The English Umbrella: Model of a Multicultural Language System
Judith S. Yoneoka
Kumamoto Gakuen University
ABSTRACT
Kachru’s three concentric circles of English are accepted as a standard ontology for
defining and categorizing world Englishes into Inner Circle (=native), Outer Circle (=ESL) and
Expanding Circle (=EFL) varieties. However, the sociopolitical agenda of the world Englishes
paradigm is at odds with the concentric circle ontology for several reasons: (1) the terminology
implies the ethnocentricity of native Englishes; (2) the lack of infrastructure precludes delineation
of the varieties in their own right; and (3) the paradigm lacks fluidity.
The model presented here, based on the image of an umbrella, avoids the misconceptions
inherent in the concentric circles framework. The five major components of this model are the
umbrella (1) handle=core English; (2) spokes=communication network and support systems; (3)
tips=English varieties, (4) fabric covering=background sociocultural systems, and (5) top=an
idealized ”standard” English. Advantages of the umbrella model over the concentric circles are that
it is egalitarian, flexible, generic and dynamic.
Keywords: English varieties, world Englishes, concentric circles, ethnocentricity, core English
Page 1 of 20
The English Umbrella: Model of a Multicultural Language System
Judith S. Yoneoka
Kumamoto Gakuen University
1.
Introduction
The questions "whose English?" and "how many Englishes?" have been kicked around in
both ESL and applied linguistics circles for several years now, leading to fruitful eye-opening and
reevaluation of concepts such as native/non-native English (e.g. Nayar 1994), standard/nonstandard English (e.g. Strevens 1992), dialects and varieties. Kachru’s three concentric circles of
English have come to be accepted as a standard ontology for defining and categorizing Englishes
into Inner Circle (=native), Outer Circle (=English as a Second Language) and Expanding Circle
(=English as a Foreign Language) varieties.
In the process of the debate, both major native varieties of English and the English
Language Teaching (ELT) world in general have been accused of a subtle brand of linguistic
imperialism, which has resulted in increased pleas and requests for acknowledgement of "different
Englishes" as varieties in their own right. These trends are welcome to those who would support an
ecology-of-language paradigm with its tenets of multilingualism, human rights, equality,
maintenance of languages and cultures and promotion of foreign language education over a
basically monolingual, imperialistic diffusion-of English paradigm (see Tsuda 1994).
However, the sociopolitical agenda of the world Englishes paradigm is at odds with the concentric
circle view of Englishes for several reasons. If we take the concentric circle terminology at face
value, we imagine a model such as Fig. 1, with circles that are actually concentric; i.e., they have
Page 2 of 20
The English Umbrella: Model of a Multicultural Language System
Judith S. Yoneoka
Kumamoto Gakuen University
the same center; nested in the order of Inner, Outer and Expanding.1 However, the fact that
“native” Englishes are in the center circle emphasizes the very problem the world Englishes
movement would like to avoid: ethnocentricity of native Englishes, and especially of the ELT
empire. As language shares an intrinsic and unavoidable connection with culture, the centrality of
the native English languages in the concentric circles paradigm implies the centrality of native
English cultures as well. In addition, the terms "inner" and “outer” themselves have a
discriminatory undertone and again, imply the very linguistic elitism we wish to avoid.
Fig. 2 shows a recent revision (Kachru 1997:213) of the circles diagram, an
arrangement which would be more aptly termed “overlapping” than “concentric”. This
arrangement does much to alleviate the ethnocentricity problem, but the terminology remains.
Expanding
circle
Outer circle
Inner circle
Fig. 1 General Interpretation of Concentric Circles Terminology
Page 3 of 20
The English Umbrella: Model of a Multicultural Language System
Judith S. Yoneoka
Kumamoto Gakuen University
Fig. 2 Kachru’s Concentric (=Overlapping) Circles of English (from Kachru 1997: 213)
The concentric circles paradigm also lacks fluidity. Although the overlapping portions of
each circle allow for a certain amount of fuzziness, the lack of openendedness implies that each
circle is unchanging and uninfluenced by other circles and by the world outside the circles. This, of
course, does not reflect the case in the real world.
This problem of fluidity was partially addressed by Graddol’s (1997:10) addition of arrows
into the circles as follows:
Page 4 of 20
The English Umbrella: Model of a Multicultural Language System
Judith S. Yoneoka
Kumamoto Gakuen University
750 million EFL speakers
375 million L2
(ESL)
speakers
375 million L1
(native) speakers
Fig. 3 Graddol’s adaptation of Kachru’s concentric circles (1997: 10)
Here, we have an optimistic (for the ELT world) model that allows second and foreign English
varieties “accessibility” (via arrows) to a privileged native English status. The accessibility
however is a one-way street, implying that language policy planners would never dream of
“demoting” the status of English in their countries (although this is undoubtedly happening in
places such as Myanmar and Malaysia), nor could they do so even if they wanted to.2
The third difficulty of the paradigm lies in the lack of relationship within the three circles.
Lumped together in three classifications, there is no infrastructure, nothing to delineate the varieties
in their own right and give them individual recognition and attention. We have no framework
which might serve to organize the varieties along linguistic, historical, cultural, or geographical
lines, or according to any other criteria we might wish to choose.
Page 5 of 20
The English Umbrella: Model of a Multicultural Language System
Judith S. Yoneoka
Kumamoto Gakuen University
Thus, neither Kachru’s concentric circles paradigm nor Graddol’s refined version do much
to help break down stereotypical beliefs and values regarding relationships between "older" and
"newer" varieties on one hand, and among the various newer varieties on the other.
With the acceptance of the validity of "new" varieties of English, a door has been opened
to a veritable treasure chest of linguistic and cross-cultural opportunities that cry out to be taken.
But before this can happen, newer Englishes need to be viewed on an egalitarian footing with more
established varieties of English within an ontological framework which supports such equality.
This paper attempts to propose such a framework.
2. The umbrella model
The model described in this paper, based on the image of an umbrella (cf. Fig. 4), should serve
to clear up misconceptions inherent in the concentric circles framework. The five major
components of this model are as follows:3
(4) the fabric covering=background sociocultural systems
(5) the top=an idealized ”standard” English
(2) the tips=English varieties
(3) the spokes=communications network
(1) the handle=core “easy” English
Page 6 of 20
The English Umbrella: Model of a Multicultural Language System
Judith S. Yoneoka
Kumamoto Gakuen University
Fig. 4 The English Umbrella
The first component, (1) the central stem or core, represents a basic “easy” English (not a
variety), in itself insufficient as a linguistic entity and certainly of no use as an umbrella, which is
the unmistakable supporting mainframe of the entire system. This central stem not only houses the
linguistic structure and lexis that make the language system unique from any other, but also serves
as a sort of central processing unit, actively organizing and reorganizing the language based on
every bit of input received.
The English varieties (native, ESL and EFL alike) are located at (2) the tips of the umbrella.
They connect to the centralized core via (3) the spokes, which form the framework of the whole
system--feeding the Englishes and drawing from them, and breathing activity, life and the essence
of change back into the evolving core. Upon these spokes lies (4) a fabric continuum of global
sociocultural systems, all interconnected. Here we find all the aspects of society that may affect
language—economics, values, family structure, education, and technological development, to name
a few—as well as linguistic aspects of each variety. A special variety, recognized by major
academics and other leaders around the world as “standard”, lies at the very top of the umbrella.
The whole system functions dynamically, affected both by sociological elements and the
cultural interplay of the ecosystem. The Englishes derive their life from the entire system and feed
information back into it through the spokes, and thus are the major propellants of linguistic change.
Whether acrolects or basolects, standardized or not, each variety is a channel into realities of world
Page 7 of 20
The English Umbrella: Model of a Multicultural Language System
Judith S. Yoneoka
Kumamoto Gakuen University
cultures and societies – and bearers of linguistic innovations that feed into the core to be
redistributed to corner varieties far off at the other side of the umbrella.
In the following, the structures, roles and functions of each of the four components of the
umbrella metaphor will be discussed in detail.
2.1 The handle: a core English Central Processing Unit
When we want to grasp an umbrella, we do so by catching on to the handle. Likewise,
would-be learners of English start by latching on to its “easiest” elements—a basic lexicon and
syntax and a generalized set of phonemes. These elements may be characterized as forming the
lowest regions of the English handle, the part that learners will grab on to first, and may be roughly
compared to “core English” as defined by Nayar (1994) — an "abstraction of all the varieties".
However, this set of basic English elements should not be in any way confused with terms such
as standard, educational, or native. (This distinction will be clarified later in 2.5.) Nor should it
even be considered a stable set of data or facts, but rather a specialized subset of items common to
all varieties of English. In and of itself, it is not a variety, but is supportive of all varieties.
At the heart of the present discussion is the simple question “What is English?” For the
purposes of this paper, we define English as whatever anyone produces when they sincerely believe
they are using English for communicative purposes, assuming that it is understandable as English
to other members of their linguistic community. This working definition includes much of what
Page 8 of 20
The English Umbrella: Model of a Multicultural Language System
Judith S. Yoneoka
Kumamoto Gakuen University
may be considered non-standard or non-grammatical English, but excludes English-like words and
phrases used for decorative purposes or to fill up space on a page.
With such a broad definition of English, the contents of this core English abstraction of
varieties must indeed be abstract. Grammatical eccentricities such as 3rd person singular 's' would
be excluded, of course, as well as articles and tenses. Vocabulary would have to be common to all
of the present English-using cultures of the world (this would certainly exclude most technical
vocabulary, but might even omit words such as world wide web and electric guitar). It cannot
include some word spellings — for if it does, it will have to concede to variety-based variants. It
most certainly cannot contain specific accents or intonations, although a few universally-used
phonemes (some consonants for example) would be included. Thus, core English is indeed an
abstraction, barely definable, definitely unteachable.
Perhaps core English is more effectively represented in terms of parameters and switches
rather than lists and rules. Lexical and grammatical items would be emic in most linguistic senses –
phonemic, sememic, graphemic. Thus, for core English to become an actual working language for
real users, variety-dependent variables would be introduced into the parameters, to be filled by one
or more “allic” (allophonic, allographic, allosyntactic, etc.) possibilities.
These variety-dependent variables include everything that cannot be specified in the core
abstraction: spelling variations, culture-based vocabulary, phonetic and prosodic patterns, and most
grammar rules, but not only these. Discourse features and communication patterns, gestures,
Page 9 of 20
The English Umbrella: Model of a Multicultural Language System
Judith S. Yoneoka
Kumamoto Gakuen University
societal mores and values, religious concerns and group practices – all of these have their place in
determining the content and character of an identity-based English.
Who owns this core English? Who cares for it? There are two answers to these questions:
everybody, and nobody. As Kachru says “Who owns English? If you can use it, you own it”
(Weeks 1996). On the other hand, no single person or body of people can ever hope to grasp all the
possible variations of what people refer to as English. Thus in this sense, it is impossible for
anyone to own.
2.2 The tips: English varieties
On the rim of the English language umbrella are the varieties of the English system. They
include native varieties, such as British or Australian, ESL varieties like Singaporean and Indian
English, and myriad EFL varieties. Each variety represents a culture, living and growing around,
through and into the language, while being simultaneously affected by other cultures around it.
The English varieties too, mingle with their neighbors and melanges are produced between tips.
How many tips are there? This depends on how one wants to define a variety, which in turn
may depend on one’s personal sociocultural and political agenda. Indeed, the answer can be
anywhere from 2 (British and US) to 2 billion or more, if one includes idiolects and specific usages
(such as medical or test English). The working definition of “variety” used in this paper is similar
to a dialect (and indeed includes dialects). The difference between the two however is in the
Page 10 of 20
The English Umbrella: Model of a Multicultural Language System
Judith S. Yoneoka
Kumamoto Gakuen University
concept of “identity” and its scope—dialects have regional, racial or social identity, whereas
varieties may also have a national or international identity. Through the use of a variety, a common
identity is established and manifests itself in terms of at least three factors: phonological patterns,
grammatical variations and culture-specific vocabulary.
The definition presented here is sufficiently broad to include social and regional dialects,
even passing ones such as Valspeak4, as well as national and even international kinds of English.
On the other hand, it excludes both idiolects (as there is no group to identify with) and the majority
of specific usages, which usually do not show significant phonological or grammatical variation.
Even so, the question of how many tips (=how many Englishes) remains unanswerable in
numerical terms. The best that can be said is this: there are as many tips as there are groups of
human beings that identify their fellow members on the basis of phonological, lexical, and
grammatical similarities in the way they produce and interpret English.
2.3 The spokes: Arteries of the language system
Some varieties at the tips of the umbrella may seem to differ from each other in quite
astounding ways, and even be construed as mutually unintelligible. Even so, they are all
interrelated both historically and socially. They are all attached to the same core; they all
contribute new input into the core. The vehicles of this interconnectedness are the spokes.
Page 11 of 20
The English Umbrella: Model of a Multicultural Language System
Judith S. Yoneoka
Kumamoto Gakuen University
Likewise, most English varieties are connected to other sociolinguistic entities beyond the
English umbrella system; i.e., the other dialects or languages used by their speakers that shape and
provide the English with its unique identity. The number and strength of connections differs with
the variety: standard British and US English may have no strong connections (although they do
have weak ones); Korean English has one; Singaporean English has at least three (Malay, Chinese
and Tamil).
Through these points of connection, English dictionaries have swelled beyond imagination
with the linguistic treasures of cultures around the world. From Japanese alone, we find words that
have been imported throughout the centuries, from hibachi to karaoke, karoshi to honcho. From
these outside connections and via the channels provided by the spokes, the core CPU is continually
working to import, register and store neoligisms from its many sources, and to export them to other
English varieties across the umbrella.
2.4 The covering: A network of cultures
Imagine an umbrella without a fabric covering — useless, exactly like a language stripped of its
cloak of cultural and social milieu. The sociocultural background of a language (or language
system) is multifaceted, woven in extremely intricate patterns and colors of race, religion,
socioeconomic position, climate, history, and all of the other elements that make up a society.
Page 12 of 20
The English Umbrella: Model of a Multicultural Language System
Judith S. Yoneoka
Kumamoto Gakuen University
This interwovenness implies that some varieties will be closer to each other in some ways and
farther in others, which of course reflects the case in reality. Such similarities and differences are
quite easy to represent in terms of this model. If we liken the umbrella covering (as seen from
above) to a template for a simple pie graph, we can easily create patterns for any criterion by which
we might want to describe, delineate or classify the varieties.
NA
5%
inner
18%
outer
18%
expan
ding
64%
EURO
PE
27%
ASIA
41%
OTHE
R
23%
US
36%
AFRIC
SA
OZ 9%
A
9%
9%
U.1
BRITI
SH
41%
U.2
/ , /
23%
/s,z/
27%
/t,d/
50%
U.3
U.4
Fig. 5 Four umbrella pie charts (U.1—Kachru’s circles; U.2—Geography; U.3 Educational
model; U.4—Allophonic representations of /  ,  /
In Fig. 5, Umbrella 1 shows a subset of varieties5 classified in terms of Kachru’s concentric
circles. We have the same information that was available in the original circles, but here it is
organized in a manner that is unbiased towards any one group. In addition, the “nativicity” of the
variety is treated as a single facet, no more intrinsically important than any other. Umbrella 2
classifies the same subset of varieties according to continent, giving us some geographical
background. Umbrella 3 shows a cultural feature of each variety—whether its educational model is
British English, US English, both or neither. Finally, Umbrella 4 is a representation of one
Page 13 of 20
The English Umbrella: Model of a Multicultural Language System
Judith S. Yoneoka
Kumamoto Gakuen University
linguistic feature of the varieties—that of the set of allophones used to represent the phonemes /  ,
/.
It is an easy matter to locate a single variety on each of these pie charts. For example, Fig. 6
shows the locations of Malaysian English (as spoken by “Jenny” in Yoneoka and Arimoto 2000, pp.
79-82) on the various umbrellas.
MALAY
inner
outer
OTHER
NA
SIA
SIA
/s,z/
EUR
OPE
ASIA
expan
ding
BRITISH
US
MALA
YSIA
U.1
MALAY
AFRI
CA
SA
/,/
/t,d/
Malay
sia
OZ
U.2
U.3
U.4
Fig. 6 Four umbrella pie charts showing the position of Malaysian English
Finally, we can put all of these umbrella charts together, like transparencies on an OHP,
line them up with respect to single variety, and create a detailed sociolinguistic portrait of the
variety (see Fig. 7, arranged with respect to Malaysian English). It is impossible to imagine how
one could even begin to accomplish such a task in a concentric circles framework, and herein lies
the power of the umbrella model.
Malaysian English
MALA
YSIA
MALAY MALAY
Malay
SIA
outer
sia
SIA
NA
OTHER
EUR
OPE
BRITISH
/s,z/
ASIA
inner
/t,d/
/,/
expan
ding
AFRI
Page 14 of
SA 20
CA
US
OZ
The English Umbrella: Model of a Multicultural Language System
Judith S. Yoneoka
Kumamoto Gakuen University
Fig 7. The Malaysian English sector of the English umbrella6
2.5
The top: an idealized "standard" English
The question "What is standard English?" is a sticky one, fraught with ideological pitfalls
and imperialistic overtones. Nevertheless, it is pointless to argue that "standard" English does not
or even should not exist: clearly, the need for a broadly-agreed upon norm that is definable,
comprehensible, categorizable and testable is preferable to an international linguistic free-for-all.
The key however is that this standard should be broadly agreed upon by representatives from all
English-using communities, not just those in the inner circle. In addition, like the core English
handle, it should be considered un “unreal” variety, an idealization or abstraction.
The standard should be clearly accessible to all varieties. Variables in the core English
should be filled with units that are comprehensible and replicable for a majority of tip varieties.
This may mean adapting elements not generally found in native Englishes: e.g. syllable-based
intonation patterns (as in many Asian Englishes), a simplified spelling system, reduction of
specialized idiomatic expressions, etc. As always, the question of conservation vs. clarity will
come into play when defining a standard, as well as flexibility.
It should be stressed that, like the tip on an umbrella keeping the fabric in place and
serving as a stand so that the umbrella does not fall over, a standard too may be most useful if the
system is in danger of collapse, i.e. if communication within the system is breaking down. If
Page 15 of 20
The English Umbrella: Model of a Multicultural Language System
Judith S. Yoneoka
Kumamoto Gakuen University
everything is working well, its function may be little more than decorative. In addition, neither
the tip of the umbrella or the standard English is the best or most important part of the overall
system.
Finishing up the analogy, it may be pointed out (so to speak) that the tip is also the most
dangerous part of an umbrella for those on the outside, and that many have been injured by
wayward jabs. Thus, it is important to avoid the use of a standard as a weapon, which may easily
poke holes and destroy the integrity of other languages or language systems.
3. Conclusions
The umbrella model differs from Kachru’s concentric circles in several critical ways. First and
foremost, it is egalitarian. There is no implied “better” or “original” variety, and the burden and joy
of owning, learning, teaching and maintaining the core and “standard” Englishes is distributed
equally throughout the English-speaking world.
Secondly, it is flexible. It accounts for relationships among varieties as well as with various
aspects of the culture and society, but does not intrinsically bind the varieties to those aspects.
Relationships between language and power, for example, are regarded as extrinsic. Thus a shift in
world power, such as the world economy shift predicted by Graddol (Fig. 8) will not alter the status
of the members of the English umbrella system itself.
Page 16 of 20
The English Umbrella: Model of a Multicultural Language System
Judith S. Yoneoka
Kumamoto Gakuen University
World wealth in 1990
Rest
24%
Asia
21%
Big
three
55%
World wealth in2050 (projected)
Rest
28%
Big
three
12%
Asia
60%
Fig. 8 World economy power shift predicted by Graddol (1997:29, his Figs. 21, 22)
Thirdly, the umbrella model is generic. The model can support not only a multicultural system
of English, but any such system. We can easily create similar models for French, Spanish, Chinese
and Arabic, for example, to name a few.
Finally, it is dynamic. Mechanisms are in place to explain linguistic shift and borrowing
between varieties, both directly through language contact (i.e. via the covering) and indirectly via
universally-available references such as multicultural dictionaries (available from the core, via the
spokes).
Academically, the model provides a framework for descriptive analysis of any aspect of any
variety with respect to other varieties. Pedagogically, it implies that localized English taught by
local teachers is valid, although it also binds schools, governments and institutions to make sure
that their students know the “allic” variations they may require for communication with speakers of
Page 17 of 20
The English Umbrella: Model of a Multicultural Language System
Judith S. Yoneoka
Kumamoto Gakuen University
other varieties. Using this model, teachers can assess the needs of their students and choose to
teach the varieties that will address those needs best.
In conclusion, the image of the umbrella supports the concept of English as an integrated
language system. According to Graddol (1997:59), the next 50 years may see the establishment of
several such integrated systems (Chinese, Hindi, Arabic, etc.) each having their own
internationally-based sphere of power. Future studies many include terminology such as World
Arabics and American Chinese. We may further imagine umbrella “clusters” of several systems,
all with their own working cores and yet all interconnected at the spokes and tips.
A final astonishing prediction by Graddol (1997:59) is that the number of world languages
will decrease from 8000 now to a mere 1000 in the next 50 years. It is difficult to imagine how the
world can prevent this mass linguistic suicide. However, under the umbrella cover, one might even
imagine a world where single languages, rather than being doomed to extinction, will actually be
encouraged to maintain and promote their culture and heritage by joining a language system that
respects their own identity.
Notes
1
It is assumed that this is Kachru’s original conception of the paradigm, although I have not seen an
actual diagram in this format. The terminology has been in use at least since Kachru 1985, but the
circles themselves are already overlapping rather than concentric by Kachru 1988.
2
Naturally this problem could be remedied easily with bidirectional arrows.
3
The author is highly indebted to one anonymous reviewer who suggested that the umbrella top be
considered “standard” English. This analogy seems highly appropriate, as “standard” English is
Page 18 of 20
The English Umbrella: Model of a Multicultural Language System
Judith S. Yoneoka
Kumamoto Gakuen University
arguably the “highest” level of core English, a unique acrolectic entity which derives from all varieties
and is owned by none.
4
Valspeak is a teenage dialect of English that sprung up in the San Fernando Valley, Los Angeles, in the
early 1980s and was popularized by Moon Zappa in the 1982 hit song “Valley Girl”.
5
The charts here represent actual data from the 22 varieties used in Yoneoka and Arimoto 2000. They
are: US, UK, Japan, Korea, Germany, Tanzania, Peru, Myanmar, China, New Zealand, Bangladesh,
Turkey, France, Philippines, Italy, Brazil, Thailand, Tunisia, Romania, Malaysia, Israel, and Australia.
6
As spoken by "Jenny" in Yoneoka & Arimoto 2000, Chapter 19, pp. 79-82.
References
Graddol, D. (1997) The future of English? London: British Council.
Kachru, B.B. (1985) Standards, Codification and Sociolinguistic Realism: the
English Language in the Outer Circle. In Randolph Quirk and H.G Widdowson (1985)
English in the World. Teaching and Learning the Language and the Literature.
Cambridge: CUP/British Council. 11-30.
Kachru, B.B. (1988) The Sacred Cows of English. English Today, 16, p. 3-8.
Kachru, B.B. (1986) The alchemy of English: The spread, functions and models of non-native
Englishes. Oxford: Pergammon Press.
Kachru, B.B. (1992) Models for Non-Native Englishes. In Kachru, B. (ed.) The Other Tongue:
English across Cultures, 2nd Ed. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, p.
48-74.
Kachru, B.B. (1997) World Englishes 2000: Resources for Research and Teaching. In Smith
and Forman, eds, World Englishes: Selected Essays, Vol. 14, University of Hawaii, pp.
209-251.
Nayar, P.B. (1994) Whose English is it? TESL E-J 1:1, available http://www.kyotosu.ac.jp/information/tesl-ej/f.1.html
Strevens, P. (1992) English as an International Language. In Kachru, B. (ed.), The Other
Tongue: English across Cultures, 2nd Ed. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois
Press.
Page 19 of 20
The English Umbrella: Model of a Multicultural Language System
Judith S. Yoneoka
Kumamoto Gakuen University
Tsuda, Y. (1994) The diffusion of English: Its impact on culture and communication. Keio
Communication Review 16: 49-61.
Weeks, S. (1996) English Runs Wild, Boston: Worldpaper, available
http://www.worldpaper.com/Archivewp/1996/July1996/weeks.html.
Yoneoka, J. and Arimoto, J. (2000) Englishes of the World, Tokyo: Sanshusha.
Page 20 of 20