World Englishes and Transnational Moh Syahrul Zaky Romadhoni

Identities 202100030015
Lecturer: Doctor of Applied English Linguistics
Dr. Luciana, M.Ed. Atma Jaya Catholic University

QUALIFYING EXAM ANSWER SHEET

1. As English has taken a more pluralistic paradigm following the rise of World Englishes,
one intriguing issue has been a long-winding discussion-intelligible interaction. The issue
becomes pertinent given that much of the studies involved works of the outer and inner
circles compared to those of the expanding circles (Sadeghpour & DÁngelo, 2022). How
would you argue for this issue (your stance) in terms of the underlying concepts of World
Englishes and of our local contexts in Indonesia based on your observations and
experiences?

World Englishes has been an important paradigm in English studies, especially when the
language gains its utmost popularity due to British colonialization and American superiority
worldwide (Jenkins, 2003, 2014). English is spoken in many countries worldwide, and in some
regions, it has a strong political status and plays an important role in many aspects of public
life (Jenkins, 2003, 2014). Due to its worldwide spread, Kachru recognized the distinct
linguistic features spoken by English speakers outside the UK and the US (Kachru, 1965). He
found that English has been indigenized in these regions, which is consistent and different
from Standard English (Kachru, 1965). Then, he proposed the term “World Englishes” to refer
to the spread of English worldwide and the national varieties of English (Kachru, 1985). In the
next development, he developed three concentric circles which divide the regions based on the
English use, i.e., inner circle, outer circle, and expanding circle (Kachru, 1985).

One of the intriguing issues within the emergence of WE is intelligibility (Berns, 2008;
Nelson, 2008, 2012; Smith & Nelson, 2019). The term refers to recognizing words and
utterances in English varieties (Berns, 2008). Two language varieties are said to be mutually
intelligible if their speakers can understand each other (Swann, 2019). Smith (1992) explains
that the understanding of English national varieties can be analyzed by the conceptual layers of
intelligibility (word/utterance recognition), comprehensibility (word/utterance meaning), and
interpretability (the meaning behind a word/utterance). The three concepts become important
in analyzing the acceptability of particular English varieties within the WE paradigm (Berns,
2008).

However, in the WE paradigm, intelligibility is not the exclusive property of native speakers
of English (Smith, 1981). Since communication is a reciprocal process, both speaker and
listener should negotiate the meaning (Smith, 1981). The individuals are responsible for
communicating effectively across different cultures (Jenkins, 2006). They bring their English
experiences, attitudes toward English and English speakers, and cultural norms (Berns, 2008).

This understanding of intelligibility which holds the pluricentric view (Clyne, 1992) and does
not rely on English as a distinct linguistic system, motivates some scholars to deconstruct the
term. Canagarajah (2012) states that the current belief moves the focus from analyzing a
grammatical system shared by all multilinguals to the communicative strategies that enable
interlocutors to negotiate their different grammatical and lexical features. Thus, the
effectiveness of the communication will depend less on their adherence to an international
model of English and more on their capacity to use a range of linguistic and nonlinguistic
resources and to accommodate each other (Pennycook, 2014). Pennycook (2014) further
explains that this practice reflects communication that recognizes the diversity and departs
from the monolingual perspective to a multilingual one. Its focus shifts from relying on a
supposed share code – as found in traditional communication practice – to utilizing multiple
elements, including language resources, activities, and space. According to this view, language
education should not be limited to mastering a particular linguistic system, but need to
recognize three important constructs in the practice, including multimodal semiotics,
principled polycentrism, and the development of resourceful speakers (Pennycook, 2014).

The scholars’ current findings on intelligibility issues in the context of World Englishes match
the current practice of English use in Indonesia. Many Indonesians translanguage for different
purposes in pedagogical and non-pedagogical contexts (see Emilia & Hamied, 2022; Munirah
et al., 2021; Rasman, 2018). Moreover, they utilize other non-verbal resources to encounter
conversations (Munirah et al., 2021).

The current understanding of intelligibility can deconstruct ELT practices in Indonesia.

Standard English should not be the only variety taught in English classrooms (Sadeghpour &
D’Angelo, 2022). Teachers should introduce other varieties of English, especially those from
expanding circles. Moreover, students should be taught communicative strategies that utilize
verbal and non-verbal resources to help them negotiate meaning in the domestic and
international use of English (Canagarajah, 2018a, 2018b).

2. What is your opinion regarding the following argument? Please use your understanding of
WE, ELF (English as a Lingua Franca), EIL (English as International Language) in sharing
your opinions. Explaining that GE accommodates the concepts of WE, EIL, and ELF,
Galloway and Rose (2015) believe that the scope of the paradigm of GE is wider than
WE/EIL, as it incorporates ‘many peripheral issues associated with the global use of
English, such as globalization, linguistic imperialism, education, language policy, and
planning’ (p. 224).

In my opinion, Global Englishes (GE) accommodates and subsumes the concepts of WE, EIL
and ELF as it incorporates many marginal issues in the context of the global use of English.
Before giving some arguments regarding this issue, it would be better if we examine each of
these concepts respectively. 

World Englishes (WE) was initially proposed by Kachru (1965) when he recognized the
distinct features of Indian English, which are different from Standard English. He found that
some English varieties, especially in the British post-colonized territories, have been
indigenized and demonstrate specific linguistic, social, and pragmatic features (Sadeghpour &
D’Angelo, 2022). Later, Kachru developed the so-called “three concentric circles”, i.e., inner
circle, outer circle, and expanding circle, to refer to the regional divisions based on the spread
and the status of English in those countries (Kachru, 1985). 

SLIDE 1: World Englishes

 Global Englishes (GE) accommodates and subsumes the concepts of WE, EIL and ELF
as it incorporates many marginal issues in the context of the global use of English.
 World Englishes (WE) was initially proposed by Kachru (1965).
 Kachru (1965) recognized the distinct features of Indian English, which are different
from Standard English.
 The English varieties have been indigenized and demonstrate specific linguistic, social,
and pragmatic features (Sadeghpour & D’Angelo, 2022).
 Kachru developed the so-called “three concentric circles”, i.e., inner circle, outer
circle, and expanding circle, to refer to the regional divisions based on the spread and
the status of English in those countries (Kachru, 1985). 

WE studies examine English varieties in terms of phonology, syntax, and morphology

(Sadeghpour & D’Angelo, 2022). In the later development, the discussion expands and covers
wider topics, including English studies, English corpus linguistics, sociolinguistic approaches,
the sociology of language, Kachruvian studies, pidgin and creole studies, applied linguistics,
lexicography, critical linguistics, and ELF (Bolton, 2013). However, D’Angelo (2016) finds
that the WE studies only focus on a particular English variety but ignore the interaction
between English varieties. Furthermore, WE studies in the expanding circle are almost
neglected since English does not play a significant role in the region (D’Angelo, 2016). In
addition, Sharifian (2015) argues that the linguistic focus in WE studies has left cultural
aspects of Englishes underexplored. These shortcomings led scholars to develop other
constructs under pluricentric paradigms such as EIL and ELF (Sadeghpour & D’Angelo,
2022). 

SLIDE 2: World Englishes

 WE studies examine English varieties in terms of phonology, syntax, and morphology
(Sadeghpour & D’Angelo, 2022).
 Some topics discussed in WE studies:
English studies, English corpus linguistics, sociolinguistic approaches, the sociology of
language, Kachruvian studies, pidgin and creole studies, applied linguistics,
lexicography, critical linguistics, and ELF (Bolton, 2013).
 Some shortcomings:
- D’Angelo (2016) finds that the WE studies only focus on a particular English
variety but ignore the interaction between English varieties.
- WE studies in the expanding circle are almost neglected since English does not
play a significant role in the region (D’Angelo, 2016).
- Sharifian (2015) argues that the linguistic focus in WE studies has left cultural
aspects of Englishes underexplored.
 These shortcomings led scholars to develop other constructs under pluricentric
paradigms such as EIL and ELF (Sadeghpour & D’Angelo, 2022). 
On the other hand, Smith (1976) found that English has become an international language
connecting various nations and an auxiliary language connecting people within a nation.
Initially, Smith (1976) used the term “English as an International Auxiliary Language” to
show the status of English in the world. In the next development, McKay (2002) proposes the
term “English as an International Language” to replace EIAL, emphasizing that English
belongs to all speakers from various backgrounds. Sharifian (2013) argues that EIL is more
inclusive that WE that it not only embraces World English but also examines cultural and
linguistic aspects of interactions in Englishes. Furthermore, studies within the EIL framework
examine the interaction between English from all three circles (Sharifian, 2013).

SLIDE 3: English as an International Language

 Smith (1976) found that English has become an international language connecting
various nations and an auxiliary language connecting people within a nation.
 Smith (1976) used the term “English as an International Auxiliary Language” to show
the status of English in the world.
 McKay (2002) proposes the term “English as an International Language” to replace
EIAL, emphasizing that English belongs to all speakers from various backgrounds.
 Sharifian (2013) argues that EIL is more inclusive that WE that it not only embraces
World English but also examines cultural and linguistic aspects of interactions in
Englishes.
 Studies within the EIL framework examine the interaction between English from all
three circles (Sharifian, 2013).

Jenkins co-founded English as Lingua Franca in the 2000s (Sadeghpour & D’Angelo, 2022).
She believes ELF is more encompassing than WE because it could look more deeply into the
use of English by Expanding Circle speakers, especially in mixed/international contexts
(Sadeghpour & D’Angelo, 2022). However, the indigenous use of English in the outer circle is
also supported (Sadeghpour & D’Angelo, 2022). While searching for an umbrella term for the
various pluralistic paradigms (WE, EIL, ELF), Jenkins proposed an alternative term called
“Global Englishes” in 2010 (Jenkins, 2014). By presenting the new term, Jenkins believes that
GE can be an umbrella term to subsume EIL, WE and ELF (Sadeghpour & D’Angelo, 2022).
Jenkins (2011) explains that GE is more inclusive than ELF because it embraces the so-called
native and non-native Englishes and their interaction. GE also recognizes all three Kachruvian
circles of Englishes as legitimate and argues that all should be treated equally (Jenkins, 2011).
This term is powerful because it refers to the spread and use of diverse English varieties under
globalization and examines the reconceptualization of cultures when different cultural
communities adopt English. The term subsumes WE since it also discusses identifying and
codifying national varieties of English and English as Lingua Franca (Galloway, 2013). 

SLIDE 4: English as Lingua Franca & Global Englishes

 Jenkins co-founded English as Lingua Franca in the 2000s (Sadeghpour & D’Angelo,
2022).
 ELF is more encompassing than WE because it could look more deeply into the use of
English by Expanding Circle speakers, especially in mixed/international contexts
(Sadeghpour & D’Angelo, 2022).
  The indigenous use of English in the outer circle is also supported (Sadeghpour &
D’Angelo, 2022).
 Jenkins proposed an alternative term called “Global Englishes” in 2010 (Jenkins, 2014)
as an umbrella term for the various pluralistic paradigms (WE, EIL, ELF).
 GE is more inclusive than ELF because it embraces the so-called native and non-native
Englishes and their interaction (Jenkins, 2011).
 GE recognizes all three Kachruvian circles of Englishes as legitimate and argues that
all should be treated equally (Jenkins, 2011).
 GE refers to the spread and use of diverse English varieties under globalization and
examines the reconceptualization of cultures when different cultural communities
adopt English.
 GE subsumes WE since it also discusses identifying and codifying national varieties of
English and English as Lingua Franca (Galloway, 2013). 

The explanations indicate that GE accommodates the concepts of WE, EIL, and ELF as an
umbrella term to represent the pluralistic paradigm in applied linguistics.

3. As a scholar in English Applied Linguistics, how would you promote English in the future
based on any scholarly works you have read and discussed in class? And how would you
suggest English status in our contexts, politically and sociolinguistically?

Regarding promoting English in the future, I have assumptions mainly based on the
pluricentric view of English. They give me insights into how English can be positioned
politically and sociolinguistically in our contexts. Here are the assumptions:

1. Under the translingual lens, language is not viewed as a discrete object or system but as
a social activity. When people communicate with each other, they do not speak the
language, but they engage in language practices (Pennycook, 2010).
2. Poststructuralist view does not see language as a self-defining and closed structure. It
should include diverse considerations such as history, geography, politics, and society
(Canagarajah, 2018b). Consequently, named languages are not relevant anymore since
they do not represent our current understanding of human communication (Wei, 2018).
3. The poststructuralist view of language calls for practicing translingualism according to
a spatial orientation that embeds communication in space and time, considering it as an
assemblage in shaping meaning (Canagarajah, 2018b). It urges us to utilize other
semiotic resources, including gestures, body movements, signs, and objects, to
negotiate meaningfully.

After explaining my stances regarding the current issues in applied linguistics, here are my
suggestions regarding the status of English in our political and sociolinguistic contexts:

1. English should not be taught as a discrete linguistic structure, but it should be viewed
 as a social activity. In this context, our mindset should be shifted from a monolingual
and multilingual view to communicative strategies. Students should be trained to
encounter effective communication strategies by utilizing linguistic features and other
semiotic resources such as body movement, gestures, signs and objects. In this case,
Atkinson’s sociocognitive approach (Atkinson, 2011) can be an alternative teaching
method in classrooms.
2. English should not be treated as a superior language. It should be taught hand in hand
with other languages equally. The translingual perspective makes it possible for the
students to shuttle among languages to develop their linguistic repertoires. This way,
we will not be afraid of losing our national and local languages since it maximizes all
linguistic repertoires used in daily communications. In addition, the deconstructive
impact of linguistic imperialism will be reduced.

REFERENCES
Atkinson, D. (2011). A sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition: How mind,
body, and world work together in learning additional languages. In Alternative approaches
to second language acquisition (pp. 155–178). Routledge.
Berns, M. (2008). World Englishes, English as a lingua franca, and intelligibility. World
Englishes, 27(3‐4), 327–334.
Bolton, K. (2013). World Englishes, globalization, and language worlds. Of Butterflies and
Birds, of Dialects and Genres: Essays in Honour of Philip Shaw, 227–251.
Canagarajah, S. (2012). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations.
Routledge.
Canagarajah, S. (2018a). The unit and focus of analysis in lingua franca English interactions: in
search of a method. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(7),
805–824. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1474850
Canagarajah, S. (2018b). Translingual Practice as Spatial Repertoires: Expanding the Paradigm
beyond Structuralist Orientations. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 31–54.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx041
Clyne, M. (1992). Pluricentric languages. Different Norms in Dif Ferent Nations, Mouton de
Gruyter.
D’Angelo, J. F. (2016). A broader concept of World Englishes for educational contexts:
applying the" WE enterprise" to Japanese Higher Education Curricula.
Emilia, E., & Hamied, F. A. (2022). TRANSLANGUAGING PRACTICES IN A TERTIARY
EFL CONTEXT IN INDONESIA. TEFLIN Journal, 33(1), 1–36.
Galloway, N. (2013). Global Englishes and English Language Teaching (ELT)–Bridging the gap
between theory and practice in a Japanese context. System, 41(3), 786–803.
Jenkins, J. (2003). World Englishes: A resource book for students. Psychology Press.
Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a lingua
franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 157–181.
Jenkins, J. (2011). Accommodating (to) ELF in the international university. Journal of
Pragmatics, 43(4), 926–936.
Jenkins, J. (2014). Global Englishes: A resource book for students. Routledge.
Kachru, B. B. (1965). The Indianness in Indian English. Word, 21(3), 391–410.
Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language
in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the World: Teaching
and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11–30). CUP Press.
McKay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals and
perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.
Munirah, M., Thaba, A., & Yusuf, A. B. (2021). Translanguaging in the communicative practice
of buyers and sellers in traditional market. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2),
407–417.
Nelson, C. L. (2008). Intelligibility since 1969. World Englishes, 27(3‐4), 297–308.
Nelson, C. L. (2012). Intelligibility in world Englishes: Theory and application. Routledge.
Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a local practice. Routledge.
Pennycook, A. (2014). Principled polycentrism and resourceful speakers. Journal of Asia TEFL.
Rasman. (2018). To translanguage or not to translanguage? The multilingual practice in an
indonesian EFL classroom. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(3), 687–694.
https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v7i3.9819
Sadeghpour, M., & D’Angelo, J. (2022). World Englishes and ‘Global Englishes’: competing or
complementary paradigms? Asian Englishes, 1–10.
Sharifian, F. (2013). Globalisation and developing metacultural competence in learning English
as an International Language. Multilingual Education, 3(1), 1–11.
Sharifian, F. (2015). Cultural linguistics and world Englishes. World Englishes, 34(4), 515–532.
Smith, L. E. (1976). English as an international auxiliary language. RELC Journal, 7(2), 38–42.
Smith, L. E. (1981). English as an international language. Gaikokugo (Kyoikukiyo, Japan) 3.
Repr. 1983 in Larry E. Smith. Readings in English as an International Language, 7–12.
Smith, L. E. (1992). Spread of English and issues of intelligibility. The Other Tongue: English
across Cultures, 2, 75–90.
Smith, L. E., & Nelson, C. L. (2019). World Englishes and issues of intelligibility. The
Handbook of World Englishes, 430–446.
Swann, J. (2019). Dictionary of Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh University Press.
Wei, L. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9–
30.