1

Chapter 1

Linguistic Components of Language

LEARNING OBJECTIVES: At the end of the chapter, you should be able to:

1. Review concepts in linguistics in reference to culture and society.

2. Differentiate linguistic terms in general language study.
3. Relate linguistic concepts to the study of language in society

=======================================================================

Many linguists and authors have defined language. Take a look at

common concepts among these definitions.

● Aristotle
Speech is the representation of the experience of the mind. That is according to
Aristotle, language is a speech sound produced by human beings in order to express their
ideas, emotions, thoughts, desires and feelings.

● Saussure
Language is an arbitrary system of signs constituted of the signifier and signified. In
other words, language is first a system based on no logic or reason; secondly, the system
covers both objects and expressions used for objects; and thirdly objects and expressions are
arbitrarily linked; and finally, expressions include sounds and graphemes used by humans for
generating speech and writing respectively for the purpose of communication.

● Sapir
According to Sapir, language is a purely human and non-instinctive method of
communicating ideas, emotions, and desires by means of a system of voluntarily produced
sounds. The definition of Sapir expresses that language is mainly concerned with only human
beings and constituted a system of sounds produced by them for communication.

● Bloomfield
The totality of the utterances that can be made in a speech community is the language of
that speech community. Bloomfield’s definition of language focuses on the utterances
produced by all the people of a community, and hence overlooks writing. Besides, he stresses
form, not meaning, as the basis of language.
 2

● Bloch and Trager

According to Bloch and Trager, a language is a system of arbitrary vocal sounds by
means of a social group cooperates. In their definition of language, they point out that,
language is an arbitrary system, vocal sounds, way of communication, and collectivity.

● Noam Chomsky
Noam Chomsky says the language is the inherent capability of the native speakers to
understand and form grammatical sentences. A language is a set of (finite or infinite)
sentences, each finite length and constructed out of a finite set of elements. This definition of
language considers sentences as the basis of a language. Sentences may be limited or
unlimited in number, and are made up of only limited components.

● Derbyshire
Derbyshire says the language is undoubtedly a kind of means of communication
among human beings. It consists primarily of vocal sounds. It is articulatory, systematic,
symbolic and arbitrary. This definition of Derbyshire clearly utters, language is the best
source of communication. It also portrays how human language is formed and what are
the fundamental principles of language.

● Lyons
According to Lyons, languages are the principal systems of communication used by
particular groups of human beings within the particular society of which they are members.
Especially Lyons points out that, language is the best communicative system of human
beings by particular social groups.

● Wardhaugh
A language is a system of arbitrary vocal sounds used for human communication.
This definition of language by Wardhaugh mainly insists on arbitrariness, vocal sounds,
humans and communication.

● Patanjali
Indian linguist Patanjali utters, language is that human expression which is produced
by different speech organs of human beings. Through speech organs, humans produced
several expressions which are converted to language.

● Encyclopedia Britannica
Language is a system of conventional or written symbols by means of which human
beings as members of social groups and participants in its culture, communicate. In other
words, it says the language is a system of communication of which human beings express
themselves.
 3

What are the concepts that seem similar among the above definitions? Write in the
boxes below.

When two or more people communicate with each other in speech, we can call the
system they use a code. We should also note that two speakers who are bilingual, that is, who
have access to two codes, and who for one reason or another shift back and forth between the
two languages as they converse by codeswitching are actually using a third code, one which
draws on those two languages. The system itself (or the grammar, to use a well-known
technical term) is something that each speaker ‘knows,’ but two very important issues for
linguists are just what that knowledge comprises and how we may best characterize it. In
practice, linguists do not find it at all easy to write grammars because the knowledge that
people have of the languages they speak is extremely hard to describe. It is certainly
something different from, and is much more considerable than, the kinds of knowledge we
see described in the grammars we find on library shelves, no matter how good those
grammars may be. Anyone who knows a language knows much more about that language
than is contained in any grammar book that attempts to describe the language. What is also
interesting is that this knowledge is both something which every individual who speaks the
language possesses (since we must assume that each individual knows the grammar of his or
her language by the simple reason that he or she readily uses that language) and also some
kind of shared knowledge, that is, knowledge possessed by all those who speak the language.
 4

Chomsky has argued on many occasions that, in order to make meaningful discoveries about
language, linguists must try to distinguish between what is important and what is unimportant
about language and linguistic behavior.

The important matters have to do with the learnability of all languages, the characteristics
they all share, and the rules and principles that speakers apparently follow in constructing
and interpreting sentences; the much less important matters have to do with how individual
speakers use specific utterances in a variety of ways as they find themselves in this situation
or that. Chomsky distinguishes between what he has called competence and performance. He
claims that it is the linguist’s task to characterize what speakers know about their language,
i.e., their competence, not what they do with their language, i.e., their performance.

Chomsky separates competence and performance; he describes

'competence' as an idealized capacity that is located as a psychological
or mental property or function and ‘performance’ as the production of
actual utterances. In short, competence involves “knowing” the language and performance
involves “doing” something with the language. The difficulty with this construct is that it is
very difficult to assess competence without assessing performance.

https://bestofbilash.ualberta.ca/competencyperformance.html

TOPIC 1: COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE MODELS

BACHMAN, 1990
 5

Language competence includes organizational and pragmatic competences.

Organizational competence, in turn includes grammatical and textual abilities or
competences, which are involved in producing and comprehending language. Pragmatic
competence in Bachman’s model encompasses illocutionary competence and
sociolinguistic competence. Illocutionary competence entails knowledge and skill in
using language functions proposed by Halliday (1970) such as ideational,
manipulative, heuristic, instrumental, regulatory and imaginative functions. Similar to
Canale’s conceptualization, sociolinguistic competence, as Bachman puts it “is
the sensitivity to, or control of the conventions of language use that are determined by the
features of the specific language use context; it enables us to perform language functions
in ways that are appropriate to that context” (p.94), and it includes sensitivity to
differences in dialect or variety, to differences in register and to naturalness, and the
ability to interpret cultural references and figures of speech. The second major
component of communicative competence in Bachman’s framework is strategic
competence. In Bachman’s model, strategic competence is a major component at the
same level as language competence. The reason, as Bachman states, is that previous
models imply that communicative strategies are necessarily linguistic or verbal ones but
his model shows that strategic competence is a competence at the level of language
competence not a subpart so it may include strategies which are not linguistic. Moreover,
he believes strategic competence is “an important part of all communicative language use,
not just that in which language abilities are deficient and must be compensated for by
other means” (p. 100).

CANALE AND SWAIN, 1980

 6

1. Grammatical competence – the knowledge of the language code (grammatical rules,

vocabulary, pronunciation, spelling, etc.).
2. Sociolinguistic competence – the mastery of the sociocultural code of language use
(appropriate application of vocabulary, register, politeness and style in a given
situation).
3. Discourse competence – the ability to combine language structures into different types
of cohesive texts (e.g., political speech, poetry).
4. Strategic competence – the knowledge of verbal and non non-verbal communication
strategies, which enhance the efficiency of communication and, where necessary,
enable the learner to overcome difficulties when communication breakdowns occur.

CELCE-MURCIA, 1995

Discourse Competence
Discourse competence concerns the selection, sequencing, and arrangement of words,
structures, sentences and utterances to achieve a unified spoken or written text.

Linguistic Competence
It comprises the basic elements of communication: the sentence patterns and types, the
constituent structure, the morphological inflections, and the lexical resources, as well as the
phonological and orthographic systems needed to realize communication as speech or
writing.
 7

Actional Competence
Actional competence is defined as competence in conveying and understanding
communicative intent, that is, matching actional intent with linguistic form based on the
knowledge of an inventory of verbal schemata that carry illocutionary force (speech acts and
speech act sets).

Sociocultural Competence
Sociocultural competence refers to the speaker’s knowledge of how to express messages
approriately within the overall social and cultural context of communication, in accordance
with the pragmatic factors related to variation in language use.

Strategic Competence
Strategic competence as knowledge of communication strategies and how to use them.

From the different models of communicative competence, which

competence is related to the use of language in society? Justify your
answer. You may discuss with one of your classmates.

_____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

Inside the box, write keywords or statements to help you remember the concepts in
Topic 1.
 8

TOPIC 2: VIEWS ON LANGUAGE

There are various views on language. Among these are the following:

From the definitions below, try to match which view of language refers to.
 9

● The structural view of language is that language is a system of structurally related

elements for the transmission of meaning. These elements are usually described as
phonological units (phonemes) grammatical units (phrases, clauses, sentences)
grammatical operations (adding, shifting, joining or transforming elements) lexical
items (function words and structure words)
● The communicative, or functional view of language is the view that language is a
vehicle for the expression of functional meaning. The semantic and communicative
dimensions of language are more emphasized than the grammatical characteristics,
although these are also included.
● The interactional view of language sees language primarily as the means for
establishing and maintaining interpersonal relationships and for performing social
transactions between individuals.
● The transformationalist view of language sees language as innate and similar among
languages.

Inside the box, write keywords or statements to help you remember the concepts in
Topic 2.
 10

TOPIC 3: COMPONENTS OF GRAMMAR

Because all language obeys a set of combinatory rules, we can communicate an infinite
number of concepts. While every language has a different set of rules, all languages do obey
rules. These rules are known as grammar. Speakers of a language have internalized the rules
and exceptions for that language’s grammar. There are rules for every level of
language—word formation (for example, native speakers of English have internalized the
general rule that -ed is the ending for past-tense verbs, so even when they encounter a
brand-new verb, they automatically know how to put it into past tense); phrase formation (for
example, knowing that when you use the verb “buy,” it needs a subject and an object; “She
buys” is wrong, but “She buys a gift” is okay); and sentence formation.

The grammatical component consists of four levels:

● The interpersonal level, which accounts for the pragmatics.

● The representational level, which accounts for the semantics.
● The morphosyntactic level, which accounts for the syntax and morphology.
● The phonological level, which accounts for the phonology of the utterance.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-psychology/chapter/introduction-to-language/

Phonetics and Phonology

Phonetics is the study of individual speech sounds; phonology is the study of phonemes,
which are the speech sounds of an individual language. These two heavily overlapping
subfields cover all the sounds that humans can make, as well as which sounds make up
different languages. A phonologist could answer the question, “Why do BAT and TAB have
different meanings even though they are made of the
same three sounds, A, B and T?”
 11

Morphology

Morphology is the study of words and other meaningful units of language like suffixes and
prefixes. A morphologist would be interested in the relationship between words like “dog”
and “dogs” or “walk” and “walking,” and how people figure out the differences between
those words.

Syntax

Syntax is the study of sentences and phrases, or how people put words into the right order so
that they can communicate meaningfully. All languages have underlying rules of syntax,
which, along with morphological rules, make up every language’s grammar. An example of
syntax coming into play in language is “Eugene walked the dog” versus “The dog walked
Eugene.” The order of words is not arbitrary—in order for the sentence to convey the
intended meaning, the words must be in a certain order.

Semantics and Pragmatics

Semantics, most generally, is about the meaning of sentences. Someone who studies
semantics is interested in words and what real-world object or concept those words denote, or
point to. Pragmatics is an even broader field that studies how the context of a sentence
contributes to meaning—for example, someone shouting “Fire!” has a very different meaning
if they are in charge of a seven-gun salute than it does if they are sitting in a crowded movie
theater.

Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Grammar

Every human being who speaks a language knows its grammar. When linguists wish
to describe a language, they attempt to describe the grammar of the language that exists in
the minds of its speakers. There will be some differences among speakers' knowledge, but
there must be shared knowledge too.

The shared knowledge --the common parts of the grammar - makes it possible to
communicate through language. To the extent that the linguist's description is a true model of
the speakers' linguistic capacity, it is a successful description of the grammar and of the
language itself. Such a model is called a descriptive grammar. It does not tell you how you
should speak; it describes your basic linguistic knowledge. It explains how it is possible for
you to speak and understand, and it tells what you know about the sounds, words, phrases,
and sentences of your language.

From ancient times until the present, "purists" have believed that language change is
corruption, and that there are certain "correct" fonus that all educated people should use in
speaking and writing. The Greek Alexandrians in the first century, the Arabic scholars at
Basra in the eighth century, and numerous English grammarians of the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries held this view. They wished to prescribe rather than describe the rules of
grammar, which gave rise to the writing of prescriptive grammars.
 12

Consider the following sentences. Which of these are

ungrammatical? Why do you say so? Let us discuss these in the
online class.

John kissed the little old lady who owned the shaggy dog.
Who owned the shaggy dog John kissed the little old lady.
John is difficult to love.
It is difficult to love John.
John is anxious to go.
It is anxious to go John.
John, who was a student, flunked his exams.
Exams his flunked student a was who John.

Inside the box, write keywords or statements to help you remember the concepts in
Topic 3.

TOPIC 4: L1 vs L2
 13

These terms are frequently used in language teaching as a way to distinguish between
a person’s first and second language. L1 is used to refer to the student’s first language, while
L2 is used in the same way to refer to their second language or the language they are
currently learning. These two terms are particularly prevalent in literature related to English
language learning as they provide a simple way of defining the two distinctive categories of
language.

It is relatively easy to list the differences between the acquisition of first and second
languages. In first language acquisition children are acquiring knowledge about the world at
the same time that they are acquiring language. Second language learners bring knowledge of
the world to the task of learning new ways to talk about the world. First language learners
receive hours of naturalistic exposure to language from caregivers who scaffold their
development (Tomasello & Brooks 1999). Exposure to the target language for second
language learners varies, both in quantity and in quality, depending upon whether the learner
is a child in a multilingual family, a pupil in a classroom, an immigrant at a workplace, a
spouse in a new country or a student in a foreign university, etc. Children are predisposed to
become native speakers of the language(s) spoken around them. The outcome of second
language learning depends on a myriad of factors – age, input, L1 and L2 proximity or
distance, motivation, individual differences in memory, in personality, etc.
 14

FOREIGN LANGUAGE

● A language is considered foreign if it is learned largely in the classroom and is not

spoken in the society where the teaching occurs.

● Foreign language learning and teaching refer to the teaching or learning of a

nonnative language outside of the environment where it is commonly spoken. A
distinction is often made between ‘foreign’ and ‘second’ language learning. A second
language implies that the learner resides in an environment where the acquired
language is spoken. In the area of research, the term second language acquisition
(SLA) is a general term that embraces foreign language learning and investigates the
human capacity to learn languages other than the first language once it has been
acquired.

Check on yourself. Complete the table below.

Answer Justification/ Reason

What is your L1?

What are your L2s?

Which foreign language do

you want to learn?

Kachru (1991, 1992) presented the three concentric circles to designate the categories of
countries whose people speak English as a first language, second language and foreign
language.

The Inner Circle consists of USA, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The speakers
in these countries are native speakers of the English language.

∙ The Outer Circle consists of Ghana, India, Nigeria, Philippines, Singapore and Sri Lanka.
The speakers in these countries are native speakers of the English language.

∙ The Expanding Circle consists of China, Egypt, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and
Thailand.
 15

Inside the box, write keywords or statements to help you remember the concepts in
Topic 4.

TOPIC 5: PIDGINS AND CREOLES

 16

A pidgin is a language with no native speakers: it is no one’s first language but is a

contact language. That is, it is the product of a multilingual situation in which those who
wish to communicate must find or improvise a simple language system that will enable them
to do so. Very often too, that situation is one in which there is an imbalance of power among
the languages as the speakers of one language dominate the speakers of the other languages
economically and socially. A highly codified language often accompanies that dominant
position. A pidgin is therefore sometimes regarded as a ‘reduced’ variety of a ‘normal’
language, i.e., one of the aforementioned dominant languages, with simplification of the
grammar and vocabulary of that language, considerable phonological variation, and an
admixture of local vocabulary to meet the special needs of the contact group. Holm (1988,
pp. 4–5) defines a pidgin as:
a reduced language that results from extended contact between groups of people with
no language in common; it evolves when they need some means of verbal com-
munication, perhaps for trade, but no group learns the native language of any other
group for social reasons that may include lack of trust or of close contact.

The process of pidginization probably requires a situation that involves at least three
languages (Whinnom, 1971), one of which is clearly dominant over the others. If only two
languages are involved, there is likely to be a direct struggle for dominance, as between
English and French in England after 1066, a struggle won in that case by the socially inferior
language but only after more than two centuries of co-existence. When three or more
languages are involved and one is dominant, the speakers of the two or more that are inferior
appear to play a critical role in the development of a pidgin. They must not only speak to
those who are in the dominant position, but they must also speak to each other. To do this,
they must simplify the dominant language in certain ways, and this process of simplification
may or may not have certain universal characteristics. We may argue, therefore, that a pidgin
arises from the simplification of a language when that language comes to dominate various
groups of speakers separated from one another by language differences. This hypothesis
partially explains not only the origin of pidgins in slave societies, in which the slaves were
deliberately drawn from a variety of language backgrounds, but also their origin on sea
coasts, where a variety of languages might be spoken but the language of trade is a pidgin.
It also helps to explain why pidginized varieties of languages are used much more as lingua
francas by people who cannot speak the corresponding standard languages than they are used
between such people and speakers of the standard varieties. For example, Pidgin Chinese
English was used mainly by speakers of different Chinese languages, and Tok Pisin is today
used as a unifying language among speakers of many different languages in Papua New
Guinea.
In contrast to a pidgin, a creole is often defined as a pidgin that has become the first
language of a new generation of speakers. As Aitchison (1994, p. 3177) says, ‘creoles arise
when pidgins become mother tongues.’ A creole, therefore, is a ‘normal’ language in almost
every sense. Holmes (1992, p. 95) says that ‘A creole is a pidgin which has expanded in
structure and vocabulary to express the range of meanings and serve the range of functions
required of a first language.’ In practice it is not always easy to say whether we have a pidgin
rather than a creole. Tok Pisin and some of the West African pidgins such as Nigerian Pidgin
English probably exist as both pidgins and creoles. They have speakers who use them only as
second languages in an expanded form and also speakers for whom they are first languages.
Such expanded varieties are often characteristic of urban environments in which there is
 17

likely to be considerable contact among speakers of different languages and are sometimes
referred to as extended pidgins. Winford (2003, p. 307) says that ‘creoles constitute a motley
assortment of contact vernaculars with different histories and lines of develop- ment, though
of course they still have much in common . . . [and] there are no structural characteristics that
all creoles share . . . [and] no structural criteria that can distinguish creoles from other types
of language.’

The Philippines also has also a creole. Below is a description. You may
also check https://apics-online.info/surveys/46 for more information
about Chavacano.

Zamboanga Chabacano is one of the varieties of the Spanish-based creole on the

Philippines commonly known as Chabacano. Despite its pejorative original meaning,
‘tasteless, vulgar’, the name Chabacano is used by the speech community as a
self-designation. Alongside Papiamentu and Palenquero in the Americas, Chabacano, with its
variety Zamboangueño, is one of three Spanish-based creoles worldwide with the highest
number of speakers. It shares interesting features with other European-based creoles in Asia,
a fact that distinguishes it from the Atlantic creoles. Furthermore, unlike these, Zamboanga
Chabacano has been acquiring a mixed character, especially from the 20th century onwards.
The total number of Zamboanga Chabacano speakers can be estimated to be around
300,000. In scientific publications, Zamboanga Chabacano is also named Southern Mindanao
Creole. Zamboanga Chabacano is spoken on the island Mindanao in the south of the
archipelago. The highest degree of vitality of Zamboanga Chabacano, and of Chabacano
generally, is observed in the city of Zamboanga and the surrounding area in the extreme
western part of Mindanao. Outside Zamboanga there are at least two subvarieties in Cotabato
City and Semporna (Sabah, Malaysia) which do not differ much from it. Zamboanga
Chabacano is also used in the region as a lingua franca by diverse ethno-linguistic groups. It
is codified for public and private purposes with an anarchic Hispanic orthography; there are
Bible translations and literary writings, and there were also, until recently, press publications
in Zamboanga Chabacano. Public oral use has recently been increasing in broadcasting, in
church, and in some public schools.
 18

Inside the box, write keywords or statements to help you remember the concepts in
Topic 5.

TOPIC 6: MACRO AND MICRO LINGUISTICS

Macro-linguistics and micro-linguistics are both fields of study of linguistics that

focus on language and its form and meaning and the changes that occur to that form and
meaning due to other factors; macro-linguistics examines language on a macro level, or from
a more general perspective, while micro-linguistics examines language on a micro level, or in
a more specific and particular way.
 19

Macro-linguistics analyzes language beyond its most basic functions and context—it
focuses on the social, cultural psychological, and neurological factors and how they're
connected to the language and its structure. Thus, there are several subcategories of
macro-linguistics, such as sociolinguistics (language and society), psycholinguistics
(language and psychology), neurolinguistics (language and neurology), computational
linguistics (language and IT), and others.
Unlike macro-linguistics, micro-linguistics studies language and its properties,
structure, and functions specifically; thus, syntax (the structure of sentences), morphology
(the structure of words), phonology (the study of sounds and speech), semantics (the meaning
of words and phrases), and others are all subcategories of micro-linguistics.
In conclusion, macro-linguistics studies language and the influences on language in
general, while micro-linguistics studies language and all of its properties, elements, and
concepts in greater detail. Some argue that macro-linguistics focuses more on society and the
way it influences language, while micro-linguistics focuses more on language itself and its
elements.

DIACHRONIC VS. SYYNCHRONIC LINGUISTICS

A binary pair introduced by Ferdinand de Saussure to define the two available

temporal axes for the analysis of language, which can logically be extended to encompass
virtually all forms of human activity. Linguistics, in Saussure's time, approached the problem
of the multiplicity of languages by trying to trace each of them back to a handful of common
sources (in much the same way as evolutionary biologists approach the problem of the
multiplicity of species). This approach was deemed diachronic by Saussure because it looks
for the production of difference across time. But for Saussure this ignored the (to him, more
interesting and important) problem of how to account for the existence and operation of
language itself. To get a handle on this, he insisted that it was necessary to take a snapshot of
language at a particular time and effectively produce a freeze-frame of it. This approach he
referred to as synchronic. By freezing time, or better ignoring its effects, Saussure thought it
would be easier to see that which was eternal and universal.

TOPIC 7 : PLURALITY OF ENGLSIH

LINGUISTIC UNIVERSALS

A linguistic universal is a pattern that occurs systematically across natural languages,

potentially true for all of them. For example, All languages have nouns and verbs, or If a
language is spoken, it has consonants and vowels. Research in this area of linguistics is
closely tied to the study of linguistic typology, and intends to reveal generalizations across
languages, likely tied to cognition, perception, or other abilities of the mind. The field
 20

originates from discussions influenced by Noam Chomsky's proposal of a Universal

Grammar, but was largely pioneered by the linguist Joseph Greenberg, who derived a set
of forty-five basic universals, mostly dealing with syntax, from a study of some thirty
languages.

UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR

Universal grammar, theory proposing that humans possess innate faculties related to the
acquisition of language. The definition of universal grammar has evolved considerably since
first it was postulated and, moreover, since the 1940s, when it became a specific object of
modern linguistic research. It is associated with work in generative grammar, and it is based
on the idea that certain aspects of syntactic structure are universal. Universal grammar
consists of a set of atomic grammatical categories and relations that are the building blocks
of the particular grammars of all human languages, over which syntactic structures and
constraints on those structures are defined. A universal grammar would suggest that all
languages possess the same set of categories and relations and that in order to communicate
through language, speakers make infinite use of finite means, an idea that Wilhelm von
Humboldt suggested in the 1830s. From this perspective, a grammar must contain a finite
system of rules that generates infinitely many deep and surface structures, appropriately
related. It must also contain rules that relate these abstract structures to certain
representations of sound and meaning—representations that, presumably, are constituted of
elements that belong to universal phonetics and universal semantics, respectively.

This concept of grammatical structure is an elaboration of Humboldt’s ideas but harkens back
to earlier efforts. Noam Chomsky, a leading figure in modern development of the idea of
universal grammar, identifies precursors in the writings of Panini, Plato, and both rationalist
and romantic philosophers, such as René Descartes (1647), Claude Favre de Vaugelas (1647),
César Chesneau DuMarsais (1729), Denis Diderot (1751), James Beattie (1788), and
Humboldt (1836). Chomsky focuses in particular on early efforts by the 17th-century Port
Royal grammarians, whose rationalist approach to language and language universals was
based on the idea that humans in the “civilized world” share a common thought structure.

WORLD ENGLISHES

The term World Englishes refers to the differences in the English language that
emerge as it is used in various contexts across the world. Scholars of World Englishes
identify the varieties of English used in different sociolinguistic contexts, analyzing their
history, background, function, and influence.

Languages develop to fulfill the needs of the societies that use them. Because
societies contain a diverse range of social needs, and because these needs can differ across
cultures and geographies, multiple varieties of the English language exist. These include
 21

American English, British English, Australian English, Canadian English, Indian English,
and so on.

While there is no single way for a new variety of English to emerge, its development
can generally be described as a process of adaptation. A certain group of speakers take a
familiar variety of English and adapt the features of that variety to suit the needs of their
social context.

For example, a store selling alcoholic beverages is called a “liquor store” in American
English, whereas it is called an “off-licence” in British English. The latter term derives from
British law, which distinguishes between businesses licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for
consumption off the premises and those licensed for consumption at the point of sale (i.e.,
bars and pubs).

Such variations do not occur in terms of word choice only. They happen also in terms
of spelling, pronunciation, sentence structure, accent, and meaning. As new linguistic
adaptations accumulate over time, a distinct variety of English eventually emerges. World
Englishes scholars use a range of different criteria to recognize a new English variant as an
established World English. These include the sociolinguistic context of its use, its range of
functional domains, and the ease with which new speakers can become acculturated to it,
among other criteria.

The Origin of World Englishes

1965

Linguist Braj Kachru (1932-2016) publishes his first journal article, entitled “The
Indianness in Indian English.” In the article, he lays the theoretical groundwork for the idea
of World Englishes by interpreting how English is nativized in India, delineating some of its
unique sociological and cultural aspects, and showing that “Indian English” is a unique
variety of English which is neither an American or British English.

1984
Kachru formally introduces the term “World Englishes” at the Teachers of English to
Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) Conference along with the global profile of English.
Later, he proposes the three concentric circles model. Both papers are subsequently
published.

Kachru argues that it is important to view each variety of English in its own historical,
political, sociolinguistic, and literary contexts. This concentric circle model does not only
show the wide spread of English across the world, but also emphasizes “the concept of
pluralism, linguistic heterogeneity, cultural diversity and the different theoretical and
methodological foundations for teaching and research in English” (1984, p. 26).

Kachru also defines the quality of “nativeness” in World Englishes “in terms of both its
functional domains and range, and its depth in social penetration and resultant acculturation”
(1997, p. 68). A community acquires “native” English-speaking status as it uses English in
 22

broader a greater number of societal contexts. This process, however, is shaped by the
historical role of English in the community (e.g., as the language of a colonizing force). It is
this interaction between functionality and history that leads to the nativization of English in a
particular society or population group. Consequently, Kachru argues, the English language
belongs not only to its native speakers but also to its various non-native users throughout the
world.

1992
Larry E. Smith contributes a chapter titled, “Spread of English and Issues of Intelligibility”
to The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures, edited by Braj B. Kachru. Smith, in this
chapter, mentions that since the global spread of English has been very rapid by historical
standards, not all these English varieties will necessarily be intelligible to each other. Thus,
he argues that the idea of English’s “intelligibility” should be thought of as a matter of its
ability to be understood by a speaker and listener within the same speech community, rather
than its degree to be understood solely by native speakers of English. He also proposes the
following three terms to understand the interaction between speaker and listener: 1)
intelligibility (word/utterance recognition), 2) comprehensibility (word/utterance meaning, or
“locutionary force”), and 3) interpretability (meaning behind word/utterance, “illocutionary
force”).

Philippine English

Philippine English is one of the very few American-transplanted Englishes. The

language was introduced in the country by American colonization that started in 1898. From
only 300,000 users or 4% of the population at the beginning of the 20th century, it is
estimated that there were around 42 million or 70% of the population who are able to use
English, almost fifty years after the American colonization ended at the end of the century
(Gonzalez, 1996). In the implementing 1987 Constitution, English is regarded as one of the
two official languages of the Philippines, the other one being the national language Filipino.
It also interacts with 180 other Austronesian-type languages used in the country, nine of them
considered major languages. English plays a major role in the Philippine society, offering a
rightfully unique rendering of the psycho-sociolinguistic phenomenon of the spread of
English: A sizeable number of Filipinos even learn it as a first language (and sometimes only
language). The language is widely used in government, education, business, science and
technology, and the arts but it has also penetrated the personal and private lives of Filipinos,
where code-switching can be prevalent. Proficiency in English may also be equated with
socio-economic status; those with higher socio-economic status tend to be more proficient in
the language. Philippine English is presently entering a stage of structural systematicization
(cf. Borlongan & Lim, 2012) and is being codified through dictionaries and grammars.
Consequently, some claims are made that Philippine English is already at the phase of
endonormative stabilization (Borlongan, 2011).

Philippine English is legitimate, says Oxford English

Dictionary editor
ABS-CBN News
Posted at Aug 20 2020 07:10 PM | Updated as of Aug 20 2020 08:35 PM
 23

MANILA -- Contrary to what many Filipinos think, Philippine English is a legitimate variety
of the English language, according to an expert.

Dr. Danica Salazar, world English editor for the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), stressed
that Philippine English is "not slang, not wrong, not carabao English, or any other derogatory
word that's been used over the years."

She said that just like British, American, Australian, and Singaporean variants, Philippine
English plays an important role in the historical development of the language, which OED
seeks to document.

"What OED does is it tells the history of the English language through the development of its
words, and that story is not complete if we don't tell the part that Philippine English plays,"
she said in a recent webinar organized by the Philippine Embassy in Spain.

"Philippine English, just like American English or British English, or Indian English or
Singapore English, are all part of the same story," she added. "We all have a role to play in
this. Philippine English has as much of a place in the history in the lexicon of the English
language as all these other varieties."

According to Salazar, adding Philippine English words to OED takes them months of work,
but was quick to reiterate that "it's worth it."

"These words like 'bongga' or 'kilig,' you might find them silly but they do say something
about our culture and they are worth spending hours and months researching," she said.

PHILIPPINE ENGLISH ACCENT

Salazar also pointed out how Filipinos have their own unique way of speaking in English,
and that this is something that should be embraced.

She noted how some people try to sound American or British, under the impression that this
is the "right" way to communicate using the English language.

"I've been living in the UK for seven years now, and nobody's ever told me, 'I don't
understand you.' And I speak with a totally Philippine English accent," she said.

"The accent and the words that we use, these are a reflection of our identity, of our culture,"
she explained. "And adapting languages to suit a communicative means is something that
everyone does. Americans adapted British English, Australians did the same, people in New
Zealand do the same. So why can't we do the same?"

Salazar went on to share that the Philippine accent is "one of the most understandable accents
in the world," saying this is "one of the reasons why our call center industry is so successful."

"We don't need to sound American to speak English correctly," she stressed, adding, "We
don't have to waste our time in the classroom trying to twist our students' tongues in shapes
that they can't make."