Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
05726337
A critical Evaluation of Braj Kachru’s Three Circle Model for Varieties of English
Around The World
Shivana Mohammed
2010-03-20
Jo-Anne Ferierra
11
Mohammed
05726337
In 1985, Braj Kachru first posited the term “World Englishes” this was hailed as a
have arisen since the colonisation of many cultures by the British Raj. Pennycock
declares “Braj Kachrus development of the term World englishes, epitomises the
heterogeny position” (qtd Mair 2003) Salikoko Mufwene then applauded Kachru for
his terminology, which he then believed served as an ideal vessel for English as a
warned then that the notion of “World Englishes” was independent of whether or
Rather, “the concept was intended to capture the plurism and the regional and
cross cultural variation that obtains among English varieties throughout the world,
and the distinct identities of these varieties”. (Kachrus, 1985) By capturing this
English far from the normative British and American Varieties. None sharing the
same socio-politico-linguistic status as the “Native Englishes” from which all others
take pattern. Therefore the question that had arisen was one of, how were the
The Gorilla protagonist and namesake of David Quinns’ novel Ishmael wisely
11
Mohammed
05726337
Braj Kachru in 1985 thus proposed a globally accepted model of the spread of the
English language. He positions the world’s Englishes under three umbrellas labelled
the Inner circle, Outer circle and the Expanding circle. “The three circles
represent the types of spread, the patterns of acquisition and the functional
model is built on the historical context of English, the status of the language, its
This three circle, model however, has been met with widespread criticism among
scholars of the field. It was argued that the circle is limited because of its focus on
historicity rather than actuality of the linguistic situation. That the circular model is
part of the climatic build to globalisation rather than existing in this, the globalised
era, where modern technology challenges many notions of linguistic ownership and
language spread. The model though useful for its contributions to an understanding
of the situation of the English language in the 1980’s is now archaic. The terms of
use and definitions from which the model springs all limit its possibilities so that
each category examines English language use in each country myopically and
assumes language homogeneity, ignoring the diversity of the language and its very
organic nature.
11
Mohammed
05726337
uniformity” (Knuth). When in reality each circle contains a plethora of local and
regional variations. The umbrella headings of the model force the Englishes under
three vague delineations opening the door for scrutiny. One must question “the
descriptive adequacy of the three circles; the focus on varieties of English along
national lines; and the exclusionary divisions that discount ‘other Englishes’”
English, American English, Australian English and Canadian English while denying
Pisin.
This type of classification is what gives rise to challenges when choosing the
appropriate standard for English language learning in countries that are norm
internationally accepted English, but he has no real concept of what IAE or EIL is, he
found in the Inner circle of Kachru’s model; The Inner circle referring to all settler
communities; the UK, The USA, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and Australia, “the
traditional cultural and linguistic bases of English”. These so called Norm providing
countries are those which house the English as a Native Language Speaker or the
The speaker believes that any variety coming out of the English Language “Center”
is a valuable exemplar for EIl. Rather, the idea that that particular variety may
demonstrate forms that are NOT acceptable internationally or formally, and may
11
Mohammed
05726337
NOT be part of the countries institutionalised Standard English, does not enter his
that the variety they have learnt is specific to a particular region and therefore not
internationally accepted.
Kachru’s homogenous classifications of Englishes into the three headings may thus
the same. Thus the spread of English ought to be categorised in terms of individual
classification it becomes possible for the English language learner to gauge the
The mere labelling of the norm providing bracket as an Inner Circle connotes a
certain level of acceptability and prestige. Though Kachru declares that this was not
ought to have been aware of the impact that the terms we use to classify have on
“centrist” ideas of English language spread, while his model (Mair 8) His
he declares that he aims to recognise the existence of many Englishes rather than
one English, when his headings still act as blinders to the many varieties of English
One would expect that after Quirks debate about the nature of the English
Language he would produce a model similar to this one, since he stressed “that
teachers of English advisedly uphold one common standard in the use of English not
11
Mohammed
05726337
only in inner circle countries but in others as well” (Kilickaya 36) This suggestion
was made based on the fear that english go the route of latin and fragment into a
However Quirks assumption was not so, since outer circle and expanding circle
territories are using English as a means of transmitting their own local cultures,
forms of expression and traditions to the wider world. These cultures are veering
away from the inner circle and in a whorfian manner one may look at this adoption
of english, as, one language being modified to express the ethos of another
linguistic system. “To take three examples from the chinese culture; traditional
chinese medicine, the writings on the art of war by Sun Zi and the tenets of
confucianism are now much better known in the West than in the past.....because
veins are meant to present a case for movement of China from the Expanding circle
to the inner circle. This would mean the acknowledgement of China English as an
In doing so, one is also prompted to acknowledge other varieties of english which
meet Quirks’ three criteria for the declaration of an EIL: Similiarity,Adequacy and
Standard Indian English, Standard Nigerian English. Varieties such as these existing
11
Mohammed
05726337
outside the inner circle find difficult fitting into second language and foreign
language spheres, because they there run the risk of being considered
Nelson (1988) points out “ (a) they do not have as a goal an ENL model; (b) they do
unacceptable level; and (d) they do not have externally imposed functions” (qtd
expanding circle vartiety as a potential constituent of the inner circle: does the
variety look inwardly for norm determination? Do they recognise the potential of
That prestigous vestule of the inner circle varieties is now being comprimised as
“...the global diffusion of engliish has taken an interesting turn: the native speakers
of this language seem to have lost the exclusive perrogative to control its
standardisation; in fat if current stattistics are any indication, they have become a
11
Mohammed
05726337
There is now the allowance for the outer and expanding englishes to regulate and
direct their own English development. One may go so far as stating that should
some major event happen in any one of the current inner circle territories it would
circles. The Englishes have now acquired seperate lives some of which owe their
Outer circle speakers are no longer trying to identify with inner circle speakers,
since they are soon being relinquished to minority English speakers. Colonizers are
yet to realise that their language has been colonised and is out of their possession.
British english in itself has become a minority amoung Native englishes, losing its
norm providing competencies. One would soon believe that while English may not
die like latin did, British english would slowly become the dialect of solely speakers
The Outer circle involves the earlier phases of the spread of English in non-native
settings where language has become a part of chief institutions. It represents “the
regions that have passed through extended periods of British Colonisation and have
education and literature.” (Jahan 2) The English language in this setting serves as
speakers that speak, think and exist within the realms of the English language that
the language they have known all their lives is not their mother tongue.
11
Mohammed
05726337
Gupta (1997) suggests a classification system that divides English into five different
such as India, Japan, China and other countries whom are choosing to adopt English
used in various linguistic settings for specific technical purposes. This category it is
hoped shall serve particularly useful to compensate for where Kachru fails to
account for those varieties of English which are not bound by geographical or ethnic
technology, law, culture and social life e.g. legal English, airline English, medical
English, public
The classifications by Gupta are valuable, because they are realistic descriptors of
the language setting that the English variety is born out of. It is far more focused
than the inner/outer/expanding terms that kachru initiates. Gupta acknowledges the
true heterogeneity of the Englishes scattered across the globe, while conceding that
Kachru also recognises the phases of the development that Englishes go through,
yet his model has no place for the distinct phases of different Englishes.
11
Mohammed
05726337
prejudiced against it and believe that some native speaker imported variety is
superior and should be the model for language learning in schools. The second
phase sees the existence of the non-native variety alongside the native standard
variety, where the local variety is being used in a broader range of situations. The
final phase sees the local variety being recognised as the norm and gaining social
and Expanding Circle countries on Kachru’s part may have fuelled their failure as
models. Kachru’s developmental cycle may function as a descriptor for only Gupta’s
English, a Kachruvian expanding circle variety. Schneider declares that there is the
possibility that within Kachru’s Outer circle there is now the emergence of varieties
Scholastic category.
Braj kachru’s Concentric Circle Model in 2010 has proven itself to be an archaic
representation of the spread and functions of English language globally. Built upon
weak definitions and historical categories that have long since broken; the model
failed to cater for the expansions that globalisations would force upon the English
Language.
11
Mohammed
05726337
Bibliography
Acar, Ahmet. "Standard and Competence in English as an International Language
Pedagogy." Asian EFL Journal (2007).
Christie, Pauline, ed. Caribbean Language Issues, Old & New: Papers in Honour of
Professor Mervyn Alleyne on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Kingston: The
University of the West Indies Press, 1996.
Jenkins, Jennifer. World Englishes a Resource Book for Students. New York:
Routledge, 2009.
Kachru, Braj. "Models of English for the third world: White man's burden or linguistic
pragmatics." TESOL Quarterly (1976).
Mair, Christian, ed. The Politics of English as a World Language:New Horizons in Post
Colonial Cultural Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2003.
Mugglestone, Lynda, ed. The Oxford History of English. London: Oxford University
Press, 2006.
11
Mohammed
05726337
Patil, Z.N. "On the nature and role of English in Asia." The Phillipine ESL Journal
(2001).
Qiong, Hu Xiao. "Why China English should stand alongside British, American, and
the other "World Englishes"." English Today 20.2 (2004): 26-33.
Scehll, Martin A. "Whose English is it: Review of Braj Kachru's Asian Englishes
Beyond the Canon." Linguistics Journal (2006).
"Models of World Englishes." Unknown. World Englishes and their Implications for
International Communication and English Language Teaching:. n.d.
11