SIL Electronic Book Reviews 2005-001

Melchers and Shaw, World Englishes: An introduction

Of the three books, Melchers and Shaw’s World Englishes gives the most general coverage of the topic. In the preface, the authors state their purpose is “to present and describe global variation and change in the vocabulary, grammar, phonology, and pragmatics of English. We also try to give a good deal of context to explain and illuminate the linguistic variation.” The first and second chapters begin with the historical development of English; the authors then move on to a brief description of the spread of English worldwide. The third chapter introduces models of language variation and lays a foundation for understanding the linguistic analysis presented for each of the varieties of English covered in the following chapters.

Chapters four and five are the heart of this book. Melchers and Shaw use the term “inner circle” in chapter four to include the mother-tongue English-speaking communities of the United Kingdom, the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Liberia. The communities referred to as the “outer circle,” described in chapter five, include the mother-tongue English-speaking communities of Africa, South and Southeast Asia, and a few other locations in the Mediterranean, South Pacific, and Indian Oceans.

Chapters six and seven describe the expanding influence of English worldwide. This influence is discussed in terms of the impact on societies and other languages. The social influence comes through education, entertainment and news media, tourism, and economic forces. The influence of English on other languages includes, among other things, the borrowing of English vocabulary, phonology, and pragmatics, and the threat to the use of other languages. Chapter seven, although titled “What’s next?,” actually deals with processes that are already in progress: the influence of American culture in world Englishes and the role of the Internet in the spread of English and changes to English.

Trudgill and Hannah, International English

Trudgill and Hannah’s International English has been the foremost textbook on the subject for over two decades. This book focuses on describing the pronunciation norms of English and the variation in pronunciations of the many varieties of English. The authors take the approach that the differentiations in the pronunciation in English are the salient differences. To lay a foundation and introduction, chapter one gives a brief description of the historical development and spread of English. The authors term the resultant varieties as “types.” The organization of the book relies on the groupings of the various types of English.

Chapter two begins with the British English standard of English, which the authors call English English. The chapter includes a description of the phonology of the RP (Received Pronunciation) accent and goes on to describe Australasian, South African, and Welsh “types” of English. The phonologies and grammars of these types are discussed in consideration of their variation from the RP, including lexical differences.

Chapter three describes the North American types of Standard English. As in chapter two, the phonology of the standard is compared to the variations of the various types. These “types” include the regional varieties of the US and Canada. Unlike chapter two, there is no discussion of grammatical and lexical differences. Chapter four describes the grammatical, lexical, and orthographic differences between the “English English” standard and North American English standard.

The rest of the chapters deal with other varieties, or types, that don’t fit into the two Standard English groups. Chapter five describes the phonologies of Scottish and Irish English and compares them with RP. Chapter six describes West Indian English and English-based Creoles. Most of this chapter simply defines terms used in creolistics, without making many comparisons with Standard English. Chapter seven, titled “Lesser-known Englishes,” describes many locations around the world that are not usually thought of as English-speaking locations. Oddly, many of these are generally considered creole languages and could have been included in chapter six. Chapter eight looks at “Second language varieties of English.” These include West African, East African, Indian, Singaporean, and Philippine varieties of English. Once again, comparisons are made between these varieties and “English English.”

Gramley, The vocabulary of World English

The subject of this book is English vocabulary. Gramley not only looks at different varieties of English defined by geography, but also by time periods, semantic fields, gender, age, and ethnicity. There is also discussion of other facets of lexicography: semantics, word origins, word formation, and grammatical aspects of words. There is also mention of the influence of language contact and language use on English vocabulary.

Chapter one serves as an introduction to the rest of the book. It also discusses other resources for the student, such as dictionaries, thesauruses, and encyclopedias. The history of English development is covered in chapter two, along with a discussion of meaning. Chapter three is on numerous aspects of American English. The varieties of English found in the southern hemisphere are the topic of chapter four. Chapter five moves into a different area, English as a second language and International English. Chapter six describes the expansion of English into South Asia and West Africa. This chapter also explores proverbs, idioms, pronouns, the use of yes and no, and tag questions. Chapter seven is titled “English in Action: Social Dimensions of Vocabulary Differences.” Chapter eight looks at stylistic differences in various regional Englishes, Internet English, and language use among the youth. Finally, chapter nine explores the globalization of English.

What is Standard English?

The definition and description of Standard English is of utmost importance in the discussion of World/International English(es). Two factors frequently included in the definition are “education” and “regional accent.” None of the authors propose a definitive answer to this question. Trudgill and Hannah begin by identifying Standard English as that which is normally written and spoken by “educated” speakers of the language. Then they continue by describing an American and a British Standard English, regional varieties.

Melchers and Shaw document the development of a late eighteenth century Standard English and then the further development of several regional Standard Englishes. They say, “A variety of Standard English can have almost any accent, but can only have a very small range of grammatical difference from others.” Thus, they focus more on regional standards, but don’t really explain how those “standards” are defined.

Gramley prefers to use “General English” rather than “Standard” as a more inclusive term. Under this label he includes written English as well as spoken (including colloquial spoken) English. He describes “Standard” English as, “The kind of English which is used by speakers with at least a moderate degree of education.” He feels that using “education” as a criteria is an unacceptable, class-oriented limitation. However, when Gramley creates his own term, General English, his definition doesn’t differ all that much from the others. Ultimately, Gramley simply observes that however “standard English” has been defined in a given country, that decision influences the kind of English that develops there. He gives the example of three different standards in Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania, neighboring countries whose varieties of English are developing differently.

There are some problems with these definitions. When the authors use educated speech as a qualification, they’re stating the obvious: a more standardized variety of English is propagated through state-organized education. In other words, when a person uses a speech form that they had been taught through state-organized education, then it is the standard form. This seems circular, and less than helpful. Furthermore, Trudgill and Hannah and Gramley imply, and Melchers and Shaw explicitly state, that regional accent/pronunciation is not important. However, they all speak of regional varieties as being standards of English. Therefore, neither “education” nor aspects of “regional accent” are really helpful criteria for defining “Standard English.”

I propose that it may be possible to reconcile the differences in these authors’ definitions. As these authors have done, reference to all spoken varieties is important. To describe “Standard English” would require the description of all the grammatical forms of English that are used, regardless of geographic, social, or stylistic influences, including written. The forms that are used most widely would be the most “standard” forms. Such a description of English would possibly be somewhat simplified grammatically and have a more narrow lexicon. Melchers and Shaw (p. 31) call Standard English a dialect. However, by my definition I would say Standard English is devoid of anything that would classify it as a dialect. It includes only the features that are common to all forms of English. The overlaying things of accent, particular vocabulary, and nonstandard grammatical forms are what distinguish dialects.

Why is the definition of “Standard English” important?

While the defining of “Standard English” is not a major concern of these authors, each proposes reasons for the importance of a definition. The main issue is the variety of English that will be taught in English as a Second Language (ESL) or English as a Foreign Language (EFL). Trudgill and Hannah explain, “Until recently, many European universities and colleges not only taught EngEng [basically British Standard English] but actually required it from their students. Lately, many universities have come to relax this requirement, recognizing that their students are as likely (if not more likely) to encounter NAmEng [a variety of standard US or Canadian English] as EngEng, especially since some European students study for a time in North America.” Another concern is the impact of “market forces” on nations and organizations like the European Union. The phrase “market forces” in this context refers to the pressure applied by the general population. Melchers and Shaw offer the following example:

The EU has no official working language and its official languages are the 11 national languages ...Generally speaking the more public fora, mainly the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, are multilingual with simultaneous interpretation into all eleven languages. However, at more informal meetings of the ministers or representatives, and in most of the work of the Commission (the EU civil service), market forces take over and only ‘major languages’, actually usually English or French, are used…. Although all documents with legal force are produced in all languages, in practice many MEPs consult documents in English rather than wait for versions in their own language.

The Politics of English

It is not possible to fully discuss world Englishes without considering the politics of English—that is, the attitudes that people hold toward varieties of English and the impact of the expansion of English on peoples and other languages. On one hand, I am referring to the attitudes associated with discussing varieties of English. On the other hand, I am referring to the expansion of English and the impact of that expansion on peoples and other languages. Concerning the former issue, I am aware of sensitivities people have about their English. I attended a conference on English held in Islamabad, Pakistan in 1988. During one session several speakers of South Asian English expressed offense when British scholars critiqued South Asian English in comparison to British English. I have had speakers of Caribbean Creole English express indignation at the implication that they speak anything less than “standard” English. These people have fears of being marginalized by narrow definitions of what is proper or acceptable as a variety of English. They don’t like things dictated to them by the historically colonializing nations.

Melchers and Shaw use the term “inner circle” in chapter four to refer to the geographical locations where English has been spoken as the mother tongue for some generations. The authors do not make this as the most important qualification, but it is the only real distinction I can see for the separation of the “inner circle” and “outer circle.” The authors define the “outer circle” as countries “colonized—mainly by military force—by English-speaking countries.” However, English has spread to some of the “inner circle” countries with as much colonization and force as “outer circle” countries. I can imagine that these terms would be considered offensive to English speakers from so-called “outer circle” countries.

The spread of English has put extreme pressure on many languages worldwide, so much pressure that many languages have died—that is, the people speaking those languages have shifted to speaking English, and the other language is no longer used. Throughout North America many First Nation languages have been lost, and among some people there is great concern about the loss of cultural knowledge and identity that comes with the passing of languages. Even major world languages like French and German are threatened by the socioeconomic use of English on worldwide scale. In places such as Ireland, Wales, and Quebec, governments have required that signs and legal documents be recorded in two languages to preserve the non-English language.

These books do not purport to focus on the politics of the spread of English. However, it is such an important issue that at least two of the books found it worthwhile to include. Melchers and Shaw do the best job of addressing these concerns. Much of their chapters 6 and 7 deal with these concerns. Gramley, while not discussing the politics of the spread of English, does discuss the processes by which English has been changed by other languages, and the influence of English on non-English linguistic environments. Trudgill and Hannah do not address these concerns at all. While the authors may have wanted to limit their book to discussion of the varieties of English worldwide, I don’t feel that this topic can be discussed adequately without discussion of the contact with other languages.