World Englishes Author(s): Rakesh M. Bhatt Reviewed work(s): Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 30 (2001), pp.

527-550 Published by: Annual Reviews Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3069227 . Accessed: 18/01/2012 14:23
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.2001. 30:527-50 Copyright() 2001 by AnnualReviews. All rights reserved

ENGLISHES WORLD
RakeshM. Bhatt
Illinois 61801; e-mail: rbhatt@uiuc.edu Universityof Illinois, Urbana-Champaign,

variation, languagecontact,language Key Words languagespread, languagechange,Englishlanguagestudies * Abstract Thisessay is anoverviewof the theoretical, methodological, pedagogissues of world Englishes:varietiesof English ical, ideological,and power-related used in diversesociolinguistic contexts.The scholarsin this field have criticallyexaminedtheoretical methodological and frameworks languageuse based on westof and frameworks linguisticscience and of ern,essentiallymonolingual monocultural, that themwithframeworks arefaithfulto multilingualism language and varireplaced ation.Thisconceptual shiftaffordsa "pluricentric" of English,whichrepresents view diversesociolinguistichistories,multicultural identities,multiplenormsof use and and of acquisition, distinctcontextsof function.The implications this shift for learnandteachingworldEnglishesare criticallyreviewedin the final sectionsof this ing essay.

INTRODUCTION
This articlefocuses on majorcurrent theoreticalandmethodologicalissues related to what has been characterizedas "WorldEnglishes."In the past three decades, the study of the formal and functional implications of the global spreadof English, especially in terms of its range of functions and the degree of penetration in Westernand, especially, non-Westernsocieties, has received considerableattention among scholars of English language, linguistics, and literature;creative writers;language pedagogues; and literary critics. It is in this context that the late Henry Kahane remarked:"English is the great laboratoryof today's sociolinguist"(1986, p. 495). There is now a growingconsensus among scholarsthat there is not one English language anymore:ratherthere are many (McArthur 1998), most of which are disengaged from the language's early Judeo-Christian tradition.The differentEnglish languages, studied within the conceptualframework of world Englishes, representdiverse linguistic, cultural, and ideological voices. The field of study of world Englishes-varieties of English used in diverse sociolinguistic contexts-represents a paradigmshift in research,teaching, and applicationof sociolinguistic realities to the forms and functions of English. It rejectsthe dichotomyof US (nativespeakers)vs THEM(nonnativespeakers)and
0084-6570/01/1021-0527$14.00

527

528

BHATT emphasizesinsteadWE-ness (McArthur1993, 1998, Kachru1992a). Referringto the logo acronymof the journal WorldEnglishes (1984), WE, McArthur(1993, the p. 334) interpreted field most succinctly when he observed"thereis a club of equals here."The pluralization, Englishes, symbolizes the formal and functional variations,the divergent sociolinguistic contexts, the linguistic, sociolinguistic, and literary creativity,and the various identities English has accrued as a result of its acculturation new sociolinguistic ecologies (Kachru1965, Strevens in 1992). The pluralism is an integral part of world Englishes, and the field has, especially in the past three decades, critically examinedtheoreticaland methodological frameworksbased on monotheistic ethos of linguistic science and replaced them with frameworksthat are faithful to multilingualismand language variation (Kachru 1983, 1986, Lowenberg 1984, 1988, Chisimba 1984, 1991, Magura1984, 1985, Mesthrie1992, Bamgbose 1982, Bamgboseet al 1995). This shift has extended the empirical domain of the study of conceptual-theoretical English. English is regardedless as a Europeanlanguageand an exclusive exponentof Judeo-Christian traditions moreas a pluricentric and languagerepresenting diversesociolinguistichistories,multicultural identities,multiplenormsof use and acquisition,and distinctcontexts of function (Smith 1981, 1983, 1987, Ferguson 1982, Kachru 1982, Kachru& Quirk 1981). Linguistic and literarycreativityin English is determinedless by the usage of its native speakersand more by the usage of nonnativespeakers,who outnumbernative speakers4:1 (Crystal 1995, McArthur1992). The world Englishes paradigmraises several interestingquestions about theory, empirical validity, social responsibility,and ideology (Kachru 1990). An inquiry into world Englishes invites (a) theoreticalapproachesto the study of in English that are interdisciplinary orientation,(b) methodologies that are sensitive to multilingual and multiculturalrealities of language-contactsituations, and (c) pedagogies that respond to both intra- and internationalfunctions of English (Bailey & Gorlach 1982, Ferguson 1982, Cheshire 1991, Kachru 1982, Foley et al 1998). The philosophical-theoretical assumptionsunderlyingthe study of world Englishes are groundedin what has come to be known as liberationlinguistics (Labov 1972, Kachru1991, Bhatt 1995a,Milroy& Milroy 1985, Mesthrie 1992, Lippi-Green1994, 1997). Liberationlinguistics, as a generalterm for several forms of linguistic beliefs and practicesthataccent the sociopoliticaldimensions of language variation,is rooted in contexts of social injustice and seeks to transformthese contexts radicallyin the interestof the speakersof the "other tongue"-the nonnative speakers (Bhatt 2001a,b, Kachru 1997, Deniere 1993, Parakrama1990, 1995, Viswanathan1989, Phillipson 1992, Pennycook 1994, 1998, Canagarajah1999). The liberation linguistic-theoreticassumptionshave displaced and discreditedthe trinityof ENL (English as a native language),ESL (English as a second language),and EFL (English as a foreign language)and has presentedinstead a model of diffusion of English that is defined with reference to historical,sociolinguistic,and literarycontexts (McArthur1992, 1993, Kachru 1986).

WORLD ENGLISHES

529

SPREAD AND STRATIFICATION The Spread of English

The transformation a triballanguageto Standard of English in the nineteenthcentury is well documented(Platt et al 1984, McCrumet al 1986, Machan& Scott 1992, Burchfield 1994, Crystal 1995). Its spread is arguably"the most striking example of 'language expansion' of this centuryif not in all recordedhistory.It has far exceeded that other famous case, the spreadof Latin duringthe Roman Empire"(Plattet al 1984, p. 1). And now, at the dawn of the twenty-firstcentury, we are witnessing John Adams' prophecycoming true:that English will become the most respectedanduniversallyreadand spokenlanguagein the world(Kachru 1992a). The global spreadof English is popularlyviewed in terms of two diasporas: In the first, English was transplantedby native speakers, and in the second, English was introducedas an official languagealongsideothernationallanguages (Knowles 1997, Kachru1992a). After the initial expansiontowardWales in 1535, Scotlandin 1603, and (partsof) Irelandin 1707, the firstdiasporaof English took place-the movementof English-speaking populationsto NorthAmerica,Canada, and Australiaand New Zealand.Each of these countriesadoptedEnglish as the languageof the new nation,which resultedin English becoming one of the major languagesof the world, along with Arabic,French,German,Hindi, Russian, and Spanish, though it was still not, as it is now, a global language, numericallyor functionally. The global status of English became establishedin its second diaspora.This socioculturalcontexts-to South Asia, diasporabroughtEnglish to "un-English" andLatinAmerica-which resultedin a significantalteration the earlier of Africa, of the English language.It was in this second diasporathat sociolinguisticprofile English came into contact with genetically and culturallyunrelatedlanguages: in Asia with Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages, in Africa with languages of the Niger-Congo family, and in Southeast Asia with Altaic languages. The contact of English with such diverse languages resulted in the development of regional-contactvarietiesof English, e.g., IndianEnglish, MalaysianEnglish, SingaporeanEnglish, PhilippineEnglish, NigerianEnglish, and GhanianEnglish (Kachru1965, Foley 1988, Lowenberg1986, Bautista1997, Bamgbose 1982, Sey 1973). It was also in this second diasporathat a new ecology for the teaching of English was created, in terms of linguistic input, methodology, norms, and identity. Several attemptshave been made to model the spread and diffusion of English as a global language (Kachru1988, Gorlach 1991, McArthur1987, Crystal 1997). Kachru's(1988) concentriccircle model (Figure 1) capturesthe historical, sociolinguistic, acquisitional,and literarycontexts of the spreadand diffusion of English. In thismodel, the innercirclerefersto the traditional basesof English,whereit is the primarylanguage,with an estimated320-380 million speakers(Crystal1997).

530

BHATT

fromKachru circlemodel. [Adapted (1997).] Figure 1 Theconcentric

The outer circle representsthe spread of English in nonnative contexts, where it has been institutionalizedas an additionallanguage, with an estimated 150300 million speakers.The expandingcircle, with a steady increasein the number of speakersandfunctionaldomains,includesnationswhereEnglishis used primarily as a foreign language, with an estimated 100-1000 million speakers(Crystal 1997). The impact and extent of spreadis not easily quantifiablebecause many varieties of English are used for both inter- and intranationalfunctions. Table 1 presentsa list of countrieswhereEnglish is used as an "official"(loosely defined) language.

Exponents of Stratification
of The stratification English, especially varietiesin the outer circle, has been inin two ways: as a polylectal continuum(Platt 1975, Platt & Weber1980, terpreted Platt et al 1984, Mufwene 1994, 1997) and as a dine of English bilingualism

WORLD ENGLISHES has TABLE1 Countries whichEnglish officialstatusa in and Antigua Barbuda Australia Bahamas Barbados Botswana Brunei Cameroon Canada Dominica Fiji Gambia Ghana Grenada Guyana India IrishRepublic Jamaica Kenya Lesotho Liberia Malawi Malta Mauritius NewZealand Nigeria NewGuinea Papua Philippines St. Christopher Nevis and St.Lucia St. Vincent theGrenadines and Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore South Africa SriLanka Surinam Swaziland Tanzania Trinidad Tobago and

531

Uganda United Kingdom of United States America Zambia Zimbabwe

from Crystal(1985, p. 357). aAdapted

(Kachru 1983, Pakir 1991, Bamgbose 1982). In terms of a lectal range, Platt & Weber (1980), following Bickerton's(1975) model of creole continuum,describe Singapore English (Singlish), identifiable with a spectrum of varieties spanning from the standardvariety of the lexifier-identified as acrolect-to the basilect, its polar opposite. The sociolinguistic accounts of South African IndianEnglish (Mesthrie1992), Caribbean English (Winford1997), andLiberian Englishes (Singler 1997) offer more evidence for the continuummodel: In each case, the basilect is the varietyof English used by people with little contact with English and no formaleducation,whereasthe acrolect,which shows little difference from the colonial form of English, is the variety used mainly by educated people. The dine of bilingualism,on the other hand, is relatedto the users and uses. One end of this dine representsthe educated variety of English; the other end represents, amongothers,NigerianPidgin(Bamiro1991), basilectin Malaysiaand Singapore(Pakir1991, Lowenberg1991), andbutlerEnglish (Hosali & Aitchison 1986). These varieties are not only spoken, they are also used in literatureto characterizevarious types of interlocutoridentities, socioeconomic classes, and the local culturalethos. There is also a functional aspect of this dine, as found most visibly in the context of outer-circle varieties of English (Quirk et al 1972, Kachru 1983). Kachru(1983), for example,has identifiedfourfunctionsof Englishin SouthAsia:

532

BHATT (a) instrumental-English as a medium of learning in educational systems; and (b) regulative-English in administrative legal systems; (c) interpersonalEnglish as a link languagebetween speakersof mutuallyunintelligiblelanguages or dialects in sociolinguistically plural societies, and as a language of elitism and modernization; and (d) imaginative-English in various literary genres.

LinguisticImperialismor LanguagePragmatics
The third phase of English expansion, the second diaspora,has recently generated controversiesabout the processes and consequences of the introductionof English into what clearly were un-Englishcontexts. The rapid spreadof English during the third phase has been explained at least from two different, though not mutually exclusive, perspectives. According to one perspective, the spread of English in nonnative contexts was actively promoted,via English language teaching (ELT) agencies such as the British Council, as an instrumentof the foreign policies of majorEnglish-speakingstates. This theory,known as English linguistic imperialism(Phillipson 1992), argues that English is universally imposed by agencies of linguistic coercion, such as the BritishCouncil and TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages), which introduce and impose a norm, StandardEnglish, throughwhich is exerted the dominationof those groups that have both the means of imposing it as "legitimate"and the it monopoly on the means of appropriating (cf. also Pennycook 1994, 1998). Accordingly,linguistic imperialismresultsin the emergence,on the one hand, of an asymmetricrelationshipbetween producersand consumersthat is internalizedas natural,normative,and essential and, on the otherhand, of a heteroglossic (hierarchical) arrangementof languages, pervadedby hegemonic value judgments, materialand symbolic investments,and ideologies that representinterests only of those in power [for detailed critiques of this perspective of the spread of (1998), Davies (1996), Canagarajah English, see Kibbee (1993), Brutt-Griffler (1999)]. The other perspective on the spread of English is the econoculturalmodel, (1998). Industrialrevproposedby Quirk(1988) and defended in Brutt-Griffler commercialexploitationof the late eighteenth- and olution, tradepractices, and Englandcreatedconditions where one language had to early nineteenth-century develop as the language of the world market,the "commerciallingua franca." With England and the United States at the epicenter of industrialcapitalism of the nineteenthcentury,it was naturalthatEnglish became the languageof global commerce. Especially afterWorldWarII-with the establishmentof the United and,a few Nations,WorldBank,UNESCO,UNICEF,WorldHealthOrganization, Union-it was inevitablethatthe and the Commonwealth the European yearslater, generalcompetencein Englishin differentpolitical, social, cultural,andeconomic marketswould continue to grow rapidly (Mazrui& Mazrui 1998, Brutt-Griffler

WORLD ENGLISHES

533

1998). The success of the spreadof English, tied to the economic conditionsthat of createdthe commercialsupremacy the UnitedKingdomandthe UnitedStates,is underthe econoculturalmodel by linguistic pragmatism linguistic not guaranteed imperialism. The educationalsystem in the colonies was the most importantinstrumentof the reproduction English symbolic capitalbecause schools1 had the monopoly of over the reproduction the marketon which the value of linguistic competence of depends (Bourdieu 1977, Goke-Pariola1993). In colonial South Asia and West Africa, whereeducationwas the only sourcefor the acquisitionof culturalcapital2 and apprenticeship into the "fellowshipsof discourse"(a la Foucault 1972)3, the principalmediumof thatinitiationwas English.Therecognitionof Englishas symbolic capitalis most clearlyevidenced,for example,in the secondphase-after the missionaryphase-of the spreadof English in SouthAsia, which was the resultof the demandand willingness of local people to learnit (Kachru1986). It is unsurprising, therefore,that prominentpolitical leaders in colonial India, or, as GokePariola(1993) reports,Nigeriansin manypartsof thatcountry,contestedthe use of indigenouslanguagesin the schools because it was perceivedas denyingthem the linguistic capital necessary for the accumulationof both economic and political powers. When the colonizersleft, they left behindthe linguistichabitusandthe peculiar marketconditions their interventionhad created;but their departure create a did new ecology for the teaching of English in terms of (nonnative)linguistic input, local (Indian,Nigerian, etc.) norms, multiple identities, communicativecompetencies and methodologiesthatrespectlanguagevariation. 'Itis in schools,argues Giroux of (1981,p. 24), thattheproduction hegemonic ideologies "hides" behind number legitimating a of forms. Someof themostobvious include the "(1) claimbydominant classes their that interests the interests thecommunity; of represent entire outside the sphere thepolitical, economic of of i.e., (2) theclaimthatconflict onlyoccurs conflict viewedas non-political; thepresentation specific is of formsof consciousness, (3) valuesandpractices natural, as or beliefs,attitudes, universal, eveneternal." to here of 2Cultural and abilities, forms, tastes capital refers the"system meanings, language thataredirectly indirectly or defined dominant by groupsas sociallylegitimate" (Apple Bourdieu 1978:496, 1991). of 3The function "the of to is, ( fellowships discourse" according Foucault1972,pp.225-26), "topreserve to reproduce or but that circulate withina closed discourse, in order it should to without thosein possession community, according strict regulations, beingdispossessed An modelof thiswouldbe thosegroups Rhapsodists, of by thisverydistribution. archaic of and possessing knowledge poemsto reciteor, even, uponwhichto workvariations transformations. though ultimate But the was it recitation, objectof thisknowledge ritual wasprotected preserved and withina determinate group the,oftenextremely by complex, exercises memory of impliedby sucha process.Apprenticeship gainedaccessbothto a mademanifest, did not divulge.The rolesof but groupandto a secretwhichrecitation and werenotinterchangeable." speaking listening

534

BHATT

LANGUAGE NATIVIZATION AND CREATIVITY BILINGUAL'S

As the Englishlanguagespread,throughlinguisticimperialism linguisticpragand contactwith genetmatism,to nonnativecontexts and came into close, protracted ically and culturallyunrelatedlanguages, it went througha process of linguistic and experimentation nativizationby the people who adoptedit for use in different functionaldomains, such as education,administration, high society (cf. and Kachru 1992a). NonnativeEnglish speakersthus creatednew, cultural-sensitive and socially appropriate meanings-expressions of the bilingual'screativity-by andmanipulating structure functionsof Englishin its new ecology. the and altering in As a result, English underwenta process of acculturation orderto compete in local linguistic marketsthat were hithertodominatedby indigenous languages. Given the linguistic andculturalpluralismin Africa and SouthAsia, linguistic inin novations,creativity,andemergingliterarytraditions English in these countries were immediatelyaccepted.

LinguisticCreativity
in Tounderstand structural the variation Englishacrosscultures,two questionsneed to be answered(Bhatt 1995a):Whatis the structure "nonnative" of Englishes, and how did they come to be the way they are?Withrespectto these questions,a beginof ning has alreadybeen made towardexplorationsinto the structure outer-circle varieties of English. Y. Kachru(1985) has providedvaluable methodologicalas well as theoretical of insightsintothe structure IndianEnglishdiscourse.Mesthrie's (1992) work on South African IndianEnglish and Bhatt's (1995a,b, 1997, 2000) and Sridhar's(1992) work on IndianEnglish provide a frameworkfor syntactic descriptionsthathas implicationsfor cross-languagetransferand bilingual com(1989), Hancin-Bhatt& Bhatt (1993), and petence. Mohanan(1992), Chaudhary Bhatt (1995a,b) have providedaccounts of various aspects of the sound patterns of IndianEnglish. The theoreticalapproachesadoptedin all these studies have a clear methodologicalagenda-to describe the structureof a "nonnative" variety in its own terms,not as descriptionsof aborted"interlanguages." Bilingual's creativityin world Englishes, especially in the outer circle, is best capturedusing the methodologicalpremisethata descriptivelyadequategrammar of English, in "nonnative" contexts, must address the relationshipbetween the forms thatEnglish manifestsand its speakers'perceptionof realityand the nature of of theirculturalinstitutions.This premiseyields an interpretation languageuse constrainedby the grammarof culture (cf. Bright 1968, Hymes 1974, D'souza 1988). The theoreticalinsights in the works of Halliday (1973), Kachru(1992a), Sridhar(1992), and Bhatt (1995a, 2000) provide a frameworkof linguistic description that not only allows the simplest interpretationof English language use across cultures,it also accommodates,in the most economical way, linguistiof structure worldEnglishes. cally significantgeneralizationsof the grammatical

WORLD ENGLISHES

535

Considerthe use of undifferentiated questionsin IndianEnglish to demontag strate how the theoretical assumptions and methodological insights discussed above provide socially realistic descriptions of the bilingual's grammarin the worldEnglishescontext.In English, tag questionsareformedby a rule thatinserts a pronominalcopy of the subject after an appropriate modal auxiliary.A typical example is "Johnsaid he'll work today,didn't he?" Tags have also been analyzed as expressing certain attitudesof the speaker towardwhat is being said in the main clause, and in terms of speech acts and/or performatives. Functionally, tags in Englishbehavelike epistemicadverbials,such as probably, etc.: (a) "It'sstill darkoutside,isn't it?"(b) "It'sprobably presumably, darkoutside." Kachru(1983, p. 79) and Trudgill& Hannah(1985, p. 111) discuss the use of what they call undifferentiated questionsas one of the linguistic exponentsof tag IndianEnglish: (a) "Youare going home soon, isn't it?" (b) "Youhave takenmy role book, isn't it?"Theirdescription,however,leaves out the important pragmatic the undifferentiated tags play in the Indian English speech community.In most cases, the meaning of the tag is not the one appendedto the meaningof the main social meaning.In fact, tags proposition;it is usuallythe tag thatsignals important in IndianEnglish are a fascinatingexample of how linguistic form (of the tag) is constrainedby culturalconstraintsof politeness. Bhatt(1995b) has in fact argued thatundifferentiated in IndianEnglish are linguistic devices governedby the tags politeness principle of nonimposition:They serve positive politeness functions (a la Brown & Levinson 1987), signaling deference and acquiescence. Notice, for example, the contrastbetween Indian English-(a) "You said you'll do the job, isn't it?" and "They said they will be here, isn't it?"-and StandardBritish English/American English-(b) "Yousaid you'll do thejob, didn'tyou? and"They said they will be here, didn't they?"In contrastto the b examples above, Indian and Englishspeakersfindthea examplesnonimpositional mitigating.This intuition is more clearly establishedwhen an adverbof intensification/assertion used in is conjunctionwith the undifferentiated tag: (a) "Of course you said you'll do the job, isn't it?" (b) "Of course they said they'll be here, isn't it?" The result is, predictably, unacceptable. In a culturewherethe verbalbehavioris severelyconstrained, a largeextent, to by politeness regulations,where nonimpositionis the essence of polite behavior, it is not surprisingthatIndianEnglish has replacedStandard BritishEnglish tags with undifferentiated tags. To understand why IndianEnglishhas chosen to use the undifferentiated of strategy,the notion of grammar culture(Bright 1968, D'souza becomes relevant. 1988) Undifferentiated tags are not exclusive instances of the interplayof grammatical and cultural rules in Indian English, where one finds the linguistic form constrainedby the grammarof culture. The influence of the grammarof culture on linguistic expressions in Indian English can also be seen in the use of the modal auxiliary"may."In IndianEnglish, "may"is used to express obligation "Thesemistakesmayplease politely-"This furniture be removedtomorrow"; may

536

BHATT be corrected"-in contrastto StandardBritish English-"This furnitureis to be removed tomorrow"; "These mistakes should be corrected"(Trudgill& Hannah 1985, p. 109). The linguisticchecklist of innovationsin the outer-circlevarietiesof English is endless. Severalstudieson linguistic acculturation creativityin English in the and outercircle have convincinglydemonstrated world Englishes have their own that syntactic and logical structure,constrainedboth by cognitive-economyconsiderationsand by social-functionalrequirements (Platt& Weber1980, Kachru1983, Sridhar 1992, Mesthrie 1992, 1997, Bokamba 1992, Bhatt 1995a,b, 2000, Bao 1995).

Sociolinguistic Creativity
There is also a sociolinguistic dimension of bilingual creativity,viewed in terms of acculturationand nativizationof the use of English in the outer circle. The study and analysis of English language use in outer-circlevarieties resulted in the following types of cross-culturaland cross-linguisticresearch:(a) discourse analysis, discourse strategies, and stylistic innovations (Richards 1979, Smith 1981, 1987, Gumperz1982, Magura1984, Y. Kachru1985, 1995, 1997, Valentine 1988, 1991); (b) speech acts (Y. Kachru 1991, 1993, D'souza 1988, 1991); (c) code mixing and code switching (Bhatia & Ritchie 1989, Kamwangamalu 1989, Myers-Scotton1993a,b, Bhatt 1997); (d) genre analysis (V. Bhatia 1997); and (e) languageplanning(Kandiah& Kwan-Terry 1994). An illustrationof the sociolinguistic dimension of bilingual's creativity-the of manipulation linguisticresourcesin languageuse to generatenew meanings-is best exemplifiedby code switching(style shifting)reported Mesthrie(1992). A by at young South AfricanIndianEnglish-speakingattendant the securitysection of the airportaskedhim, "Youhaven' got anythingto declare?"Mesthriearguesthat was in using the nonacrolectal variety,the securityguardat the airport defusingthe of power ("Do you have anythingto declare?")in favorof mesolectal solisyntax darity(Mesthrie1992, p. 219). Othersociolinguisticfunctionsof code switching andmixing in worldEnglishes, such as exclusion, politeness,identity,andelitism, have been discussed by Kachru(1983) and Myers-Scotton(1993b). The other face of nativizationof sociolinguistic uses of world Englishes is presentedby code mixing in culture-specificinteractions,in the news media, in matrimonialadvertisements,in obituaries,and so on. The matrimonialcolumns reflect,as Kachru(1986) has convincinglyargued,Asian andAfricansensitivityto It color, caste hierarchy, regionalattitudes,andfamily structure. is not uncommon, in for instance,to find matrimonialadvertisements South Asian English newspapers using highly contextualizedEnglish lexical items with semanticnativization, as shown in two Hinduexamples from 1 July 1979 (Kachru1986). Wantedwell-settledbridegroom a Keralafair,graduate for Baradwaja gotram,
Astasastram girl .... Subsect no bar.

WORLD ENGLISHES

537

well qualifiedprospectivebridegroom below 20 for graduate Non-Koundanya No Iyengar girl, daughterof engineer. Mirugaserusham. dosham. Average complexion. Reply with horoscope. The rhetorical-communicative styles of South Asian English, as in the above examples, show thatboth the text and the contextmust be nativizedin orderto derive an interpretation is faithfulto the new situationsin which worldEnglishes that the function. Furthermore, successful, contextuallyappropriate of interpretation the above examples requiresbilingual as well as biculturalcompetence. The cross-culturalattitudesaboutthe forms and functions of world Englishes show a cline: from acquisitionaldeficit to pragmaticsuccess. On one end of this attitudinal membersof the innercircle (Quirk cline are the linguistic Cassandras, for 1990, 1996, Honey 1983, 1997) launchingparadigmsof marginality, primarily economic gains (Kachru1996, Romaine 1997, Bhatt2001a). The otherend of this attitudinal cline is capturedratherfaithfullyin a conversation thattakes place between a farmerand an Indianin VikramSeth's novel, A SuitableBoy. "Do you speak English?"he said after a while in the local dialect of Hindi. He had noticed Maan'sluggage tag. "Yes,"said Maan. "Without English you can't do anything,"said the farmersagely. Maanwonderedwhat possible use English could be to the farmer. "Whatuse is English?"said Maan. "People love English!" said the farmerwith a strange sort of deep-voiced giggle. "If you talk in English, you are a king. The more people you can mystify, the more people will respectyou." He turnedback to his tobacco. But, what about the attitudetowardnativizationby nonnativespeakers?Here the venerableChinuaAchebe (1966, p. 22) sums it up most eloquently:"I feel the English languagewill be able to carrythe weight of my African experience. But it will have to be a new English, still in communionwith its ancestralhome but alteredto suit its new African surroundings." Achebe's observationaboutthe appropriateness indiginizedvarietiesof Enof glish for articulatinglinguistic voices in nonnativecontexts is supportedby the results of empirical investigationson attitudesof nonnativespeakerstowardexocentric (native) and endocentric(nonnative)models (Llamzon 1969, Bamgbose 1971, Sey 1973, Kachru1976).

LiteraryCreativityand Canonicity
The nativizationand alterationof English ensuredits use as a mediumfor indigenous expression. As Iyengar (1962, p. 3) puts it: "Indianwriting in English is but one of the voices in which India speaks. It is a new voice, no doubt, but it is as much Indian as the others."These endorsementsof the relationshipbetween underlyingthoughtpatternsand languagedesign are perhapsbest exemplifiedby

538

BHATT Achebe (1969). Achebe provides two short passages of the same material,one writtenin the indiginized/Africanized style and the other in native English style. In the passage, the Chief Priest is telling one of his sons why it is necessary to send him to Church.The firstof the two passages below, the Africanizedversion (Achebe 1969), reflects faithfullythe underlyingthoughtpatternsof the cultural context of languageuse. 1. I want one of my sons to join these people and be my eyes there. If there is nothing in it you will come back. But if there is something then you will bring back my share. The world is like a mask, dancing. If you want to see it well, you do not stand in one place. My spirit tells me that those who do not befriendthe white man today will be saying, "hadwe known", tomorrow. 2. I am sending you as my representative among these people-just to be on the safe side in case the new religion develops. One has to move with the times or else one is left behind. I have a hunch that those who fail to come to termswith the white man may well regrettheirlack of foresight. An analysisof thesenew/indigenousvarietiesrevealthatthe innovationsin their of structure use are,as discussedabove, a linguisticresponseto the constraints and the grammar theirrespectivenativecultures(Bright1968, D'souza 1987). It is in of these new Englishes, as Achebe ably demonstrates, we observetodaythe most that activeprocessesof a bilingual'screativity:translation, transcreation, style shifting, code switching,etc. (Bhatia& Ritchie 1989, Bhatt 1997, Bokamba1992, Kachru 1983, 1986, 1992a, 1994, Y. Kachru1993, Lowenberg1988, Mesthrie1992, Smith 1993, 1996). English is 1981, 1987, Sridhar1992, Thumboo 1992, Baumgardner asused as a medium to presentcanons unrelatedto traditionalJudeo-Christian sociations or the Europeanculturalheritage of the language. Thus, the English (Kachru1991), a notion that attemptsto aclanguagehas become "multicanon" commodatethe currentsociolinguistic reality in world Englishes, where speakers of a wide range of first languages communicatewith one another through English.

THE SACRED COWS OF ENGLISH

The global spread of English, its diffusion and penetrationat various societal levels and functionaldomains, has had a very importantconsequence: Some of of the traditional,taken-for-granted linguistic understandings users and uses of havebeenquestionedandchallenged(Kachru1988). A sustainedacademic English to campaignfor a non-Eurocentric approach the studyof worldEnglishesresulted in the sacrifice of five types of sacred cows: the acquisitional,sociolinguistic, pedagogical,theoretical,and the ideological.

WORLD ENGLISHES

539

AcquisitionalSacredCow
Acquisitionalquestions relate to the relevance of concepts such as interference, error, interlanguage,and fossilization, to the users and uses of English in the outer circle. As discussed in the previous section, the use of undifferentiated tag questions by IndianEnglish speakersis not a reflex of incomplete acquisition,a of but fossilized interlanguage, a manifestationof a steady-stateculturalgrammar English in outer-circlecontexts. Fossilizationtheory,a non-targetlanguagestage, suffersfrom the assumption of what Bley-Vroman (1983) terms a comparativefallacy. Comparativefallacy refers to the researcherimposing the structureof the targetlanguage onto an interlanguage.Several scholarshave argued,ratherconvincingly,that the structure of the interlanguageat various stages should be consideredon its own terms, not from the structuralperspective of the target language (cf. Bley-Vroman 1983, White 1989, 1996, Schwartz 1995, Schwartz& Sprouse 1996, Sridhar1994). As Schwartz(1995, p. 8) putsit: "Ifthere'sone thingwe often know aboutdeveloping it's Interlanguages, that they don't have the structureof the targetgrammar-so such a fuss aboutthe syntaxof the targetlanguage...." However,in Selinker's why (1972, 1993) interlanguage theory,therecan be no talkof fossilizationwithoutreference to such constructsas targetlanguage, native speakers,and errors(Davies 1989, 1991). These constructs,althoughinvalidfor acquisitionalaccountsof nonnative varieties,performan ideological function;the constructsprovide a "habit of thought"thatnormalizesand universalizesa paradigmof linguisticinquirythat privileges "knowledgeof language"in the possession only of native speakers.

TheoreticalSacredCow
The theoretical concerns relate to three vital concepts: the speech community, The of the native speaker,and the ideal speaker-hearer. conceptualization speech communityvaries from Bloomfield's definition("a speech communityis a group of people who interactby means of speech")to the rathercomplex definitionsof JohnGumperzand RobertLe Page (Hudson 1980, pp. 25-30; see also Silverstein 1996a). The standard definitionof a second languageis one thatis acquiredin an environmentin which the languageis spokennatively(Larsen-Freeman Long 1991). & This definitioncompletely marginalizesthe empiricalfact that more second lancontextsthanin "native" contexts(cf. guage acquisitiontakesplace in "nonnative" Sridhar1994). The native/nonnative distinctions,Bhatt(2001a,b) Ferguson 1982, argues,get validatedby the kind of intellectualimperialismwhereby a particular in model of language,possessed by "an ideal native speaker-hearer a completely la Chomsky 1986) assumes a paradigmatic homogeneous speech community"(a statusin the linguistic sciences as a whole (see also Silverstein1996b). This idealand izationproduces"theillusion of linguisticcommunism" ignoresandtrivializes set the sociohistoricaland economic conditions thathave establisheda particular

540

BHATT of linguisticpracticesas dominantandlegitimate.The voices of reasonareseldom ignored.Paikeday's(1985) all too familiarconclusion aboutthe theoreticalstatus of the termnative speakeris convenientlyignored: I am convincedthat"nativespeaker"in the sense of the sole arbiterof gramnatureabout his or her maticality or one whose intuitions of a proprietary mothertongue and which are sharedonly by othersof his own tribeis a myth by propagated linguists,thatthe truemeaningof the lexeme "nativespeaker" is a proficientuser of a specified language, and that this meaning satisfies all contextsin which linguists, anthropologists, psychologists,educators,and othersuse it, except when it directlyrefersto the speaker'smothertongue or aboutthe speaker'slinguistic first-acquired languagewithoutanyassumptions competence. In the context of world Englishes, the codificationof the native/nonnative distinction in standardtextbooks universalizesits legitimacy and contributesto the success of StandardEnglish ideology. And at the same time, this codification excludes the oppositionaldiscourse(Rampton1990, Sridhar1994, Singh 1995).

PedagogicalSacredCow
The research in the past two decades has clearly demonstratedthat world Ennorms,theirown characteristic features,andeven glishes have theirown structural their own communicativestyles (e.g., see Bailey & Gorlach 1982, Kachru1982, 1983, 1986, Mesthrie 1992, Smith 1987, Trudgill& Hannah1985). However,the pedagogical paradigms-methods, models, and materials-have not shown any sensitivityto local sociolinguisticcontexts. Should the inner-circlenormbe the model for teachingEnglish in outer-circle contexts,or shouldit be the local variety?The theoreticalrelevanceof this question is discussed by Savignon & Berns (1984), Tickoo (1991), Nelson (1992, 1995), of Smith (1992), and Kachru(1992a). Their views entail a radicalrestructuring (classroom) resources, (teacher)training,and (teaching) materials.Such a step, perhapsantidogmaticin ESL pedagogicalpractices,is the right step towardpracticing socially realistic and contextuallysensitivepedagogy.

SociolinguisticSacredCow
of The sociolinguistic concerns relate to the issue of "pluricentricity" English, the variousnational,regional,and local identitiesEnglish has acquiredas a result of language contact and change. The most importantoutcome of pluricentricity, Kachru(1988) argues,has been the demythologizationof the traditional English canon and the establishmentof new canons with theirown linguistic, literary,and culturalidentities.

IdeologicalSacredCow
The teaching of English, with the entire frameworkand institutionsthat support it worldwide, is a critical site where the dominantideology, StandardEnglish,

WORLDENGLISHES TABLE 2 Labels used to symbolize the power of Englisha

541

Positive National identity

Literaryrenaissance Culturalmirror(for native cultures) Vehicle for modernization Liberalism Universalism Secularism Technology Science Mobility Access code
aFromKachru(1996, p. 142).

Negative Antinationalism
Anti-native culture Materialism Vehicle for Westernization Rootlessness Ethnocentricism Permissiveness Divisiveness Alienation Colonialism

is constantly evolving and continuouslybargainingwith regional ideologies for

power (Dua 1994). As a language that conveniently disregards the essentially

betweenitself andthe universe,the dominant randomrelationships circumstantial, inevitabletie with ideology mustpresentitself as possessing some kindof inherent, In thevalueit represents. so doing, subjectsof a society areactivelytaughtto believe thatthe adoptionof ideology can bringaboutsocial changesfor theirbenefit.There are worksof many scholars,such as Quirk(1990, 1996), Honey (1983, 1997), and how Englishlanguageteachingin outer-circle Medgyes(1992, 1994), thatillustrate forced to serve to inculcateonly the culture,ideologies, contexts is surreptitiously and social relationsnecessaryto promoteand sustainthe statusquo. This ideological landscapeis changing now as outer-circlevarieties compete for functional domains that belonged exclusively to inner-circlevarieties. The ideological and symbolic power of English in outercircle has two sides, positive and negative, as shown in Table2.

CRITICAL ISSUES WORLDENGLISHES: TEACHING Codificationand StandardEnglishIdeology

of The standardization English has allowed the interpretation sociolinguistic, of andacquisitional as consequencesof liberallinguisticthinkeducational, problems of ing, general grammaticalignorance,and other similar contraventions English thenbecomes to norms.Conforming these norms,e.g., Standard English, linguistic the solutionto the problems(cf. Quirk1988, 1990, 1996). The success of standardizationdependslargelyon the ideological strategiesandrhetoricaloperationsused to devalueindigenous (nonnative)varietiesagainstthe standard (native)variety.

542

BHATT It is the function of the (StandardEnglish) ideology that the ELT profession as recognizes"ambilingualism" thegoal of secondlanguageacquisition,"fossilization"as the ultimatefate of second languagelearners,and "interlanguage" the as variety spoken by nonnativespeakers.These constructs-ambilingualism, interlanguage,fossilization-provide a habit of thought.Soon afterbeing introduced, as axioms, abovedebate;the assumptionsshared they areunderstood mathematical are not propositionsto be defended or attacked(cf. Bhatt 2001b, Kachru 1988, 1996). The assumptionsform part of the "tacit dimension"of scholarly understanding.In reality,however,these assumptionsconsecratelinguistic and cultural privilege.Even wherelearnersmeet the criterionof functionalbilingualism,trivial and are dichotomiessuch as proficiency/competence standard/nonstandard created linguisticethnocentrism by the professionandthenused as an alibi for maintaining disguised with concerns over intelligibility among the English-usingpopulation (Bhatt 1995a, 2001b, Kachru& Nelson 1996, Lippi-Green1997). The learnersare thus confinedto lifelong apprenticeship the second languagewithoutany hope in for sociolinguisticemancipation(Tollefson 1991, 1995). The system of ideological management-the strategicandregulatory practices requiredto manage language variation (Bhatt 2001b)-provides the tools, the standard/nonstanconstructs,suchas native/nonnative, theoretical-methodological needed and dard,fossilization/ultimate attainment, targetlanguage/interlanguage, The success to naturalizeand essentialize homogenizationand standardization. of the managementparadigmmanifests in differentforms of attitudinalinteralizations, especially among the ELT professionals (cf. Honey 1983, Quirk 1990, Johnson1992, Medgyes 1992, 1994). The commonstrategyemployedby the ELT professionalsto manageandminimize languagevariationis to presentit as an unfortunateoutcome of liberalpedagogy and liberationlinguistics that presumably use locks second languagelearnersto substandard of English (Bhatt2001a,b). The liberationideology confronts and competes with the dominantStandard English ideology and producescompeting sets of "values"(Bourdieu 1991), crevarieties(Canagarajah ating strongpressurein favorof the nonstandard-language varieties are marginalizedby the grammarians, These nonstandard 1993, 1996). the lexicographers,and the teachers-the agents of linguistic coercion-mainly for two reasons:(a) The recognitionof languagevariationthreatens,as Milroy & and Milroy (1999) argue,the ideological link between "grammar" authority,and the standardlanguagecan continueto function as the norm throughwhich is (b) exerted the dominationof those groups that have both the means of imposing it it as legitimateandthe monopoly on the means of appropriating (Bourdieu1977). The recent debate on Ebonics and the politics of diglossia in the United States (Pullum 1997, Rickford 1997), often polemical, bear testimonyto the success of the Standard English ideology.

CommunicativeCompetenceand Intelligibility
The traditional monotheisticmethodologiesused for teachingEnglish worldwide fail to honorthe rangeof social functionsand identitiesthat world Englishes carcontexts.Secondlanguageteachingmethodologies ries out in diversesociocultural

ENGLISHES WORLD

543

known must,therefore,be culturesensitive,as perhapsis the case withthe approach as ethnographyof communication(Hymes 1974, 1996). The key concept in this use approachis communicativecompetence, the "appropriate" of linguistic confor duct. What is appropriate a situationin one culturemay not be so in another culture.It is important, then, thatlearning,teaching,andusing worldEnglishesrewith not only the conversational contextbut also the broader quirefamiliarization socioculturalcontext in which the utteranceis located (Bers 1990). Earlierpedbias, are untenable agogical paradigms,with theirmonolingualand monocultural (cf. Sridhar1994, Y. Kachru1994). The linguisticrealizationof differentspeech acts-greeting, leave taking,complimenting, requesting-in Indian or Zambian English is quite different from American or British English (D'souza 1991, Y. Kachru 1991, Bers 1990). The models of teaching and learningneed thereforeto reflect the socioculturalethos which has wide implicationsfor a theory of of the context of teaching/learning, second languagepedagogy and for its application(McKay & Homberger1996). Anotherissue, connectedto the issue of communicativecompetence,is that of intelligibility.The issue touchesthe very core of the debatabledistinctionbetween language and dialect, that, over time, differentdialects of English will become mutuallyunintelligible.Quirk(1985, p. 3), for example, writes of "the diaspora of English into several mutuallyincomprehensible languages."For Quirk(1985, p. 6), all English-using nations must accede to "a form of English that is both understoodand respected in every corer of the globe where any knowledge of any varietyof English exists." Nelson (1984, 1995), Smith & Nelson (1985), and Smith (1992) have argued against the monolithic view of intelligibility and have arguedinstead that a better understandingof this concept is revealed in its use as a continuum-from recognition) to comprehensibility(word/utterance intelligibility (word/utterance to interpretability (meaning behind word/utterance; meaning; locutionaryforce) an interactionalconcept in this model, is illocutionaryforce). "Understanding," lowest at the level of intelligibility and highest at the level of interpretability. There are, for instance, several examples of English text that are readily intelliThe matrimonialexgible and comprehensiblebut not necessarily interpretable. discussed above, from the vantagepointof the inner circle will fail at amples, the level of interpretability. Smith (1988, p. 274) forcefully arguesthat, contrary to what is being taughtto studentsfrom grammartextbooks, "interpretability is at the core of communicationand is more importantthan mere intelligibility or comprehensibility."

CONCLUSIONS
This essay focused on the theoretical,conceptual, descriptive,ideological, and concernsof worldEnglishes.The rise of a triballanguageto a global power-related in a millenniumdominatedby Latin and, later,French,the languagesof language intellectual expression and culturalerudition,is unprecedented.Sociolinguistic

544

BHATT inquiries into this unprecedentedspread of the English language have yielded of significantunderstandings the linguistic processes and productsof language contactand languagechange.Thereis more awarenesstoday abouthow language use interactswith global economic, demographic,and culturaltrends.Graddol's (1997) provocativesurvey of the future of English shows conflicting trends of language use: English is increasinglyrequiredfor high-skill jobs everywherein the world;it is the most widely studiedforeignlanguage;it dominatessatelliteTV and programming yet its functionsin youth cultureare more symbolic thancommunicative;its shareof internettrafficis declining;and its economic significance in many countriesis challengedby regionaleconomics. The historical, sociolinguistic, and ideological accounts of homogeneity and English withinthe worldEnglishes paradigmhave yielded hegemonyof Standard of a broaderunderstanding the social and discursiverelationshipsbetween (and within) speech communities, the institutionalacquisition and use of linguistic resources,and the relationshipbetween languageand systems of dominationand subordination(Phillipson 1992, Parakrama1995, Pennycook 1998, Blommaert & Verschueren1998, Bhatt 2001a,b, Ramanathan 2000, 1999, Skutnabb-Kangas Woolard1985, Woolard& Schieffelin 1994). The interdisciplinarytheoretical and methodological framework of world of Englishes has providedan understanding the productiverelationshipbetween cultural studies and English studies. Literarycreativity in world Englishes, as and Dissanayake (1985) argues, is able to reappropriate repossess fictional discourse thathad come underthe influenceof regimes of colonial authority. Finally, the pedagogical concerns in world Englishes provide, as argued by Kachru & Nelson (1996), an insightful understandingof the relationshipsbetween linguistic and language-teachingtheory, methodology, and applications. Second language curriculum,testing procedures,and resourcematerialsmust be constructed aftercarefulstudyof variation,andthe pragmaticsof variation,for effective secondlanguagepedagogy (McKay& Horberger 1996, Lowenberg1992, Davidson 1993). In conclusion,then,the field of worldEnglishesreevaluates,critiques,anddisof and places the earliertradition cross-cultural cross-linguisticacquisitionanduse WorldEnglishes, in its most amof English, its teaching,and its transformations. to decolonize and democratizeappliedlinguistics. bitious interpretation, attempts Visit the Annual Reviews home page at www.AnnualReviews.org

LITERATURE CITED Fall Apart.London: tion:analyzing cultural economic and AchebeC. 1966.Things reproRev.48:495-503 duction. Harvard Educ. Heinemann AchebeC. 1969.Arrowof God. New York: BaileyR, Gorlach eds. 1982.Englishas M, Ann Univ.Mich. a World Language. Arbor: Doubleday Press AppleM. 1978.Thenew sociologyof educa-

WORLDENGLISHES Bamgbose A. 1971. The English language in Nigeria. In The English Language in Africa, ed. J Spencer,pp. 35-48. London:Longman NigerianEnglish: BamgboseA. 1982. Standard issues and identification.See Kachru 1982, pp. 99-111 Bamgbose A, Banjo A, ThomasA, eds. 1995. New Englishes: A WestAfricanPerspective. Ibadan,Nigeria:Mosuro BamiroE. 1991.NigerianEnglishesin Nigerian English literature.WorldEngl. 10:7-17 Bao ZM. 1995. 'Already'in SingaporeEnglish. WorldEngl. 14:181-88 R. Baumgardner 1993. The English Language in Pakistan.Karachi,Pakistan:OxfordUniv. Press R, Baumgardner ed. 1996. SouthAsianEnglish: Structure,Use, and Users. Urbana:Univ. Ill. Press Bautista M, ed. 1997. English is an Asian Language: The Philippine Context.Sydney, Aust.: MacquarieLibr. Bems M. 1990. Contextsof Competence: Social and CulturalConsiderationsin Communicative Language Teaching.New York:Plenum Bhatia TK, Ritchie W, eds. 1989. Symposium on constraints on code-switching. World Engl. 15:261-439 Bhatia V, ed. 1997. Genre analysis and world Englishes. WorldEngl. 16(3):313-426 Bhatt RM. 1995a. Prescriptivism, creativity, andworldEnglishes.World Engl. 14:247-60 Bhatt RM. 1995b. The uprooted, the indentured, and the segregated: South African Indian English. J. Pidgin Creole Lang. 10:381-96 Bhatt RM. 1997. Code-switching,constraints, and optimalgrammars. Lingua 102:223-51 BhattRM. 2000. Optimalexpressionsin Indian English. Engl. Lang. Linguist.4:69-95 Bhatt RM. 2001a. Language economy, standardization, and world Englishes. In The Three Circles of English, ed. E Thumboo. Singapore:Univ. Press. In press Bhatt RM. 2001b. VenerableExpertsand VulnerableDialects: Discourse ofMarginalization in ESL and ELT.UrbanaUniv. Ill. Ms Bickerton D. 1975. Dynamic of a Creole

545

System. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press Bley-VromanR. 1983. The comparative fallacy in interlanguagestudies:the case of systematicity.Lang. Learn. 33:1-17 BlommaertJ, Verschueren 1998. Debating J. Diversity. New York:Routledge Bokamba EG. 1992. The Africanization of English. See Kachru1992b, pp. 125-47 BourdieuP. 1977. Outlineof a Theoryof Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.Press Bourdieu P. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power.Cambridge, MA:Harvard Univ.Press Bright W. 1968. Towarda cultural grammar. IndianLing. 29:20-29 Brown P, Levinson S. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniv. Press Brutt-GrifflerJ. 1998. The development of English as an internationallanguage: a theory of world language. PhD thesis. Ohio State Univ., Columbus,Ohio, 237 pp. BurchfieldR, ed. 1994. TheCambridge History of the EnglishLanguage,Vol. 5. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniv. Press CanagarajahAS. 1993. Critical ethnography of a Sri Lankan classroom: ambiguities in student opposition to reproductionthrough ESOL. TESOLQ. 27:601-26 CanagarajahAS. 1996. "Nondiscursive"requirementsin academicpublishing,material resourcesof peripheryscholars,and the politics of knowledge production.Writ. Commun. 13:435-72 AS. Canagarajah 1999.ResistingLinguisticImperialism in English Teaching.Oxford,UK: OxfordUniv. Press Chaudhary S. 1989. Some Aspects of the Phonology of IndianEnglish. Ranchi,India: Jayaswal Cheshire J, ed. 1991. English Around the World: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press Chisimba M. 1984. African varieties of English: text in context. PhD thesis. Univ. Illi214 nois, Urbana-Champaign. pp. Chisimba M. 1991. Southern Africa. See Cheshire 1991, pp. 435-45

546

BHATT AM Sheridan Smith. New York: Pantheon Books Giroux HA. 1981. Ideology, Culture,and the PA: Process ofSchooling.Philadelphia, Temple Univ. Press Goke-Pariola 1993. Languageand symbolic A. Bourdieu and the legacy of Europower: Americancolonialism in an African society. Lang. Commun.13:219-34 GorlachM. 1991. Englishes: Studies in Varieties of English. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins GraddolD. 1997. The Futureof English?London: Br. Counc. GumperzJJ. 1982. Discourse Strategies.Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press in HallidayMAK. 1973.Explorations theFunctions of Language.London:Arnold Hancin-Bhatt BJ, BhattRM. 1993. On the nature of LI filter and cross language transfer effects. In New Sounds'92, ed. J Leather,A Univ. Amst. James,pp. 18-28. Amsterdam: JRS. 1983. TheLanguageTrap.Sussex, Honey UK: Natl. Counc. Educ. Stand. HoneyJRS. 1997.LanguageIs Power.London: Faber& Faber Hosali P, Aitchison J. 1986. Butler English: a minimal pidgin? J. Pidgin Creole Lang. 1:51-79 HudsonR. 1980. Sociolinguistics.Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniv. Press Hymes D. 1974. Foundationsof Sociolinguistics. An EthnographicApproach.Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press Hymes D. 1996. Ethnography, Linguistics, Narrative Inequality. London: Taylor & Francis IyengarKRS. 1962. Indian Writingin English. Bombay:Asia Publ. House JohnsonH. 1992. Defossilizing. ELTJ.46:18089 KachruBB. 1965. The Indiannessin IndianEnglish. Word21:391-410 KachruBB. 1976. Models of English for the thirdworld:white man's linguisticburdenor languagepragmatics?TESOLQ. 10:221-39 Kachru BB, ed. 1982. The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. Oxford, UK: Pergamon

Chomsky N. 1986. Knowledge of Language. New York:Praeger Crystal D. 1985. How many millions? The statisticsof Englishtoday.Engl. Today1:7-9 CrystalD. 1995. The CambridgeEncyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press CrystalD. 1997.Englishas a GlobalLanguage. UK: CambridgeUniv. Press Cambridge. Davidson F. 1993. Testing English across cultures:summaryand comments. WorldEngl. 12:113-25 Davies A. 1989. Is international English an inTESOLQ. 23:447-67 terlanguage? Davies A. 1991. TheNative Speakerin Applied Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press Davies A. 1996. Ironising the myth of linguicism. J. Multilin. Multicult. Dev. 17: 487-96 Deniere M. 1993. DemocratizingEnglish as an international language.WorldEngl. 12:16978 DissanayakeW. 1985. Towardsa decolonized English: South Asian creativity in fiction. WorldEngl. 4:233-42 D'souza J. 1987. South Asia as a sociolinguistic area. PhD thesis. Univ. Illinios, UrbanaChampaign.242 pp. D'souza J. 1988. Interactional strategies in SouthAsian languages:theirimplicationsfor World Engl. teachingEnglishinternationally. 7:159-71 D'souza J. 1991. Speech acts in IndianEnglish fiction. WorldEngl. 10:307-16 Dua HR. 1994. The Hegemony of English. Mysore, India:Yashoda FergusonC. 1982. Foreword.See Kachru1982, pp. xii-xvii Foley J, ed. 1988. New Englishes: The Case of Singapore. Singapore: Singapore Univ. Press Foley J, KandiahK, Zhiming B, GuptaAF, Alsagoff L, Lick HC. 1998. English in New Cultural Contexts. Reflectionsfrom Singapore. Singapore:OxfordUniv. Press FoucaultM. 1972. TheArchaeologyof Knowledge and theDiscourse on Language.Transl.

WORLDENGLISHES Kachru BB. 1983. The Indianization of English: TheEnglishLanguagein India. Delhi: OxfordUniv. Press KachruBB. 1986. TheAlchemyof English:The Spread,FunctionsandModelsof Non-Native Englishes. London:Pergamon KachruBB. 1988. The spread of English and sacredlinguisticcows. See Lowenberg1988, pp. 207-28 KachruBB. 1990. WorldEnglishesandapplied linguistics. WorldEngl. 9:3-20 KachruBB. 1991. Liberation linguisticsandthe Quirkconcerns.Engl. Today25:3-13 KachruBB. 1992a.The second diasporaof English. See Machan& Scott 1992, pp. 230-52 KachruBB, ed. 1992b. The OtherTongue.Urbana:Univ. Illinois Press KachruBB. 1994. Englishizationand contact linguistics. WorldEngl. 13:135-54 KachruBB. 1996. The paradigmsof marginality. WorldEngl. 15:241-55 Kachru BB. 1997. World Englishes and English-using communities. Annu. Rev. Appl. Linguist. 17:66-87 Kachru BB, Nelson CL. 1996. World Englishes. See McKay & Horberger 1996, pp. 71-102 KachruBB, QuirkR. 1981. Introduction. See Smith 1981, pp. xiii-xx KachruY. 1985. Discourseanalysis,non-native Englishes and second language acquisition research.WorldEngl. 4:223-32 KachruY, ed. 1991. Symposiumon speech acts in world Englishes. WorldEngl. 10(3):295340 KachruY. 1993. Social meaning and creativity in Indian English speech acts. In Language, Communication,and Social Meaning, ed. JE Alatis, pp. 378-87. Washington, DC: GeorgetownUniv. Press KachruY. 1994. Monolingualbias in SLA research.TESOLQ. 28:795-800 KachruY. 1995. Contrastive rhetoricandworld Englishes. Engl. Today11:21-31 Kachru Y. 1997. Culture and argumentative writing in world Englishes. In World Englishes 2000, ed. LE Smith, M Forman, pp. 48-67. Manoa:Univ. Hawaii Press

547

KahaneH. 1986. A typology of the prestigelanguage. Language 62:495-508 KamwangamaluN. 1989. A selected bibliography of studies on code-mixing and codeswitching.WorldEngl. 8:433-40 KandiahT, Kwan-Terry eds. 1994. English J, and Language Planning: A SoutheastAsian Contribution. Singapore:Times Acad. Kibbee DA. 1993. Perspective 2. In symposium on linguistic imperialism.WorldEngl. 12:342-47 Knowles G. 1997.A CulturalHistoryof the English Language.London:Arnold Labov W. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Univ. Penn. Press Philadelphia: Larsen-Freeman Long M. 1991. An IntroD, ductionto SecondLanguageAcquisitionResearch. London:Longman Lippi-Green R. 1994. Accent, standardlanguage ideology and discriminatorypretexts in the courts.Lang. Soc. 23:163-98 Lippi-GreenR. 1997. English with an Accent. London:Routledge Llamzon T. 1969. StandardFilipino English. Manila:Ateneo Univ. Press Lowenberg PH, 1984. English in the Malay Archipelago: nativizationand its functions in a sociolinguistic area. PhD thesis. Univ. 216 Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. pp. LowenbergPH. 1986. Sociolinguistic context and second language acquisition: acculturation and creativity in Malaysian English. WorldEngl. 5:71-83 PH, Lowenberg ed. 1988.LanguageSpreadand LanguagePolicy. Washington,DC: Georgetown Univ. Press LowenbergPH. 1991. Variationin Malaysian English: the pragmatics of language in contact. See Cheshire 1991, pp. 36575 Lowenberg PH. 1992. Testing English as a world language: issues in assessing nonnative proficiency. See Kachru 1992b, pp. 108-21 Machan T, Scott C, eds. 1992. English in its Social Contexts: Essays in Historical Sociolinguistics. New York: Oxford Univ. Press

548

BHATT to-Pidgin continua.WorldEngl. 16(2):181279 Myers-ScottonC. 1993a. Duelling Languages. Oxford,UK: Clarendon Myers-Scotton C. 1993b. Social Motivations for Code-Switching:Evidencefrom Africa. Oxford,UK: Clarendon Nelson C. 1984. Intelligibility:the case of nonnativevarietiesof English. PhD thesis. Univ. 164 Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. pp. Nelson C. 1992.Bilingualwritingforthemonolingual reader:blowing up the canon. World Engl. 11:271-75 Nelson C. 1995. Intelligibility and world Englishes in the classroom. World Engl. 14:273-79 Paikeday TM. 1985. The Native Speaker is Dead! Toronto:Paikeday PakirA. 1991. The rangeanddepthof Englishknowing bilinguals in Singapore. World Engl. 10:167-79 Parakrama 1990. Language and Rebellion: A. Discoursive Unities and the Possibility of Protest.London:Katha ParakramaA. 1995. De-hegemonizing Language Standards.London:MacMillan Pennycook A. 1994. The Cultural Politics of English as an InternationalLanguage.London: Longman Pennycook A. 1998. English and the Discourses of Colonialism.London:Routledge OxPhillipsonR. 1992.LinguisticImperialism. ford, UK: OxfordUniv. Press Platt J. 1975. The Singapore English speech continuum and its basilect "Singlish" as a Creoloid.Anthropol.Linguist. 17:363-74 Platt J, WeberH. 1980. English in Singapore and Malaysia: Status, Features, Functions. KaulaLampur:OxfordUniv. Press Platt J, Weber H, Ho ML. 1984. The New Englishes. London:Routledge PullumGK. 1997. Languagethatdarenot speak its name.Nature 328:321-22 QuirkR. 1985. The Englishlanguagein a global context. In English in the World:Teaching and Learningthe Languageand Literatures, ed. R Quirk,H Widdowson,pp. 1-6. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press

MaguraB. 1984. Style and meaning in Southern African English. PhD thesis. Univ. Ill., 242 Urbana-Champaign. pp. MaguraB. 1985. SouthernAfrican Black English. WorldEngl. 4:251-56 MazruiA, MazruiA. 1998. The Power of Babel: Language and Governancein the African Experience. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press McArthur T. 1987. The English languages? Engl. Today,July/Sept:9-11 McArthurT. 1992. The OxfordCompanionto the English Language. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press McArthurT. 1993. The English language or the English languages?In The English Language, ed. WF Bolton, D Crystal,pp. 32341. London:Penguin McArthurT. 1998. The English Languages. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press McCrumR, CranW, MacNeil R. 1986. The Storyof English. London:Faber& Faber N, McKay S, Hornberger eds. 1996. Sociolinguistics in Language Teaching.Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniv. Press Medgyes P. 1992. Native or non-native:who's worthmore?ELTJ. 46:340-49 Medgyes P. 1994. The Non-native Teacher. London:Macmillan Mesthrie R. 1992. English in Language Shift. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Mesthrie R. 1997. A sociolinguistic study of topicalizationphenomenain South African Black English. In English Around the ed. World, E Schneider,119-40. Amsterdam: Benjamins Milroy J, Milroy L. 1985. Authorityin Language. London:Routledge Milroy J, Milroy L. 1999. Authorityin Language. London:Routledge. 2nd ed. MohananKP. 1992. Describingthe phonology of non-nativevarietiesof a language. World Engl. 11:111-28 Mufwene S. 1994. New Englishes and the criteria for naming them. WorldEngl. 13:2131 Mufwene S, ed. 1997. Symposiumon English-

WORLDENGLISHES in QuirkR. 1988. The questionof standards the international of English. See Lowenberg use 1988, pp. 229-41 QuirkR. 1990. Languagevarietiesandstandard language.Engl. Today21:3-10 and QuirkR. 1996. Grammatical Lexical Variance in English. London:Longman S, QuirkR, Greenbaum Leech G, SvartvikJ. 1972.A Grammar Contemporary of English. London:Longman V. Ramanathan 1999. "Englishis here to stay": a critical look at institutional and educational practicesin India. TESOLQ. 33:21131 Rampton MBH. 1990. Displacing the "native speaker":expertise, affiliation, and inheritance. ELTJ. 44:97-101 RichardsJ. 1979. Rhetoricaland communicative styles in the new varieties of English. Lang. Learn. 25:1-25 RickfordJ. 1997. Commentary: suite for ebony and phonics. Discover Dec:82-87 Romaine S. 1997. The British heresy in ESL revisited.In Languageand its Ecology, ed. S Eliasson,E Jahr,pp. 417-32. Berlin:Gruyter Savignon S, Berns M. 1984. Initiatives in CommunicativeLanguage Teaching.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley SchwartzB. 1995. Transfer andL2A:Where are we now?Presentedat 2nd Lang.Res. Forum, Ithaca,NY Schwartz B, Sprouse R. 1996. L2 cognitive states andthe full transfer/full access model. Second Lang. Res. 12:40-72 SelinkerL. 1972. Interlanguage. Rev.Appl. Int. Linguist. 10:209-31 SelinkerL. 1993.Rediscovering Interlanguage. London:Longman Sey KA. 1973. Ghanian English: An ExploratorySurvey.London:Macmillan Silverstein M. 1996a. Encounteringlanguage and languages of encounterin North American ethnohistory. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 6(2):126-44 Silverstein M. 1996b. Monoglot "standard" in America: standardization metaphorsof and linguistic hegemony. In The Matrix of Language: Contemporary LinguisticAnthropol-

549

ogy, ed. D Brenneis, RKS Macaulay, pp. 284-306. Boulder,CO: Westview Singh R, ed. 1995. On new/non-native Englishes. J. Pragmat.24:283-333 Singler J. 1997. The configurationof Liberia's Englishes. WorldEngl. 16:205-32 Skutnabb-KangasT. 2000. Linguistic Genocide-or WorldwideDiversity and Human Rights. Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum SmithLE, ed. 1981. Englishfor Cross-Cultural Communication. London:Macmillan Smith LE, ed. 1983. Readings in English as an InternationalLanguage.London:Pergamon SmithLE, ed. 1987.Discourse AcrossCultures. London:PrenticeHall Smith LE. 1988. Language spread and issues of intelligibility. See Lowenberg 1988, pp. 265-82 SmithLE. 1992. Spreadof Englishandissues of intelligibility.See Kachru1992b, pp. 75-90 Smith LE, Nelson CL. 1985. International intelligibility of English: directions and resources.WorldEngl. 4:333-42 Sridhar SN. 1992. The ecology of bilingual competence: language interaction in indigenized varieties of English. World Engl. 11:141-50 SridharSN. 1994. A realitycheck for SLA theories. TESOLQ. 28:800-5 Strevens P. 1992. English as an international language:directionsin the 1990s. See Kachru1992b, pp. 27-47 Thumboo E. 1992. The literarydimension of the spreadof English. See Kachru1992b,pp. 255-82 Tickoo M, ed. 1991. Languageand Standards: Issues, Attitudes, Case Studies. Singapore: SAEMEORegion. Lang. Cent. Tollefson J. 1991. Planning Language, Planning Inequality: Language Policy in the London:Longman Community. Tollefson J, ed. 1995. Power and Inequalityin UK: CamLanguageEducation.Cambridge, bridgeUniv. Press Trudgill P, Hannah J. 1985. International English. London:Arnold ValentineT. 1988. Developing discoursetypes in non-native English: strategies of gender

550

BHATT

directions.InHandbookof SecondLanguage in Hindi and Indian English. WorldEngl. 7:143-58 Acquisition,ed. W Ritchie,T Bhatia,pp. 85120. New York:Academic ValentineT. 1991. Gettingthe message across: Endiscourse markersin IndianEnglish. World WinfordD. 1997. Re-examiningCaribbean Engl. 10:325-34 glish creole continua. WorldEngl. 16:233Viswanathan G. 1989. Masks of Conquest: 79 LiteraryStudyandBritishRule inIndia.Lon- Woolard K. 1985. Language variation and culturalhegemony:towardan integrationof don: Faber& Faber White L. 1989. Universal Grammarand Secsociolinguisticandsocial theory.Am.Ethnol. 12:738-48 ond Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: Woolard K, Schieffelin B. 1994. Language Benjamins White L. 1996. Universalgrammar second and ideology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 23:55trendsandnew 82 languageacquisition:current