Models of World Englishes

An academic essay critiquing the models of World

Englishes, which focus on national varieties of English.

Models of World Englishes have accounted for the different types of English that emerge
independently from British and American English. One such model is Kachru’s
Concentric Circles model, which delineates countries into three circles — inner circle,
outer circle and expanding circle, based on the “types of spread, patterns of acquisition
and the functional domains in which English is used across cultures and languages”
(Kachru, 1985). The countries in the inner circle are associated with the native speakers
(UK and America), those in the outer circle are mainly post colonial countries with
institutionalized presence of English (India and Philippines) and countries in the
expanding circle use English primarily as a foreign language or for international
communication (Japan and Korea). This delineation gives rise to the different types of
English across the countries and each type is considered the national variety for that
particular country. Consequently, these national varieties like Indian English and Korean
English increasingly become the focus of such models. Initially, the models may seem
clear and robust with the neat categorization. However, they assume internal
homogeneity, focusing only on the codified type used in the country — the national
variety. Moreover, they reinforce the notion of native superiority and further perpetuate
the dichotomy between natives versus non- natives. This essay will discuss the criticism
to such models and how they apply to understanding English in Singapore.

Models of World Englishes tend to focus on national varieties, which are considered the
correct or standard form. They discount the fact that there may be other varieties (pidgins
and creoles) that also represent the English of the country and may have contributed to
the history of the national variety. The codified versions are considered the correct form
and any other varieties are frowned upon or worse, suppressed. Often, these national
varieties do not belong to the inner circle and the countries have been subjected to
colonial rule. They still look to the native standards (inner circle) and are influenced by
them (Schneider, 2003). The effects of colonialism with regard to the English language
are still felt although the physical presence of these colonial powers is no longer around
(Phillipson, 1992). As such, they do not entirely represent the English of the country.
This pervasive native influence is highlighted in the way Kachru’s concentric circles are
drawn up (Schneider, 2003). The native or inner circle forms the core and the outer and
expanding circles where the national varieties are found can be seen as the peripheries.
Hence, these national varieties essentially do not represent the English of the country
entirely but rather can be thought of as an extension of the native varieties. Also, by
focusing on these national varieties without taking into consideration the other possible
varieties, these models of World Englishes are limited (Schneider, 2003). They assume
only one monolithic variety exists (national variety), which everyone in the country
subscribes to.

These models then further reinforce the idea of native superiority and perpetuate the
dichotomy between natives versus non- natives and standard versus non- standard. The
national varieties are considered the standard forms and any deviations are deemed
incorrect. As mentioned earlier, since they subscribe to exonormative values, the native
varieties are also considered to be the correct and much superior forms. Terms, used by
certain models, such as English as Native Language (ENL), English as Second Language
(ESL) and English as Foreign Language (EFL) “automatically create attitudinal
problems, for it is almost unavoidable that anyone would take “second” as less worthy”
(Kachru, Braj & Nelson, 1996). Having belonged to the outer and expanding circles,
these national varieties then will always be thought as second to the native varieties albeit
they are still the standard forms in the countries. In addition, even though some of these
non- native countries have reached Phase 4: Endonormative Stabilization of Schneider’s
Dynamic Model, are adopting and accepting an indigenous linguistic norm and have
English as the first language, their varieties are still considered as inferior to the native
varieties and will never be in the inner circle (Schneider, 2003). Hence, it may seem at
first that the models of World Englishes are welcoming of national varieties aside the
native varieties but they are in fact rigid and serve to emphasize the distinction made
between the native and non- native (national) varieties.

Having said that, these criticisms to such models are exemplified when looking at the
English situation in Singapore. According to Kachru’s model, Singapore belongs to the
outer circle and Standard Singapore English (SSE) is the national variety. Due to
Singapore’s colonial past, SSE looks to and is heavily influenced by British English and
is regarded as the correct form (Alsagoff, 2007). Any deviation from SSE is deemed
incorrect and non- standard. The focus of these models has been on this high national
variety (SSE), disregarding the existence of another variety considered as the low variety,
which is the Singapore Colloquial English (SCE) or Singlish (Alsagoff, 2007). In other
words, the criticism towards these models as being limited is clearly seen, as they do not
account for the prevalent diglossic situation in Singapore.

Ansaldo (2004) proposes that there is the existence of an English- based pidgin predating
SSE, which may have already been in use in Singapore for instrumental purposes after
independence. Due to the belief that learning English allows access to economic success
(Wee, 2002), the locals may have picked up English and through language contact,
resulted in the emergence of this pidgin possibly the earliest form of Singlish. SSE only
surfaced in retaliation to Singlish with the introduction of the Speak Good English
Movement in 2000. This means that the national variety (SSE) will simply not have come
into being without the pidgin. Furthermore, Singlish is clearly effective in reinforcing
nationalistic feelings among Singaporean diaspora (Wee, forthcoming). Thus when these
models only focus on SSE, Singapore’s linguistic environment is not captured in its
entirety. There are even instances where Singlish features have crept into SSE and to
disregard the effects Singlish has will be inaccurate (Alsagoff, 2007). That being said,
even with the growing local literary canon and English being championed as the first
language in Singapore, SSE itself can never match up to the native varieties and will
always be regarded only as a national variety in the outer circle (Schneider, 2003).

The standard versus non- standard dichotomy that results from these models of World
Englishes manifests itself through the polarity between SSE and Singlish. The schism
between SSE and Singlish highlights that there is a standard and correct form. With the
Speak Good English campaign and the government’s tough stand against SCE (Wee,
forthcoming), Singaporeans are compelled to subscribe to SSE while completely
disregard the other (SCE), although both varieties do serve a function (Alsagoff, 2007).
On one hand, SSE is utilized in public domains and in a more global context when
communicating with other English users in other countries. Having access to SSE
connotes overt prestige (Labov, 1972), promises social mobility and users get to enjoy
more economic opportunities (Wee, 2002). On the other hand, Singlish is employed in
private domains to build solidarity, foster close relationships with peers and connotes
covert prestige (Labov, 1972). The use of Singlish is also to bridge educational
differences and mediate across different social groups. (Alsagoff, 2007) However, not
everyone can get access to SSE. Often, SSE only favours and is accessible to the more
educated Singaporeans. In other words, only those who manage to secure a place in the
system are more likely to get the opportunity to enjoy the associated economic benefits of
SSE. Hence, through just focusing on SSE, the widening divide between the standard and
non- standard resulted from the models is clearly seen. The focus these models take only
prize the socially and colonially constructed standard variety (national variety) and
denigrate the other non- standard variety, albeit both are beneficial (Alsagoff, 2007).

In conclusion, by focusing on national varieties, these models of World Englishes have

proven to be limited in scope and do not take into account possible multifarious linguistic
situations in the country. They simply assume that there is only the existence of one
variety- the national variety and it is taken to be the standard and correct form. The issue
becomes more problematic as these national varieties are often heavily influenced by the
native varieties and they try to emulate the latter (Schneider, 2003). As such, they seem to
be more of an extension of the native varieties rather than varieties in their own right,
further perpetuating the notions of native superiority and the disparity between native
versus non- native, standard versus non- standard and right versus wrong. These models
that focus on national varieties are then rigid and can be considered as continually
preserving the native hegemony. These criticisms serve to better understand English in
Singapore. The limitation and rigidity of the models when focusing on national varieties
result in Singlish being downplayed although it is instrumental in understanding the
linguistic context in Singapore. Nonetheless, as much as SSE has developed and English
is considered the first language in Singapore, it will never be comparative to the native
varieties and Singapore will never be displaced from the outer to the inner circle.