Analysis of Kachru's Concentric Circles

Basarally

806007430

LING 6402

 Name: Hassan Basarally I.D.: 806007430 Course Name: World Englishes Course Code: LING 6402 Lecturer: Dr. Ferreira University: University of the West Indies, St. Augustine. Semester and Year: Semester 2, 2009-2010 Assignment: Critically evaluate and analyse Kachru's Three-Circle model for varieties of  English around the world. You may consider including a comparison comparison and contrast with any other available model, or you may propose your own. Date Due: 22/03/2010

1

Basarally

806007430

LING 6402

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. However, there remained the connotation of linguistic superiority of the Englishes in the model’s core a nd the  boundaries used did not reflect the accurate state of the varieties contained. 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. 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

2

Basarally

806007430

LING 6402

 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 (See Figure 1). 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 d ifferent 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. In addition, it shows how English is acquired and used instead of in historical and genetic terms (Crystal, 60).

Figure1: Kachru’s Concentric Circles Kachru’s three-circle model was accepted for years as the most accurate representation of the spread of the English language. The aim of the model was to demonstrate the pluralistic reality of the language and show that English changes as it spreads. This acknowledgement of diversity sought to change the use of models that

3

Basarally

806007430

LING 6402

utilised family trees and chronological models. The chronological and biological models were hierarchical as English from Britain was at the centre and failed to distinguish native and non-native English. Additionally, “the chronological models tend to depict language change as implicitly a sequences of boxes or rungs, while the biological models tend to depict it explicitly through tree diagrams and an imagery of femaleness and fertility” (McArthur, 98). These representations fell short as the sociolinguistic reality was ignored. 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. Kachru’s model promotes what Rajadurai calls “WE-ness” as the different types of English are part of the same circle (113). The model also aims to refute the notion that the Outer Circle, previously viewed as ESL, was marked by fossilisation and the development of interlanguage. Fossilisation and interlanguage are terms that relate to second language acquisition. Fossilisation is continued use of grammatical structures that are incorrect, the continued use of such structures is a result of the learner not being cognitively able to use the correct structure. Interlanguage is the speech of the learner that has grammatical mistakes; this is viewed as a state that the learner arrives at before moving on to native-like performance an d competence. Instead, Kachru proposed that such Englishes were indigenised. This meant that no one group owned English but it was owned by those who spoke it. According to Kilickaya (36), Quirk suggested the use of “native norms and native –like performance and stressed the need to uphold one common standard” in the Outer and Expanding

4

Basarally

806007430

LING 6402

Circles of Kachru’s model. For Kachru, speech norms and registers were irrelevant to the sociolinguistic reality of the English speaker in the Outer Circle becau se the language would have generally been acquired in an educational setting so a standard from the Inner  Circle would have already been employed. Differences from the standards of Inner Circle Englishes were not errors but representative of learning English in a multilingual environment. An example used by Kilickaya is the modal auxiliarymay in Indian English. The sentence: These mistakes may please be corrected, is as a result of   politeness not fossilisation (36). Kachru saw variation as differences not deficits because localised varieties of English were used for communication amongst non-native English speakers and English is used to impart local culture not only that of the Inner Circle (Jenkins, 67). Despite attempting to show English as not specific to a particular region or group, Kachru’s model received some of the same criticism of earlier models. A major area of  contention was the connotation involved with the composition of the Inner Circle. The Inner Circle includes the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Historically, these nations were colonising powers responsible for the transportation of English to every continent. Kachru describes the Inner Circle as norm providing, the Outer Circle as normdeveloping and the Expanding Circle as norm accepting (Rajadurai, 112). The concept of  the Expanding Circle being norm dependant has been called into question by Canagarajah. English is used as a lingua franca in this circle and would produce its own norms and “multilingual speakers do not seem to defer to inner-circle norms when they communicate with each other in English” (232). Also, in the Expanding circles, the

5

Basarally

806007430

LING 6402

 proficiency in English is near native so there is no need to accept norms. This terminology, combined with the fact that many ESL texts are produced from such countries, gives prestige to the Inner Circle Englishes which defeats the purpose of  designing a new model of English. Rajadurai identifies some further weaknesses in Kachru’s concept of the development of norms. Firstly, the division of norm-providing and accepting reinforces connotations of divisiveness and superiority. It is also noted that the other circles “have developed their own standards that not only provide norms for internal consumption but are also ‘exported’ to other countries” (116). Examples are seen in the number of ESL teachers that are not from the Inner Circle, literature in English from authors like Achebe and Desai and the production of texts on Indian English. This supports Canagarajah’s view that the circles are leaking, the boundaries neither contain nor prevent penetration  by other Englishes. The positioning of the Inner Circle in the centre means that the norm producers are defined by geography not proficiency. This means that the boundaries between the circles cannot be well defined. Canagarajah describes this reality as having circles that are ‘leaking’ (231). Due to the circles being mainly geographical, globalisation caused a movement of English speakers throughout the circles. Companies from the Inner Circle transact business with the other Circles; as a result, knowledge of other Englishes is important to organisational efficiency. Canagarajah also disputes the assumption that English is used “solely for extra community relations” in the expanding circle (232). Also, the Expanding and Outer Circles appear apart from the Inner Circle; therefore, one can see the diversity of English but not the commonality.

6

Basarally

806007430

LING 6402

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  posses the best norms. This is a problematic criterion becau se 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 (12). The Englishes present in each circle is clear but how it is used is not. For example, English is not confined to trade and communication in the Expanding Circle. Neither is the Inner Circle Englishes the same in grammar, vocabulary and syntax, if this were so there would be no point in differentiating them. As the model implies that the co untries in each circle are the same, it does not account for the linguistic variation that actually occurs. 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

7

Basarally

806007430

LING 6402

and foreign language, the third circle comprises of English learners and the last circle consists of people who do not know English (See Figure 2). The mode l 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.

Figure 2: Modiano’s Centripetal Circles English as an International Language (EIL), which is in the centre of Modiano’s model, is based on proficiency alone. As English is a globally functioning language its centre cannot be limited to a particular place or group. The centre does not only include native English speakers. The question of norms is also addressed; Kachru placed the  production of norms with the centre or Inner Circle which consists of native English speakers. Instead Modiano legitimises Outer Circle Englishes to a greater ex tent by having non-native speakers of EIL define and develop norms (Burt, 4). The model also  provides a clear place for Creoles in the second circle. In this circle, Creole speakers are on par with speakers of other Englishes, even from Kachru’s Inner Circle. Simultaneously, Creoles are not in the centre because it is understood by mainly other  8

Basarally

806007430

LING 6402

Creole speakers. It also is allows movement from the Ou ter Circle to the Inner one through the learning of EIL. Despite Modiano’s work on improving Kachru’s model, some q uestions still remain. Firstly there is the problem of defining some assertions made by Modiano. In light of the democratic stance of English ownership, a linguistic feature “is correct only if  it is used and understood by the majority of proficient speakers of EIL” (Burt, 4). This would exclude English speakers with strong regional accents. It would mean that there cannot be varieties of EIL, but what will classify as a strong accent is left unanswered. Modiano redrafted the model which highlighted the common core of all varieties of  English as the centre. Jenkins notes that the question of what goes into the core remains unanswered (23). There is no clear definition of proficiency either, Richardson quotes Modiano who defines proficiency as “common sense and intuition” (21). Hence, what consists of the core or EIL is still uncertain. The equating of proficient non-native speakers with native ones is inappropriate as knowledge of a language does not equate to native performance. The greater emphasis on diversity by Modiano seems to make describing EIL difficult, without regularity of  features it would be difficult to legitimise it. The model was criticised for maintaining an ideal in the form of EIL. The conclusion can therefore be made that any model would always include an ideal as a reference point. The question therefore is whether to have an ideal based on nativeness and geography or one based on proficiency. Modiano’s model shows English as an international/global/ world language so proficiency must be used as a centre as is least discriminatory.

9

Basarally

806007430

LING 6402

Kachru’s model of the spread of the English was a significant to the sociolinguistic development of the English language. The model succeeded in creating awareness of the existence of other Englishes as distinct varieties instead of incomplete attempts to learn the language. Its weaknesses in the indirect prestige given to the Eurocentric varieties of English and lack of fluidity between circles were answered by Modiano. However, while Modiano creates a more egalitarian model and sets clearer  criteria for the placement of Englishes, the important definitions of EIL a nd core features of English remain to be clarified.

Works Cited Burt, Channing. “What is International English?” Working Papers in TESOL and Applied   Linguistics 5.1 (2005): 1-19 Web. 15 Mar. 2010. Canagarajah, Suresh. “Changing Communicative Needs, Revised Assessment Objectives: Testing English as an International Language.” Language Assessment Quarterly 3.3 (2006): 9-20 Web. 17 Mar. 2010.

10

Basarally

806007430

LING 6402

Crystal, David. English as a Global Language. 2nd. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge U P, 2003. Print. Jenkins, Jennifer. World Englishes: A Resource Book for Students. 2nd. ed. London: Routledge, 2009. Print. Kilickaya, Ferit. “World Englishes, English as an International Language and Applied Linguistics.” CCSE  2.1 (2006): 229-242 Web. 17 Mar. 2010. McArthur, Tom. The English Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge U P, 1998. Print. Rajadurai, Joanne. “Revisiting the Concentric Circles: Conceptual and Sociolinguistic Considerations.” The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly 7.4 (2005): 111-130 Web. 11 Mar. 2010. Richardson, Bunny. “The Potential Use of Slow Down Technology to Improve Pronunciation of English for International Communication.” Diss. Dublin Institute of Technology, 2009. Web. 1 Mar. 2010.

11

Basarally

806007430

12

LING 6402