The interface between second-language varieties and learner Englishes

Applying the above-mentioned four models to English in China raises the question of the distinctions between second-language varieties and learner Englishes, especially since the ENL- ESL-EFL distinction and Kachru’s Three Circles separate learner Englishes from second-language varieties and do not allow a transition from learner Englishes to second-language varieties or the reverse, whereas Schneider’s Dynamic Model and Buschfeld and Kautzsch’s Model of Extra- and Intra-territorial Forces allow such a transition.

Second-language varieties are traditionally regarded distinct from learner Englishes in the field of WEs, while they are grouped together in the field of second-language acquisition (SLA). The differences of treating second-language varieties and learner Englishes in these two fields lie in their different interpretations of the goals, input, functions, and motivations of learning English, and transfer (Sridhar and Sridhar, 1986). According to SLA, the goal of learning English is to “imitate the native speaker perfectly” (Mestrie and Bhatt, 2008: 25), which means full imitation of pronunciation and grammatical norms as well as the range of speech acts, styles, and register differentiation (Sridhar and Sridhar, 1986). This goal is based on the assumption that a full range of speech acts, styles, and register differentiation is accessible to English learners and that English is mainly used to “effectively communicate with native speakers with the language” (Sridhar and

Sridhar, 1986: 5). To achieve this goal, integrative motivation must be utilized, which involves “admiration for the native speakers of the language and a desire to become a member of their culture” (Sridhar and Sridhar, 1986: 3). Since learners’ performances are evaluated with reference to native norms, any deviations from native norms are regarded as errors. These deviations are often attributed to negative transfer from the mother tongue and can be fossilized, which are seen as interlanguage, which is an “intermediate [variety] between the speaker’s native language and the target language” (Trudgill, 2003: 65), and not a target in itself (Sridhar and Sridhar, 1992).

Contrary to SLA, the native-speaker norm is not the primary goal of learning English from the perspective of WEs, because its main argument is that second-language varieties are acquired primarily with other speakers of second-language varieties and these speakers do not necessarily or “completely identify with the culture of the native speaker” (Sridhar, 1992: 93; Sridhar and Sridhar, 1986: 5−6). Furthermore, in reality, communicating in English is more about non-native speakers speaking with other non-native speakers than native speakers speaking with non-native speakers (Smith, 1983). Hence, the main use of second-language varieties questions the necessity of integrative motivation for successful learning in English (Shaw, 1981). In fact, it has been found that an instrumental motivation is effective in promoting English proficiency, for example, in the study of Lukmani (1972) on a group of “non-Westernized” women in Bombay and Gardner and Lambert (1972) on Filipino learners of English. Since learners’ performances are not evaluated against native norms, linguistic structures that deviate from native norms are not considered errors, rather, they are viewed as innovations or features, which are used widely and systematically within the speech community and accepted by the speakers. In the contexts of shared bi- or multilingual societies, non-native-like structures may be utilized to accomplish “social and interactional ends” (Firth and Wagner, 1997: 292). Accordingly, transfer, which is a main factor in producing non- native-like structures, is seen as a positive cognitive strategy to facilitate communication effectively (Sridhar, 1992).

Even though there are discrepancies between second-language varieties and learner Englishes, empirical research has found parallels between the two variety types (Meriläinen and Paulasto, 2017). Similar linguistic structures are reported to be employed in second-language varieties and learner Englishes. For instance, new verb-preposition collocations like comprise of, discuss about, enter into, invite for, and return back are identified across second-language varieties (ICE-

Singapore and India) and learner Englishes (ICLE-4L1: German, French, Finnish, and Polish) (Nesselhauf, 2009).

These parallels between the two varietal types originate from similar psycholinguistic processes and production principles at work, especially at the early phase of acquiring a language (Williams, 1987; cf. Buschfeld, 2013). One of the major mechanisms that operate on the development of second-language varieties and learner Englishes is the transfer of linguistic structures from the native language (L1) to a second language.

The similarities between second-language varieties and learner Englishes point to the fact that the two varietal types should not be neatly divided. In fact, growing efforts have been made to integrate WEs and SLA ever since Sridhar and Sridhar’s call for bridging “the paradigm gap that has prevented research on second-language acquisition theory and indigenized varieties of English from making substantive contributions to each other” (Sridhar and Sridhar, 1986: 3). One such effort is a compilation of studies that explores second-language varieties of English in conjunction with learner Englishes (Mukherjee and Hundt eds., 2011). In this collection, Biewer (2011) investigates the usage of modals and semi-modals of obligation and necessity in second-language varieties of English (Fiji, Samoa, the Cook Islands, the Philippines, Singapore and Ghana) and questions the suitability of the ESL-EFL distinction. Gut (2011) attempts to answer the question of whether structural changes should be classified as innovations or errors in World Englishes and finds that the classification rests upon the speakers’ and speaker communities’ norm orientation and attitudes. Van Rooy (2011) examines the so-called extension of the progressive aspect to stative verbs and the use of “can be able to” in Black South African English as well as the complementation of “enable” with the bare infinitive clause in East African English and arrives at the conclusion that those features may have originated as errors but later become stabilized and conventionalized in the context of second-language varieties. These studies together with others in the collection provide further evidence for the argument that “the EFL/ESL distinction is not a clear-cut dichotomy but a continuum” (Gilquin and Granger, 2011: 76) and that the classification of linguistic structures as innovations or learners errors depends more on the speakers’ norm- orientation and attitudes (Gut, 2011). In essence, it is postulated that extralinguistic grounds rather than linguistic grounds label a linguistic structure as an error or an innovation.

Taking into account the differences and similarities between second-language varieties and learner Englishes and trying to bridge the gap between the two fields, a criteria catalogue for ESL

variety status has been developed by Mollin (2006; 2007), supplemented by Buschfeld (2011; 2013) and further improved by Edwards (2014; 2016). The catalogue assesses systematically whether a new variety has become an ESL variety.

The first step towards a legitimate variety of English is considered to be expansion in use and functions (Mollin, 2006; 2007). Widespread bilingualism in a community heralds expansion in use and functions (Moag, 1992). Without this, it is impossible for English to be used widely by its speakers. Furthermore, it indicates that English is not only spoken by “a few high-ranking bureaucrats and some scholars” but also by “a sizeable segment of the population” (Kloss, 1966: 15; cf. Buschfeld, 2011: 89). According to Kloss (1966: 15), this sizeable segment of the population should include at least one of the following four groups: (1) “all adults”, (2) “all breadwinners”, (3) “all literate adults”, or (4) “all secondary school graduates”. Moag (1992: 247) reasons that “in a modernizing society Kloss’s suggestion of ‘all literate adults’ and ‘all secondary school graduates’ seem to adequately define the segment of the population which will be bilingual”. However, societal bilingualism does not imply that groups of speakers share the same proficiency in the second language. Rather, groups of speakers display a cline of proficiency. Thus, it is necessary to differentiate bilinguals from non-bilinguals. Since the aim of being a bilingual is to communicate with other people, a bilingual should at least possess the ability to conduct conversations in English (Buschfeld, 2011; Mollin, 2006).

With wide societal bilingualism, an English variety will not have the chance to develop if it is not used across a wide spectrum of domains in a community (Mollin, 2007). An important step for EFL to ESL progression is the use of English in education (Mollin, 2006). The use of English in education does not mean that English is taught as a subject like in EFL countries. Rather, English serves as a medium of instruction for other subjects, which are taught from primary to tertiary level. Only in this way can it be possible for English to progress and stabilize as an indigenous variety. It is also important for English to be employed in administration (Kachru, 1992a; Moag, 1982). The use of English in administration not only demonstrates official approval of using English but also enhances the status of English by the prospect of obtaining positions in official bodies and by the incentives to communicate better with official bodies (Mollin, 2006). Furthermore, English cannot fulfill a broad range of functions for ESL status if it is not used voluntarily at the grassroots level (ibid.). Media is such an indicator of English received at the grassroots level, because it is market-controlled and is able to reach a large audience. Mollin (2006:

48) emphasizes how important it is that English is used as a contact code “linking people with different first languages meeting for business or privately, in the street or at home”. Another strong indicator of a second-language variety is reflected in creative writing, which manifests attitudes towards the local variety within a community (ibid.).

With English used in more domains, the acquisition of English is no longer limited to formal classroom instructions as found in traditional EFL countries. It can be acquired “in a broad range of daily activities outside school” (Moag, 1992: 248) or before formal education commences.

The second criterion that is considered a step towards a legitimate variety of English is the nativization of linguistic features. This criterion involves “the approximation of a language to the linguistic and discoursal characteristics of the native (or dominant) language of the area into which it has been transplanted” (Kachru, 1992b: 235). Nativization of linguistic features occurs on several levels: phonology, lexicon, grammar, as well as discourse style (Bolton, 2003; Davies, 1999; Kachru, 1986; Schneider, 2003; Strevens, 1992). Although there is no clear threshold for the appropriation of features to indicate that nativization of a variety has taken place, it is certain that “the mere development of a few new lexical items does not suffice to satisfy the nativization requirement” (Mollin, 2007: 172). The manifestation of linguistic features on different levels does not guarantee nativization if these structures are used randomly and occasionally. Therefore, to achieve nativization, linguistic features should be used widely, systematically and stably in an extended register and style range (Buschfeld, 2011; Edwards, 2014; Mollin, 2006) so that “the new variety is not only a collection of deviations from an exogenous norm but a closed system in itself” (Mollin, 2007: 172). Till now, a specific threshold for systematic use has not been agreed upon. Based on the ratings adopted by Kortmann and Lukenheimer (2012) and Buschfeld (2013) (cf. section 4.4.1), it has been decided tentatively that 50% use of linguistic features of all structurally equivalent options should serve as the threshold for nativization.

The third step towards a legitimate variety of English that has been identified is institutionalization. Behind this criterion lies the argument that a variety cannot be established as an ESL unless it is accepted by its speakers. The acceptance of the new variety begins to set in when members of particular speech communities do not aim for exonormative models, but orientate themselves towards endonormative models, or at least, “the division between the linguistic norm and behavior is reduced” (Kachru, 1992a: 56). This endonormative orientation is reflected in local creative writing, teaching and media (Kachru, 1986; Moag, 1992; Mollin, 2007).

Mollin (2007: 172) emphasizes that speakers should truly identify themselves with the new variety as well as its label, since “a variety can only be ESL if its speakers want it to be”. As opposed to speakers’ open acceptance, whether the new variety gains official recognition is of minor importance to the establishment of ESL variety status, since a variety can be still classified as an institutionalized variety if it is endorsed by its speakers but not by official bodies (Mollin, 2007). But there can be some signs of authoritative codification, which can be represented by compiling dictionaries and grammars that are documented in the local variety.

In summary, according to the theorists, a variety can be called an ESL variety only when expansion, nativization and institutionalization have taken place in that particular order, even though nativization might take place concomitantly with expansion. A catalogue of ESL criteria is summarized in table 2.1.

Table 2.1 A catalogue of ESL criteria

Criteria for ESL

1. Expansion in use (1) spread of bilingualism

(2) expansion in intranational use of English in several domains (i.e. education, administration, media, and for interethnic communication)

(3) acquisition of English in a wider society 2. Nativization

(1) phonological, morpho-syntactic, lexico-semantic, discoursal and pragmatic features (2) widespread, systematic, stable use of features

3. Institutionalization

(1) recognition/acceptance of local variety (2) endonormative orientation