Approaches to Englishes

The English language has spread to every continent of the world and as a result, non-native English speakers outnumber native ones today. With this, the language has undergone changes that are still being investigated in the field of linguistics, the main one being the existence of Englishes as opposed to a single standard variety. Attempts have been made to describe the spread of the language with various models. Each model proposed reflected different approaches to defining English as a global language and its relationship with its speakers who come from diverse geographical and linguistic backgrounds. Braj Kachru proposed a model of three concentric circles that showed the diversity of English, differentiated between native and non-native Englishes and legitimised non-native Englishes as distinct varieties.

The model of English proposed by Kachru consisted of three concentric circles: Inner Circle, Outer Circle and Expanding Circle. The amount of speakers in the Inner and Outer Circles are both estimated at 37 million and the Expanding Circle at 750-1000 million according to Graddol (2000). Inner Circle Englishes in the model refer to the traditional centres of the language or the colonising nations that spread the language to different territories, here English is the first or native language. The Outer Circle is populated by the colonised territories in which English is a second or non-native language and used in different functional domains, such as government, and the Expanding Circle includes all nations that use English as a foreign language. The definition of native English speakers used is persons who learnt English at a young age and use it consistently as a means of communication in different spheres of life, i.e. social, professional or academic. The model is marked by the fact that there is no standard worldwide English and its shows the diffusion of English from its traditional centres as a language that is intra-national and has international varieties. However, there remained the connotation of linguistic superiority of the Englishes in the model’s core and the boundaries used did not reflect the accurate state of the varieties contained.

Traditionally, there was the division of English as a Native Language (ENL), English as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL). In Kachru’s model, ENL was replaced by the Inner Circle, ESL by the Outer Circle and EFL by the Expanding Circle.

In addition, linguistic superiority is conferred to the ENL speakers in the Inner circle. Members of the Inner Circle are presumed to speak English from an early age and possess the best norms. This is a problematic criterion because there are members of Kachru’s core with non-native English populations. For example, the United Kingdom is listed in the core but in this single territory there is Gaelic and Scots in Scotland, Welsh in Wales and also some Gaelic speakers in Northern Ireland. Hence, the Inner Circle is not as homogenous as it seems. A more appropriate criterion instead of nativeness can be functional nativeness, which would lean towards proficiency. Richardson also doubts the clear-cut production and acceptance of norms. The majority of English speakers today do not come from the Inner Circle, so international communication would involve non-native speakers that would produce new norms.

In light of the weaknesses of Kachru’s model, attempts were made to develop one that more accurately represented the sociolinguistic reality of the spread of English; Modiano’s model comes close to doing this. Modiano developed a centripetal instead of concentric model. This model is not determined by geography or nativeness but by proficiency. The innermost circle consists of those who are proficient in English as an International Language (EIL), the next circle is of those proficient in English as a native and foreign language, the third circle comprises of English learners and the last circle consists of people who do not know English.

The model does not differ drastically for the three concentric circles as it rejects notions of prestige, promotes the diversity of English and gives a geopolitical view of the spread of the language. It also addresses some of the major concerns about the Kachru’s model: the concept of norms, connotations of prestige, identification of the use \of English in each circle and the issue of nativeness. Marko Modiano developed an alternative to fill some of the gaps in the three concentric circles. The centripetal model placed in its core proficiency and was able to accommodate movement within the model. However, many key definitions required development, native and non-native speakers were put on par in determining linguistic norms and it also maintained some connotations of a prestige variety.