1. Describe the advantages and disadvantages of Kachru’s ‘three circles’ model for conceptualizing World Englishes. Cite as least one country that does not fit neatly into this model and explain why is the case. (3.5 points)
The division of English into English as a Native Language (ENL), English as a Second Language (ESL), and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) separate the speakers into Native and Non-Native speakers. Ironically, the categories raise the pride of native speaker with native origin status (Kirkpatrick, 2007). To alter the categories, Kachru (1985) theorises the three-circles model consisting of the Inner Circle, Outer Circle, and Expanding Circle to proliferate English pluralisation. However, the model stirs debate on how it maps World Englishes.
Kachru’s model promotes national varieties of English. The layered circles shift the dichotomy of nativism to national varieties as what Pung (2009) mentions as the “unprecedented varieties to the spread of English nowadays”. Therefore, we can recognise the use of English in Singapore, Malaysia, or even China.
On the contrary, the model gets criticism for only highlighting the outdated distribution political and historical side of English rather than focusing on the sociolinguistic development of it (Bruthiaux, 2003, as cited in Pung, 2009). The term “colony” proves the statement on how Kachru refers the mapping based on the past degrees of English influences from colonisers to the Outer Circle group. With no further explanation on the post-colonial development of English, this model becomes irrelevant to the context of English in the modern era. Besides, the model limits the scope of English only to national standards (Jenkins, 2003). Hence, that means the use of local pidgins like Singapore Colloquial English or Singlish or English in the multicultural situation are left unrecorded and hidden. This fact makes the model becomes an unreliable resource to obtain the most precise view on real-world English.
In further sights, the model has blurred stance in responding to the progress of English in the expanding group. As an example of this, we can see what happen in Japan. Despite its strong support to Japanese as the official language, the developed nation has emerging status on growing its own of English. We can see the establishment of Engrish as the broad variety of Japanese English from the English adaptation from Japanese popular culture (Ikeshima, 2005). Moreover, the actions of its multinational companies, like Rakuten, Bridgestone, and Fast Retailing (Olinger, 2014), and the regulation of Global 30 program (Lawson, 2012) to adopt English as the official business and education language show the country’s efforts to cultivate standard Japanese English. Sadly, this evidence cannot make Japan automatically promoted to the better group since the circles do not apply the context of English spreading as a lingua franca or English as an International Language.
Aside from the different arguments, perceiving this controversial label does not mean that changes are not in the making. All people from all countries around the world, regardless of their position on the map, can still develop their ability in English. Besides, there should be a clear, more comprehensive, and friendly classification for the role model of English learners. Instead of using the declining English castes as the border between nations, the division should be clear based on an individual’s proficiency in English within the context of linguistic ability. For example, the current progressive use of English proficiency test can be used to measure people’s ability clearly. Next, a comprehensive feature of understanding can be given through the teaching of English as an International Language (EIL) which also contains cross-cultural understanding to prepare students for facing people from the different cultural background. Lastly, we can change the central goal of English ability not as how to make speakers become nativized, but how to make them be communicative L1 speakers based on the linguistic competency.
2. Argue for or against the status of ‘double negation’ as a ‘mistake’ in spoken English. (You will not be assessed in terms of a right or wrong answer here. You will be assessed on your ability to organise and support your argument and to integrate material from the unit). (3.5 points)
Double negation or negative concord in English is a linguistic mistake commonly found in some English colloquialisms. According to Kirkpatrick (2007), this mistake is included as a “schema”, or an adaptation of English by a particular community. In this case, double negation is a schema used by Australian Aboriginal English (AAE) or African American Vernacular English (AAVE).
Linguistically speaking, I agree that negative concord is a mistake in writing. Theoretically, double negatives breaks the syntactic rule of how a sentence constructed. As what Ostade (1982) says, the use of double negation makes an affirmative to the sentence. It means, the fragments of negativity will destroy each other. Therefore, a sentence of “I do not know nothing” will have the same sense as “I do know something”. Hence, it is better to turn the sentence into “I don’t know anything”.
In terms of speaking, the use of this language is not communicative for major English communities where it belongs. As in Kirkpatrick (2007), a variety of English should not only be the identity of a local community, but also be understandable in wider range and fields of communication. In national scale, double negation has minor status as a local variety from the bigger and more educated community where it belongs, such as American Standard English for AAVE. Then, the use of this language is completely different from the mainstream use of language in its area where people mostly use single negation. It means that more people do not comprehend it and misunderstand this feature. In conclusion, double negation cannot be accepted as a standard variety of English with its minimum total of speakers, minority status, and its prone to misunderstanding.
3. Only select one of these! (3 points)
a) If you have selected the Australian English track: In 300 words or less, describe the historical circumstances which led to the emergence of a distinctive Australian English.
Australian English developed in Australia since the first British settlement in 1788 with British English used by most inhabitants. Then, the British started to evolve due to huge influence from the Irish. Fritz (1996) in Burridge and Musgrave (2014) noted that there were 1,000 annual Irish convicts transferred to Australia from the 1820s onward. In addition, the number of Irish emigration to Australia also exploded to 300.000 people from 1840 to 1914.
As a result, the “Australian accent” came into concerns on the research of Samuel McBurney in 1887, highlighting the diphthong pronunciation of Australian which resembles into broader vowel (Delbridge, 1999). The other Irish features were in the use of epenthetic schwa in words like known, the clefting of ‘it’, and the use of Irish name of Sheila (woman) (Bradley, 1992). On the other hand, the contact of English to Aboriginal language enriched the vocabularies with new words like kangaroo, koala, and boomerang. By the turn of 20th century, these accents turned to become the dialect of Standard Australian English (SAE).
According to Kirkpatrick (2007), initially SAE got underestimation from English linguists. It was considered by Gorlach (1991) as ‘the most brutal maltreatment of the original English’. Later, when Arthur Mitchell became the Chairman of Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) in 1952 and set the office to use SAE, SAE started to be recognized by the national and international community. Three significant publications signified the establishment of SAE afterwards: A Dictionary of Australian Colloquialisms (John Wilkers, 1978), The Macquarie Dictionary (Arthur Delbridge, et al., 1981), and The Australian National Dictionary (William Ransom, 1988). Nowadays, the position of SAE has an official stance after the implementation of National Policy on Languages by Joseph Lo Bianco (1987) which supported SAE as the primary reference for Australian Literacy and Language Policy.