 1988, 1991);
(c) code mixing and code switching (Bhatia & Ritchie 1989, Kamwangamalu
1989, Myers-Scotton 1993a,b, Bhatt 1997); (d) genre analysis (V. Bhatia 1997);
and (e) language planning (Kandiah & Kwan-Terry 1994).
An illustration of the sociolinguistic dimension of bilingual's creativity-the
manipulation of linguistic resources in language use to generate new meanings-is
best exemplified by code switching (style shifting) reported by Mesthrie (1992). A
young South African Indian English-speaking attendant at the security section of
the airport asked him, "You haven' got anything to declare?" Mesthrie argues that
in using the nonacrolectal variety, the security guard at the airport was defusing the
syntax of power ("Do you have anything to declare?") in favor of mesolectal solidarity (Mesthrie 1992, p. 219). Other sociolinguistic functions of code switching
and mixing in world Englishes, such as exclusion, politeness, identity, and elitism,
have been discussed by Kachru (1983) and Myers-Scotton (1993b).
The other face of nativization of sociolinguistic uses of world Englishes is
presented by code mixing in culture-specific interactions, in the news media, in
matrimonial advertisements, in obituaries, and so on. The matrimonial columns
reflect, as Kachru (1986) has convincingly argued, Asian and African sensitivity to
color, caste hierarchy, regional attitudes, and family structure. It is not uncommon,
for instance, to find matrimonial advertisements in South Asian English newspapers using highly contextualized English lexical items with semantic nativization,
as shown in two Hindu examples from 1 July 1979 (Kachru 1986).
Wanted well-settled bridegroom for a Kerala fair, graduate Baradwaja gotram,
Astasastram girl .... Subsect no bar.
This content downloaded from
132.174.248.224 on Mon, 06 Jan 2025 22:05:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
WORLD ENGLISHES 537
Non-Koundanya well qualified prospective bridegroom below
Iyengar girl, daughter of engineer. Mirugaserusham. No dos
complexion. Reply with horoscope.
The rhetorical-communicative styles of South Asian English,
examples, show that both the text and the context must be nativize
rive an interpretation that is faithful to the new situations in which
function. Furthermore, the successful, contextually appropriate
the above examples requires bilingual as well as bicultural comp
The cross-cultural attitudes about the forms and functions of
show a cline: from acquisitional deficit to pragmatic success. On
attitudinal cline are the linguistic Cassandras, members of the in
1990, 1996, Honey 1983, 1997) launching paradigms of marginalit
economic gains (Kachru 1996, Romaine 1997, Bhatt 2001a).
The other end of this attitudinal cline is captured rather faithfu
sation that takes place between a farmer and an Indian in Vikram
Suitable Boy.
"Do you speak English?" he said after a while in the local di
He had noticed Maan's luggage tag.
"Yes," said Maan.
"Without English you can't do anything," said the farmer sagely.
Maan wondered what possible use English could be to the farmer.
"What use is English?" said Maan.
"People love English!" said the farmer with a strange sort of deep-voiced
giggle. "If you talk in English, you are a king. The more people you can
mystify, the more people will respect you." He turned back to his tobacco.
But, what about the attitude toward nativization by nonnative speakers? Here
the venerable Chinua Achebe (1966, p. 22) sums it up most eloquently: "I feel the
English language will be able to carry the weight of my African experience. But
it will have to be a new English, still in communion with its ancestral home but
altered to suit its new African surroundings."
Achebe's observation about the appropriateness of indiginized varieties of English for articulating linguistic voices in nonnative contexts is supported by the
results of empirical investigations on attitudes of nonnative speakers toward exocentric (native) and endocentric (nonnative) models (Llamzon 1969, Bamgbose
1971, Sey 1973, Kachru 1976).
Literary Creativity and Canonicity
The nativization and alteration of English ensured its use as a medium for indige-
nous expression. As Iyengar (1962, p. 3) puts it: "Indian writing in English is
but one of the voices in which India speaks. It is a new voice, no doubt, but it is
as much Indian as the others." These endorsements of the relationship between
underlying thought patterns and language design are perhaps best exemplified by
This content downloaded from
132.174.248.224 on Mon, 06 Jan 2025 22:05:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
538 BHATT
Achebe (1969). Achebe provides two short passages of th
written in the indiginized/Africanized style and the other
In the passage, the Chief Priest is telling one of his sons
send him to Church. The first of the two passages below,
(Achebe 1969), reflects faithfully the underlying thought
context of language use.
1. I want one of my sons to join these people and be my
is nothing in it you will come back. But if there is s
will bring back my share. The world is like a mask,
to see it well, you do not stand in one place. My spiri
who do not befriend the white man today will be say
tomorrow.
2. I am sending you as my representative among these people-just to be on
the safe side in case the new religion develops. One has to move with the
times or else one is left behind. I have a hunch that those who fail to come
to terms with the white man may well regret their lack of foresight.
An analysis of these new/indigenous varieties reveal that the innovations in their
structure and use are, as discussed above, a linguistic response to the constraints of
the grammar of their respective native cultures (Bright 1968, D'souza 1987). It is in
these new Englishes, as Achebe ably demonstrates, that we observe today the most
active processes of a bilingual's creativity: translation, transcreation, style shifting,
code switching, etc. (Bhatia & Ritchie 1989, Bhatt 1997, Bokamba 1992, Kachru
1983, 1986, 1992a, 1994, Y. Kachru 1993, Lowenberg 1988, Mesthrie 1992, Smith
1981, 1987, Sridhar 1992, Thumboo 1992, Baumgardner 1993, 1996). English is
used as a medium to present canons unrelated to traditional Judeo-Christian associations or the European cultural heritage of the language. Thus, the English
language has become "multicanon" (Kachru 1991), a notion that attempts to accommodate the current sociolinguistic reality in world Englishes, where speakers of a wide range of first languages communicate with one another through
English.
THE SACRED COWS OF ENGLISH
The global spread of English, its diffusion and penetration at vari
levels and functional domains, has had a very important consequen
the traditional, taken-for-granted linguistic understandings of user
English have been questioned and challenged (Kachru 1988). A sustai
campaign for a non-Eurocentric approach to the study of world Eng
in the sacrifice of five types of sacred cows: the acquisitional, soc
pedagogical, theoretical, and the ideological.
This content downloaded from
132.174.248.224 on Mon, 06 Jan 2025 22:05:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
WORLD ENGLISHES 539
Acquisitional Sacred Cow
Acquisitional questions relate to the relevance of concepts such
error, interlanguage, and fossilization, to the users and uses of
outer circle. As discussed in the previous section, the use of undi
questions by Indian English speakers is not a reflex of incomple
fossilized interlanguage, but a manifestation of a steady-state cult
English in outer-circle contexts.
Fossilization theory, a non-target language stage, suffers from
of what Bley-Vroman (1983) terms a comparative fallacy. Comp
refers to the researcher imposing the structure of the target lang
terlanguage. Several scholars have argued, rather convincingly, th
of the interlanguage at various stages should be considered on its
from the structural perspective of the target language (cf. Bley
White 1989, 1996, Schwartz 1995, Schwartz & Sprouse 1996, Srid
Schwartz (1995, p. 8) puts it: "If there's one thing we often know
Interlanguages, it's that they don't have the structure of the tar
why such a fuss about the syntax of the target language...." Howe
(1972, 1993) interlanguage theory, there can be no talk of fossilizati
erence to such constructs as target language, native speakers, and
1989, 1991). These constructs, although invalid for acquisitional a
native varieties, perform an ideological function; the constructs
of thought" that normalizes and universalizes a paradigm of lingui
privileges "knowledge of language" in the possession only of nati
Theoretical Sacred Cow
The theoretical concerns relate to three vital concepts: the speech community,
the native speaker, and the ideal speaker-hearer. The conceptualization of speech
community varies from Bloomfield's definition ("a speech community is a group
of people who interact by means of speech") to the rather complex definitions of
John Gumperz and Robert Le Page (Hudson 1980, pp. 25-30; see also Silverstein
1996a).
The standard definition of a second language is one that is acquired in an envi-
ronment in which the language is spoken natively (Larsen-Freeman & Long 1991).
This definition completely marginalizes the empirical fact that more second language acquisition takes place in "nonnative" contexts than in "native" contexts (cf.
Ferguson 1982, Sridhar 1994). The native/nonnative distinctions, Bhatt (2001a,b)
argues, get validated by the kind of intellectual imperialism whereby a particular
model of language, possessed by "an ideal native speaker-hearer in a completely
homogeneous speech community" (a la Chomsky 1986) assumes a paradigmatic
status in the linguistic sciences as a whole (see also Silverstein 1996b). This idealization produces "the illusion of linguistic communism" and ignores and trivializes
the sociohistorical and economic conditions that have established a particular set
This content downloaded from
132.174.248.224 on Mon, 06 Jan 2025 22:05:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
540 BHATT
of linguistic practices as dominant and legitimate. The voi
ignored. Paikeday's (1985) all too familiar conclusion abou
of the term native speaker is conveniently ignored:
I am convinced that "native speaker" in the sense of th
maticality or one whose intuitions of a proprietary na
mother tongue and which are shared only by others of h
propagated by linguists, that the true meaning of the l
is a proficient user of a specified language, and that
all contexts in which linguists, anthropologists, psycho
others use it, except when it directly refers to the speak
first-acquired language without any assumptions about
competence.
In the context of world Englishes, the codification of th
tinction in standard textbooks universalizes its legitimacy
success of Standard English ideology. And at the same t
excludes the oppositional discourse (Rampton 1990, Sridh
Pedagogical Sacred Cow
The research in the past two decades has clearly demons
glishes have their own structural norms, their own characte
their own communicative styles (e.g., see Bailey & Gorla
1983, 1986, Mesthrie 1992, Smith 1987, Trudgill & Hann
pedagogical paradigms-methods, models, and material
sensitivity to local sociolinguistic contexts.
Should the inner-circle norm be the model for teaching
contexts, or should it be the local variety? The theoretical r
is discussed by Savignon & Berns (1984), Tickoo (1991
Smith (1992), and Kachru (1992a). Their views entail a ra
(classroom) resources, (teacher) training, and (teaching)
perhaps antidogmatic in ESL pedagogical practices, is the
ticing socially realistic and contextually sensitive pedagog
Sociolinguistic Sacred Cow
The sociolinguistic concerns relate to the issue of "pluri
the various national, regional, and local identities English
of language contact and change. The most important outc
Kachru (1988) argues, has been the demythologization of
canon and the establishment of new canons with their own
cultural identities.
Ideological Sacred Cow
The teaching of English, with the entire framework and institutions that support
it worldwide, is a critical site where the dominant ideology, Standard English,
This content downloaded from
132.174.248.224 on Mon, 06 Jan 2025 22:05:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
WORLD ENGLISHES 541
TABLE 2 Labels used to symbolize the power of Englisha
Positive Negative
National identity Antinationalism
Literary renaissance Anti-native culture
Cultural mirror (for native cultures) Materialism
Vehicle for modernization Vehicle for Westernization
Liberalism Rootlessness
Universalism Ethnocentricism
Secularism Permissiveness
Technology Divisiveness
Science
Alienation
Mobility Colonialism
Access code
aFrom Kachru (1996, p. 142).
is constantly evolving and continuously bargaining with regional ideologies
power (Dua 1994). As a language that conveniently disregards the essent
circumstantial, random relationships between itself and the universe, the domin
ideology must present itself as possessing some kind of inherent, inevitable tie w
the value it represents. In so doing, subjects of a society are actively taught to be
that the adoption of ideology can bring about social changes for their benefit. T
are works of many scholars, such as Quirk (1990, 1996), Honey (1983, 1997), a
Medgyes (1992, 1994), that illustrate how English language teaching in outer-ci
contexts is surreptitiously forced to serve to inculcate only the culture, ideolo
and social relations necessary to promote and sustain the status quo.
This ideological landscape is changing now as outer-circle varieties compe
for functional domains that belonged exclusively to inner-circle varieties. T
ideological and symbolic power of English in outer circle has two sides, posit
and negative, as shown in Table 2.
TEACHING WORLD ENGLISHES: CRITICAL ISSUES
Codification and Standard English Ideology
The standardization of English has allowed the interpretation of sociolin
educational, and acquisitional problems as consequences of liberal linguist
ing, general grammatical ignorance, and other similar contraventions o
linguistic norms. Conforming to these norms, e.g., Standard English, then
the solution to the problems (cf. Quirk 1988, 1990, 1996). The success of
ization depends largely on the ideological strategies and rhetorical operat
to devalue indigenous (nonnative) varieties against the standard (native)
This content downloaded from
132.174.248.224 on Mon, 06 Jan 2025 22:05:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
542 BHATT
It is the function of the (Standard English) ideology th
recognizes "ambilingualism" as the goal of second languag
tion" as the ultimate fate of second language learners, an
variety spoken by nonnative speakers. These constructs
language, fossilization-provide a habit of thought. Soon a
they are understood as mathematical axioms, above debate
are not propositions to be defended or attacked (cf. Bha
1996). The assumptions form part of the "tacit dimensi
standing. In reality, however, these assumptions consecra
privilege. Even where learners meet the criterion of functi
dichotomies such as proficiency/competence and standard
by the profession and then used as an alibi for maintaining
disguised with concerns over intelligibility among the En
(Bhatt 1995a, 2001b, Kachru & Nelson 1996, Lippi-Green
thus confined to lifelong apprenticeship in the second lan
for sociolinguistic emancipation (Tollefson 1991, 1995).
The system of ideological management-the strategic an
required to manage language variation (Bhatt 2001b)-
theoretical-methodological constructs, such as native/nonna
dard, fossilization/ultimate attainment, and target langua
to naturalize and essentialize homogenization and standa
of the management paradigm manifests in different form
izations, especially among the ELT professionals (cf. Hon
Johnson 1992, Medgyes 1992, 1994). The common strateg
professionals to manage and minimize language variation
fortunate outcome of liberal pedagogy and liberation lin
locks second language learners to substandard use of En
The liberation ideology confronts and competes with t
English ideology and produces competing sets of "value
ating strong pressure in favor of the nonstandard-langua
1993, 1996). These nonstandard varieties are marginalize
the lexicographers, and the teachers-the agents of ling
for two reasons: (a) The recognition of language variation
Milroy (1999) argue, the ideological link between "gramm
(b) the standard language can continue to function as the
exerted the domination of those groups that have both t
as legitimate and the monopoly on the means of appropri
The recent debate on Ebonics and the politics of digloss
(Pullum 1997, Rickford 1997), often polemical, bear testi
the Standard English ideology.
Communicative Competence and Intelligibility
The traditional monotheistic methodologies used for teac
fail to honor the range of social functions and identities
ries out in diverse sociocultural contexts. Second language
This content downloaded from
132.174.248.224 on Mon, 06 Jan 2025 22:05:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
WORLD ENGLISHES 543
must, therefore, be culture sensitive, as perhaps is the case with the
as ethnography of communication (Hymes 1974, 1996). The key
approach is communicative competence, the "appropriate" use of
duct. What is appropriate for a situation in one culture may not
culture. It is important, then, that learning, teaching, and using wo
quire familiarization with not only the conversational context but
sociocultural context in which the utterance is located (Bers 199
agogical paradigms, with their monolingual and monocultural bia
(cf. Sridhar 1994, Y. Kachru 1994).
The linguistic realization of different speech acts-greeting, leav
plimenting, requesting-in Indian or Zambian English is quite dif
American or British English (D'souza 1991, Y. Kachru 1991,
models of teaching and learning need therefore to reflect the so
of the context of teaching/learning, which has wide implications
second language pedagogy and for its application (McKay & Hom
Another issue, connected to the issue of communicative compet
intelligibility. The issue touches the very core of the debatable dis
language and dialect, that, over time, different dialects of Eng
mutually unintelligible. Quirk (1985, p. 3), for example, writes
of English into several mutually incomprehensible languages." F
p. 6), all English-using nations must accede to "a form of Englis
understood and respected in every corer of the globe where any
any variety of English exists."
Nelson (1984, 1995), Smith & Nelson (1985), and Smith (199
against the monolithic view of intelligibility and have argued ins
ter understanding of this concept is revealed in its use as a con
intelligibility (word/utterance recognition) to comprehensibility
meaning; locutionary force) to interpretability (meaning behind
illocutionary force). "Understanding," an interactional concept in
lowest at the level of intelligibility and highest at the level of in
There are, for instance, several examples of English text that are
gible and comprehensible but not necessarily interpretable. The m
amples, discussed above, from the vantagepoint of the inner cir
the level of interpretability. Smith (1988, p. 274) forcefully argue
to what is being taught to students from grammar textbooks, "in
at the core of communication and is more important than mere
comprehensibility."
CONCLUSIONS
This essay focused on the theoretical, conceptual, descriptive, ideo
power-related concerns of world Englishes. The rise of a tribal langu
language in a millennium dominated by Latin and, later, French, the
intellectual expression and cultural erudition, is unprecedented. So
This content downloaded from
132.174.248.224 on Mon, 06 Jan 2025 22:05:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
544 BHATT
inquiries into this unprecedented spread of the English
significant understandings of the linguistic processes and
contact and language change. There is more awareness tod
use interacts with global economic, demographic, and cul
(1997) provocative survey of the future of English show
language use: English is increasingly required for high-sk
the world; it is the most widely studied foreign language;
programming and yet its functions in youth culture are m
municative; its share of internet traffic is declining; and i
in many countries is challenged by regional economics.
The historical, sociolinguistic, and ideological accounts
hegemony of Standard English within the world Englishes
a broader understanding of the social and discursive rela
within) speech communities, the institutional acquisition
resources, and the relationship between language and syst
subordination (Phillipson 1992, Parakrama 1995, Pennyco
& Verschueren 1998, Bhatt 2001a,b, Ramanathan 1999, S
Woolard 1985, Woolard & Schieffelin 1994).
The interdisciplinary theoretical and methodological f
Englishes has provided an understanding of the productiv
cultural studies and English studies. Literary creativity
Dissanayake (1985) argues, is able to reappropriate and re
course that had come under the influence of regimes of co
Finally, the pedagogical concerns in world Englishes p
Kachru & Nelson (1996), an insightful understanding of
tween linguistic and language-teaching theory, methodo
Second language curriculum, testing procedures, and reso
constructed after careful study of variation, and the pragma
fective second language pedagogy (McKay & Horberger 1
Davidson 1993).
In conclusion, then, the field of world Englishes reevalu
places the earlier tradition of cross-cultural and cross-ling
of English, its teaching, and its transformations. World En
bitious interpretation, attempts to decolonize and democra
Visit the Annual Reviews home page at www.AnnualR
LITERATURE CITED
Achebe C. 1966. Things Fall Apart. London: tion: analyzing cultural and eco
Heinemann duction. Harvard Educ. Rev. 48:495-503
Achebe C. 1969. Arrow of God. New York: Baile
Doubleday a World Language. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich.
Apple M. 1978. The new sociology of educa- Press
This content downloaded from
132.174.248.224 on Mon, 06 Jan 2025 22:05:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
WORLD ENGLISHES 545
Bamgbose A. 1971. The English language
System. Cambridge,
in
UK: Cambridge Univ.
Nigeria. In The English Language in Press
Africa,
ed. J Spencer, pp. 35-48. London:Bley-Vroman
LongmanR. 1983. The comparative fallacy
interlanguage studies: the case of systemBamgbose A. 1982. Standard NigerianinEnglish:
issues and identification. See Kachruaticity.
1982,Lang. Learn. 33:1-17
pp. 99-111
Bamgbose A, Banjo A, Thomas A, eds. 1995.
New Englishes: A West African Perspective.
Ibadan, Nigeria: Mosuro
Blommaert J, Verschueren J. 1998. Debating
Diversity. New York: Routledge
Bokamba EG. 1992. The Africanization of
English. See Kachru 1992b, pp. 125-47
Bamiro E. 1991. Nigerian Englishes in Nigerian
English literature. World Engl. 10:7-17
Bourdieu P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Prac
Bao ZM. 1995. 'Already' in Singapore English.
World Engl. 14:181-88
Baumgardner R. 1993. The English Language
in Pakistan. Karachi, Pakistan: Oxford Univ.
Bourdieu P. 1991. Language and Symbolic
Press
Baumgardner R, ed. 1996. South Asian English:
Structure, Use, and Users. Urbana: Univ. Ill.
Press
Bautista M, ed. 1997. English is an Asian
tice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
Bright W. 1968. Toward a cultural grammar
Indian Ling. 29:20-29
Brown P, Levinson S. 1987. Politeness: Some
Universals in Language. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge Univ. Press
Brutt-Griffler J. 1998. The development of
English as an international language: a the-
Language: The Philippine Context. Sydney,
ory of world language. PhD thesis. Ohio
Aust.: Macquarie Libr.
State Univ., Columbus, Ohio, 237 pp.
Bems M. 1990. Contexts of Competence: Social Burchfield R, ed. 1994. The Cambridge History
and Cultural Considerations in Communicaof the English Language, Vol. 5. Cambridge,
tive Language Teaching. New York: Plenum UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Bhatia TK, Ritchie W, eds. 1989. Symposium
Canagarajah AS. 1993. Critical ethnography
on constraints on code-switching. World of a Sri Lankan classroom: ambiguities in
Engl. 15:261-439
student opposition to reproduction through
Bhatia V, ed. 1997. Genre analysis and world ESOL. TESOL Q. 27:601-26
Englishes. World Engl. 16(3):313-426
Canagarajah AS. 1996. "Nondiscursive" reBhatt RM. 1995a. Prescriptivism, creativity, quirements in academic publishing, material
and world Englishes. World Engl. 14:247-60 resources of periphery scholars, and the polBhatt RM. 1995b. The uprooted, the inden- itics of knowledge production. Writ. Comtured, and the segregated: South African mun. 13:435-72
Indian English. J. Pidgin Creole Lang. Canagarajah AS. 1999. Resisting Linguistic Im10:381-96
perialism in English Teaching. Oxford, UK:
Oxford Univ. Press
Bhatt RM. 1997. Code-switching, constraints,
and optimal grammars. Lingua 102:223-51
Chaudhary S. 1989. Some Aspects of the
Bhatt RM. 2000. Optimal expressions in Indian
Phonology of Indian English. Ranchi, India:
English. Engl. Lang. Linguist. 4:69-95
Jayaswal
Bhatt RM. 2001a. Language economy, stanCheshire J, ed. 1991. English Around the
dardization, and world Englishes. In The
World: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. CamThree Circles of English, ed. E Thumboo.
bridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Singapore: Univ. Press. In press
Chisimba M. 1984. African varieties of EnBhatt RM. 2001b. Venerable Experts and Vulglish: text in context. PhD thesis. Univ. Illinerable Dialects: Discourse ofMarginalizanois, Urbana-Champaign. 214 pp.
tion in ESL and ELT. Urbana Univ. Ill. Ms
Bickerton D. 1975. Dynamic of a Creole
Chisimba M. 1991. Southern Africa. See
Cheshire 1991, pp. 435-45
This content downloaded from
132.174.248.224 on Mon, 06 Jan 2025 22:05:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
546 BHATT
AM Sheridan
Smith. New York: Pantheon
Chomsky N. 1986. Knowledge of
Language.
New York: Praeger
Books
Giroux HA. 1981.
Ideology, Culture, and the
Crystal D. 1985. How many millions?
The
ofSchooling.
Philadelphia, PA: Temstatistics of English today. Engl.Process
Today
1:7-9
Univ. Press
Crystal D. 1995. The Cambridge ple
Encyclopedia
Goke-Pariola UK:
A. 1993. Language and symbolic
of the English Language. Cambridge,
power: Bourdieu and the legacy of EuroCambridge Univ. Press
American colonialism in an African society.
Crystal D. 1997. English as a GlobalLanguage.
Lang.
Commun. 13:219-34
Cambridge. UK: Cambridge Univ.
Press
Gorlach
M. 1991.
Englishes: Studies in VarieDavidson F. 1993. Testing English
across
culof English.
tures: summary and comments. ties
World
Engl.Amsterdam: John Benjamins
12:113-25
Graddol D. 1997. The Future of English? London: Br. Counc.
Davies A. 1989. Is international English an inGumperz JJ. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Camterlanguage? TESOL Q. 23:447-67
bridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Davies A. 1991. The Native Speaker in Applied
Halliday MAK. 1973. Explorations in the FuncLinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ.
Press
tions of Language. London: Arnold
Davies A. 1996. Ironising the myth of lin- Hancin-Bhatt BJ, Bhatt RM. 1993. On the na-
guicism. J. Multilin. Multicult. Dev. 17:
487-96
ture of LI filter and cross language transfer
effects. In New Sounds'92, ed. J Leather, A
pp. 18-28. Amsterdam: Univ. Amst.
Deniere M. 1993. Democratizing English as James,
an
Honey JRS. 1983. The Language Trap. Sussex,
international language. World Engl. 12:169UK: Natl. Counc. Educ. Stand.
78
Dissanayake W. 1985. Towards a decolonized
English: South Asian creativity in fiction.
World Engl. 4:233-42
D'souza J. 1987. South Asia as a sociolinguistic area. PhD thesis. Univ. Illinios, Urbana-
Champaign. 242 pp.
D'souza J. 1988. Interactional strategies in
South Asian languages: their implications for
teaching English internationally. World Engl.
Honey JRS. 1997. Language Is Power. London:
Faber & Faber
Hosali P, Aitchison J. 1986. Butler English:
a minimal pidgin? J. Pidgin Creole Lang.
1:51-79
Hudson R. 1980. Sociolinguistics. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Hymes D. 1974. Foundations of Sociolinguistics. An Ethnographic Approach. Philadel-
7:159-71
phia: Univ. Penn. Press
Hymes D. 1996. Ethnography, Linguistics,
D'souza J. 1991. Speech acts in Indian English
Narrative Inequality. London: Taylor &
fiction. World Engl. 10:307-16
Francis
Dua HR. 1994. The Hegemony of English.
Iyengar KRS. 1962. Indian Writing in English.
Mysore, India: Yashoda
Bombay: Asia Publ. House
Ferguson C. 1982. Foreword. See Kachru 1982,
Johnson H. 1992. Defossilizing. ELTJ. 46:180pp. xii-xvii
Foley J, ed. 1988. New Englishes: The Case
of Singapore. Singapore: Singapore Univ.
89
Kachru BB. 1965. The Indianness in Indian En-
Press
glish. Word 21:391-410
Foley J, Kandiah K, Zhiming B, Gupta AF, Kachru BB. 1976. Models of English for the
third world: white man's linguistic burden or
Alsagoff L, Lick HC. 1998. English in New
language pragmatics? TESOL Q. 10:221-39
Cultural Contexts. Reflections from SingaKachru BB, ed. 1982. The Other Tongue:
pore. Singapore: Oxford Univ. Press
English Across Cultures. Oxford, UK:
Foucault M. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowl-
edge and the Discourse on Language. Transl.
Pergamon
This content downloaded from
132.174.248.224 on Mon, 06 Jan 2025 22:05:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
WORLD ENGLISHES 547
Kachru BB. 1983. The Indianization of En-
Kahane H. 1986. A typology of the prestige lan-
glish: The English Language in India. Delhi: guage. Language 62:495-508
Oxford Univ. Press
Kamwangamalu N. 1989. A selected bibliography of studies on code-mixing and codeswitching. World Engl. 8:433-40
Englishes. London: Pergamon
Kandiah T, Kwan-Terry J, eds. 1994. English
Kachru BB. 1988. The spread of English and and Language Planning: A Southeast Asian
sacred linguistic cows. See Lowenberg 1988,
Contribution. Singapore: Times Acad.
pp. 207-28
Kibbee DA. 1993. Perspective 2. In sympoKachru BB. 1990. World Englishes and applied
sium on linguistic imperialism. World Engl.
12:342-47
linguistics. World Engl. 9:3-20
Kachru BB. 1986. The Alchemy of English: The
Spread, Functions and Models of Non-Native
Kachru BB. 1991. Liberation linguistics and the
Knowles G. 1997. A Cultural History of the En-
Quirk concerns. Engl. Today 25:3-13
Kachru BB. 1992a. The second diaspora of English. See Machan & Scott 1992, pp. 230-52
Kachru BB, ed. 1992b. The Other Tongue. Ur-
glish Language. London: Arnold
Labov W. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns.
bana: Univ. Illinois Press
Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press
Larsen-Freeman D, Long M. 1991. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Re-
Kachru BB. 1994. Englishization and contact search. London: Longman
linguistics. World Engl. 13:135-54
Lippi-Green R. 1994. Accent, standard lanKachru BB. 1996. The paradigms of marginal-guage ideology and discriminatory pretexts
ity. World Engl. 15:241-55
in the courts. Lang. Soc. 23:163-98
Kachru BB. 1997. World Englishes and
Lippi-Green R. 1997. English with an Accent.
English-using communities. Annu. Rev.
London: Routledge
Appl. Linguist. 17:66-87
Llamzon T. 1969. Standard Filipino English.
Kachru BB, Nelson CL. 1996. World Engli- Manila: Ateneo Univ. Press
shes. See McKay & Horberger 1996, pp. Lowenberg PH, 1984. English in the Malay
71-102
Archipelago: nativization and its functions
Kachru BB, Quirk R. 1981. Introduction. Seein a sociolinguistic area. PhD thesis. Univ.
Smith 1981, pp. xiii-xx
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. 216 pp.
Kachru Y. 1985. Discourse analysis, non-native
Lowenberg PH. 1986. Sociolinguistic context
Englishes and second language acquisition
and second language acquisition: acculturresearch. World Engl. 4:223-32
ation and creativity in Malaysian English.
Kachru Y, ed. 1991. Symposium on speech actsWorld Engl. 5:71-83
in world Englishes. World Engl. 10(3):295Lowenberg PH, ed. 1988. Language Spread and
340
Language Policy. Washington, DC: GeorgeKachru Y. 1993. Social meaning and creativ-town Univ. Press
ity in Indian English speech acts. In LanLowenberg PH. 1991. Variation in Malaysian
guage, Communication, and Social MeanEnglish: the pragmatics of language in
ing, ed. JE Alatis, pp. 378-87. Washington,
contact. See Cheshire 1991, pp. 36575
DC: Georgetown Univ. Press
Kachru Y. 1994. Monolingual bias in SLA Lowenberg
rePH. 1992. Testing English as a
search. TESOL Q. 28:795-800
Kachru Y. 1995. Contrastive rhetoric and world
world language: issues in assessing nonnative proficiency. See Kachru 1992b, pp.
108-21
Englishes. Engl. Today 11:21-31
Kachru Y. 1997. Culture and argumentativeMachan T, Scott C, eds. 1992. English in
writing in world Englishes. In World
its Social Contexts: Essays in Historical
Englishes 2000, ed. LE Smith, M Forman, Sociolinguistics. New York: Oxford Univ.
Press
pp. 48-67. Manoa: Univ. Hawaii Press
This content downloaded from
132.174.248.224 on Mon, 06 Jan 2025 22:05:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
548 BHATT
to-Pidgin
continua.
World Engl. 16(2):181Magura B. 1984. Style and meaning
in
South279
ern African English. PhD thesis.
Univ. Ill.,
Urbana-Champaign. 242 pp. Myers-Scotton C. 1993a. Duelling Languages.
Oxford,Black
UK: Clarendon
Magura B. 1985. Southern African
English. World Engl. 4:251-56 Myers-Scotton C. 1993b. Social Motivations
Mazrui A, Mazrui A. 1998. The for
Power
Code-Switching:
of BaEvidence from Africa.
UK: Clarendon
bel: Language and Governance Oxford,
in the
AfriNelson C. 1984.
Intelligibility: the case of noncan Experience. Chicago: Univ.
Chicago
Press
native varieties of English. PhD thesis. Univ.
McArthur T. 1987. The English languages?
Engl. Today, July/Sept:9-11
McArthur T. 1992. The Oxford Companion to
the English Language. Oxford, UK: Oxford
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. 164 pp.
Nelson C. 1992. Bilingual writing for the mono-
lingual reader: blowing up the canon. World
Engl. 11:271-75
Nelson C. 1995. Intelligibility and world
McArthur T. 1993. The English language or Englishes in the classroom. World Engl.
Univ. Press
the English languages? In The English Lan- 14:273-79
guage, ed. WF Bolton, D Crystal, pp. 323- Paikeday TM. 1985. The Native Speaker is
Dead! Toronto: Paikeday
41. London: Penguin
McArthur T. 1998. The English Languages. Pakir A. 1991. The range and depth of EnglishCambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
knowing bilinguals in Singapore. World
McCrum R, Cran W, MacNeil R. 1986. The
Engl. 10:167-79
Parakrama A. 1990. Language and Rebellion:
Story of English. London: Faber & Faber
Discoursive Unities and the Possibility of
McKay S, Hornberger N, eds. 1996. SociolinProtest. London: Katha
guistics in Language Teaching. Cambridge,
Parakrama A. 1995. De-hegemonizing LanUK: Cambridge Univ. Press
guage Standards. London: MacMillan
Medgyes P. 1992. Native or non-native: who's
worth more? ELT J. 46:340-49
Pennycook A. 1994. The Cultural Politics of
Medgyes P. 1994. The Non-native Teacher. English as an International Language. LonLondon: Macmillan
don: Longman
Mesthrie R. 1992. English in Language
Pennycook A. 1998. English and the DisShift. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. courses of Colonialism. London: Routledge
Press
Phillipson R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Ox-
ford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
Mesthrie R. 1997. A sociolinguistic study of
topicalization phenomena in South African Platt J. 1975. The Singapore English speech
continuum and its basilect "Singlish" as a
Black English. In English Around the
World, ed. E Schneider, 119-40. Amsterdam:
Creoloid. Anthropol. Linguist. 17:363-74
Platt J, Weber H. 1980. English in Singapore
Benjamins
and Malaysia: Status, Features, Functions.
Milroy J, Milroy L. 1985. Authority in Language. London: Routledge
Kaula Lampur: Oxford Univ. Press
Platt J, Weber H, Ho ML. 1984. The New
Milroy J, Milroy L. 1999. Authority in Lan-
guage. London: Routledge. 2nd ed.
Mohanan KP. 1992. Describing the phonology
of non-native varieties of a language. World
Englishes. London: Routledge
Pullum GK. 1997. Language that dare not speak
its name. Nature 328:321-22
Engl. 11:111-28
Mufwene S. 1994. New Englishes and the cri-
Quirk R. 1985. The English language in a global
teria for naming them. World Engl. 13:21-
and Learning the Language and Literatures,
31
ed. R Quirk, H Widdowson, pp. 1-6. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Mufwene S, ed. 1997. Symposium on English-
context. In English in the World: Teaching
This content downloaded from
132.174.248.224 on Mon, 06 Jan 2025 22:05:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
WORLD ENGLISHES 549
Quirk R. 1988. The question of standards
ogy,in
ed.the
D Brenneis, RKS Macaulay, pp.
284-306. Boulder, CO: Westview
international use of English. See Lowenberg
1988, pp. 229-41
Singh R, ed. 1995. On new/non-native En-
Quirk R. 1990. Language varieties andglishes.
standard
J. Pragmat. 24:283-333
language. Engl. Today 21:3-10
Singler J. 1997. The configuration of Liberia's
Quirk R. 1996. Grammatical and Lexical
VariEnglishes.
World Engl. 16:205-32
ance in English. London: Longman
Skutnabb-Kangas T. 2000. Linguistic GenoQuirk R, Greenbaum S, Leech G, Svartvik
J.
cide-or Worldwide
Diversity and Human
1972. A Grammar of ContemporaryRights.
English.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
London: Longman
Smith LE, ed. 1981. Englishfor Cross-Cultural
London: Macmillan
Ramanathan V. 1999. "English is here Communication.
to stay":
a critical look at institutional and educa-
Smith LE, ed. 1983. Readings in English as an
tional practices in India. TESOL Q. 33:211International Language. London: Pergamon
31
Smith LE, ed. 1987. Discourse Across Cultures.
Rampton MBH. 1990. Displacing the "native
speaker": expertise, affiliation, and inheritance. ELT J. 44:97-101
Richards J. 1979. Rhetorical and communica-
London: Prentice Hall
Smith LE. 1988. Language spread and issues
of intelligibility. See Lowenberg 1988, pp.
265-82
tive styles in the new varieties of English.
Smith LE. 1992. Spread of English and issues of
intelligibility. See Kachru 1992b, pp. 75-90
Smith LE, Nelson CL. 1985. International
Rickford J. 1997. Commentary: suite for ebony
Lang. Learn. 25:1-25
and phonics. Discover Dec:82-87
intelligibility of English: directions and
Romaine S. 1997. The British heresy in ESL
resources. World Engl. 4:333-42
revisited. In Language and its Ecology, ed.Sridhar
S
SN. 1992. The ecology of bilingual
Eliasson, E Jahr, pp. 417-32. Berlin: Gruytercompetence: language interaction in indiSavignon S, Berns M. 1984. Initiatives in genized varieties of English. World Engl.
Communicative Language Teaching. Read-11:141-50
ing, MA: Addison-Wesley
Sridhar SN. 1994. A reality check for SLA theories. TESOL Q. 28:800-5
Schwartz B. 1995. Transfer andL2A: Where are
we now? Presented at 2nd Lang. Res. Forum,
Strevens P. 1992. English as an internaIthaca, NY
tional language: directions in the 1990s. See
Schwartz B, Sprouse R. 1996. L2 cognitiveKachru 1992b, pp. 27-47
states and the full transfer/full access model.
Thumboo E. 1992. The literary dimension of
Second Lang. Res. 12:40-72
the spread of English. See Kachru 1992b, pp.
255-82
Selinker L. 1972. Interlanguage. Int. Rev. Appl.
Linguist. 10:209-31
Tickoo M, ed. 1991. Language and Standards:
Selinker L. 1993. Rediscovering Interlanguage.Issues, Attitudes, Case Studies. Singapore:
London: Longman
SAEMEO Region. Lang. Cent.
Sey KA. 1973. Ghanian English: An Ex-Tollefson J. 1991. Planning Language, Planploratory Survey. London: Macmillan
ning Inequality: Language Policy in the
Silverstein M. 1996a. Encountering languageCommunity. London: Longman
and languages of encounter in North AmerTollefson J, ed. 1995. Power and Inequality in
ican ethnohistory. J. Linguist. Anthropol.Language Education. Cambridge, UK: Cam6(2):126-44
bridge Univ. Press
Silverstein M. 1996b. Monoglot "standard" in Trudgill P, Hannah J. 1985. International
America: standardization and metaphors of English. London: Arnold
linguistic hegemony. In The Matrix of Lan- Valentine T. 1988. Developing discourse types
guage: Contemporary Linguistic Anthropolin non-native English: strategies of gender
This content downloaded from
132.174.248.224 on Mon, 06 Jan 2025 22:05:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
550 BHATT
in Hindi and Indian English. World
directions. In
Engl.
Handbook of Second Language
7:143-58
Acquisition, ed. W Ritchie, T Bhatia, pp. 85-
120. New York: Academic
Valentine T. 1991. Getting the message across:
discourse markers in Indian English. World
Winford D. 1997. Re-examining Caribbean En-
Engl. 10:325-34
glish creole continua. World Engl. 16:23379
Viswanathan G. 1989. Masks of Conquest:
Literary Study andBritish Rule in India. Woolard
LonK. 1985. Language variation and
don: Faber & Faber
White L. 1989. Universal Grammar and Sec-
cultural hegemony: toward an integration of
sociolinguistic and social theory. Am. Ethnol.
ond Language Acquisition. Amsterdam:12:738-48
Woolard K, Schieffelin B. 1994. Language
Benjamins
White L. 1996. Universal grammar and second
ideology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 23:55language acquisition: current trends and new
82
This content downloaded from
132.174.248.224 on Mon, 06 Jan 2025 22:05:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms