Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
I.D.: 806007430
Assignment: Critically evaluate and analyse Kachru's Three-Circle model for varieties of
English around the world. You may consider including a comparison and contrast with
1
Basarally 806007430 LING 6402
The English language has spread to every continent of the world and as a result,
non-native English speakers outnumber native ones today. With this, the language has
undergone changes that are still being investigated in the field of linguistics, the main one
being the existence of Englishes as opposed to a single standard variety. Attempts have
been made to describe the spread of the language with various models. Each model
proposed reflected different approaches to defining English as a global language and its
relationship with its speakers who come from diverse geographical and linguistic
backgrounds. Braj Kachru proposed a model of three concentric circles that showed the
connotation of linguistic superiority of the Englishes in the models core and the
boundaries used did not reflect the accurate state of the varieties contained. Marko
Modiano developed an alternative to fill some of the gaps in the three concentric circles.
The centripetal model placed in its core proficiency and was able to accommodate
movement within the model. However, many key definitions required development,
native and non-native speakers were put on par in determining linguistic norms and it
Inner Circle, Outer Circle and Expanding Circle. The amount of speakers in the Inner and
Outer Circles are both estimated at 37 million and the Expanding Circle at 750-1000
million according to Graddol (2000). Inner Circle Englishes in the model refer to the
traditional centres of the language or the colonising nations that spread the language to
different territories, here English is the first or native language. The Outer Circle is
2
Basarally 806007430 LING 6402
language and used in different functional domains, such as government, and the
Expanding Circle includes all nations that use English as a foreign language (See Figure
1). The definition of native English speakers used is persons who learnt English at a
life, i.e. social, professional or academic. The model is marked by the fact that there is no
standard worldwide English and its shows the diffusion of English from its traditional
shows how English is acquired and used instead of in historical and genetic terms
(Crystal, 60).
Kachrus three-circle model was accepted for years as the most accurate
representation of the spread of the English language. The aim of the model was to
demonstrate the pluralistic reality of the language and show that English changes as it
spreads. This acknowledgement of diversity sought to change the use of models that
3
Basarally 806007430 LING 6402
utilised family trees and chronological models. The chronological and biological models
were hierarchical as English from Britain was at the centre and failed to distinguish
native and non-native English. Additionally, the chronological models tend to depict
language change as implicitly a sequences of boxes or rungs, while the biological models
tend to depict it explicitly through tree diagrams and an imagery of femaleness and
fertility (McArthur, 98). These representations fell short as the sociolinguistic reality
was ignored.
Kachrus model, ENL was replaced by the Inner Circle, ESL by the Outer Circle and
EFL by the Expanding Circle. Kachrus model promotes what Rajadurai calls WE-ness
as the different types of English are part of the same circle (113).
The model also aims to refute the notion that the Outer Circle, previously viewed
and interlanguage are terms that relate to second language acquisition. Fossilisation is
continued use of grammatical structures that are incorrect, the continued use of such
structures is a result of the learner not being cognitively able to use the correct structure.
Interlanguage is the speech of the learner that has grammatical mistakes; this is viewed as
a state that the learner arrives at before moving on to native-like performance and
competence. Instead, Kachru proposed that such Englishes were indigenised. This meant
that no one group owned English but it was owned by those who spoke it. According to
Kilickaya (36), Quirk suggested the use of native norms and native like performance
and stressed the need to uphold one common standard in the Outer and Expanding
4
Basarally 806007430 LING 6402
Circles of Kachrus model. For Kachru, speech norms and registers were irrelevant to the
sociolinguistic reality of the English speaker in the Outer Circle because the language
would have generally been acquired in an educational setting so a standard from the Inner
Circle would have already been employed. Differences from the standards of Inner Circle
politeness not fossilisation (36). Kachru saw variation as differences not deficits because
localised varieties of English were used for communication amongst non-native English
speakers and English is used to impart local culture not only that of the Inner Circle
(Jenkins, 67).
Kachrus model received some of the same criticism of earlier models. A major area of
contention was the connotation involved with the composition of the Inner Circle. The
Inner Circle includes the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New
Zealand. Historically, these nations were colonising powers responsible for the
Kachru describes the Inner Circle as norm providing, the Outer Circle as norm-
developing and the Expanding Circle as norm accepting (Rajadurai, 112). The concept of
the Expanding Circle being norm dependant has been called into question by
Canagarajah. English is used as a lingua franca in this circle and would produce its own
norms and multilingual speakers do not seem to defer to inner-circle norms when they
communicate with each other in English (232). Also, in the Expanding circles, the
5
Basarally 806007430 LING 6402
terminology, combined with the fact that many ESL texts are produced from such
countries, gives prestige to the Inner Circle Englishes which defeats the purpose of
connotations of divisiveness and superiority. It is also noted that the other circles have
developed their own standards that not only provide norms for internal consumption but
are also exported to other countries (116). Examples are seen in the number of ESL
teachers that are not from the Inner Circle, literature in English from authors like Achebe
and Desai and the production of texts on Indian English. This supports Canagarajahs
view that the circles are leaking, the boundaries neither contain nor prevent penetration
by other Englishes.
The positioning of the Inner Circle in the centre means that the norm producers
are defined by geography not proficiency. This means that the boundaries between the
circles cannot be well defined. Canagarajah describes this reality as having circles that
are leaking (231). Due to the circles being mainly geographical, globalisation caused a
movement of English speakers throughout the circles. Companies from the Inner Circle
transact business with the other Circles; as a result, knowledge of other Englishes is
English is used solely for extra community relations in the expanding circle (232).
Also, the Expanding and Outer Circles appear apart from the Inner Circle; therefore, one
6
Basarally 806007430 LING 6402
circle. Members of the Inner Circle are presumed to speak English from an early age and
posses the best norms. This is a problematic criterion because there are members of
Kachrus core with non-native English populations. For example, the United Kingdom is
listed in the core but in this single territory there is Gaelic and Scots in Scotland, Welsh
in Wales and also some Gaelic speakers in Northern Ireland. Hence, the Inner Circle is
Richardson also doubts the clear-cut production and acceptance of norms. The
majority of English speakers today do not come from the Inner Circle, so international
communication would involve non-native speakers that would produce new norms (12).
The Englishes present in each circle is clear but how it is used is not. For example,
English is not confined to trade and communication in the Expanding Circle. Neither is
the Inner Circle Englishes the same in grammar, vocabulary and syntax, if this were so
there would be no point in differentiating them. As the model implies that the countries in
each circle are the same, it does not account for the linguistic variation that actually
occurs.
In light of the weaknesses of Kachrus model, attempts were made to develop one
that more accurately represented the sociolinguistic reality of the spread of English;
Modianos model comes close to doing this. Modiano developed a centripetal instead of
proficiency. The innermost circle consists of those who are proficient in English as an
International Language (EIL), the next circle is of those proficient in English as a native
7
Basarally 806007430 LING 6402
and foreign language, the third circle comprises of English learners and the last circle
consists of people who do not know English (See Figure 2). The model does not differ
drastically for the three concentric circles as it rejects notions of prestige, promotes the
diversity of English and gives a geopolitical view of the spread of the language. It also
addresses some of the major concerns about the Kachrus model: the concept of norms,
connotations of prestige, identification of the use of English in each circle and the issue
of nativeness.
centre cannot be limited to a particular place or group. The centre does not only include
native English speakers. The question of norms is also addressed; Kachru placed the
production of norms with the centre or Inner Circle which consists of native English
having non-native speakers of EIL define and develop norms (Burt, 4). The model also
provides a clear place for Creoles in the second circle. In this circle, Creole speakers are
on par with speakers of other Englishes, even from Kachrus Inner Circle.
Simultaneously, Creoles are not in the centre because it is understood by mainly other
8
Basarally 806007430 LING 6402
Creole speakers. It also is allows movement from the Outer Circle to the Inner one
remain. Firstly there is the problem of defining some assertions made by Modiano. In
light of the democratic stance of English ownership, a linguistic feature is correct only if
it is used and understood by the majority of proficient speakers of EIL (Burt, 4). This
would exclude English speakers with strong regional accents. It would mean that there
cannot be varieties of EIL, but what will classify as a strong accent is left unanswered.
Modiano redrafted the model which highlighted the common core of all varieties of
English as the centre. Jenkins notes that the question of what goes into the core remains
Modiano who defines proficiency as common sense and intuition (21). Hence, what
as knowledge of a language does not equate to native performance. The greater emphasis
features it would be difficult to legitimise it. The model was criticised for maintaining an
ideal in the form of EIL. The conclusion can therefore be made that any model would
always include an ideal as a reference point. The question therefore is whether to have an
ideal based on nativeness and geography or one based on proficiency. Modianos model
9
Basarally 806007430 LING 6402
attempts to learn the language. Its weaknesses in the indirect prestige given to the
Eurocentric varieties of English and lack of fluidity between circles were answered by
Modiano. However, while Modiano creates a more egalitarian model and sets clearer
criteria for the placement of Englishes, the important definitions of EIL and core features
Works Cited
Burt, Channing. What is International English? Working Papers in TESOL and Applied
Linguistics 5.1 (2005): 1-19 Web. 15 Mar. 2010.
10
Basarally 806007430 LING 6402
Jenkins, Jennifer. World Englishes: A Resource Book for Students. 2nd. ed. London:
Routledge, 2009. Print.
11
Basarally 806007430 LING 6402
12