Is it more appropriate to speak of World English or World Englishes?
The topic of English as a World Language sparks many debates considering its social, political, economic, and cultural impacts. One debate questions the most appropriate label for the concept – the singular “World English” or plural “World Englishes”? The phrases may only differ in two letters but the connotations they bring contrast widely, as do attitudes towards them. This essay will summarise and assess some of the key themes each phrase represents, to evaluate which is the most appropriate term.
World Standard English
McArthur (2001) believes the concept of World English includes all forms of dialects, but the phrase itself suggests otherwise – a singular entity. This singularity of World English is widely debated, with arguments for and against global standardisation at the core. Opinions were divided by the ‘growth-spurt’ of English into a global language, that spans the last 40 years (McArthur, ibid, p.5). Butler’s definition of World English shows bias towards the “for” side of this debate. It implies that standardisation is inevitable, if not already in existence – ‘an actual, perceived, or hoped-for standard form of English worldwide’ (1999, cited by McArthur, 2001).
According to McArthur, one World Standard of English (WSE) would have many benefits, particularly on education, printing, and global media (2001). He asserts that it would create a ‘communicative security’ for all users of English (2003, p. 416). Ishikawa (2016) says the concept is ‘deeply ingrained into sociolinguistic theory and methods’ but considers the difficultly of determining such a standard. Development of a WSE would depend on many factors, and academics dispute the greatest influence. Jenkins states that it would be American English, due to its vast media presence (2003). Kachru (2009) disagrees, asserting that second language English speakers (L2) will have the biggest impact since they outnumber native English speakers (L1) (Iskikawa, 2016).
English as a Lingua Franca
English is read, written, or understood in every country, reaching an estimated 2 billion speakers (Schneider, 2011). Its prestige has been primarily influenced by 17th c. British Imperialism, technological advances, and capitalism (McArthur, 2001). In fundamental international industries such as politics or tourism, English is the “go-to” language of communications, and it now ranks as the Global Lingua Franca (ibid). McArthur claims that this is Standard English, and strays from the term’s usual meaning of a ‘low-level makeshift language’ (ibid, p.1). Contrastingly, Bowles defines English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) as ‘a flexible, co-constructed, and therefore variable means of communication’ (2015, p.2). This variability allows successful discourse between speakers who speak don’t share a native language. However, academics disagree over whether these variable features are mere elements of diversity or ‘error-prone and elusive’ (Prodromou, 2008, xi).
Employing a universal standard would create a worldwide speech community which could eventually eradicate miscommunication between speakers of different “Englishes”, from different social or cultural backgrounds (Schneider, 2011, p.15). Global homogenisation of English would be a colossal task due to the ever-changing varieties caused by the historically widespread use of a relatively ungoverned English.
New Englishes
The simple pluralisation of “World English” alludes a more progressive, inclusive concept in which varieties can co-exist without pressure of standardisation or self-correction. Jenkins states that ‘a living language by definition is dynamic’ (2003, p.29), therefore Englishes will be ever-changing with the world, which could deem standardisation a futile effort.
Global expansion of English has led to the emergence of new varieties known as ‘New Englishes’, Caribbean English, New Zealand English, South Asian English, to name a few (Crystal, 2012, p.144). Crystal asserts that these Englishes have ‘clear-cut boundaries and an easily definable phonology, grammar and lexicon’ (ibid, p.165). He describes them as ‘locally distinctive’ and similar to regional dialects, but on a global scale. They have distinguishable non-standard features that give speakers a linguistic identity (ibid, p. 145). Schneider agrees that ‘the mix of features […] causes the distinct identity of varieties’ (2011, p. 57). However, as New Englishes expose the linguistic identity of L2 speakers, they face a conundrum: do they assimilate their language towards a native form, to maximise their chance of being understood, or do they embrace their accent and/or dialect to preserve their linguistic identity – ‘the need for intelligibility and identity tend to pull […] in opposite directions’ (Crystal, 2012, p.127).
Literature Review
I found Jennifer Jenkins’ World Englishes (2003) particularly useful when introducing myself to the topic as her explanations are thorough but easy to understand. I think on Schnieder’s English Around the World (2011) book was fairly one-sided – helpful for the “Englishes” but limiting when focusing on “World English”. McArthur’s 2001 journal was dense in information, but fairly outdated so not completely reliable. I disagreed with his proposal that only two standards of English (US and UK) exist in print as there are hundreds of standard usages of English on the internet which is essentially the modern-day version of printing. This misconception may be due to the age of the paper. The most useful and engaging source I used was Chapter 5 of Crystal’s English as a Global Language (2012). His argument is fair and in-depth on both sides of the debate with lots of intriguing points and interesting facts.
Conclusion
“World English” implies a singular entity; one language with variants such as dialects and sociolects within which some believe we should standardise as a race. I see the benefits of having a WSE for intelligibility purposes but find the prescriptive motives unnecessary and illiberal. “World Englishes” entails inclusivity and welcomes variation, therefore, I find this to be the most appropriate term for the topic. However, I found it useful to think of this as a scalar concept, with World English at one end and World Englishes at the other, as the concepts have blurred edges and some overlapping ideas concerning inclusivity of variation and ELF could be an argued as an asset to both sides. I think ELF serves as a middle-ground to facilitate communication while still maintaining diversities.
Realistically, I think it is impossible to truly standardise a language in a small community, let alone world-wide. World Englishes should be able to be “Englishes” – appreciated in their plurality and allowed to evolve and adapt as a language, with each new speaker.
Word Count – 1,036
References
Bowles, H. (2015) International Perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca: Pedagogical Insights. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. [Accessed 28 March 2018].
Crystal, D. (2012) English as a Global Language [online]. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Accessed 30 March 2018].
Ishikawa, T. (2016) World Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca: conceptualising the legitimacy of Asian people’s English. Asian Englishes [online]. 18 (2), pp. 129-140. [Accessed 23 March 2018].
Jenkins, J. (2003) World Englishes: A Resource Book for Students. Abingdon: Routledge.
Kachru, B., Kachru, Y. and Nelson, C. (2009) The Handbook of World English [online]. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. [Accessed 24 March 2018].
McArthur, T. (2001) World English and World Englishes: Trends, tensions, varieties, and standards. Language Teaching [online]. 34 (1), pp. 1-20. [Accessed 23 March 2018].
McArthur, T. (2003) The Oxford Guide to World English [online]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Accessed 28 March 2018].
Prodromou, L. (2010) English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus Based Analysis[online]. 2nd ed. Bloomsbury: Bloomsbury Academic. [Accessed 28 March 2018].
Schneider, E. (2011) English Around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.