English Linguistics 2: English and Englishes
Summary on Assigned Articles
Module 1. Language Varieties and Standard Language
The first distinction we need to make is between those varieties that are use-related and
those that are user-related. Use-related varieties are those that an individual assumes along
with a relevant role: and a given individual may have a mastery of several such varieties (a
lawyer using legal English to draft an agreement and, later on, using literary English when
writing an article for the Sunday Times). User-related varieties are used by individuals who
are tied to one only (Americans express themselves only in American English). However, two
lawyers corresponding on a case across the Atlantic both switch into legal English, despite
the fact that both colour their legal English with the user-related American or British variety
of the language.
With user-related varieties, there is a distinction between varieties identified on
ethnopolitical grounds and those on linguistic grounds. On linguistic grounds, there are
similarities that relate not to the political labels of Hong Kong and Taiwanese but to the
Chinese that is spoken in both areas. The distinction also reveals ambiguity in the term
Chinese English itself: English as used in the People’s Republic or features of English
influenced by a Chinese L1 (whether in China, Taiwan, Singapore, or Malaysia).
With regards to linguistic grounds, there is a distinction between non-native varieties (e.g.
Indian English, Nigerian English, East African English) of English and native varieties. Non-
native varieties include aspects in which one can sometimes recognise the ethnic background
of a person by his or her English: e.g. Russian English, French English, Japanese English.
The problem with these is that they are unstable, with each speaker seeking to move to a
point where the varietal characteristics reach vanishing point. Each variety is best manifest in
those who speak it worst (thus, it it easier to recognise). The native varieties are, for example,
American English, South African English, Yorkshire English.
The final distinction is non-institutionalised varieties and institutionalised. The
institutionalised varieties are those that are fully described and with defined standards
observed by the institutions of state (only American English, British English and Australian
English). Most native varieties are not institutionalised and resemble the non-natives ones in
the sense that they are on a socioeconomic cline (e.g. features marking an individual as being
of Yorkshire English or New York English tend to disappear the higher up the socioeconomic
scale (s)he happens to be).
The one that seems to be of the greatest importance educationally and linguistically is that
between native and non-native: the distinction that is also the most controversial. The author
excludes the node (non-)institutionalised.
Context of argument: teaching English as a Standard Language. Institutionalised teachers
shouldn’t deviate from this.
,Module 2. Liberation Linguistics and the Quick Concern
II. The Quick Concerns
The concerns Quirk expresses are an attack on the positions which (socio)linguists have taken
on the spread of English, its functions and its multi-norms (i.e. on the recognition of
pluricentricity and multi-identities of English):
1. The recognition of a range of variation for English is a linguistic manifestation of
underlying ideological positions. Liberation theology has led to the demand ‘’why not
also a ‘liberation linguistics’?’’ Quirk believes that the result of this ideological
underpinning is that ‘’the interest of varieties of English has got out of hand and has
started blinding both teachers and taught to the central linguistic structure from which
varieties might be seen as varying.’’
2. There is a ‘’confusion of types of linguistic variety that are freely referred to in
educational, linguistic, sociolinguistic and literary critical discussion.’’
3. The use of the term ‘institutionalized variety’ with the non-native varieties of English
is inappropriate. However, this position is opposed in his own work: such varieties
‘’are so widespread in a community and of such long standing that they may be
thought stable and adequate enough to be institutionalized and […] regarded as
varieties of English in their own right.’’
Non-native teachers should be in ‘constant touch’ with the native language. Quirk is
concerned about the ‘’implications for attempting the institutionalization of non-
native varieties of any language.’’ Kachru disagrees:
a. The solution of ‘’constant touch with the native language’’ does not apply to
the institutionalized varieties’’, because of
i. Practical reason: It is not possible for a teacher to be in contact touch
with the native language given the number of teachers involved, the
lack of resources and overwhelming non-native input.
ii. Functional reason: Users of institutionalized varieties are expected to
conform to local norms and speech strategies.
iii. Psycholinguistic question of ‘internalization’: natives have ‘’radically
different internalizations’’ about their L1. However, this is not vital for
a rejection of institutionalization. Instead, it is recognised by speakers’
own multilinguistic, sociolinguistic and sociocultural contexts.
b. Even among natives, one sometimes finds surprising variations. There is
an assumption that there is a mysterious, semi-mystical difference between
two groups of people, natives and non-natives, a difference which affects the
way their minds work when handling the language concerned-something to
with the way their minds are ‘wired’. Similar to Whorfian hypothesis: we are
all regarded as imprisoned within our respective languages and the thought
forms that they impose on us, with no chance of escape across the language
barrier. An escape route exists through improved language teaching and
learning, because the learner himself will have to make a great effort if he is
to rewrite his mind.
, 4. There is a recognition of variation within a non-native variety. Recognition of
variation within variety is confusing and unacceptable.
5. There is a widely recognised and justified sociolinguistic and pedagogical distinction
between ESL and EFL.
6. Quirk’s ‘deficit linguistics’:
a. Rejection of the underlying linguistic motivations for the range of variation,
and suggesting that such variational models are motivated by an urge for
linguistic emancipation or ‘liberation linguistics’;
b. Rejection of the sociolinguistic, cultural, and stylistic motivations for
innovations and their institutionalization;
c. Rejection of the institutionalization of language if used as a second language;
d. Rejection of the cline of varieties within a non-native variety’
e. Rejection of the endocentric forms for English in the Outer Circle;
f. Rejection of the distinction between the users of the Outer Circle (ESL) and
the Expanding Circle (EFL). Quirk settles for a dichotomy between the native
speakers vs the non-native (L2) speakers.
IV. Myths vs. Multilingual’s Realities
The recognition of the sociolinguistic realities does not imply an active encouragement of the
anti-standard ethos or by implying that any variety of language is ‘good’, as ‘correct’ as any
other variety. Quirk seems to perceive the spread of English from the perspective of
monolingual societies, and from uncomplicated language policy contexts. It denies the
linguistic, sociolinguistic, educational and pragmatic realities of such societies:
1. Linguistic realities: provide a complex network of various types of convergence: these
are more powerful in moulding linguistic behaviour than are outsiders’ attitudes
towards such modulated linguistic behaviour. Criteria for marking pragmatic success
is in terms of functional effectiveness with other members of the interactional
network. This is true of languages of wider communication or contact languages.
2. Sociolinguistic realities: bring us closer to the functional context of language,
attitudes, and identities. In institutionalized non-native varieties of English this
context is relevant.
3. Educational realities: open up a can of worms with a multitude of problems:
classroom resources, equipment, teacher training, etc.
Important is the input which a learner of English receives in acquiring the language. The
input for acquisition, the model to be followed and the speech strategies to be used are
provided by the peer group, the teachers and the media. There is an additional
attitudinal aspect: the expectation of the interlocutors in an interactional context. The
recognition of institutionalization of a language in language policies is only partly an
attitudinal matter. To a large extent, it is a matter of the recognition of the linguistic
processes, history and acculturation of the language in a region, and functional allocation of a
variety. They must be viewed in their totality.
