c:/wengtmp/weng078.

3d 13/2/98 12:12 tm/mp

World Englishes, Vol 17, No. 1, pp. 114, 1998.

08832919

Torn between the norms: innovations in world Englishes

AYO BAMGBOSE*

INTRODUCTION

Just over a decade ago, at the conference held in London to mark the 50th anniversary of
the British Council, there was a battle royal on Standard English as a norm for the Englishusing world. On opposing sides were two `four-star generals' in English language scholarship: Lord Randolph Quirk and Professor Braj Kachru. The spill-over from the initial
encounter continued in skirmishes on the pages of English Today, with such terminology as
`liberation linguistics,' `deficit linguistics' and alliterative catch phrases like `Quirk concern,' `Kachru catch' (Quirk, 1985, 1990; Kachru, 1985, 1991; Abbott, 1991) hurled like
guided missiles from the opposing camps. Thanks to the weighty arguments produced not
only by the principal actors but also by several contributors to the debate, the issues
involved have been considerably clarified. Today, few serious scholars of the English
language will insist that a non-native English is used only in a narrow range of domains,
that it is a transitional and unstable code striving for perfection, that its continued
encouragement and use will lead to linguistic fragmentation and/or deterioration of the
English language, or that only native English is a suitable model for all English language
users.1
In spite of the consensus on the viability of non-native Englishes, there are issues that
still remain unsettled. These include the status of innovations in the nativization process,
the continued use of native norms as a point of reference, the ambivalence between
recognition and acceptance of non-native norms, the adequacy of pedagogical models, and
the overriding need for codification. Underlying these issues is the constant pull between
native and non-native English norms. Innovations in non-native Englishes are often
judged not for what they are or their function within the varieties in which they occur,
but rather according to how they stand in relation to the norms of native Englishes. To this
extent, it is no exaggeration to say that these innovations are torn between two sets of
norms. The purpose of this paper is to address the issues just outlined, especially as they
relate to actualizing the use of non-native Englishes as an endonormative standard in ESL
countries.2
INNOVATIONS AND NORMS

A non-native English situation is basically an innovative situation involving certain wellknown processes of nativization. Although attention is usually focused on linguistic
nativization, no less important are pragmatic and creative nativization which are more
difficult to ignore in determining the communicative competence of speakers in the
sociocultural setting of language use (Bamgbose, 1995). The main question that arises

*Department of Linguistics, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria.

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1998, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

c:/wengtmp/weng078.3d 13/2/98 12:13 tm/mp

Ayo Bamgbose

with innovations is the need to decide when an observed feature of language use is indeed
an innovation and when it is simply an error. An innovation is seen as an acceptable
variant, while an error is simply a mistake or uneducated usage. If innovations are seen as
errors, a non-native variety can never receive any recognition, for example, the following
statement about English in Ghana calls into question the very existence of Ghanaian
English, since some of the features stigmatized are possible variations typical of that
variety of English:
English in Ghana is very ill. The cancerous tumors are countless: wrong collocation; false
concord; poor spelling due to unfamiliarity with the word or to mispronunciation; inability to
handle the third person singular in particular the tenses generally; wrong omission or insertion of
articles; misuse of prepositions; errors arising from mother-tongue interference; paucity of
vocabulary, etc. (Gyasi, 1990: 24).

Also writing about Nigerian English, Jowitt (1991: 47) says that `the usage of every
Nigerian user of English is a mixture of Standard forms and Popular Nigerian forms,
which are in turn composed of errors and variants.' Here, there is at least an acceptance
that there are legitimate variants, but even these are contrasted with standard (i.e.,
Standard British English) forms, and some of the so-called errors are in all probability
features of nativization. The point then is that there is often an indeterminacy between
what counts as an innovation and what is to be regarded as an error. How is this
indeterminacy to be resolved? There are two possible lines of action: an appeal may be
made to an external standard or the decision may be based entirely on internal factors.
The most readily available and often-invoked external criterion is an appeal to norms in
native English. This takes the form of reference to a dictionary, a grammar or pronunciation manual, or to the intuition of a native speaker. Much is wrong with an appeal to
external norms. There is not just one norm, but a series of norms, even in the same
community; and some norms even cut across communities and languages. In an earlier
paper (Bamgbose, 1987: 105), I defined a language norm as `a standard language form or

practice that serves

as a reference point for other language forms or practices' and
proceeded to recognize three types of norms.3
ii(i) Code norm: A standard variety of a language or a language selected from a group of
languages and allocated for official or national purposes.
i(ii) Feature norm: Any typical property of spoken or written language at whatever level (e.g.,
phonetic, phonological, morphological, syntactic, orthographic, etc.) and the rules that go
with its production or use.
(iii) Behavioral norm: The set of conventions that go with speaking including expected patterns of
behavior while interacting with others, the mode of interpreting what is said and attitudes in
general to others' manner of speaking.

Of these three norm types, the one frequently appealed to is the feature norm, and this is
largely because nativization is often narrowly construed as predominantly linguistic. The
fact, however, is that linguistic nativization is only one of the processes of indigenizing a
non-native variety of English. Equally important are pragmatic and creative nativization
both of which fall largely within the scope of behavioral norms. An appeal to behavioral
norms in native English is entirely useless in determining what is appropriate and what is
not in a non-native English, since the very existence of non-native behavioral norms is one
of the defining characteristics of a non-native variety of English. For example, how can
one advise a West African speaker of non-native English not to say Sorry to someone who
A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1998

c:/wengtmp/weng078.3d 13/2/98 12:13 tm/mp

Torn between the norms: innovations in world Englishes

sneezes or trips and falls? Or that she should address a gathering of elders as Ladies and
Gentlemen instead of My dear fathers and mothers? Or to stop using culture-induced
expressions such as go-slow (traffic jam), arrangee (illegal foreign currency dealer), not on
seat (not as his/her desk)? To give such advice is to diminish communicative competence in
the appropriate variety of English, which includes the ability to understand and perhaps
use such expressions.
Even in the case of feature norms, which is the domain of linguistic nativization, an
appeal to an external standard, though possible, is also inappropriate because it presupposes the transfer of a code norm. Besides, to insist on native-variety feature norms is
also to negate the very existence of non-native varieties, since many of the linguistic
features likely to be stigmatized by comparison with native English are indexical markers
of the non-native varieties. Each variety has its own norms and, in any case, why should a
native-variety-based standard continue to license the norms of non-native Englishes?
INTERNAL MEASURES OF INNOVATION

Five major internal factors are available for deciding on the status of an innovation.
These are: demographic, geographical, authoritative, codification, and acceptability
factors. They can be captured in the following set of questions: How many people use
the innovation? How widely dispersed is it? Who uses it? Where is the usage sanctioned?
What is the attitude of users and non-users to it?
Since the demographic factor concerns numbers, the question immediately arises: which
speakers? In most non-native Englishes, there are at least three levels of competence:
basilectal, mesolectal and acrolectal. An innovation may be a basilectal or mesolectal
feature and may be very popular. Should it therefore be accepted in the acrolect, which is
the most plausible candidate for an endonormative standard?4 If a census of usage in
Nigerian English is taken, it will probably be found that the vast majority of speakers use
such expressions as I cannot be able to go, Should in case you are tired, I don't mind to go,
You are suppose to know better, Don't aks me that (= `Don't ask me that' ). In spite of this
advantage of numbers, such expressions are likely to be stigmatized as non-standard, since
their occurrence in the acrolectal variety is virtually nil. In talking about demography,
therefore, we are really looking at the numbers of users of a form in the acrolectal variety.
The larger the number of users in this variety, the higher the chances of the form being
accepted as an innovation.
The geographical factor relates to the spread of an innovation. Is it restricted to a part of
the country or is it becoming widespread, irrespective of first language background? To
those who subscribe to the view that native Englishes are interference varieties, what is
often labeled Indian English or Nigerian English is nothing more than an abstraction from
individual first-language varieties such as Hindi English, Marathi English, Kashmiri
English, Telugu English in the case of India, and Hausa English, Yoruba, Igbo English,
Edo English, Efik English, etc., in the case of Nigeria. The existence of features that cut
across these language backgrounds and geographical areas which has been amply
demonstrated in the literature (see Kachru, 1994; Bamgbose, 1971, 1992; Bokamba,
1992; Jibril, 1982; Banjo 1993) is strong evidence that native Englishes are not merely
interference varieties but institutionalized varieties with strong standardizing tendencies.
The greater the geographical spread of an innovation, therefore, the higher is its
acceptance as a standard form.
A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1998

c:/wengtmp/weng078.3d 13/2/98 12:13 tm/mp

Ayo Bamgbose

I use codification in the restricted sense of putting the innovation into a written form in a
grammar, a lexical or pronouncing dictionary, course books or any other type of reference
manual. It is, of course, to be expected that such codification may be followed or preceded
by various steps of diffusion. Such steps will include: an awareness of the innovation, its
evaluation such that favorable attitudes towards it may be created, proficiency in the use of
the innovation, and actual use of it, which is a significant measure of its adoption (Cooper,
1989: 6162). The importance of codification is too obvious to be belabored. As will be
shown later, one of the major factors militating against the emergence of endonormative
standards in non-native Englishes is precisely the dearth of codification. Obviously, once a
usage or innovation enters the dictionary as correct and acceptable usage, its status as a
regular form is assured.
The authoritative factor relates to the actual use or approval of use of an innovation by
writers, teachers, media practitioners, examination bodies, publishing houses, and influential opinion leaders. Although this factor can also be considered an aspect of codification (since the result of codification is also the bringing into existence of an authority), I
would like to separate the two factors because codification can be programmed and
controlled, and its influence is pervasive and does not depend on attitudes or persuasion.
In general, a codification manual is one that we turn to as an arbiter whenever there is
doubt or dispute about form or usage, whereas a usage attributed to a good writer may not
necessarily be accepted as conclusive proof of correct usage. The force of the authoritative
factor is that the more knowledgeable the people who are seen to use or sanction the use of
an innovation, the less likely it is that it will be considered an error. It is in recognition of
the powerful influence of authority that Lowenberg (1990: 124) has pointed out that
`norms of standard English cannot be identified on linguistic grounds alone' since
acceptance or rejection `frequently depends on attitudinal variables, particularly on the
relative sociolinguistic status of the sources of an innovation.' This is why the use of
unconventional forms may become hallowed, simply because such use has become
associated with respected authorities or writers.5 However, in the context of non-native
Englishes, there are real problems relating to the kinds of authority available. For example,
the works may be idiosyncratic or experimental; teachers, editors, and media practitioners
may be unduly conservative, drawing their inspiration from Standard British or American
English; and, in the absence of a codified standard variety, examination bodies may play
safe by avoiding any usage that may be considered by some people as non-standard.
The acceptability factor is the ultimate test of admission of an innovation. Once
accepted, an innovation is ensured a reasonable lifespan, subject to the normal processes
of language change. Although it is tempting to assume that it is because an innovation is
acceptable that many more people or reputable authorities use it, and that it is for the same
reason that it gets codified, acceptability does not necessarily override the other factors
because it can be engineered. For example, the fact that an innovation is codified or that it
is used by an influential writer may be a factor in predisposing language users to accept it.
Of the five factors discussed above, codification and acceptance must be considered the
most important, because without them, innovations will continue to be labeled as errors.
This is to be seen particularly in the divergence between actual use and the norms
sanctioned by examining bodies. While even examiners themselves use non-native English
norms, they are forced by syllabus and textbook requirements to reject such norms. Hence,
West African examiners in English reject such forms as furnitures, equipments, defreeze (=
defrost), off-head (= offhand), from the onset (= from the outset), tight friend (= close
A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1998

c:/wengtmp/weng078.3d 13/2/98 12:13 tm/mp

Torn between the norms: innovations in world Englishes

friend), invitee (= guest), discuss about (= discuss), in the bus (= on the bus), voice out (=
voice) one's opinion, simply because the only sources of codification available do not
sanction the use of such expressions. These sources in turn are based on standard native
English norms. How then can local norms become established, if they are discouraged in
education?
The power of codification is easily seen in the recourse we all have to dictionaries as well
as acquired rules of grammar. In spelling, for instance, such is the constraint of
codification that we are not allowed to deviate from dictionary spelling. Even the different
spelling conventions in British and American English are so rigidly enforced that
appropriate changes such as color/colour, center/centre, traveled/travelled are automatically
made as soon as a manuscript crosses the Atlantic. One good example of how learnt rules
of grammar continue to influence changes is the number agreement with the noun, data.
Most grammar books list this noun as `plural' since its original singular in Latin is datum.
In fact, some dictionaries pointedly say that it should be used with a plural verb. Hence, we
must say The data are adequate and not The data is adequate. Usage, particularly in the
spoken language, appears to be changing from this rule. That is why some people say: This
data was collected last year, The data is impressive, My data shows that . . . etc. In spite of
this, many people, when writing, are still uncomfortable with the use of data as singular,
and, if asked, would probably repeat the plural concord rule mechanically. This is a result
of years of grammatical indoctrination fostered by prescriptive rules. In a study of there is/
there are by Schmidt and McCreary (1977: 418419), sixth graders, high school seniors,
and college freshmen, who are native speakers, overwhelmingly consider as correct, and
claim a preference for, There are about five minutes left as opposed to There's about five
minutes left, even though they predominantly produce the latter when they speak. In
contrast, non-native speakers not only accept the prescriptive plural rule, but conform to it
better than native speakers.6 Here again, we see the overwhelming influence of codification
as entrenched in school grammars and composition practices. The lesson to be drawn from
this is that as long as non-native English norms remain uncodified, they cannot become a
point of reference for usage and acceptance. By default, the only codified norms available
(which are based on native varieties) will continue to license what is acceptable and what is
not, even when there is a desire to encourage and institutionalize non-native English
norms.
NON-NATIVE NORMS: TO BE OR NOT TO BE

A major factor militating against the adoption of non-native norms is the ambivalence
between recognition and acceptance of such norms. This, in turn, is linked to the question
of attitudes. On the one hand, non-native norms are seen as an expression of identity and
solidarity, while, on the other, there continues to be great admiration for native norms.
Quite often, people know of features of non-native varieties and can even see the utility of
such features in the sociocultural situation, yet they are reluctant to accept the logical
conclusion that such recognition implies a replacement of the native norms they have come
to adore. Of the three types of nativization earlier mentioned, there is greater tolerance for
pragmatic and creative nativization and less for linguistic nativization. The reason for the
greater tolerance is that pragmatic nativization is culture-based, and, if English is to
function maximally in non-native environments, it has to be capable of being used to
reflect norms of appropriateness similar to those of the native languages in the community
A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1998

c:/wengtmp/weng078.3d 13/2/98 12:13 tm/mp

Ayo Bamgbose

concerned. Hence, in West Africa, one has little difficulty in accepting such expressions as
the following which may be encountered in greetings, notices, obituaries, advertisements,
and slogans on buses:
Till tomorrow
(Greeting equivalent to `goodnight' )
Things of quality have no fear of time. Call Rosabol for your . . . furniture.
(Advertisement of furniture in the Nigerian Tempo magazine)
We regret to announce the sudden death of our brother, uncle, father and grandfather . . . whose
death occurred on the 3rd of January, 1994. He has been buried according to Muslim rites. He is
survived by wives . . . children . . . grandchildren . . . in-laws . . . 8th Day prayers will be held on
Monday 10th January, 1994
(Obituary in the Nigerian Guardian newspaper. Note the multiple reference to the deceased and
the need to be as inclusive as possible, particularly in the relations mentioned).
To be a man is not easy. Life has no duplicate. Nobody knows tomorrow.
(Slogans on trucks or buses in Sierra Leone and Nigeria)
Wanted urgently Male/Female Secretaries Possessing minimum of 35 years.
(Job announcement in the Nigerian Guardian newspaper)

As far as creative nativization is concerned, the fact that it also reflects aspects of the
culture or is a rendering of authentic indigenous idiom or rhetoric into English also ensures
a measure of acceptance. Besides, such transfer of indigenous rhetorical patterns into
English is associated with respected writers. Thus, Chinua Achebe's rendering of Igbo
oratory into English as put in the mouth of Okika in Things Fall Apart (p. 183) is not only
acceptable but admired:
We who are here this morning have remained true to our fathers, but our brothers have deserted
us and joined a stranger to soil their fatherland. If we fight the stranger we shall hit our brothers
and perhaps shed the blood of a clansman. But we must do it. Our fathers never dreamt of such a
thing, they never killed their brothers. But a white man never came to them. So we must do what
our fathers would never have done. Eneke the bird was asked why he was always on the wing and
he replied: `Men have learnt to shoot without missing their mark and I have learnt to fly without
perching on a twig.' We must root out this evil. And if our brothers take the side of evil, we must
root them out too. And we must do it now. We must bale this water now that it is only ankle-deep.

It is when we are dealing with linguistic nativization that the conflict between recognition and acceptance of innovations becomes most pronounced. As has already been
mentioned, the absence of codification makes morphological, syntactic and phonological
innovations difficult to accept. However, lexical and semantic innovations are easier to
accept and even inevitable. Thus, when one is in East Africa, he or she has to be familiar
with the uses of such lexical items as wananchi `citizen,' matatu `collective taxi,' bwana
`master,' panga `machete,' lobola `bride price,' ugali `maize meal,' safari `journey'
(Schmied, 1991: 7681). Some of these words have even found their way into standard
native English dictionaries. Similarly, in different parts of West Africa, many lexical items
have become a part of the regular English vocabulary. For example, kente `a type of
colorful woven cloth made in Ghana,' danshiki `a short Hausa gown,' gari `cassava flour,'
aso ebi `a uniform dress worn by friends or relations on a special occasion,' dodo `fried
plantain,' outdooring `child-naming ceremony (in Sierra Leone),' luxurious bus `luxury bus,'
A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1998

c:/wengtmp/weng078.3d 13/2/98 12:13 tm/mp

Torn between the norms: innovations in world Englishes

affair `sex' (as in `They entered the room and had an affair' ), demobilizer `immobilizer = a
device for preventing an automobile from being started,' etc.
In phonology and phonetics, there is a ready recognition that non-native Englishes differ
substantially from native ones. More than perhaps in any other respect, a non-native
English speaker is usually immediately recognized by his accent. Arising from this, it is
extremely common for the phonology of non-native Englishes to be contrasted adversely
with that of native varieties. The uneven comparison continues to be encouraged for a
number of reasons. First, the phonology of native Englishes is the best described and
codified. Hence, in the absence of such codification for non-native Englishes, it remains the
only available point of reference. Second, there is admiration for the native accent, even by
those who cannot, or would rather not, use it. In fact, what is happening is like a love-hate
relationship in which one does not wish to sound like a native speaker, but still finds the
accent fascinating. We can see this at work in the way writers satirize those whose accent is
like that of a native speaker. A good example of this is Wole Soyinka's parody of received
pronunciation (RP) in the mouth of one of his characters, Professor Oguazor, in The
Interpreters (1970: 142):
'I thought Ceroline was here.'
`She was a moment ago.'
`Oh der, end the ledies are wetting for her.'
Just then Mrs Oguazor herself emerged from a group and came to the Professor.
`Ceroline der, the ledies herv been wetting for you.'
`I know. I was just looking for you to tell you we must go upstairs. Will you handle things at this
end?'
`Ef cerse der.'

The affected speech of this character is reflected in the deviant spelling of the words which I
have italicized in the above text. We will never know exactly how the professor sounded,
but judging from the spelling, it would appear that most front and central vowels
(including diphthongs beginning in front vowels) have been reduced to the mid-low
front vowel /E/. In contrast to pejorative attitudes to native-like accents, the best admired
newsreaders on national television and radio are those whose accents are closest to a native
speaker's. In a study conducted in Malaysia, which has virtually moved from being an ESL
to an EFL country, Gill (1993: 23234) found that 95.9 per cent of the respondents opted
for RP as the model that should be taught. The percentage however fell to 49.9 when the
respondents were asked to give their preference after listening to recorded tapes of
speakers. In this situation, 79.2 per cent preferred an educated Malaysian speaker whose
accent is neither strongly Malaysian nor British.7
Third, it is mainly in respect of spoken English that the fear is often expressed that a
non-native English may become incomprehensible. Even enlightened linguists who are
otherwise favorably disposed to the emergence and inevitability of non-native Englishes
are known to have been inclined to this view. For example, Halliday et al. (1964: 296) once
commented that `as far as phonology is concerned, . . . while the actual quality of vowels
and consonants may vary a great deal between one accent and another, the number of
contrasts, the number of phonological units, and the number of systems being operated
must also remain fairly close to those of other ``educated accents'', since otherwise speakers
of one would have great difficulty in understanding speakers of another.' While this
comment may be said to have reflected the conventional wisdom of the time, it must be
A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1998

c:/wengtmp/weng078.3d 13/2/98 12:13 tm/mp

Ayo Bamgbose

noted that some scholars still hold such views, even today. For example, Abbott (1991: 57)
maintains `that the reasonably efficient communicator in English must be able to produce
a sufficient number of differentiated sounds, a number approaching the total inventory of
phonemes in a standard inner circle of English and must produce them consistently if a
foreign listener is to have any chance of tuning in to a speaker's dialect.' The position taken
in this paper is that phonological systems need not be identical, for they are not even
identical in native varieties of English. Compare RP with Scottish English in which such
pairs as Pam and palm, pool and pull, cot and caught are homonymous (Trudgill and
Hannah, 1994: 9496). Hence, reduced vowel contrasts in non-native Englishes are in good
company and will have to be tolerated. Besides, as will be shown presently, mere ability to
decode sounds is only one aspect of intelligibility. Fourth, the reluctance to accept the
norms of spoken non-native English is tied up with the question of the variety of English
which should serve as a pedagogical model in schools.

INNOVATIONS AND PEDAGOGICAL MODELS

The question of a model is often discussed with reference to spoken English and it is
usual to make a distinction between EFL and ESL situations. For the former, it is usual to
advocate a native model, but for the latter, enlightened opinion will support the need to use
a non-native model.8 For instance, Christophersen (1992) who has been involved in
teaching English in Norway and Nigeria draws attention to the difference in aspiration
in the two situations. Whereas Nigerian students do not want to acquire an accent that is
very different from the local ones, Norwegian students would like to sound as close as
possible to native speakers of English. However, wanting to teach a local accent and
actually succeeding in doing so are two different things. We know some of the gross
features of the phonology of non-native Englishes. For example, most non-native West
African varieties of English are characterized by reduced vowel contrast, syllable-timed
rhythm, introduction of epenthetic vowels to resolve consonant clusters, spelling pronunciation, and substitution of tone for stress (Bamgbose, 1992: 155; Criper-Friedman, 1990).9

Not only are these features widespread, they have become

stable and institutionalized. One
would therefore expect that there will be no difficulty in using the varieties concerned as
models in teaching. But this has generally not happened in Africa. Why? For one thing,
there is the familiar codification problem. People use the innovations, but there is hardly
any reference manual where the norms are codified. For another, syllabuses and examination requirements continue to insist on norms which are diametrically opposed to the nonnative norms. For example, oral English tests in Nigeria continue to grade high school
students on contrasts such as beat and bit, cord and cod, cart and cat which have identical
vowels in the phonological system of the Nigerian English which the students and their
teachers speak. How can the non-native variety receive the necessary approval if its norms
are not allowed in teaching and examinations?
A recent exhaustive study of the phonology of Cameroon English (Bobda, 1994) shows
an overwhelming majority of educated speakers to have a fairly uniform system of vowel
contrasts, consonant substitution, spelling pronunciation, final consonant deletion, yod
deletion, and stress placement. On the basis of this impressive evidence, Bobda (1994: 345)
concludes that:
A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1998

c:/wengtmp/weng078.3d 13/2/98 12:13 tm/mp

Torn between the norms: innovations in world Englishes

From the pedagogical point of view, such a high prevalence of deviations shows those who still
adhere to strict native norms how far Cameroon English lies from the target, and the size of the
remedial task to be done. The systematic departure from RP even among renowned journalists,
teacher trainers of all levels calls for a reconsideration of the notion of norm in teaching and
testing . . .
Whether it is desirable or not, the recognition of Cameroonian norms for English has become
inevitable.

This conclusion is certainly valid, but its validity does not seem to be obvious to
Cameroonians. Letters to the editor of a local newspaper and other attitudes quoted in
an appendix in the book reveal divergent opinions on the desirability of teaching local
norms.
The continuing fascination with RP in ESL situations is no doubt due largely to its
codification status. What people actually hear is very far from this accent, partly because
many British native speakers do not speak RP. For example, in the late sixties at the
University of Ibadan in Nigeria when there was a population of over 120 (mainly British)
expatriates on the faculty and staff, only one person was known to speak RP, and he was a
dark-skinned West Indian educated at the University of Cambridge in England. Besides,
the tremendous American influence today in cable television, movies, and popular music
has even made American accents more readily heard. Why then does RP continue to be
seen as a target or viable model? I suggest that our very method of description of English
accents continues to strengthen this attitude. Non-native accents, and even some native
ones, are usually described by reference to RP and never for what they are. (See, for
example, Trudgill and Hannah, 1994). Vowels, consonants and phonological processes are
described in terms of deviations from RP. In a sense, RP has assumed something of the
status of Daniel Jones's cardinal vowels against which the quality of other accents is to be
measured. There is also an assumption that the implanted varieties of English in most nonnative English situations must have been RP, and hence the phonological systems in such
varieties are seen as approximations to RP. Considering the variety of accents that were
represented in the colonial services and the Christian missions, including English, Scottish,
Irish, etc., it is not at all certain that there was just one uniform model implanted in the
countries concerned.10 In addition, in some regions such as West Africa, there was the nonnative English accent of German missionaries and the influence of repatriates from Sierra
Leone, many of whom were the earliest teachers and public servants.
PEDAGOGICAL MODELS AND THE ELT ENTERPRISE

Recognition of non-native models for pedagogical purposes is not enough. It has to be

backed by concrete implementational measures, which include an easily accessible description of the model, and its incorporation in all aspects of teaching and testing in the school
system. It is quite clear then that the question of a model is closely bound up with what I
would like to call the English Language Teaching (ELT) enterprise. I refer here to who
teaches, what is taught, how it is taught, and how it is tested. Crucial to these questions are
textbooks, school and examination syllabuses, and teacher training. In the matter of
textbooks, great strides have been made in most non-native English situations in that the
content of the books has largely been indigenized. Local situations, local characters and
local customs relevant to learners' experiences feature prominently in the content. It is
largely in respect of form that problems remain. As has been pointed out, many textbooks
A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1998

c:/wengtmp/weng078.3d 13/2/98 12:13 tm/mp

10

Ayo Bamgbose

still ignore non-native English norms or stigmatize them as errors. Besides, school and
examination syllabuses still prescribe norms which are not consistent with standard local
norms and expect students to be tested in them. Unless this situation changes, the
perpetuation of non-native norms through the school system will be rendered difficult.
As far as teacher training is concerned, a sound knowledge of the non-native standard
should be required in teacher education and in-service programs. Besides, there is need for a
re-orientation of attitudes against measuring local norms against a non-existent and
unrealistic external standard. In this connection, one aspect of teacher competence may
need to be re-examined. Students from non-native English backgrounds are often sent to
native English-speaking countries to acquire the latest methods and technology of ELT.
Unless such students have been exposed to a good program that is sensitive to non-native
Englishes in relation to world Englishes, they should be required, on their return, to
undergo in-service training devoted to adapting their foreign experience to local conditions.
Another implication for teaching personnel is that it is no longer sufficient to import
native speakers and expect them to teach English in any way they know. Such teachers
must be sufficiently aware of the differences between native and non-native Englishes and
be sensitive to the local norms they will encounter.11 For quite a long time, sending aid
English teachers to teach in EFL and ESL countries has been an aspect of the ELT
enterprise, and some countries requiring the teaching of English are quite uncritical in their
recruitment of English teachers, preferring native speakers to other teachers, no matter
how well-trained. These attitudes are reinforced by age-old prejudices in teacher training in
which the outcome of the training is to produce teachers who sound as much as possible
like native speakers, and the most-valued teachers are those that have a `good' accent. The
attitudes are also reinforced by students' preferences. In a sample study carried out
recently (McKay, 1995) of attitudes of 15 international students taking ESL courses at the
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, the subjects were played recordings of two
groups of teaching assistants and asked to indicate their preferences. They were also asked
to express an opinion on the importance of native speaker instructors for different aspects
of the curriculum. The results showed that native speaker instructors were preferred over
non-native speakers, with the only African-American speaker ranked in the same category
as a non-native speaker. Their desirability of having a native speaker instructor for
teaching components of the program was also ranked on a scale from 13 as follows:
highest (2.93) for Pronunciation, followed by Conversation (2.87), Listening Comprehension and General Purpose ESL (2.53, 2.53), Composition (2.13) and lowest for Grammar
(1.93). All the non-native speakers concerned have passed the prescribed test for instuctors
in English, so there is no question about their ability to communicate adequately.
However, it seems that there is an unstated equation on the part of the students that
` (white) native' equals `excellent.'12
INTELLIGIBILITY AND NON-NATIVE ENGLISHES

One major argument constantly advanced against the communicational and pedagogical
uses of non-native Englishes is the vexed question of international intelligibility. It used to
be thought that such intelligibility was a one-way process in which non-native speakers are
striving to make themselves understood by native speakers whose prerogative it was to
decide what is intelligible and what is not. This attitude is shown in pejorative judgements
on some varieties of non-native Englishes, such as Prator's (1968: 473) conviction that `for
A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1998

c:/wengtmp/weng078.3d 13/2/98 12:13 tm/mp

Torn between the norms: innovations in world Englishes

11

the rest of the English-speaking world the most unintelligible variety of English is Indian
English' or the implied claim that certain non-native varieties are unsuitable as pedagogical
models in foreign language contexts: `Would it be reasonable for an EFL teacher to
recommend to his students to acquire a Nigerian or an Indian accent? Certainly not . . .'
(Chevillet, 1992). Today, from such studies as Smith and Nelson (1985), and Smith (1992),
we know that intelligibility is a complex matter, that a native speaker is not necessarily the
infallible judge of what is intelligible nor is he or she even necessarily more intelligible than
a non-native speaker, and that what is called `intelligibility' is perhaps a complex of factors
comprising recognizing an expression, knowing its meaning, and knowing what that
meaning signifies in the sociocultural context.13 In a communicative act which involves a
speaker and an addressee, both participants contribute to the speech act and its
interpretation, and part of this contribution is making an allowance for the accent and
peculiarities of the other person's speech.
Preoccupation with intelligibility has often taken an abstract form characterized by
decontextualized comparison of varieties. The point is often missed that it is people, not
language codes, that understand one another, and people use the varieties they speak for
specific functions. To adapt the catchy title of one of Fishman's papers, we need to ask
who speaks what variety of English to whom and for what purposes.14 It is in this regard
that intra-variety intelligibility becomes more important than inter-variety intelligibility,
since the point has been made again and again that speakers of non-native Englishes have
come to use it substantially for internal communication as well as such functions as
education, technology and literature. What should be a source of greater worry, in my
view, is a situation in which a variety of English is not intelligible to most of those for
whom it is intended within the same country. For instance, I would be more worried if
Nigerian English is not intelligible within Nigeria as compared with outside the country.
Understandably, there are persons who will still need to communicate with speakers of
other varieties of English, including native Englishes. Such persons are obviously in a
minority, and they will need to supplement their own variety with instruction in, or
familiarity with, the norms of such other varieties as may be needed for inter-comprehension,. It must be remembered that all varieties of English, native and non-native, remain
dialects of the English language. If they did not, we would today not be talking of
Singapore English, Cameroon English, Sierra Leone English, but rather separate languages designated by the national names, i.e., Singaporean, Cameroonian, and Sierra
Leonian. It would also have been impossible for an American to read, with some
understanding, an editorial in a Kenyan or Ghanaian newspaper.
Considering the role of English in the world today as an international lingua franca, it is
natural to wish to ensure that no English-using nation is put at a disadvantage by not being
able to profit from its use internationally. Hence the view expressed by Bartsch (1987: xi
xii) that `we need to be concerned with the international language in a normative manner
such that lexicon, syntax, pronunciation, and orthography remain close enough between
varieties in order to secure the usability of the language in the main registers of the
international contact.' In my view, there is no way in which such closeness between
varieties can be imposed or ensured, since the emergence of separate national norms
presupposes a certain degree of divergence between varieties. The alternative is to take a
pluricentric view of English, with the different varieties constituting what Clyne (1992: 1)
describes as `several interacting centers, each providing a national variety with at least
some of its own (codified) norms.' In this conception of language, unifying norms are
A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1998

c:/wengtmp/weng078.3d 13/2/98 12:13 tm/mp

12

Ayo Bamgbose

provided by the fact of common origin, and in the case of non-native varieties, universal
language learning strategies, and institutional context of language acquisition (Leitner,
1992: 224; Williams, 1987; Platt et al., 1984; Lowenberg, 1986). If an international standard
does emerge, it will not be identical with any national variety, native or non-native,
because all the varieties would, in varying degrees, have contributed to it.
CONCLUSION

Once we take, as our point of departure, the function of English in English-using

communities, it follows that our preoccupation with non-native Englishes should be more
with the norms of these varieties and how characteristic innovations have contributed to
the development of these norms. Crucial to the entrenchment of innovations and nonnative norms is codification. Without it users will continue to be uncertain about what is
and what is not correct and, by default, such doubts are bound to be resolved on the basis
of existing codified norms, which are derived from an exonormative standard. Codification
is therefore the main priority of the moment, and it is to be hoped that research and
collaboration in the future will be directed towards this objective. In a discussion of
codification in non-native Englishes, D'souza (1986) once posed the question whether
codification in such varieties was necessary or possible. It is a measure of the progress
made in the intervening years that we no longer need to pose such a question, since the case
for codification is now overwhelming and self-evident.15
NOTES
1. Of course, articles continue to be written on this and related topics perhaps in order to ensure that the old
ideas do not resurrect. Or could it be that there is a sneaking suspicion that the battle is not yet won?
2. English as a second language (ESL) countries are those that have non-native English (standard) varieties. In
contrast to them are English as a foreign language (EFL) and English as a native language (ENL) countries.
Kachru's (1985) terms for the three types are Outer Circle, Expanding Circle, and Inner Circle respectively. It
is to be noted that in ENL countries, the term ESL is also used in referring to English proficiency courses
designed for non-English speaking students.
3. Cf. Bartsch (1987: 171) who recognizes two kinds of norms of communication: product norms which relate to
language form (phonemic, graphemic, morphemic, syntactic, and intonational) and norms of use which are
semantic, pragmatic, and stylistic.
4. Acrolect, as used here, is not synonymous with a native-like variety (as some writers assume) but as the
`educated variety' that is associated with speakers of a certain level of education and certain socio-economic
status (cf. Schmied 1991: 48).
5. One example cited by Lowenberg (1990: 127) is knowledges used by some distinguished scholars, including
Professor Charles Ferguson and Shirley Brice Heath of Stanford University. Note that the use of non-count
nouns in the plural is generally associated with non-native Englishes. The question is: what happens when the
same usage is now found in a text written by respected native speakers and linguists? Doesn't this confer
respectability on it?
6. On the basis of this and other rules of agreement such as Nobody likes having their/his/his or her teeth drilled,
Schmidt and McCreary (1977: 419420; 429) conclude that the usage of grammar books may be regarded as a
`super-standard' restricted to formal speaking style and to writing, while the spontaneous spoken form is the
actual standard. The former is not functional in every situation nor is there any user of English that confirms
perfectly to it.
7. The Malaysian situation contrasts sharply with the one in Japan where there is an overwhelming preference
for American English. In a study of attitudes of 169 university students conducted by Chiba et al. (1995), not
only did the subjects rate American and British accents highly after listening to recorded tapes, they exhibited
negative attitudes to non-native accents (including Japanese accent, which they sometimes fail to identify
correctly).
8. Beyond the spoken language, a good case may also be made for a model in EFL situations that best serves the
function for which it is to be used. For example, if a country's commercial or investment interests are closely
A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1998

c:/wengtmp/weng078.3d 13/2/98 12:13 tm/mp

Torn between the norms: innovations in world Englishes

9.
10.
11.

12.
13.
14.
15.

13

tied up with ESL countries, it makes good sense for learners of English in such a country to be familiar with
the ESL models they are bound to encounter in their interaction in such ESL countries.
Similar features are found in other African varieties of English. See, for example, Tripathi (1990) for Zambian
English.
Kachru (1986: 88) refers to `a confusing spectrum of varieties of English' represented in the British colonial
territories during the period when English was being implanted in these countries.
Phillipson (1992: 266, 255) has suggested that foreign teachers recruited to teach English in non-native
contexts should be `culturally and linguistically' qualified. Such qualification includes knowledge of local
languages. Brumfit (1995) also draws attention to the need for a fundamental re-examination of ELT in light
of changing roles of English in the world.
The attitude reported here is quite similar to attitudes toward teachers of English in Japan, where, according
to Lummis (1976: 7; 9), `the expression ``native speaker'' is in effect a code word for ``white'' ` and Black
Americans are counted along with South Asians as having ``bad pronunciation.''
The terms proposed by Smith and Nelson (1985) for these three aspects are: intelligibility, comprehensibility
and interpretability.
See Fishman (1965) with its title: `Who speaks what language to whom and when?'
Although several scholars have contributed to the establishment of the autonomy and worthwhile study of
non-native Englishes, the contributions of professor Braj Kachru stand in a pre-eminent position. In
publication after publication, he has relentlessly analyzed issues, formulated paradigms, exposed myths,
and assured for non-native Englishes a powerful presence in the fellowship of world Englishes. We owe him a
debt of gratitude.

This is a revised version of my plenary presentation at the second international conference on World Englishes,
Nagoya, Japan (May 2528, 1995).

REFERENCES
Abbott, Gerry (1991) English across cultures: The Kachru Catch. English Today, 7 (4), 5557.
Achebe, Chinua (1963) Things Fall Apart. London: Heinemann.
Bamgbose, Ayo (1971) The English language in Nigeria. In The English Language in West Africa. Edited by John
London:

Spencer.
Longman. pp. 3548.
Bamgbose, Ayo (1987) Language norms. In Proceedings of the International Congress of Linguists, Berlin/GDR,

August 10August
15, 1987. Edited by Werner Bahner, Joachim Schildt, and Dieter Viehweger. Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag. pp. 105113.
Bamgbose, Ayo (1992) Standard Nigerian English: issues of identification. In Kachru (ed.) (1992: 148161).
Bamgbose, Ayo (1995) English in the Nigerian Context. In Bamgbose, et al. (eds.) (1995: 926).
, Banjo, Ayo, and Thomas, Andrew (eds.) (1995) New

Bamgbose, Ayo
Englishes: A West African Perspective.
Mosuro

for the British Council.

Ibadan:
Publishers
Banjo, Ayo (1993) An endonormative model for the teaching of the English language in Nigeria. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3 (2).
Bartsch, Renate (1987) Norms of Language. London: Longman.
Bobda, Augustin S. (1994) Aspects of Cameroon English Phonology. Bern: Peter Lang.
Bokamba, Eyamba (1992) The Africanization of English. In Kachru (ed.) (1992: 124147).
Brumfit, Christopher J. (1995) English as a second language and English language teaching: retrospect and
prospect. In Bamgbose et al. (eds.) (1995: 99112).
English or Englishes? English Today, 9 (4), 2933.
Chevillet, Francois (1993),
Chiba, Reiko, Matsuura, Hiroko and Yamamoto, Asako (1995) Japanese attitudes towards English accents.
World Englishes, 14 (1), 7786.
Christophersen, Paul (1992) `Native' models and foreign learners. English Today, 8 (1), 1618.
Clyne, Michael (ed.) (1992) Pluricentric Languages: Differing Norms in Different Nations. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Cooper, Robert L. (1989) Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crisper-Friedman, Lindsay (1990) The tone system of West African coastal English. World Englishes, 9 (1), 6378.
D'Souza, Jean (1986) Codification of non-native English: is it necessary/possible? Studies in the Linguistic
Sciences, 16 (1), 111.
Fishman, Joshua A. (1965) Who speaks what language to whom and when? Linguistics, 2, 6768.
Gill, Saran K. (1993) Standards and pedagogical norms for teaching English in Malaysia. World Englishes, 12 (2),
223238.
Gyasi, Ibrahim K. (1990) The state of English in Ghana. English Today 6 (3), 2426.
Halliday, Michael, McIntosh, Angus and Strevens, Peter (1964) The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching.
London: Longmans.
A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1998

c:/wengtmp/weng078.3d 13/2/98 12:13 tm/mp

14

Ayo Bamgbose

Jibril, Munzali (1982) Nigerian English: an introduction. In New Englishes. Edited by John Pride. Rowley, Mass.:
Newbury House Publishers. pp. 7384.
Jowitt, David (1991) Nigerian English Usage. Ikeja: Longman Nigeria.
Kachru, Braj B. (1985) Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English Language in the outer
circle. In Quirk and Widdowson (eds.) (1985: 1130).
Kachru, Braj B. (1986) The Alchemy of English. Oxford: Pergamon Press. (Reprinted Urbana: University of
Illinois Press, 1990.)
Kachru, Braj B. (1991) Liberation linguistics and the Quirk concern. English Today, 7 (1), 313.
Kachru, Braj B. (ed.) (1992) The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. (2nd Edition). Urbana: University of
Illinois Press.
Kachru, Braj B. (1994) English in South Asia. In The Cambridge History of the English Language (Vol. V. English
in Britain and Overseas: Origins and Development). Edited by Robert Burchfield. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. pp. 497626.
Leitner, Gerhard (1992) English as a pluricentric language. In Clyne (ed.) (1992: 179227).
Lowenberg, Peter H. (1986) Non-native varieties of English: nativization, norms, and implications. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 8, 118.
Lowenberg, Peter H. (1990) Standards and norms for world Englishes: issues and attitudes. Studies in the
Linguistic Sciences, 30 (2), 123137.
Lummis, Douglas (1976) English conversation as ideology. In Essays on Language. Edited with Notes by Yasuo
Kurokawa. Tokyo: Kirihara Shoten, pp. 126.
McKay, Brian (1995) Attitudes among ESL students toward native and non-native speaking instructors.
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Term Paper in Sociolinguistics.
Phillipson, Robert (1992) Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Platt, John, Weber, Heidi and Ho, Mian Lian (1984) The New Englishes. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Prator, Clifford H. (1968) The British heresy in TESL. In Language Problems of Developing Nations. Edited by
Joshua A. Fishman, Charles A. Ferguson and Jyotirindra Das Gupta. New York: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 459
476.
Quirk, Randolph (1985) The English language in a global context. In Quirk and Widdowson (eds.) (1985: 16).
Quirk, Randolph and Widdowson, H. G. (1985) English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language
Literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for The British Council.
Quirk, Randolph (1990) Language varieties and standard language. English Today, 6 (1), 310.
Schmidt, Richard W. and McCreary, Carol F. (1977) Standard and super-standard English: recognition and use
of prescriptive rules by native and non-native speakers. TESOL Quarterly, 11 (4), 4154129.
Schmied, Josef (1991) English in Africa. London: Longman.
Smith, Larry E. (1992) Spread of English and issues of intelligibility. In Kachru (ed.) (1992: pp. 7590).
Smith, Larry E. and Nelson, Cecil L. (1985) International intelligibility of English: directions and resources.
World Englishes, 4 (3), 333342.
Soyinka, Wole (1970) The Interpreters. London: Heinemann (African Writers Series).
Tripathi, P. D. (1990) English in Zambia. English Today, 6 (3), 3438.
Trudgill, Peter and Hannah, Jean (1994) International English. (3rd edition). London: Edward Arnold.
Williams, Jessica (1987) Non-native varieties of English: a special case of language acquisition. English WorldWide, 8 (2), 161199.
(Received 15 November 1996.)

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1998