Chapter 2

Language change and variation

Introductory activities
The following introductory activities are designed to encourage the reader to think about
the issues raised in this chapter before reading it.

Variation in English

Discussion questions
Some examples of variation in English are given in the box.

 Hawaii: mahalo (thank you), aloha (hello/goodbye), haole (foreigner), keiki (children).
 America: sidewalk; UK: pavement.
 Australia: outback and bush (countryside), barbie (barbeque), arvo (afternoon).
 India: fifty students have applied for freeship this year (tuition-free place).
 ELF context: we should not wake up any dogs (let sleeping dogs lie) (Pitzl, 2009).

1 Why do you think English vocabulary is often different in different parts of the
world?
2 What is the origin of the words in the box below? Do you know of any other
examples? (Answers can be found in Section 2a.)

passport, rucksack, coffee, mathematics, castle, skipper, cliché, shampoo, hamburger,

pyjamas.

3 Lexical change does not only involve single words, but can involve longer phrases and
idioms – lucky money or red envelope (the money given to children from their parents
and grandparents as a New Year gift in Hong Kong) is an example. Are you familiar
with any others?
4 How is variation in the Englishes around the world perceived?
 Language change and variation 29

Case study: English as a business lingua franca

On 22 March 1995, there appeared in The Wall Street Journal a feature article by Barry
Newman. It was entitled ‘Global chatter: the reality of “business English”’, and its
focus was on just how much business is done through ‘broken English’. Commenting
on the fact that more non-native English speakers use the language than native
English speakers, he assumes that, ‘They must have gotten the hang of it by now.’
However, he refers to Satoshi Nishide, the managing director of Daihatsu Auto in
Prague, who has studied English for ten years and been using it at work for nine, as
an example of someone struggling to get ‘the hang of it’. At Daihatsu in Prague,
English is the only common language. One manager, Mr Moravec, noted that,
If I don’t understand very well, so I can expect what my boss want to say. We
have special vocabulary … If you hear two English person, they discussing
their problem, it’s other language than we use.
This ‘language’ is referred to as ‘broken English’, ‘foreigner talk’, ‘Czechlish-
Japlish’, ‘Auto-lish’, and ‘Daihat-Praglish’. The author then states that, ‘The global
chatter explosion, it seems, is blowing the language to smithereens.’

(Reprinted in English Today, 46(12), 2 April and cited in McArthur, 2002, p. 419)

Discussion
1 What do you think of Newman’s assessment that the global chatter ‘explosion’ has
‘blown the language to smithereens’?
2 What do you think of Moravec’s description that their usage is different to native
English speakers?
3 In your opinion, what language does Prague Daihatsu use: broken English, foreigner
talk, Czechlish-Japlish, Auto-lish, Daihat-Praglish, or something else?

Introduction
Following on from Chapter 1, which discussed the development of English as a global
lingua franca and how the language is used today, this chapter introduces language
change, language variation, and standard language ideology, as well as the concepts of
ownership and identity. It also briefly introduces the World Englishes and ELF. It begins
with the various reasons why languages change, following on from the historical changes
introduced in Section 1a. It is clear from Chapter 1 that English speakers are mostly bi-
or multilingual people, coming into contact with a wide range of languages and cultures.
This chapter also explores the influence of such contact on English. Section 2b provides
an introduction to the various Englishes before they are examined in detail in Chapters
4, 5, and 6. This section also examines variation in language in terms of grammar, syntax,
phonology, and vocabulary and idiom usage. Section 2c examines pidgins and creoles,
looking at theories of how creoles developed, and their historical and changing place in
the World Englishes paradigm. Finally, Section 2d looks at language standardization
30 Language change and variation

and the concepts of ownership and identity. The chapter will exemplify how variation in
language is multidimensional, being influenced by social structure, geographical variation,
and language contact.

2a Language change and contact

An inevitable consequence of the globalization of English documented in Chapter 1 has
been linguistic change. English has taken root in many new territories, and today it
consists of a myriad of dialects, accents, and varieties.

Language change
All languages are in a constant state of change, which can affect multiple facets including
pronunciation, orthography, grammar, vocabulary, and pragmatics (language in use),
examples of which are given in Section 2b. The rate of change can vary; it can be sub-
stantial or small, sudden or gradual, on one occasion or incremental. Chapter 1 high-
lighted that many changes to English have been incremental over a long period of time,
termed diachronic change, and, because of changes in syntax and morphology over
centuries, speakers of modern English have difficulty understanding Middle English and
find Old English completely unintelligible.
The use of inflection in English, for instance, has reduced slowly over centuries, and
the inflectional system of the present tense is now much simpler. For example, centuries
ago the past tense of work was wrought, although this irregularity has been dropped and
the past tense is now worked. The rule for forming plurals has also changed. In Old
English, plurals were formed in many ways, for example the plural of cwen (meaning
queen) was cwene, but scip (meaning ships) was scipu, and hund (meaning dogs) was hundas.
However, around 1600 the choice of forming the past tense was made simpler, to
mainly-(e)s and-(e)n. Regularizing the foreign plural systems has also occurred in English.
For example, the plural of formula is formulas, not formulae, and data is now used more
regularly as the singular and the plural rather than datum is and data are.
In discussions about the phases, or processes, through which change occurs, a distinc-
tion is usually made between internally driven changes from the language system
(endogenous) and externally driven changes caused by the speakers (exogenous).
Internal causes include things such as making optimal use of the available articulatory
space, stabilization, regularization, and simplification, and giving distinct formal expres-
sion to distinct meanings. In addition to the grammatical simplifications discussed above,
English has also undergone pronunciation changes. The Old English word hlafordum,
for example, was very difficult to pronounce and was simplified to lord. In more recent
years, change is also related to the difficulty some speakers with certain language
backgrounds have pronouncing things like inflections, especially when they occur as
consonant clusters, meaning that the third-person singular -s is often dropped in many
of the ‘New’ Englishes, discussed in Section 2b.
Attitudes are also important as people have different attitudes to language change, and
the desire to stop it has led to the notion of ‘correct’ or ‘acceptable’ and ‘incorrect’ or
‘unacceptable’ usage, further discussed in Section 2d as well as in subsequent chapters
(particularly Chapter 8). Chapter 1 introduced the Great Vowel Shift, which resulted in
some long vowels changing to diphthongs (two vowel sounds combined). For example,
 Language change and variation 31

the word time was originally pronounced with a long vowel sound (similar to how many
modern day speakers would say team [ti:m]), but this sound was replaced by a diphthong
for many speakers, as in [taIm].
Language change is closely related to social prestige and desirability, and therefore to
identity. For example, some communities and their linguistic style may seem attractive to
others, and may also be considered to be prestigious or correct, or even trendy. This is
particularly the case with American English, discussed further in Chapter 4, where Englishes
such as the then non-rhotic New York accent changed in the 1940s, when the rhotic
accent was associated with prestige (see Labov, 1972). A rhotic accent is one where the /r/
is pronounced in all positions of a word (e.g. in rat, tar, and tartan), and a non-rhotic accent
is one where /r/ is pronounced only when it precedes a vowel (e.g. in rat, but not in tar or
tartan). In most accents, the /r/ is realized as the alveolar approximate [\], as opposed to the
trilled [r] in Scottish English accents. The change from a non-rhotic to rhotic accent in the
case of New York clearly connects to communication accommodation theory, which
involves the adaptation to an interlocutor’s communicative behaviour to help commu-
nication (Giles and Coupland, 1991). When speakers wish to increase the social proximity
to their interlocutor, perhaps to ease communication, they often converge towards each
other. On the other hand, when they want to do the opposite, perhaps to show authority
in a particular situation, they may diverge, that is adapt their language to make it sound
linguistically different. Giles and Powesland (1975) also discussed this in relation to the
desire to be understood, and the accommodation theory also provides a good framework
for analysing ELF talk, as discussed in Section 7b.

Language contact
Linguistic variation and change is the result of many factors, but one of the most influ-
ential factors is the degree of contact with speakers from different language backgrounds
or speakers of a different dialect, and this is particularly the case with English. In addition
to diachronic change, language contact can cause sudden periods of language change
known as synchronic change, which results in the transference of words, sounds, and
structures from one language to another. As discussed in Chapter 1, in some ways ‘stan-
dard’ English is a mixed language with Germanic origins but strong contact influences
from French, Latin, Old Norse, and Celtic languages, and loan words from many other
languages. For example, English syntax has been influenced by Celtic languages, such as
in the use of continuous tenses which are absent in other Germanic languages. Examples
of words that have been borrowed from other languages include: French (army, nation-
alism, passport); Latin (agenda, March, September, mile); Greek (gymnasium, mathematics,
democracy); Old Norse (sky, troll); Norman (castle); Dutch (skipper, keel); Spanish (guerrilla
warfare); Italian (piano, balcony, umbrella); Hindu/Urdu (pyjamas, bungalow, shampoo);
German (hamburger, rucksack); and Arabic (coffee, muslin).
Language change also happens when new realities require description. The rise of
science and empiricism, for example, led to the need to describe new terms which
involved borrowing from other languages, for example Latin (altitude), Arabic (alcohol,
algebra), and Greek (diagonal). New realities can include physical or social objects, the
environment, cultural traditions, etc. Examples are provided in Section 2b. It is impor-
tant to point out that it is often difficult to determine if an item is a loan word or a result
of code-mixing or code-switching, which is common in multilingual settings.
32 Language change and variation

 Code-switching occurs when multilingual speakers switch between different lan-

guages or varieties, e.g. Person A: ‘Would you mind passing my sweater to me?’
Person B: ‘This one?’ Person A: ‘Iya. Sochhi. [No. That one!]’
 Code-mixing is the transfer of linguistic items from one language into another in
multilingual speech, usually within the phrase level, e.g. Person A: ‘Pass my sweater,
onegaishimasu [please].’ Person B: ‘Kochhi? [This one?]’ Person A: ‘No. Socchi! [That one!]’
 Borrowing is when items from another language, or variety, might begin to be used
with increased frequency and undergo some kind of assimilation into the new language.

More recent notions of translingual practice (see Preface) also add a further dimension
to language use with others, blurring the borders between languages even further. Lan-
guage contact can come in a range of intensity. ‘Light, superficial contact’ (Schneider,
2011, pp. 27–28), for example when one culture admires and is influenced by another,
often leads to lexical borrowing. However, more intense contact, such as when a min-
ority population lives in a majority’s territory, may lead to changes in morphology and
syntax. Intense contact can also result in the birth of new language systems with the
emergence of pidgins and creoles, as introduced in Chapter 1, which are important
examples of synchronic change through intense language contact.

Contact-induced change: the ‘New’ Englishes and World Englishes

Most languages are in contact with others, but English more than any other. It has now
become customary to use the plural Englishes, and central to the World Englishes
paradigm is acceptance of the fact that English is a dynamic, multifarious, and pluricentric
entity. World Englishes scholars have focused on the investigation and description of
various national varieties, which have been described in the areas of phonology, lexicon,
syntax, pragmatics, discourse, and literary creativity, in order to identify characteristics
distinct from native or ‘standard’ norms, i.e. ‘accepted’ norms. Such attempts at codi-
fication provide a formal record of a variety, and thus are a significant process in legit-
imizing World Englishes’ varieties.
What are often termed ‘New’ Englishes resulted from Channel 3 spread outlined in
Chapter 1. ‘New’ Englishes have, therefore, been shaped by contact with the indigenous
languages of the population where they became ‘localized’, or ‘nativized’, by adopting
some unique language features. (The use of the term ‘nativized’ has been debated and is
discussed later in this section.) According to Platt, Weber and Lian (1984), these ‘New’
Englishes are far from uniform in their characteristics and current use, although they do
share certain features. They usually developed through the education system in places
where English was not the main language. In these postcolonial territories, English was,
initially, only spoken by the colonizers. However, once schools were established and
English was used as a medium of instruction, and as time went on, local English teachers
were recruited who used varieties of English influenced by their mother tongue, the
differences became more widespread.
Kachru discusses three phases that non-native, institutionalized varieties of English pass
through, which are not mutually exclusive (Kachru, 1992a, p. 56). In the initial phase,
there is ‘non-recognition’ of the local variety and conscious identification with native
speakers. They are prejudiced against the local variety, seeing the native version as
superior. After this, the local variety then exists side by side with the imported one,
 Language change and variation 33

beginning to be used in a wide range of situations for varied purposes. However, it is still
viewed as ‘inferior’. In the third phase, the local variety becomes recognized as the norm,
and becomes socially accepted and used as a model in education. ‘New’ Englishes are a
prime example of contact-based language change. As colonial settlements increased, and
when these nations subsequently became independent, these varieties became even more
distinct.
Schneider’s (2007) Dynamic Model of Postcolonial Englishes is another attempt to
show the evolution of the ‘New’ Englishes in postcolonial territories and the various
‘phases’ they pass through. These include:

Phase 1 Foundation – English arrives;

Phase 2 Exonormative stabilization – extensive English usage, particularly amongst the
native English-speaking settler community;
Phase 3 Nativization – the English used by native English speakers is used alongside a
more indigenous one;
Phase 4 Endonormative stabilization – the indigenous variety takes root and becomes
more widely accepted by the local community;
Phase 5 Differentiation – speakers of the indigenous variety take pride in their variety.

As with Kachru’s model, we see the importance of local attitudes towards and accep-
tance of the local, indigenous variety. Schneider gives examples of varieties that have
completed the ‘cycle’, including Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, and is a tidy
attempt to show the similar historical path that many new varieties of English have taken.

The status of ‘New’ Englishes

In addition to the development of the ‘New’ Englishes, there is also a lot of debate on
their status (see the Quirk/Kachru debate in Chapter 5). Widdowson (1997, p. 139)
points out that English ‘is not distributed as a set of established encoded forms, unchanged
into different domains of use, but it is spread as a virtual language’. It is this virtual lan-
guage (explained in Section 7b and in Figure 7.10) that has been spread. As he points
out, ‘The distribution of the actual language implies adoption and conformity. The
spread of virtual language implies adaptation and non-conformity. The two processes
are quite different’ (p. 140). English is not a ‘franchise language’ (p. 140) and, as the
language spreads, ‘it gets adapted as the virtual language gets actualized in diverse ways,
becomes subject to local constraints and controls’ (p. 140). In discussing this variation,
Widdowson discusses the emergence of language varieties and points out that Englishes
across the globe have developed in different ways to those spoken in Inner Circle
countries. In fact,

They have sprung up in a relatively unplanned and expedient way in response to the
immediate communicative needs of people in different communities with quite dif-
ferent ancestors. There is no comparable developmental continuity. The status of
dialects in England as variant actualizations of the same virtual language is confirmed
by their common history. To the extent that other varieties do not have such a
history, one may hesitate to call them dialects.
(Widdowson, 1997, p. 141)
34 Language change and variation

Thus, Widdowson proposes that some varieties, e.g. Ghanaian and Nigerian English,
should be seen as different languages. This raises the question of the status of the ‘New’
Englishes and whether they are varieties, Englishes, dialects, or languages.
Other scholars (e.g. Kirkpatrick, 2007; Mufwene, 2001; Schneider, 2003) argue that all
varieties of English develop in similar ways. Varieties are seen to reflect the cultural rea-
lities of their speakers, as well as being adaptable enough for their speakers to engage in
international communication. This highlights the problems with labelling the ‘New’
Englishes as ‘nativized’, due to such influence from local language and culture, unlike
‘native’ Inner Circle varieties which are not seen to have been influenced in such ways.
Does classing British English as a ‘native’ variety ignore the existence of languages that
preceded it, such as the Celtic language? Varieties of English are often classed as ‘native’
if they have been around for a long time and have influenced younger varieties of
English in some way (Kirkpatrick, 2007). However, ‘a long time’ is rather vague, and
British English pre-dates Australian English but they are both classified as being native.
Indian English also pre-dates Australian English but is considered non-native. Kirkpatrick
(2007, p. 6) suggests that a third criterion may relate to prejudice and one’s image of a
‘native speaker’, a topic discussed in Section 2d and Chapter 9. He prefers to classify all
varieties as ‘nativized’, since they have all been influenced by the local cultures and lan-
guages of the people who have developed the variety. Thus, varieties of British English
are as nativized as varieties of Filipino English (Kirkpatrick, 2007, p. 7). The topic of
status and ownership will also be revisited in Section 2d.

Variation in the Expanding Circle and ELF usage

It is also important to point out that, in addition to problems with terminology, the
various Englishes of the world, whatever circle they belong to, are not internally
uniform. While there is an abundance of literature describing the features of varieties
of English, discussed in Chapters 4 and 5, and while it is necessary to document
such characteristics in a book such as this, the contribution of ELF to the field cannot
be ignored. English has also taken root in a number of Expanding Circle countries
and, as a result of globalization, it is now used across all of the three circles in more
fluid contexts.
While the World Englishes paradigm focuses on the identification of varieties of
English in specific geographical regions, ELF researchers do not focus on such ‘fixed’
speech communities but examine how English is used in more virtual and transient
contexts worldwide. English is viewed as a contact language, where ‘both the commu-
nity of speakers and the location can be changing and are often not associated with
a specific nation’ (Cogo and Dewey, 2012, p. 97), and speech communities are ever-
changing. ELF research will be discussed at various points throughout this book, but it
is clear that the Global Englishes paradigm (with its incorporation of ELF research)
questions whether one can actually classify varieties of English at all.

2b Levels of variation
English is tremendously varied at all levels of language, including spelling, grammar,
vocabulary, phonetics/phonology, and pragmatics. More specific variation is discussed in
subsequent chapters, but here we provide an introduction to variation in English. There
 Language change and variation 35

is some debate over terminology and whether we should use the term ‘language’ or
‘variety’. Hence, we begin with an examination of such terms.

Dialect, accent, variety or language?

When discussing language change and variation, the large number of terms can cause
confusion. ‘Dialect’ denotes a geographical subdivision of a language form and is usually
associated with a region (‘regional-dialect’). However, in addition to regional distinc-
tions, dialect variation can also be influenced by a number of factors including class,
social group, ethnic group, age group, and gender.
For example, we can talk of a Welsh regional dialect, or an upper-class social dialect
of British English. ‘Accent’ relates to pronunciation (the sounds speakers produce and
other prosodic variation that accompanies sound), but dialect includes its grammar and
vocabulary. However, the two often go hand in hand; if a person speaks in a regional
dialect, such as Scottish, then their accent is also likely to be particular to that area.
However, dialect often comes with negative connotations and, in addition to negative
connotations, dialect cannot be used to describe the various Englishes worldwide. Thus,
in this book, the more neutral term ‘variety’ is preferred to denote group-specific and
region-based language forms.
‘Register’ is also important and refers to stylistically defined language varieties,
or situational contexts, and is often associated with jobs. For example, we can talk of a
spoken or written register, or context-specific registers such as in the medical and law
professions.

Sounds
In terms of sounds, the Englishes of the world differ markedly from each other. Written
English is not a good indicator of the sounds of the English language as it is not always
easy to predict how a word is pronounced from its spelling. The same sounds are written
using a variety of conventions, and many have no corresponding symbol in written
English. The International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) is a language-neutral system of
phonetic symbols that has been developed to describe sound variation in a systematic and
unambiguous way, and this will also be used here. A subset is provided for reference at
the end of this book. In this table reference is made to General American, among
others. However, this should not suggest that General American is a ‘norm’, as it is
instead used as a convenient illustration of sounds as they are widely understood. Audio
is provided on the companion website to this book to illustrate many of the examples in
this section.

Phonemic variation
Most differences in the sounds of Englishes are related to the realization of vowels.
For example, in terms of Inner Circle difference, there are many examples of vowel
mergers and splits. In most British accents (except south-west England), the stressed
vowel in bother and lot is an open back rounded vowel, symbolized as /Q/. This vowel is
distinct from the open back unrounded long /α:/ in father and palm. However, in most
varieties of English in North America no distinction is made, so that bomb and balm have
36 Language change and variation

identical pronunciations, and bother rhymes with father (Siegel, 2010, p. 14). Even within
smaller regions mergers exist, such as the buck–book merger in some Englishes in the
British Isles (e.g. found in Irish English, Scottish English, and Northern English accents),
and the Mary–merry–marry merger in the USA (pervasive across North America but not
in the north-east).
Variation also exists in the Outer Circle and the Expanding Circle. An example is the
trap–strut vowel merger, characteristic of Caribbean varieties (though both are also found
in Africa and elsewhere). In the Outer Circle and Expanding Circle, Kachru and Smith
(2008, p. 81) point out that many varieties simplify the diphthongs of the many Inner
Circle varieties, e.g. /eI/ to [e:] in paid and /@U/ to [O:] in boat. Here, ‘simplification’
refers to the realization of a complex vowel articulation [eI] in paid (in which the vowel
quality changes from the first to the second vocalic component) to a single elongated
vowel such as [e:]. In many African Englishes (e.g. in Kenya) and Asian Englishes (e.g.
the Philippines) there is no difference between the vowels of bit (/I/) and beat (/i:/)
(Schneider, 2011, p. 20).
Individual consonants are also pronounced differently by speakers of English
throughout the world. In America, for example, the /t/ in word medial position often
sounds like a [d] in words like butter and little, and in India it may not be aspirated and
is frequently realized as retroflex. Kachru and Smith (2008, pp. 80–81) note that the
voiceless plosives /p t k/ lose their aspiration when realized word-initially before a
vowel (e.g. pike, time, kite) so that the speakers of Inner Circle varieties often perceive
them as /b d g/. In Singaporean-Malaysian English, /b/, /d/, and /g/ are often devoiced
in the final position of a word. Thus, words such as pig and pick may not be differentiated
as much as in other varieties. In many varieties of English, the phonemes /θ/ and /ð/
(as in think, they) are realized differently. For example, they can be realized as dental
fricatives (with the tongue between the teeth) [θ] and [ð], as alveolar plosives (as in [t]
and [d], producing tink and dey), or as labiodental fricatives (as in [f], producing fink
and [v] in place of [ð] in the middle or end of words like smooth, producing smoov). In
addition, several speakers of African Englishes (e.g. Zambian) and in the Expanding
Circle (e.g. Japan) do not distinguish between /r/ and /l/, and these may be substituted
for each other freely. Thus, flight and fright, or rice and lice, may sound similar.
In fact, many ‘New’ Englishes operate on a smaller set of vowels than ‘native’ Eng-
lishes, leading many to describe them as reductive and ‘simpler’. However, there are
numerous cases where the phonemic inventory of ‘New’ Englishes includes sounds not
found in accents like Received Pronunciation (RP) and General American (such as
retroflex sounds in Indian English, e.g. [¤]), thus ‘New’ Englishes could as easily be
deemed as richer and more complex by this same logic.

Prosodic variation
Variation also exists in the domains beyond individual segments/sounds, such as the syllable
and the utterance, in relation to prosodic (suprasegmental) features. For example, Japanese
speakers adapt foreign loan words to the sound structure of their native language by adding
epenthetic vowels to consonant clusters (e.g. sutopu [stop] and aisukurimu [ice cream]). The
addition of vowels to consonant clusters is also found in Inner Circle varieties, such as the
Scottish and Irish English pronunciation of film, where an extra vowel is added in order to
pronounce the consonant cluster (making it sound more like fillum).
 Language change and variation 37

Wells (1999, p. 91) points out that certain British accents, including Birmingham,
Liverpool, Newcastle, and Glasgow, have some tendency to use rising tones, where
most other accents have falling tones. In Australian English there is also a tendency to use
rising pitch contours in declaratives and wh-questions (who?, what?, where?, when?, why?),
whereas most other accents have falling pitch. In Irish English, the tendency appears to
be to prefer falling pitch contours in all communicative types.
Shifts in lexical stress patterns and rhythmic organization of speech may also occur. In
Outer Circle and Expanding Circle varieties of English, lexical stress placement is often
different to Inner Circle varieties, for example success for success in Nigeria (Kachru and
Smith, 2008, p. 74). In other Englishes, stress may not be used to differentiate between
verb and noun forms of words, such as conduct (noun) and conduct (verb).
Many ‘New’ Englishes are characterized by perceptually syllable-timed speech,
whereas Inner Circle varieties are perceptually stress-timed. In syllable-timed English, the
rhythm of speech can be likened to a machine gun, where syllables are perceived as
occurring at equal intervals of time. On the other hand, the rhythmic pattern of stress-
timed speech can be likened to Morse code, where stressed syllables are perceptually
evenly spaced, regardless of the number of unstressed syllables between them. It will
become clear in Chapters 5 and 6 how Outer Circle and Expanding Circle varieties of
English do not utilize stress in the same way as Inner Circle speakers. Research carried
out into phonology in the ELF paradigm will be discussed in Chapter 7.

Vocabulary
Lexical variation, and word choice and usage are commonly known differences in the
Englishes of the world. Some examples include the following.

 Variety-specific compounds, such as salary man (company employee) in Japan.

 Same meaning, different words, such as jumper in the UK and sweater in North
America.
 Conversion, a shift of a word class with retention of meaning, such as off meaning to
switch off in West Africa (Melchers and Shaw, 2011, p. 24).
 Semantic extension, where terms are assigned new meanings in addition to their
original one – for example in Malawi the verb to move takes on various meanings, e.g.
Suzagao is moving with my cousin (dating) or He is moving with bad boys (socializing)
(Kamwangamalu, 2001, p. 57).
 Semantic narrowing, where words take on a more restricted meaning, such as in
Middle English where a girl was a young person of either sex, but now only refers to
a female.
 Compounding/specialized meaning, where new words are formed by com-
pounding or giving a specialized meaning to a combination of words – e.g. in South
Africa the end of apartheid led to the creation of compound rainbow x, referring to either
‘the coming together of people from previously racially segregated groups’ or ‘something
that affects or benefits these people’, resulting in compound nouns such as rainbow nation,
rainbow swimming pool, rainbow gathering, rainbow school etc. (Kamwangamalu, 2001, p. 54).
 Derivation, where new words are created by adding prefixes or suffixes to an old
one, such as in Ghana where enstool and destool are used, since a king sits on a stool not
a throne (Jenkins, 2009b, p. 30).
38 Language change and variation

 Abbreviation, where words are shortened, such as afternoon to arvo and barbeque to
barbie in Australia.
 Blending, where parts of words are combined, such as distripark (a distribution park
or a warehouse complex) in Singapore.
 Acronyms, such as MC (medical certificate) in Singapore and Malaysia.
 Coinages, where new words are formed such as killer litter (rubbish discarded from
high-rises which may end up killing someone by accident) in Singapore.
 Borrowing, where words are taken from another language to describe new phe-
nomena, local environments, or culture (as discussed in Section 2a), especially in
newly settled areas – examples include:
 physical landscape, e.g. to name places, rivers, mountains, flora, and fauna;
 physical objects, e.g. boomerang in Australia;
 food, e.g. sushi (Japan), vodka (Russia), pizza (Italy), and alcohol (Arabic);
 clothing, e.g. sarong (Malaysia) and sari (India);
 social standing and customs, e.g. Nawabs (Pakistan – an Indian ruler during Mogul
empires) and Sahib (Pakistan – used to address a man, especially one with some
status);
 animals, e.g. kangaroo in Australia;
 cultural traditions, e.g. Melas (Pakistan – a cultural festival).
 Variety-specific compounds and derivatives, e.g. sheep station (New Zealand), careers
master (Kenya), and democrator (India). (Schneider, 2011, p. 24)

It is important to point out that, when words are borrowed, they often gradually
change to fit the phonological and morphological structure of the borrowing language
(e.g. the plural of pizza is pizze in Italian, but pizzas in English). Borrowed terms also
result in hybrid forms that are a combination of English and borrowed terms, such as
lathi-charge (a charge by the police with batons) in India.
Vocabulary differences do not only include individual words, but also phrases and
idioms. Some examples include locally coined idioms and word-by-word translations
of indigenous phrases. The term long legs is used in West Africa, meaning to have influ-
ence in high places (Melchers and Shaw, 2011, p. 25), while to shake legs in Malaysia,
coming from the Malay idiom goyang kaki, means ‘to be idle’ (Jenkins, 2003, p. 27).
There is also variation in the use of native English-speaker idioms (e.g. to eat your cake and
have it in Singapore, instead of the British to have your cake and eat it (Jenkins, 2009b,
p. 27)). In relation to ELF research, Pitzl (2009) shows how idioms are expressed rather
differently and how speakers coin idiomatic language that has gone through what she
calls re-metaphorization (Seidlhofer and Widdowson, 2009). This research is impor-
tant, especially as she shows how such usage does not inhibit, and may even enhance,
communicative ability. One example of such innovative metaphorical use of language is
we should not wake up any dogs [let sleeping dogs lie].

Spelling
As discussed in Chapter 1, the process of standardization in English spelling was greatly
influenced by the printing revolution and the spread of English dictionaries. This was
further influenced by the American lexicographer, Noah Webster, who proposed an
 Language change and variation 39

Table 2.1 Differences in British and American spelling

American British
Center Centre
Traveling Travelling
Favor Favour
Defense Defence

‘American Standard’ in 1789, and today there are many differences between British and
American spellings, shown in Table 2.1.
However, despite these well-known differences, most published written texts, at least
those published in ‘standard’ English, exhibit little variation in spelling. However,
Melchers and Shaw (2011, p. 15) point out that, ‘In some transported Englishes, espe-
cially Canadian English, which is generally characterised by conflicting loyalties, that is to
Britain vs. the USA, there is great variability in spelling, and usage varies for regional,
social and political reasons.’ English-based pidgins and creoles, discussed in Section 2c,
also often do not have standardized orthographies (Romaine, 1988, p. 111).

Grammar/syntactic variation
Variation also exists in grammar (or syntax), and differences include the following.

 Subtractive differences – for example, in the Caribbean speakers often omit their
verbal -s endings, as in he go (Schneider, 2011, p. 24). This is also a common feature
of ELF usage, for example he sing instead of he sings (Seidlhofer, 2005, p. 92).
 Additive differences – where many Outer Circle and Expanding Circle speakers
turn uncountable nouns into countable ones (e.g. informations, staffs). Once again, this
is a common feature of ELF usage.
 Tense and aspect – where speakers use different forms. For example, where Amer-
icans may use the simple past tense Did you eat yet?, British speakers may use the
present perfect Have you eaten? Similarly, Indian English speakers may use the present
continuous or progressive I am knowing very well, while British speakers may use the
present simple I know very well (Kirkpatrick, 2007, p. 23).
 Question formation – where patterns may be used differently. For example, tag
questions like He is coming, isn’t it? are found in some contexts (e.g. India). This is also
common in ELF usage (see Seidlhofer, 2005, p. 92).
 Article omission – for example, He is very good person is common in Outer Circle
and Expanding Circle varieties, and is also a common feature of ELF conversations.
 Concord with collective nouns – for example the government is/are. Melchers and
Shaw (2011, p. 23) note that ‘the plural is used much less frequently in American
English than in English English’.
 Use of auxiliaries – for example variation in the use of shall and should with first-
person subjects and the development of new auxiliaries, e.g. gotta (Melchers and
Shaw, 2011, p. 24).
 Levelling of irregular verb forms – for example, in America spoiled is used for the
past tense instead of spoilt in the UK.
40 Language change and variation

Pragmatics
It is also important to point out differences in pragmatics, which involves how language
is used and conventions on how to behave. For example, greetings and address vary (e.g.
in some Asian countries, people may greet you by asking Have you eaten?). Non-verbal
communication also varies, such as Indians signal yes by nodding their head sideways,
which is often mistaken for a no elsewhere. Conventions of formality also vary.

Intelligibility
There is clearly a lot of variation in English, leading many people to worry that speakers
will not be able to communicate with each other. Concern over such variation is inevi-
table and will be discussed further in subsequent chapters. However, it is important not
to forget that English speakers have for hundreds of years spoken varieties that have been
mutually unintelligible (for example, review the excerpt from Caxton in Chapter 1).
There is no evidence to suggest that variation today is any greater to that of the past; thus
we need to raise awareness that deviations from ‘the standard’ are natural and normal.
Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7 will provide further descriptions in relation to the Inner Circle,
Outer Circle, Expanding Circle, and ELF usage, highlighting further diversity in how
ELF speakers use adaptive accommodation skills and employ various strategies to achieve
communication. However, a purely linguistic description is insufficient, and attitudes
towards such change will be explored in Chapter 8.

2c Pidgins and creoles

Pidgins and creoles arise in situations where two communities of people do not speak a
common, mutually intelligible language. A pidgin is usually defined as a language that
emerges in situations where a simple language is needed to communicate between the two
communities. Singh (2000) outlines a misconception of a pidgin as a ‘broken’ English,
where two people speak a language that is not their own and thus the language used fol-
lows no structural or grammatical rules. While pidgin English is ‘one outcome of language
contact between speakers of different languages who need to communicate’, Singh states
that ‘a lack of linguistic structure is not a characteristic of pidgin’ (Singh, 2000, p. 2).
The distinction between a pidgin and a creole lies in the usage of the language. A
creole usually develops via a generation of speakers for whom the contact language is a
first and primary language of communication. As a result, the language develops more
grammar and vocabulary, forming a complete working creole. The process of language
development from a contact language to a creole is called creolization. Depending on
the environment in which the language is used, creolization might be as short as a single
generation of speakers, or be developed slowly from a pidgin over decades of use.
Sometimes, a pidgin might never move beyond an extended pidgin, lacking the
grammatical and lexical complexity and stability to be defined as a creole.

The world’s English pidgins and creoles

English pidgins and creoles can be found worldwide, but are mostly concentrated in
the Caribbean, along the west coast of Africa, and, to a lesser extent, in Australasia.
 Language change and variation 41

Most history divides the world’s creoles (and pidgins) into two categories based on
their historical origin: fort creoles and plantation creoles. An English fort creole
is typical of those found in regions where English was the contact language used for
communication with local communities who traded with, worked for, or were
colonized by English speakers. Most of the world’s fort creoles can be found along
the west coast of Africa – an important and historical shipping and trade route that
caused the need for English to be used as a contact language with communities
of people living and stationed along these routes. An English plantation creole is
typical of those found in the Caribbean and Central America. These creoles devel-
oped through the mass-displacement of slaves into New World plantations in
the area. English was the contact language between the African slaves and the
English-speaking masters.
The fundamental difference between a fort creole and a planation creole is that the
plantation creole quickly developed into a first language in these communities, as it was
not only used between slaves and their masters but as a lingua franca within the com-
munity itself, which had been displaced from linguistically diverse regions of Africa.
Members of these displaced communities had less contact with the minority of Eur-
opeans who spoke the language, and creolization occurred without passing through a
stage of a pidgin. On the other hand, fort creoles were developed in closer proximity to
Europe and served as a lingua franca for communication (alongside other languages). The
fort creoles of West Africa involved English being imposed on groups of people for trade
purposes and during colonization, resulting in the language being ‘diluted’ into the local
communities very quickly, and ‘indigenous people in fort situations became European-
ised to varying degrees’ (Gramley, 2012, p. 216).

Characteristics of pidgins and creoles

Even though pidgins and creoles developed around the world in very diverse situations,
there are some characteristics that most of the world’s pidgins and creoles share. It is
the similarities more than the differences between the world’s pidgins and creoles
that continue to fascinate linguists today, unlike varieties of English where differences
attract attention. According to McIntyre (2009), one key precursor to the emergence
of a pidgin is the existence of a superstrate language and a substrate language.
A superstrate language is usually the contact language, or imposed language, such as the
English language along coastal trading routes of West Africa or plantations in the Car-
ibbean. The substrate language is the local language, such as the West African languages
spoken along these trading routes and the numerous African languages on the plantations.
A key feature of a pidgin is the simplification of grammatical features of the superstrate
language, such as verb irregularities (throwed instead of threw) and superfluous grammatical

Table 2.2 Sranan Tongo Creole

Sranan Tongo Creole Literal meaning Meaning
Wrokoman Work + man Worker
Wakaman Walk + man Drifter
Wrokosani Work + thing Tool
42 Language change and variation

features, such as the third-person ‘s’ (she say instead of she says). In addition, the word
order may also be simplified, such as You see her? instead of Did you see her? (Sebba, 1997,
p. 54). Morphological simplification is also a recurring feature of pidgins, as too is vo-
cabulary reduction (Singh, 2000), such as in the case of Sranan Tongo Creole, as
illustrated by Sebba (1997, p. 50) (see Table 2.2).
The example below is taken from Winford (2008, p. 416) and illustrates the gram-
matical and morphological structure of Belize Creole English (BCE).

A don gat evriting redi, inoo, mis B.

I already have everything ready, you know, Miss B.
I mi gat plees op ya we me an hi mi liv.
There was a place up here where he and I lived.

In these examples, we can see grammatical simplification of verb tenses in the verb gat
[get], being modified by additional words don [completive preverbal marker] and mi [past
tense marker], rather than the original verb conjugation in English [have gotten].

How did pidgins and creoles develop?

There is very little documentation on the development of historical pidgins and creoles
and, as such, little is known regarding how they developed. For example, it is still
debated whether many creoles developed out of pidgins, or via separate processes due to
the unique circumstances of the language contact. Nevertheless, there have been a
number of theories regarding the origins of creoles, three of which are outlined below.

Theory 1: Influence of the superstrate language via ‘baby-talk’

This theory dates back to the nineteenth century French observations of creoles
(Mufwene, 2008), arguing that the grammatical simplification of pidgins and sub-
sequent creoles was due to the original simplification of the language by those intro-
ducing it in contact language situations. That is, the European traders, for example,
used grammatically reduced forms to communicate with locals. There was a view that
African languages were more ‘primitive’ than European languages, and thus simplifi-
cation was necessary to communicate, hence the ‘baby-talk’ tag attached to this theory
(Mufwene, 2008).

Theory 2: Parallel development of the substrate and superstrate language

In the development of a pidgin, the substrate language usually provides the grammatical
structure, while the superstrate language usually provides the vocabulary of the resulting
pidgin (McIntyre, 2009). However, this mixing of the two languages is not so black and
white, because numerous cases have shown vocabulary of the substrate to also be incor-
porated into the pidgin. Winford (2008, p. 414) gives some examples of vocabulary in
West African substrate languages found throughout creoles in the Caribbean, such as
bakra (white man) and nyam (eat). Furthermore, analysis of pidgins and creoles usually
shows a heavy influence of substrate languages. For example, Gramley (2012, p. 230)
argues that, even though ‘no African language survived more than two or three
 Language change and variation 43

generations in the New World … language influence is said to be present in underlying

structures’. Mufwene (2008) argues it is an obvious phenomenon that African languages
influenced the structures of new Creole languages, but this does not detract from the
influence of the superstrate language, which is also obvious.

Theory 3: The effect of universal grammar

Theories of universal grammar have been used to explain children’s innate ability
to master language that is too structurally complex to learn through limited input and
imitation alone. According to the theory, a child makes sense of a language through a
universal understanding of grammar, which is why it is common to hear children say
the following, despite never hearing them: sawed instead of seen, and foots instead of feet.
A universal grammar theory sees the development of a creole as affected by humans’
innate understanding of language universals. Gramley (2012) argues that these phe-
nomena can be observed more clearly in creoles that emerged very quickly, sometimes
within a single generation. However, Mufwene (2008) questions this theory on a
number of factors – the most pertinent, perhaps, is his observation that some pidgins,
which developed over long periods of time in more naturalistic second-language
acquisition environments, have a lot in common with creoles that were abruptly
developed in a generation.

De-creolization and attitudes to creoles

If a creole develops in a way that it loses those characteristics that defines it as a creole,
it can be said to undergo de-creolization. Because of a mistaken view of pidgins and
creoles as ‘broken English’, there has been a push in the education systems of creole
communities to promote ‘standard’ English, which is viewed as ‘correct’. This is
a further example of how attitudes towards language and the notions of prestige
discussed in Section 2a can influence language change. It is also an example of the
importance of prejudiced attitudes towards ‘native’ and ‘nativized’ varieties discussed in
Section 2b.
Singh (2000) outlines real examples of recent changes in policy in the creole com-
munities, which pushed for the use of ‘standard’ English in schools and governance but
have more recently adopted a more open stance. While early policy tried to ‘fix’ creole
Englishes, recent policies take a much more positive view of creoles and encourage them
to be embraced and recognized as languages in their own right. In Caribbean commu-
nities, for example, the creoles spoken are much more positively viewed as symbols of
national identity and pride than they were in the past. Winford (2008, p. 419) states,

Changes in attitudes have been due to several factors: the growing sense of nation-
alism in these communities since independence; the emergence of a substantial body
of scholarship that demonstrates the validity of the creoles as languages in their own
right; the growing tendency to use creole in literary works; and the readiness of the
powers-that-be to allow use of creole in contexts such as education.

This movement in scholarship towards the recognition and value of variation in English
is the topic of much of this book. A linguistic description of Caribbean creoles is
44 Language change and variation

discussed in Chapter 4, and those found in other parts of world in Chapter 5. Attitudes
toward ‘standard’ and ‘non-standard’ Englishes will be revisited in Chapter 8.

2d Standard language ideology, ownership, and identity

Thus far, this chapter has highlighted the linguistic variation and change in English. This
final section examines standard language ideology that has emerged in reaction to the
variation and change. Despite the fact that English has changed over the years, often in
an unregulated and haphazard way, it is also tightly regulated. According to Seargeant
(2009, p. 26), ‘Language ideology can be defined, in broad terms, as the structured and
consequential ways we think about language’, and standard language ideology thus
relates to the way society thinks about language standards. As Chapters 1 and 2 thus far
have shown, the global spread of English gave rise to a wide variety of Englishes, and
debate and argument for and against there being a ‘standard’ English has grown.

Standard language ideology in ENL countries

The belief in the existence of a ‘standard’ English, and the promotion of standardization
towards this ‘ideal’ language, is deeply rooted in history. In fact, there is a record of very
early attempts to standardize language during the reign of King Alfred (849–901), when
policies aimed at making West Saxon English the official language of the court, educa-
tion, and scholarship (Nevalainen and van Ostade, 2006). West Saxon began to permeate
other regions of England both in its written form and through the prestige associated
with its spoken form. The next movement of language standardization came centuries
later, with the establishment and promotion of the Chancery Standard (outlined in
Chapter 1), coupled with the impact of the printing press, which helped sow the seeds of
an ideology of a standard written English.
The first target of language regulation was spelling and, in pursuit of consistency,
printing houses sought spelling standardization. The first dictionaries of English came at
the turn of the eighteenth century, soon followed by books of prescribed grammar usage
aiming to establish a set norms of ‘standard’ English. To this day, American and British
versions of prescribed spelling and grammar conventions differ because of different con-
ventions chosen in the publication of these early dictionaries in each nation, namely
Samuel Johnson’s (1755) A Dictionary of the English Language and Noah Webster’s (1828)
American Dictionary of the English Language. In other parts of the Inner Circle, it is
important to note, codification of English and prescription of grammar usage in books
was not the only means of language standardization, and standard language ideology also
emerged through accepted usage. As Kachru and Smith (2008, p. 3) explain:

Codification is not a prerequisite for legitimizing a language. For instance, Aus-

tralians spoke Australian English for years before a dictionary of Australian English
(The Macquarie Dictionary, 1981) was compiled and a grammatical description of
Australian English (Collins and Blair, 1989) appeared.

In terms of vocabulary standardization, even the first dictionaries recognized that the
English language was always changing, and thus that the dictionary would not be an
ever lasting account of English (see Samuel Johnson’s dictionary of 1755, for example).
 Language change and variation 45

However, this did not stop some people from advocating the standardization of voca-
bulary, such as author Jonathan Swift who wrote ‘A Proposal for Correcting, Improving
and Ascertaining the English Tongue’ (1712) in which he purported the value in ‘fixing’
English, and stopping the flow of vocabulary in and out of the English language (see the
companion website for a case study of Swift). However, Swift’s proposal is not unique to
history, as Milroy (2007, p. 138) writes, ‘there is usually a tradition of popular complaint
about language, bewailing the low quality of general usage and claiming that the lan-
guage is degenerating’. This notion certainly rings true today.
Nevalainen and van Ostade (2006, p. 275) write, ‘For a long time, the history of
standard English is, indeed, a history of standard written English.’ Indeed, ideology of a
‘standard’ English is more concretely associated with grammatical forms in written
English than with spoken forms, or vocabulary usage, which stayed regionally and
socially contained. However, the establishment of compulsory schooling in the UK
facilitated increased contact between the wealthier and the middle classes, which
caused the emergence of a desirable wealthy accent. Eventually this accent was referred
to as RP, in which ‘received’ pronunciation referred to the ‘accepted’ pronunciation.
With the introduction of radio and the founding of the British Broadcasting Company
in 1921, RP became even more prevalent as the ‘standard’. McIntyre (2009, p. 29)
writes that ‘the prestige associated with it [RP] led to many people adapting their own
accents (either consciously or subconsciously), in order to avoid the stigma that was
increasingly associated with regional pronunciations.’ The attraction to RP even
extended beyond the borders of the UK, to the point that RP still holds prestige in
most of the Expanding Circle and Outer Circle countries, and even in America where
people still assign prestige value to the RP accent (Wolfram and Schilling-Estes, 2006).
It is unusual that an accent only spoken by 3 per cent of the population in the UK
came to be thought of as the ‘standard’ English (McIntyre, 2009).
In America, standardization of spoken English was less intense. Unlike Britain, where
RP is still associated with prestige and class, there is no standard American English that
now holds the same prestige value. Wolfram and Schilling-Estes (2006, p. 13) write:

For the most part, Americans do not assign strong positive, or prestige, value to any
particular dialect of American English. The basic contrast in the USA exists between
negatively valued dialects and those without negative value, not between those with
prestige value and those without.

However, in both America and Britain gravitation toward a spoken standard American
English or British RP has considerably diminished, particularly in the latter half of the
twentieth century. This is true of most Englishes found in Kachru’s Inner Circle, where
national varieties of English are often viewed with pride, as can be seen in the Jamaican
example in the previous section.

Standardization, the ‘New’ Englishes, and the Expanding Circle

Despite the increasing acceptance of national and regional varieties of native Englishes,
‘New’ Englishes are still often viewed as ‘deficient’ or ‘fossilized’ versions. Bamgbose
(1998) argues that, while native English-speaker-led language change is often seen as a
sign of creativity and innovation, non-native English-speaker-led change is labelled as an
46 Language change and variation

error. Mufwene (2001, p. 107) adds that the indigenized Englishes of the Outer Circle
are treated as the ‘illegitimate’ offspring of English, while native English-speaker varieties
are regarded as the ‘legitimate’ offspring, because of the (mistaken) belief that they have
evolved from Old English without ‘contamination’.
Furthermore, the idea of a ‘standard’ English exists across the Expanding Circle in
regions as diverse as East Asia, South America, and Europe, and the education policy of
countries in these regions continues to promote a ‘standard’ English ideology by pro-
viding to students a limited range of models of English that usually adhere to General
American or British RP norms. Standard language ideology often exists because own-
ership of English is placed on ENL countries. Galloway (2011, 2013) highlighted that,
in Japan, native English speakers are seen as the ‘owners’ of English and speakers of a
‘legitimate’ variety. However, this study also highlighted that, despite being attached to
the idea of ‘standard’ English, participants could not define it and were also unable to
explain their strong attachment to it in relation to learning the language. Stereotypes
are also important, stemming from information about the target language and culture
portrayed through the mass media, advertising, experiences, and also the use of native
English as a yardstick of comparison. Stereotypes do not develop suddenly but develop
over a longer period of time. Dominant ideologies, such as standard language ideology,
can render certain aspects of sociolinguistic usage invisible (such as the use of English in
non-native English-speaking contexts). Unfortunately, in many contexts non-native
English, and also non-native English speakers, are ideological outliers and are not given
prominence.
In addition to stereotypes and ideas of ownership, it is possible that in places like
China and Japan attitudes are related to a standard language ideology of their own
national language (see Galloway, 2011 on Japan). These countries are both language
conscious nations, and their move to a standard national language was an attempt to
override the multiplicity of dialects and unite the nation to foster a national identity.
Thus, a strong essentialist view of the national language exists and, with the integration
of ethnic minority groups into the majority culture, language standardization created the
ideology that a nation is formed of one ethnic group, sharing one language. There is,
therefore, a possibility that a monolithic view of linguistic diversity persists in countries
such as these, which may have implications for attitudes towards English and, at least,
partly explain positive attitudes towards standards of native English.

The future of standard English ideology

This chapter has shown language standardization occurs through sources of authority,
which include books, policy, and the education system. Beliefs about ‘standard’ English
also stem from the way in which English is taught, stereotypes surrounding English, and
attachment of ownership of English to native English-speaking countries. Widdowson
(2003, pp. 41–42), for example, notes that, ‘The very idea of a standard implies stability,
but language is of nature unstable.’ Others assert that Inner Circle varieties are only the
‘source of a world language, not the world language itself’ (Brutt-Griffler, 2002, p. 179),
and that English ‘belongs to everyone who speaks it, but it is nobody’s mother tongue’
(Rajagopalan, 2004, p. 111). Moreover, support of the notion of ‘standard’ English is
incompatible with the complex reality of how English is used worldwide (Saraceni,
2009). As Milroy and Milroy (1999, p. 45) state, ‘standardisation is never complete
 Language change and variation 47

because, ultimately, a language is the property of the communities that use it … It is not
the exclusive property of governments, educators or prescriptive grammarians, and it is
arrogant to believe that it is.’
ELF research is central here, where ownership is removed from native English speak-
ers, who do not provide a linguistic reference point, and instead an expert user of ELF is
preferred. Within the ELF paradigm, it has been increasingly recognized that native
English speakers do not speak a standardized version, and furthermore it is increasingly
difficult and irrelevant to define a ‘native speaker’ in multilingual societies (Kirkpatrick,
2007). Mauranen (2012, p. 6) has the following to offer:

Imposed standards are different from the natural norms that arise in groups and
communities primarily in face-to face interaction to regulate interaction in the
interests of mutual intelligibility and smooth communicative progress. Natural
norms arise from what a speech community adopts, tolerates, or rejects …
Although ELF is typically associated with fleeting encounters between strangers, it
is also the working language of more long-lasting communities, for example busi-
ness, trade or academia. Spontaneous norms arise in communities of these kinds;
they can, thus, become endonormative for their own duration and purposes. In the
absence of linguistic authority, other than communicative efficiency, group norms
are negotiated internally.

Thus, to return to the introductory case study of this chapter, the Daihat-Praglish
English that drew scorn from Newman (1995) is an antiquated and Inner Circle-centred
view of English, which is precisely the type of standard language ideology Global
Englishes is trying to move away from.

Chapter summary
This chapter has highlighted key issues in variation and change in English. From Sec-
tion 2a, it is clear that language is always changing, and thus a view that English is a
monolithic entity that is impervious to variation is an incorrect assumption. English
does not live in a vacuum, nor is it preserved like many of the dead languages of
the world existing in its last recorded state; it is a living entity which feeds off other
languages, speakers, cultures, and societies. Such contact has caused massive variation
worldwide in terms of grammatical structures, vocabulary, syntax, and phonology, as
Section 2b has illustrated. In areas of extreme contact with speakers of other languages,
English has undergone massive change, such as the pidgins and creoles that developed
in such contexts.
Negative attitudes toward variation and change are not new to society, and a
standard language ideology of English has existed for a millennium and, throughout
time, regional variations of English have been subjected to stereotypes on whether
they constitute ‘correct’ usage. Standard language ideology remains strong, especially
in the Expanding Circle where learners maintain stereotypes of English as a monolithic
entity, placing importance on the idea of a ‘standard’ English and placing ownership
of it within the Inner Circle. However, ELF researchers have done much to
highlight the fact that ownership of the English language no longer rests with native
English speakers.
48 Language change and variation

Further reading
On language variation and change:

 Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P. and Schilling-Estes, N. (2004). The Handbook of Language

Variation and Change. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

On variation in World Englishes:

 Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7 of this book.

On pidgins and creoles:

 Singh, I. (2000). Pidgins and Creoles. London: Hodder Arnold.

On standard language ideology:

 Milroy, J. and Milroy, L. (1999). Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English.

London: Routledge.

Closing activities

Chapter discussion questions

Section 2a
1 What have been the main driving forces behind change in the English language?
2 Why (and in what ways) do you think contact with other languages has influenced
English? Think of the varying levels of language contact, e.g. superficial contact and
more intense contact.
3 What is your opinion on Widdowson’s (1997, p. 43) comment that ‘the very fact that
English is an international language means that no nation can have custody over it’?

Section 2b
1 Some English phonology does not match English spelling, e.g. the phoneme /S/ in
shut and champagne; pronunciation of bow as /b@U/ or /baU/; and the pronunciation of
aren’t and aunt both as /α:nt/. What other inconsistencies exist? Can you think of any
ways to regularize spelling?
2 Crystal (1997, p. 116) points out, ‘the need for intelligibility and the need for identity
often pull people and countries … in opposing directions’. Do the demands of mutual
intelligibility point to a need to decrease such variation?
3 ‘Postcolonial Englishes’ is a term used by Schneider (2007) that attempts to investigate
common trajectories of change in the Englishes spoken in countries colonized by
Britain. What are your opinions of this way of viewing English variation? What about
the term ‘nativized’?

Section 2c
1 Which of the three theories of how pidgins and creoles developed seems most likely,
based on what you have read?
 Language change and variation 49

2 When does a language cease to be a creole and be considered its own language?
3 Pennycook (2007) debates the inclusion of creoles in the World Englishes paradigm.
Exclusion impacts on the identity of creole speakers, but inclusion impacts on what is
understood by language in general and English in particular. Expand on the argu-
ments for and against inclusion of creoles as a variety of English.

Section 2d
1 How has a ‘standard’ English ideology for the English language developed and
changed over history?
2 Why is standard language ideology more prevalent in the written form of the English
language than the spoken form?
3 What are your views on the idea of a ‘standard’ English? What are your experiences
of ‘standard’ English (or language) ideology?

Debate topics
1 Creoles are languages in their own right and should not fall in the World Englishes
paradigm. Placing creoles with other World Englishes is equivalent to placing Modern
English in a paradigm of ‘World Frenches’, seeing as Middle English emerged
through contact with Norman French.
2 ‘New’ Englishes will continue to be negatively evaluated until they are fully de-
scribed, and in a position to identify and codify their standard forms.
3 Language change and variation enriches the expressive potential of English. It is
inevitable and should be encouraged.

Writing and presentation prompts

Below are ideas for writing and presentation tasks to apply the knowledge learned in
Chapter 2. Additional assignment prompts can be found on the companion website.

Assignment topics
Personal Which variety of English do people in a context you are familiar with associate
account with prestige? Explore the topic of linguistic prejudice, and your own experiences,
in this context. Think about the national language(s), if relevant, and English.
Research task Collect data on people's ‘standard’ English ideology using the questionnaire and/or
(see website interview agenda from the companion website. Analyse the data and present your
for worksheet) findings. Comment on how your findings compare to historical and current
perspectives of ‘standard’ English.
Basic academic Research and present about one of the world's pidgins or creoles. Explain its
historical emergence and its current features, using examples to illustrate your
points.
Advanced Choose two Inner Circle or Outer Circle World Englishes that emerged at a
academic similar point in history. Describe the current phonologic, lexical, grammatical, and
syntactic differences between the two, and why this variation has occurred.
Discuss influences on the languages in accordance to their variation and change.