Chelsea Murdock
World Englishes: An Overview and Application
My topic (World Englishes) is one which spans almost all of the professional scholarly and pedagogical organizations listed within the chapter. CCCC, MLA, RSA, ISHR, NCTE, TESOL, WPA, and NWCA, the whole alphabet is affected by the increasing awareness of Global Englishes in the composition classroom. In my own research, I have found articles linked with World Englishes in every above listed grouping. Writing teachers should always be aware of the role that transnational English can play within the classroom, both as resources for teaching various aspects of English instruction and as inhibitors of Standard English implementation. It can particularly affect the theories implemented within the classroom, such as cultural theory and process theory. An awareness of World Englishes can greatly affect the classroom environment by influencing the forms and genres taught and the readings applied. Furthermore, an awareness of World Englishes can bring about more diversity within the composition classroom. By encouraging students to embrace and understand their own variety of English, we can work to develop means of diversifying our classrooms.
Bex, Tony and Richard J. Watts. Standard English: The Widening Debate. New York: Routledge, 1999.
In Standard English, various perspectives and ideologies regarding the concept of English Standardization are thoroughly examined. This is particularly useful in the study of World Englishes because it provides a contrast by which the dichotomy of English philosophies can be examined. There is a brief discussion concerning Kachru’s World Englishes model and quite a stimulating conversation considering appropriateness versus context. If one considers the title of this book, it seems to cover nearly all of the perspectives regarding Standard English, explaining that there can be and are different varieties of ‘Standard,’ spanning from correctness, appropriateness, cultural, and geographical. Ultimately, the book (Part II, in particular) was extremely helpful in understanding the multiple views on the topic. Lesley Milroy’s “Standard English and Language Ideologies in Britain and the United States” was a very interesting due to her description of standardization “as a process,” which adds a whole new perspective into the mix of English in classrooms if placed on the same level as say, a writing process.
Bolton, Kingsley. “World Englishes Today.” The Handbook of World Englishes. Ed. Braj B. Kachru, Yamuna Kachru, and Cecil L. Nelson. Blackwell, 2006. 240-69.
While the entire handbook is extremely useful in the study of World Englishes, Bolton’s chapter, “World Englishes Today,” is a treasure-trove of popular perceptions regarding world Englishes. The chapter itself is rather broad in scope, covering subjects from English Studies to critical linguistics. His discussion of the various approaches is imperative to the understanding of current themes that carry throughout the world Englishes paradigm. One such example would be the examination of “feature-based” approaches in contrast to the societal approaches discussed earlier in the section. “Feature-based” approaches mark features distinct to each language, such as the morphology, phonology, and syntax of different English varieties. This is juxtaposed with the sociological approaches, which seems to be referenced as the “English Studies” approach. In the study of World Englishes within a classroom setting, it is essential to be aware of both understandings of World English, making this text a huge benefit to an instructor interested in the subject.
Bolton, Kingsley, David Graddol, and Christiane Meierkord. “Towards developmental world Englishes.” World Englishes. Vol. 30. 4. 459-80.
One of the strongest aspects of this article is the rather interesting placement of WE within the context of English language education. Quite a bit of reference is made to Kachru’s Three Circle Model, giving the authors a baseline off which they develop the placement of teachers within the academics of the three circles thus urging instructors to be aware of the Outer and Expanding Circle constraints on English education. Although at times it can be a bit exclusive (throwing all members of the Outer and Expanding Circles into the same boat as what could be described as ‘Third World’ country status with ‘problems’ concerning conditions, facilities, and resources), the article does put forward the concepts that classrooms provide a space for observation concerning the sociolinguistic variables that play into developmental English as well as the ‘collaborative’ idea that first world (not ‘First Circle, mind you) scholars work together with those world English researchers from the ‘developing societies. It is quite difficult to ignore these cultural stratifications, but their mere presence provide quite a bit of insight to teachers and researchers interested in the dynamics between the Circles within the field and the perceptions that likely carry over to the modern English language classroom.
Canagarajah, Suresh. “Codemeshing in Academic Writing: Identifying Teachable Strategies on Translanguaging.” The Modern Language Journal. Vol. 95, 3. 2011. 401-17. <http://web.ebscohost.com.www2.lib.ku.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hi d=11&sid=2135b90e-0c10-4605-9683-4fa9b235813e%40sessionmgr11>
Canagarajah’s article provides excellent strategies which could prove useful in a WE classroom. He discusses the idea of “translanguaging” (the employment of a repertoire of languages by a multilingual speaker) at length. Most of this ‘length’ is dedicated to the discussion of translanguaging as a “natural occurrence” within classrooms. It is explained that students should develop an awareness of when, where, and why to rhetorically employ language. Through a case study in which Canagarajah examines the codemeshing habits exhibited by a Saudi Arabian graduate student, who mixes both Arabic and French into her English essays. Codemeshing is further explained in a series of strategic types—including but not limited to recontextualization and voice strategies in writing. These strategies are particularly important to an instructor open to the idea of WE within the classroom as they are the means by which students could come to represent and employ their own translanguage identity. Furthermore, Canagarajah explains the educational implications by listing out a few strategies that could be employed in a WE classroom. These strategies include maintaining an open mind when it comes to translanguaging within the classroom setting and experimentation on the part of the students.
Jenkins, Jennifer. “Current Perspectives on Teaching World Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca.” TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 40, 1. March 2006. 157-81. <http://www.jstor.org.www2.lib.ku.edu:2048/stable/40264515>
Although this article speaks more to the TESOL community, it provides a very interesting explanation of the differences between World Englishes (WE) and English as a Lingua Franca (ELF). She asserts that, regardless of the large amount of research in “linguistic imperialism,” no large changes have manifested with that studies. At most it has raised awareness. In what is the most informative section of the article, Jenkins details the implications recent research presents for TESOL classrooms, particularly the ownership of English within an academic setting. Jenkins does not necessarily bring forth much opinion into the topic, but rather informs the audience of the various repercussions. Once again, the idea of sociolinguistic identity is touched upon in connection to the pluricentric viewpoint of English classrooms versus the monocentric pedagogy that appeals to only one stance of English (particularly that of English as an international standard). In connection to the teaching of English, Jenkins brings forth the point that more research needs to be done in connection to WE and ELF in order to promote the publication of more teaching materials for teachers of English regarding WEs.
Kachru, Braj B. Yamuna Kachru, and Cecil L. Nelson. The Handbook of World Englishes. Oxford: Blackwell, 2009.
This book is filled to the brim with information regarding world Englishes of all brands, creeds, ideologies, and philosophies. It seems that every dogma is represented—from standardization to globalization, from theory to implementation. The entire book is more of a compiling of research and theoretical backgrounds, with a hint of historical context thrown into the mix. As the various chapters throughout were written by a plethora of (world) English scholars, it is necessary to make reference to specific chapters from which I drew quite a bit of help. Robert Baumgardner’s section, “Teaching World Englishes,” was particularly enlightening as it discussed a couple perceptions regarding the teaching of world Englishes— making an interesting distinction between “World English” courses and classrooms that gesture toward the existence of ‘world Englishes.’ Likewise, Halliday’s “Written Language, Standard Language, and Global Language” takes on an interesting discussion regarding the variances of textual language within the context of standardization and globalization. Collectively, this collection was invaluable and will serve as a great resource for any instructor searching for a one-stop shop of world English knowledge.
Lyons, Scott Richard. “There’s No Translation for It: The Rhetorical Sovereignty of Indigenous Languages.” Cross-Language Relations in Composition. Ed. Bruce Horner, Min-Zhan Lu, and Pail Kei Matsuda. Southern Illinois Press, 2010. 127-41.
A large portion of the article details the understanding of language as a carrier for culture. Lyons makes reference to the Ojibwe tribe (of which he is a member). He discusses the worldview of the Ojibwe by using words that they have for different cultures. These words (and others) sometimes cannot be translated into the English language, even the view on culture seems difficult to explain. He does so by informing the reader that Ojibwe language (and most indigenous languages) is largely driven by verbs rather than nouns. He relates that this sets the Ojibwe to value process rather than of material. The author gives a strong argument against the “English Only” language policy, calling for the revitalization of indigenous languages—and furthermore, consideration of culturing within composition classrooms. Teachers should support indigenous language revitalization and be aware of the intrinsic value of other languages in determining cultural identity.
Matsuda, Aya and Patricia Friedrich. “English as an international language: A curriculum blueprint.” World Englishes. Vol. 30. 3. 332-44. <http://web.ebscohost.com.www2.lib.ku.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hi d=11&sid=f590c320-86b8-4730-a1aa-23df33f3f87f%40sessionmgr11>
Matsuda and Friedrich discuss English in a much different light, referring more to the functionality of English as an international language and the ways it can be employed in a classroom setting. This article focuses on the possible instructional variances that could be made in an international English classroom. One mode of employment is cited as the inclusion of English as international within the languages used in the curriculum, ultimately cutting away the threads of standard English as the convention. Many fallacies of previous EIL and WE articles are cited—particularly a push against the legitimacy of Kachru’s Three Circles Model. One particularly strong aspect of the article brings forward the idea of tailoring the English of the classroom to the purpose of the course, say marking a class focused on the goal of preparing students to study in the United States as a course dedicated to the American (Standard) form of English. Likewise, a course focused on international business would focus more on EIL. Concerning the teaching of English, Matsuda and Friedrich call for the revision of entire programs rather than just the tacking on of WE as a lesson. They assert that it must be the foundation and not the draperies, an idea which doesn’t seem to have taken hold.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. “Common ground and different realities: world Englishes and English as a lingua franca.” World Englishes. Vol. 28.2. 236-45.
Seidlhofer largely discusses the relationship between world Englishes (WE) and English as a lingua franca (ELF) within this article. Once again, Kachru’s Three Circle Model is referenced often, a recurring theme amongst most articles on the subject. There is quite a distinction made concerning the use of ‘international’ to describe the English of America, Britain, and Australia— drawing a line at what can be considered as ‘international’ and ‘ancestral.’ It seems that ELF is limited only to the Expanding Circle as a means of negotiating language differences and that, ultimately, it possesses more potential for creative usage than ‘native speakers.’ This source is particularly helpful in understanding the general idea of ELF in comparison to WE as well as the role it can play in English language classrooms concerning linguacultural identity.
Steinbock, Nancy Rose. “Moving from Theory to Active Strategies in the Classroom: ‘Language Intervention’ as a Dynamic Teaching Model.” EIL, ELF, Global English: Teaching and Learning Issues. Ed. Cesare Gagliardi and Alan Maley. Peter Long Intl. Publishers, 2010. 105-12.
In this article, Steinbock starts by labeling English as a Lingua Franca of a more ‘trans-cultural’ form. Englishes are critical to the oral language base of the classroom, requiring teachers to be trained and have strategies in employing various Englishes in their classes. Though the research has been focused more toward an ESL classroom, the view on language—specifically English language—is the same. Oral language is regarded as an overlooked aspect of language acquisition and, as such, damages the language-learning process. One strong point is made regarding the canon of teaching English. She makes a point to gesture toward more modern, English-learner friendly texts rather than the historical canon that comprises much of upper-level English courses. She discusses the use of speech, translation, and the utilization and awareness of cultural cues as ways to bring about more effective communication. Although writing is not the focus of the article, these strategies are highly employable in a composition classroom.
World Englishes: An Overview and Application
My topic (World Englishes) is one which spans almost all of the professional scholarly and pedagogical organizations listed within the chapter. CCCC, MLA, RSA, ISHR, NCTE, TESOL, WPA, and NWCA, the whole alphabet is affected by the increasing awareness of Global Englishes in the composition classroom. In my own research, I have found articles linked with World Englishes in every above listed grouping. Writing teachers should always be aware of the role that transnational English can play within the classroom, both as resources for teaching various aspects of English instruction and as inhibitors of Standard English implementation. It can particularly affect the theories implemented within the classroom, such as cultural theory and process theory. An awareness of World Englishes can greatly affect the classroom environment by influencing the forms and genres taught and the readings applied. Furthermore, an awareness of World Englishes can bring about more diversity within the composition classroom. By encouraging students to embrace and understand their own variety of English, we can work to develop means of diversifying our classrooms.
Bex, Tony and Richard J. Watts. Standard English: The Widening Debate. New York: Routledge, 1999.
In Standard English, various perspectives and ideologies regarding the concept of English Standardization are thoroughly examined. This is particularly useful in the study of World Englishes because it provides a contrast by which the dichotomy of English philosophies can be examined. There is a brief discussion concerning Kachru’s World Englishes model and quite a stimulating conversation considering appropriateness versus context. If one considers the title of this book, it seems to cover nearly all of the perspectives regarding Standard English, explaining that there can be and are different varieties of ‘Standard,’ spanning from correctness, appropriateness, cultural, and geographical. Ultimately, the book (Part II, in particular) was extremely helpful in understanding the multiple views on the topic. Lesley Milroy’s “Standard English and Language Ideologies in Britain and the United States” was a very interesting due to her description of standardization “as a process,” which adds a whole new perspective into the mix of English in classrooms if placed on the same level as say, a writing process.
Bolton, Kingsley. “World Englishes Today.” The Handbook of World Englishes. Ed. Braj B. Kachru, Yamuna Kachru, and Cecil L. Nelson. Blackwell, 2006. 240-69.
While the entire handbook is extremely useful in the study of World Englishes, Bolton’s chapter, “World Englishes Today,” is a treasure-trove of popular perceptions regarding world Englishes. The chapter itself is rather broad in scope, covering subjects from English Studies to critical linguistics. His discussion of the various approaches is imperative to the understanding of current themes that carry throughout the world Englishes paradigm. One such example would be the examination of “feature-based” approaches in contrast to the societal approaches discussed earlier in the section. “Feature-based” approaches mark features distinct to each language, such as the morphology, phonology, and syntax of different English varieties. This is juxtaposed with the sociological approaches, which seems to be referenced as the “English Studies” approach. In the study of World Englishes within a classroom setting, it is essential to be aware of both understandings of World English, making this text a huge benefit to an instructor interested in the subject.
Bolton, Kingsley, David Graddol, and Christiane Meierkord. “Towards developmental world Englishes.” World Englishes. Vol. 30. 4. 459-80.
One of the strongest aspects of this article is the rather interesting placement of WE within the context of English language education. Quite a bit of reference is made to Kachru’s Three Circle Model, giving the authors a baseline off which they develop the placement of teachers within the academics of the three circles thus urging instructors to be aware of the Outer and Expanding Circle constraints on English education. Although at times it can be a bit exclusive (throwing all members of the Outer and Expanding Circles into the same boat as what could be described as ‘Third World’ country status with ‘problems’ concerning conditions, facilities, and resources), the article does put forward the concepts that classrooms provide a space for observation concerning the sociolinguistic variables that play into developmental English as well as the ‘collaborative’ idea that first world (not ‘First Circle, mind you) scholars work together with those world English researchers from the ‘developing societies. It is quite difficult to ignore these cultural stratifications, but their mere presence provide quite a bit of insight to teachers and researchers interested in the dynamics between the Circles within the field and the perceptions that likely carry over to the modern English language classroom.
Canagarajah, Suresh. “Codemeshing in Academic Writing: Identifying Teachable Strategies on Translanguaging.” The Modern Language Journal. Vol. 95, 3. 2011. 401-17. <http://web.ebscohost.com.www2.lib.ku.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hi d=11&sid=2135b90e-0c10-4605-9683-4fa9b235813e%40sessionmgr11>
Canagarajah’s article provides excellent strategies which could prove useful in a WE classroom. He discusses the idea of “translanguaging” (the employment of a repertoire of languages by a multilingual speaker) at length. Most of this ‘length’ is dedicated to the discussion of translanguaging as a “natural occurrence” within classrooms. It is explained that students should develop an awareness of when, where, and why to rhetorically employ language. Through a case study in which Canagarajah examines the codemeshing habits exhibited by a Saudi Arabian graduate student, who mixes both Arabic and French into her English essays. Codemeshing is further explained in a series of strategic types—including but not limited to recontextualization and voice strategies in writing. These strategies are particularly important to an instructor open to the idea of WE within the classroom as they are the means by which students could come to represent and employ their own translanguage identity. Furthermore, Canagarajah explains the educational implications by listing out a few strategies that could be employed in a WE classroom. These strategies include maintaining an open mind when it comes to translanguaging within the classroom setting and experimentation on the part of the students.
Jenkins, Jennifer. “Current Perspectives on Teaching World Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca.” TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 40, 1. March 2006. 157-81. <http://www.jstor.org.www2.lib.ku.edu:2048/stable/40264515>
Although this article speaks more to the TESOL community, it provides a very interesting explanation of the differences between World Englishes (WE) and English as a Lingua Franca (ELF). She asserts that, regardless of the large amount of research in “linguistic imperialism,” no large changes have manifested with that studies. At most it has raised awareness. In what is the most informative section of the article, Jenkins details the implications recent research presents for TESOL classrooms, particularly the ownership of English within an academic setting. Jenkins does not necessarily bring forth much opinion into the topic, but rather informs the audience of the various repercussions. Once again, the idea of sociolinguistic identity is touched upon in connection to the pluricentric viewpoint of English classrooms versus the monocentric pedagogy that appeals to only one stance of English (particularly that of English as an international standard). In connection to the teaching of English, Jenkins brings forth the point that more research needs to be done in connection to WE and ELF in order to promote the publication of more teaching materials for teachers of English regarding WEs.
Kachru, Braj B. Yamuna Kachru, and Cecil L. Nelson. The Handbook of World Englishes. Oxford: Blackwell, 2009.
This book is filled to the brim with information regarding world Englishes of all brands, creeds, ideologies, and philosophies. It seems that every dogma is represented—from standardization to globalization, from theory to implementation. The entire book is more of a compiling of research and theoretical backgrounds, with a hint of historical context thrown into the mix. As the various chapters throughout were written by a plethora of (world) English scholars, it is necessary to make reference to specific chapters from which I drew quite a bit of help. Robert Baumgardner’s section, “Teaching World Englishes,” was particularly enlightening as it discussed a couple perceptions regarding the teaching of world Englishes— making an interesting distinction between “World English” courses and classrooms that gesture toward the existence of ‘world Englishes.’ Likewise, Halliday’s “Written Language, Standard Language, and Global Language” takes on an interesting discussion regarding the variances of textual language within the context of standardization and globalization. Collectively, this collection was invaluable and will serve as a great resource for any instructor searching for a one-stop shop of world English knowledge.
Lyons, Scott Richard. “There’s No Translation for It: The Rhetorical Sovereignty of Indigenous Languages.” Cross-Language Relations in Composition. Ed. Bruce Horner, Min-Zhan Lu, and Pail Kei Matsuda. Southern Illinois Press, 2010. 127-41.
A large portion of the article details the understanding of language as a carrier for culture. Lyons makes reference to the Ojibwe tribe (of which he is a member). He discusses the worldview of the Ojibwe by using words that they have for different cultures. These words (and others) sometimes cannot be translated into the English language, even the view on culture seems difficult to explain. He does so by informing the reader that Ojibwe language (and most indigenous languages) is largely driven by verbs rather than nouns. He relates that this sets the Ojibwe to value process rather than of material. The author gives a strong argument against the “English Only” language policy, calling for the revitalization of indigenous languages—and furthermore, consideration of culturing within composition classrooms. Teachers should support indigenous language revitalization and be aware of the intrinsic value of other languages in determining cultural identity.
Matsuda, Aya and Patricia Friedrich. “English as an international language: A curriculum blueprint.” World Englishes. Vol. 30. 3. 332-44. <http://web.ebscohost.com.www2.lib.ku.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hi d=11&sid=f590c320-86b8-4730-a1aa-23df33f3f87f%40sessionmgr11>
Matsuda and Friedrich discuss English in a much different light, referring more to the functionality of English as an international language and the ways it can be employed in a classroom setting. This article focuses on the possible instructional variances that could be made in an international English classroom. One mode of employment is cited as the inclusion of English as international within the languages used in the curriculum, ultimately cutting away the threads of standard English as the convention. Many fallacies of previous EIL and WE articles are cited—particularly a push against the legitimacy of Kachru’s Three Circles Model. One particularly strong aspect of the article brings forward the idea of tailoring the English of the classroom to the purpose of the course, say marking a class focused on the goal of preparing students to study in the United States as a course dedicated to the American (Standard) form of English. Likewise, a course focused on international business would focus more on EIL. Concerning the teaching of English, Matsuda and Friedrich call for the revision of entire programs rather than just the tacking on of WE as a lesson. They assert that it must be the foundation and not the draperies, an idea which doesn’t seem to have taken hold.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. “Common ground and different realities: world Englishes and English as a lingua franca.” World Englishes. Vol. 28.2. 236-45.
Seidlhofer largely discusses the relationship between world Englishes (WE) and English as a lingua franca (ELF) within this article. Once again, Kachru’s Three Circle Model is referenced often, a recurring theme amongst most articles on the subject. There is quite a distinction made concerning the use of ‘international’ to describe the English of America, Britain, and Australia— drawing a line at what can be considered as ‘international’ and ‘ancestral.’ It seems that ELF is limited only to the Expanding Circle as a means of negotiating language differences and that, ultimately, it possesses more potential for creative usage than ‘native speakers.’ This source is particularly helpful in understanding the general idea of ELF in comparison to WE as well as the role it can play in English language classrooms concerning linguacultural identity.
Steinbock, Nancy Rose. “Moving from Theory to Active Strategies in the Classroom: ‘Language Intervention’ as a Dynamic Teaching Model.” EIL, ELF, Global English: Teaching and Learning Issues. Ed. Cesare Gagliardi and Alan Maley. Peter Long Intl. Publishers, 2010. 105-12.
In this article, Steinbock starts by labeling English as a Lingua Franca of a more ‘trans-cultural’ form. Englishes are critical to the oral language base of the classroom, requiring teachers to be trained and have strategies in employing various Englishes in their classes. Though the research has been focused more toward an ESL classroom, the view on language—specifically English language—is the same. Oral language is regarded as an overlooked aspect of language acquisition and, as such, damages the language-learning process. One strong point is made regarding the canon of teaching English. She makes a point to gesture toward more modern, English-learner friendly texts rather than the historical canon that comprises much of upper-level English courses. She discusses the use of speech, translation, and the utilization and awareness of cultural cues as ways to bring about more effective communication. Although writing is not the focus of the article, these strategies are highly employable in a composition classroom.