In 1985, Braj Kachru coined the term “World Englishes,” which was praised for its contribution to understanding the various forms of English that have emerged since the colonization of different cultures by the British Raj. Pennycock’s statement that “Braj Kachru’s development of the term World Englishes exemplifies the diverse position” (quoted in Mair 2003) highlights the heterogeneity of these varieties. Salikoko Mufwene also commended Kachru for his terminology, viewing it as an ideal framework for English as a global language and its role as an international lingua franca.
However, in 1985, Braj Kachru cautioned that the concept of “World Englishes” should not be based on whether English is a global language. Instead, it should focus on the diversity and cultural variations found in different English dialects worldwide, each with its own distinct identity. By acknowledging this diversity, it becomes evident that there are other standard forms of English that exist beyond the traditional British and American varieties.
The issue at hand is how to classify the progeny of the English Raj, as none of them share the same socio-politico-linguistic status as the “Native Englishes” that serve as the template for the rest. David Quinn’s novel Ishmael features a Gorilla protagonist who instructs his student on the importance of understanding human behavior in classifying their environment. The student expresses concern about grouping all people from other countries into one category, to which Ishmael explains that this method parallels how it is done in the student’s culture, though with heavily loaded terms like “civilized” and “primitive.”
In 1985, Braj Kachru proposed a model for the spread of the English language that is globally accepted. This model categorizes the different varieties of English into three groups: the Inner circle, the Outer circle, and the Expanding circle. According to Jenkins, these circles represent the various ways English spreads, how it is acquired, and how it is used in different cultural contexts (18). Kachru’s concentric model is based on the historical context of English, its status as a language, its geographic distribution, and its functions in different regions.
The three-circle model has received widespread criticism from scholars in the field due to its focus on historicity rather than the current linguistic situation. Critics argue that the model is inadequate in the globalized era, where modern technology challenges traditional notions of linguistic ownership and language proliferation. Although the model was valuable in understanding the state of the English language in the 1980s, it is now considered outdated.
The restrictions imposed by the terms of use and definitions of the model restrict its potential, as it focuses solely on English language use within each country and overlooks the language’s diverse and organic nature. Kachru’s three circle model assumes language uniformity, but in reality, each circle encompasses numerous local and regional variations. The model’s broad classifications categorize Englishes into three general groups, which allows for critical analysis.
According to Pennycook (518), doubts arise regarding the descriptive accuracy of the three circle model, the emphasis on national distinctions within English variations, and the exclusionary nature that disregards other forms of English. Kachru recognizes the presence of English varieties such as British English, American English, Australian English, and Canadian English. However, he does not acknowledge the existence of Ulster Scots, Cockney, Midland, Southern, Gullah, Appalachian English, Canadian English, Frenglish, Newfoundland English, Maorian English, or Tok Pisin.
In countries that heavily rely on norms, selecting the right standard for English language learning can be difficult. English language learners in these countries aim to use English that is recognized worldwide, but they are not familiar with the concepts of International Auxiliary Language (IAE) or English as an International Language (EIL). As a result, they strive to speak the standard form of English used in major cities, whether it be British English or American English. The choice of standard is often driven by prestige rather than practicality.
This standard is present in the Inner circle of Kachru’s model, which includes settler communities such as the UK, USA, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and Australia. These countries are considered the traditional cultural and linguistic foundations of English. They are also known as Norm providing countries, as they are home to English as a Native Language Speaker or English as a Mother-tongue speaker. The speaker believes that any variety originating from the English Language “Center” is a valuable example for English as an International Language.
The notion that a specific variety may exhibit forms that are not considered acceptable internationally or formally, and may not be included in the standardized English of the country, does not occur to him. Additionally, many English learners have encountered the realization that the variety they have learned is unique to a particular region and therefore not recognized internationally. Therefore, Kachru’s categorization of Englishes into three homogenous groups can be seen as highly misleading.
Due to the unique linguistic situations in different countries, the diffusion of English should be categorized based on individual varieties of English and their level of standardization instead of just geographical and historical distribution. By classifying English varieties, learners of the language can determine the importance of the variety they choose to learn in a regional or global context. Simply labeling a standardized norm as an Inner Circle implies a level of acceptability and prestige.
According to Kachru, he does not believe that one variety of English is superior to another. However, he should have been aware of the impact that the terms we use to classify have on the members of those classes, considering his background as a linguist. He wants to counter the “centrist” ideas of English language spread, as shown in his model (Mair 8). However, his classifications and theoretical declarations contradict each other. He claims to recognize the existence of many Englishes instead of just one, yet his headings still limit the understanding of the many varieties of English that millions of people use in their daily lives.
After Quirk’s debate on the nature of the English language, it is expected that he would create a model like this one. Quirk emphasized the need for teachers of English to maintain a common standard in its usage, not only in inner circle countries but in others as well. This recommendation was made out of concern that English might follow the same path as Latin and divide into various unintelligible forms, leading to a loss of its role as an international means of communication.
However, Quirk’s assumption was incorrect. The outer circle and expanding circle territories are utilizing English to transmit their own local cultures, forms of expression, and traditions to the wider world. These cultures are diverging from the inner circle and, in a Whorfian manner, one can view this adoption of English as a language that has been altered to express the ethos of another linguistic system. As an example from Chinese culture, traditional Chinese medicine, Sun Zi’s writings on the art of war, and Confucianism are now much more widely known in the West because they have been disseminated in English. Li Wenzhong proposes that “China English” is a variety of English that incorporates Chinese characteristics in its vocabulary, sentences, and discourse. It is rooted in English but adapted to express Chinese cultural traits through phonetic translation, borrowing, and meaning reproduction. These discussions support the notion that China is transitioning from the expanding circle to the inner circle.
This implies recognizing China English as an EIL, like British English and American English. By doing so, we must also recognize other varieties of English that meet Quirks’ three criteria for declaring an EIL: Similarity, Adequacy, and Prestige. These institutionalized varieties of English include Standard Indian English and Standard Nigerian English. These varieties, which exist outside the inner circle, struggle to fit into the realms of second language and foreign language learning. Otherwise, they risk being perceived as interlanguages.
According to Nelson (1988), these varieties cannot be classified as interlanguages because they lack certain characteristics. These include not having an English as a Native Language (ENL) model as their goal, not displaying characteristic instability, not fossilizing at an unacceptable functional level, and not having externally imposed functions (quoted in Davies 450). Furthermore, when considering whether an outer or expanding circle variety can be included in the inner circle, it is important to determine if the variety seeks norm determination internally.
Do they recognize the potential of their own standard for norm provision? The prestigious vestibule of the inner circle varieties is now being compromised as “… the global diffusion of English has taken an interesting turn: the native speakers of this language seem to have lost the exclusive prerogative to control its standardization; in fact, if current statistics are any indication, they have become a minority” (Kilickaya 36). “How English develops in the world is no business whatsoever of the native speakers in England, the United States, or anywhere else. They have no say in the matter, no right to intervene or pass judgment. They are irrelevant. The very fact that English is an international language means that no nation can have custody over it. To grant custody of the language is necessarily to arrest its development and so to undermine its international status.” There is now the allowance for the outer and expanding Englishes to regulate and direct their own English development.
One could argue that if a significant event were to occur in any of the current inner circle territories, it would not hinder the growth and utilization of English in the Outer-Expanding circles. The different variations of English now have independent existence, some of which originated from the distant Latin-Celtic-Welsh-Norman-Scandinavian ancestor, but now exist independently from their British origins. Outer circle speakers are no longer attempting to associate themselves with inner circle speakers, as they are gradually becoming minor English speakers.
Colonizers have not yet recognized that their language has been colonized and is no longer under their control. British English is now a minority compared to Native Englishes, losing its standard language competencies. It seems likely that while English may not die out like Latin did, British English will eventually become the dialect spoken exclusively on the British Isles. The Outer circle refers to the earlier stages of English spreading in non-native environments where the language has become integrated into key institutions.
The text highlights regions that have experienced prolonged British colonization and have incorporated English into their government, legal, educational, and literary systems. In these regions, English is considered a secondary language rather than a native language. It may come as a surprise to those who think, speak, and live within the English language that it is not their mother tongue.
According to Gupta (1997), English can be classified into five categories: Monolingual ancestral countries like Britain and the USA; Monolingual contact countries like Jamaica, Trinidad, Antigua, Barbados, and other Anglophone nations where English is the primary and sole language; Monolingual scholastic countries like India, Japan, China, and other nations that are opting to use English due to its empowering capabilities; Multilingual contact countries like Singapore; and Multilingual ancestral countries like South Africa.
To these five categories, I suggest adding a sixth category called Monolingual/Multilingual Technical. This category includes the English language used in different linguistic settings for specific technical purposes. It aims to compensate for Kachru’s failure to acknowledge varieties of English that are not influenced by geography or ethnicity. This category encompasses areas such as commerce, education, technology, law, culture, and social life, such as legal English, airline English, medical English, and public English.
The classifications by Gupta provide valuable and realistic descriptors of the language setting from which the English variety originates. They offer a more focused perspective compared to the inner/outer/expanding terms introduced by Kachru. Gupta acknowledges the true diversity of Englishes found worldwide, while also recognizing that some may follow similar developmental cycles. On the other hand, Kachru acknowledges the developmental phases of Englishes but does not account for the distinct phases of different Englishes.
According to the Kachruvian perspective, there are three stages of development for “non-native institutionalised” Englishes. The first stage is “non-recognition,” where local speakers hold prejudice against it and believe that some imported native speaker variety is superior and should be the model for language learning in schools. The second stage involves the coexistence of the non-native variety and the native standard variety, with the non-native variety being used in a wider range of situations.
In the last stage, the local variety becomes the standard and is accepted by society. However, this perspective on the evolution of English in Outer and Expanding Circle countries by Kachru may have contributed to their failure as models. Kachru’s development cycle may only apply to Gupta’s Monolingual scholastic group as a description. On the other hand, Moag 1992’s study on Fijian English supports Kachru’s expanding circle variety.
Schneider states that varieties may be emerging in Kachru’s Outer Circle that have no history of contact or settlement, supporting Gupta’s Monolingual Scholastic category. Kachru’s Concentric Circle Model, established in 2010, is now considered outdated in its representation of the worldwide spread and functions of the English language. The model is based on outdated definitions and historical categories that no longer apply, failing to account for the changes forced upon English by globalization.
