World Englishes. Vol. 9. No. I, pp. 3-20. 1990 0883-2919/90 13.00 + 0.

00
Printed in Great Britain. Pergarnon Press plc

World Englishes and applied linguistics

BRAJ B. KACHRU*
ABSTRACT: This paper addresses the issue of the relationship between world Englishes (WE) and
applied linguistics. The diffusion of English is seen in terms of three concentric circles: the Inner
Circle (L1 varieties, e.g. the USA and the UK), the Outer Circle (ESL varieties), and the Expanding
Circle (EFL varieties). The discussion is essentially restricted t o the Outer Circle in which the
institutionalized non-native varieties of English are used in multilingual and multicultural contexts.
The discussion is about four major issues: theoretical, applied, societal and ideological, and focuses
specifically on: (a) attitudes concerning the ontological status of the varieties of English, (b)
generalizations about the creative strategies used for learning English in multilingual/multicultural
contexts, (c) descriptions of the pragmatic and interactional contexts of WEs and their implications,
(d) assumptions concerning multicultural identities of WEs, (e) assumptions about the role of English
in initiating ideological and social change, and (f) assumptions about communicative competence
in English. This paper is divided into the following sections: ontological issues, conflict between
idealization and reality, acquisition and creativity, the ‘leaking paradigms’, cultural content of
English, ideological change, where applied linguistics fails the Outer Circle of English, and types
of fallacies about WEs. This study does not view applied linguistics as divorced from social concerns:
the concerns of relevance to the society in which we live. This view, then, entails social responsibility
and accountability for research in applied linguistics.

INTRODUCTION I
The choice of world Englishes as the starting point of this paper calls for two types of
explanations. One, that of terminology: why ‘world Englishes’, and not just world ‘English’?
Second, that of justification of relationship: why choose world Englishes to address the
issues related to applied linguistics? There is no simple or short answer to the first question.
An answer to this question, as we know, entails more than pure linguistic issues, the issues
of attitude, and additionally several extralinguistic factors. During the last two decades
a reasonable body of research has been done to provide answers to this question. [For
bibliographical references see Kachru (1985, 1986a).] What I would like to attempt in this
paper, therefore, is to provide a perspective for the second question, that of the justification
of the relationship between world Englishes and applied linguistics, a perspective which
is essentially that of the user of English who belongs to the Outer Circle of English out
of the three concentric circles outlined in Fig. 1.2 Note that South Africa (population
29,628,000) and Jamaica (population 2,407,000) are not listed. The reason is the
sociolinguistic complexity of these two countries in terms of their English-using populations
and the functions of English [see Kachru (1985: 12-14)].
It seems to me that this perspective not only defines my approach to our understanding
of the global spread of English, but to some extent it also defines the goals which I set
for the field of applied linguistics.
The relationship between world Englishes and applied linguistics as a field of research
and inquiry is motivated by several types of issues: theoretical and applied, as well as societal
and ideological.

*Department of Linguistics, University of Illinois, 4088 Foreign Languages Building, 707 South Mathews Avenue,
Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
3
4 Braj B. Kachru

Saudi Arabia

The "Inner Circle"

Australia 16,470,000
New Zealand 3,366,000

Fig. 1.
I will start with what I consider the theoretical issues. Since the 1950s there has been
intense activity in the linguistic sciences for analysis and description of two main varieties
of the English language, American and British. Extensive data banks have been established
on English at the centers of research at the universities of Birmingham, Brown, London
 World Englishes and applied linguistics 5

and Lund, to name just four. And such data banks are also being developed in Asia and
Africa [see, for example, Greenbaum (1989) and Shastri (1985)]. The largest number of
applied linguists in various parts of the world are working in ESLIEFL-related contexts.
And, at some places, the term ‘applied linguistics’ is often wrongly equated with the teaching
of ESL/EFL.
The research on second-language acquisition, first-language acquisition, and different
aspects of sociolinguistics has primarily focused on English. Additionally the
interdisciplinary fields of stylistics, and bilingual and monolingual lexicography have also
concentrated on English. The major insights gained in the theory of translation are derived
from the translation of texts of English into other languages of the world, and of those
languages into English. Generalizations about natural languages, their structural
characteristics and the possible categories of language universals usually begin with analyses
of and examples from English. In short, what we see, linguistically and sociolinguistically
speaking, is that the field of linguistics and its applications are closely linked to one major
language of our time, English. And almost the total spectrum of applied linguistic research,
its strengths and limitations, can be demonstrated with reference to this language. One
might, then, say that the last four decades have been the decades of English.
Moreover, English has acquired unprecedented sociological and ideological dimensions.
It is now well-recognized that in linguistic history no language has touched the lives of
so many people, in so many cultures and continents, in so many functional roles, and with
so much prestige, as has the English language since the 1930s. And, equally important,
across cultures English has been successful in creating a class of people who have greater
intellectual power in multiple spheres of language use unsurpassed by any single language
before; not by Sanskrit during its heyday, not by Latin during its grip on Europe, and
not by French during the peak of the colonial period.
The reasons for the diffusion and penetration of English are complex, and these have
been extensively discussed in earlier l i t e r a t ~ r e However,
.~ one dimension of the diffusion
of English is especially important to us, particularly those of us who represent the developing
world, who are directly influenced by the research in applied linguistics, and who are
considered the main beneficiaries of the insights gained by such research. Again, it is the
developing world in which the English language has become one of the most vital tools
of ideological and social change, and at the same time an object of intense controversy.
It is this developing world which forms an important component of the three concentric
circles of English: the Inner Circle, the Outer Circle, and the Expanding Circle. These three
circles as has repeatedly been mentioned in the literature, bring to the English language
(and, of course, to its literature, too) a unique cultural pluralism, and a variety of speech
fellowships. These three circles certainly bring to English linguistic diversity; and let us
not underestimate-as some scholars tend to do-the resultant cultural diversity. One is
tempted to say, as does Tom McArthur (1987), that the three Circles of English have resulted
in several English ‘languages’. True, the purist pundits find this position unacceptable,
but that actually is now the linguistic reality of the English language.
The world Englishes are the result of these diverse sociocultural contexts and diverse
uses of the language in culturally distinct international contexts. As a result, numerous
questions and concerns come to the forefront. Applied linguists, primarily of the Inner
Circle, have articulated their positions about these concerns; they have interpreted various
contexts of the uses of English, and they have provided research paradigms and
methodologies.
6 Braj B. Kachru

The range of aspects of applied linguistics such scholars have covered in their paradigms
is wide, e.g. sociolinguistics, stylistics, language teaching, the acquisition of English as an
additional language, and so on. The impact of such research has been significant; it has
raised daunting questions which have never been raised before, particularly concerning
the standards, models and diversification in English, concerning the functions of English
in the Outer Circle, concerning the functional power of English, and concerning the social
issues and-if I may add-the responsibility of applied linguists [see, for example, Quirk
and Widdowson (1985), Kachru and Smith (1986) and Lowenberg (1988)l.
And here, two things need stressing: the terms ‘applied linguistics’ and ‘social concern’.
The dichotomy between ‘theoretical’ and ‘applied’ linguistics is essentially one of difference
in focus rather than of distinct identities. Charles Ferguson and Michael Halliday have
repeatedly warned us that the separation of the two (pure vs applied) is not very meaningful.
However, applied linguistics, in whatever manifestation, is essentially an area which reveals
certain concerns and certain responsibilities. And the term ‘social concern’ brings in another
dimension, though an extralinguistic one.
I believe that ‘social concern’ refers to the responsibility of a discipline toward relevant
social issues, and application of an appropriate body of knowledge to seek answers to such
issues. The term ‘social issues’ naturally opens a Pandora’s box: what is a social issue?
And, how can a profession be evaluated on its response to such issues? These are, of course,
controversial questions, and as Bolinger (1973: 539) rightly says, the answers to these
questions have to be rediscovered by each generation. However, now and then, a profession
must address these questions as an exercise in evaluation of the field and its direction. It
is true that in the USA during the 1940s and 1950s we passed through a long phase ‘across
the semantic desert’. There was a feeling that “life had lost all meaning, except perhaps
differential meaning” (Bolinger, 1973: 540). We had stopped asking questions concerning
‘meaning’ and responsibility. And, thankfully, even in the USA, that phase is over now.
During the last two decades, serious questions have been asked: questions about the
evaluation of the field, about the applied linguists’ responsibilities, and about the goals
and areas of applied linguistics [see, for example, Labov (particularly 1982) cited in Trudgill
(1984) and Lakoff (1975)l.
However, a caveat is in order here: whenever such questions are asked they are naturally
concerned with issues related to the USA or the UK.Very rarely have questions of concern,
of responsibility, and of linguistic pragmatism been raised with reference to world Englishes.
In other words, to quote Bolinger (1973: 540) again, “the linguist up to very recently has
been a more or less useful sideliner, but not a social critic”. And, so far as world Englishes
in the Outer Circle are concerned, that role of the linguist still persists.

MAJOR ISSUES OF CONCERN

Now, I do not propose to take up the role of a social critic here. What I propose to
do is to select some of the issues related to the world Englishes and applied research, and
share with you my concerns about such research. I will, of course, not go into all the issues
and their ramifications. I will merely present a commentary on the following issues which
I consider vital for our understanding of English in its world context: (a) attitudes concerning
the ontological status of the varieties of English; (b) generalizations about the creative
strategies used for learning English as an additional language in multilingual and
multicultural contexts; (c) descriptions of the pragmatic and interactional contexts of world
 World Englishes and applied linguistics I

Englishes, and their relevance to pragmatic success and failure; (d) assumptions about the
cultural content of the varieties of English and the role of such varieties as the vehicles
of the Judeo-Christian (or, broadly, Western) traditions; (e) assumptions about the role
of English in initiating ideological and social changes; and ( f ) assumptions about
communicative competence in English and the relevant interlocutors in such communicative
contexts.
I shall discuss these points one by one in the following sections. But before I do that,
I must briefly discuss the current dominant and less dominant approaches to world Englishes
to provide a theoretical perspective for the discussion. In recent years the following
approaches have been used to study world Englishes: (1) the deficit approach, (2) the
deviational approach, (3) the contextualizational approach, (4) the variational approach,
and ( 5 ) the interactional approach.
However, out of these five approaches it is the first two (the deficit and the deviational
approaches) that have dominated the field. And, it is these two approaches which, I believe,
are the least insightful. The following comments are thus a critique primarily of these two
approaches, and the attitudes that such approaches reflect.

ONTOLOGICAL ISSUES: CONFLICT BETWEEN IDEALIZATION AND REALITY

The initial question takes us to the core of the problem, the issues of attitudes and identity.
The attitudes toward a variety of English are only partially determined by linguistic
considerations. The other considerations are of assigning a place and a status to the user
of the other variety, or marking the distance of a person in the social network. We see
two major positions concerning the varieties of English in the Outer Circle: one, the nativist
monomodel position; and second, the functional polymodel position.
The first position, perhaps in an extreme form, is well articulated in two paradigm papers,
one by Clifford Prator (1968) and the other by Randolph Quirk (1988). These two studies
were presented almost a generation apart. The Prator study was originally presented in
1966. Quirk presented his views first at the 1987 Georgetown University Round Table
devoted to language spread [see also Quirk (1988, 1989)l.
The functional polymodel position entails the use of theoretical and methodological
frameworks which relate the formal and functional characteristics of English in the Outer
Circle to appropriate sociolinguistic and interactional contexts. I have presented this position
since the 1960s, and over a period many studies have been written following this approach,
at various centers [for bibliographical references see Kachru (1986a)l.
The Quirk papers, representing the first position, deserve special attention for several
reasons: these papers are written by one of the most venerable and intellectually influential
scholars of the English language during our time, and his papers take us back to some
of the fundamental questions which concern all who are working in the areas of applied
linguistics. Furthermore, the papers reopen some questions, which some of us believed
had been put to rest during the past rather productive years of research on world Englishes.
The main points of what I have called ‘the Quirk concerns’ may be summarized as follows.
Quirk sees language spread primarily with reference to three models: the demographic,
the econo-cultural, and the imperial. The demographic model implies language spread with
accompanying population spread. The econo-cultural model suggests language spread
without a serious population spread, essentially for scientific, technological and cultural
information. The imperial model applies to language spread as the result of political
(colonial) domination.
8 Braj B. Kachru

The demographic model has resulted in several varieties of English in the Inner Circle
(e.g. American, Australian, Canadian and New Zealand). The econo-cultural and imperial
models have, over a period, resulted in the endocentric varieties of English in Africa, Asia,
and the Philippines [see, for example, Bailey and Gorlach (1982), Kachru (1982, 1986a),
Platt et al. (1984) and Pride (1982)].
However, Quirk’s concerns are about the endocentric models in the Outer Circle and
their implications for pedagogy, the international currency of English, and generally, the
good linguistic health of the English language. These concerns raise a number of questions
relevant to serious practitioners of applied linguistics. Consider, for example, the following:
(a) do the Outer Circle varieties of English, primarily second-language varieties, have an
ontological status (that is, sociolinguistically speaking)? (b) What are the needs-analyses
for the uses of English in the Outer Circle: econo-cultural or intranational? (c) What is
the relevance of various types of ontological labels used for the varieties of English in the
Outer Circle? (d) What is the relationship between the sociolinguistic identity of a variety
of English, and the available descriptions of the variety at various linguistic levels?, and
(e) What is the formal and functional relevance of distinctions such as ESL and EFL?
Quirk, in his usual elegant way, has not only raised these questions for the profession
to ponder, but he has also brought into the open a concern which is shared by several
scholars.
In brief, his position on the above five questions is as follows. Quirk rejects the
sociolinguistic identity of the varieties of English in the Outer Circle and considers the
recognition of such identity as “. . . the false extrapolation of English ‘varieties’ by some
linguists” (1988: 232). He sees the international needs of English essentially as econocultural
[“the econo-cultural model of language spread applied in our times more to English than
to any other language” (1988: 231)l. He rejects the use of identificational terms such as
‘Nigerian English’, ‘West African English’, ‘South Asian English’, ‘Singapore English’,
and characterizes them as “. . . misleading, if not entirely false . . .” (1988: 234); he does
not believe that the varieties of English are adequately described at various linguistic levels
and, therefore, these cannot be used as pedagogically acceptable (or ontologically
recognizable) models. And finally, he rejects the generally recognized dichotomy between
ESL and EFL [“I ignore it partly because I doubt its validity and frequently fail to
understand its meaning” (1988: 236)j.
In other words, for Quirk, among the English users of the world there is another kind
of dichotomy: one between us (the Inner Circle) and them (the Outer Circle and the
Expanding Circle). This dichotomy has serious sociolinguistic and attitudinal implications:
one being that the power to define the other group is with us and not with them. This
is an interesting way of making a distinction between ‘inclusive’ and ‘exclusive’ members
of English-using speech fellowships. I am not saying that that is what Quirk has in mind-far
from that. However, we should not forget that labels have a value, they provide a definition.
And Bolinger (1973: 541) is right when he says that “a loaded word is like a loaded gun,
sometimes fired deliberately, but almost as often by accident”.
I will not digress here to discuss why Quirk’s major points cannot be accepted in terms
of the sociolinguistic reality of world Englishes, and how thes cannot be supported by the
linguistic history of the spread of other major languages of the world. This has already
been done in a number of studies [for references see Kachru (1986a) and Smith (1987)l.
However, I do not want to give the impression that Quirk’s concerns are not shared by
other scholars. Indeed, there are several scholars of that persuasion in the UK and the
 World Englishes and applied linguistics 9

USA as well as in Asia and Africa. I will save the discussion of these concerns, ‘the Quirk
concerns’, for another occasion [see Kachru (1989)l.

ACQUISITION AND CREATIVITY: THE ‘LEAKING’ PARADIGMS

The second question relates to acquisition and creativity. The dominant paradigm of
second-language acquisition is ‘leaking’ for more than one reason. The question of ‘bridging
the paradigm gap’ between the theory and functions of the institutionalized varieties of
English has been discussed in serveral studies [see, specifically, Lowenberg and Sridhar
(1986)l. I am addressing here another aspect of the ‘leaking’ paradigms: the misinterpretation
or neglect of the creative aspects of uses of English in the Outer Circle.
This misinterpretation is essentially the result of undue emphasis on concepts such as
‘interlanguage’ and ‘fossilization’. However, it is gratifying to note that, after dominating
the scene for over a decade, the error in institutionalizing ‘error analysis’ as an insightful
paradigm has finally been realized [see relevant studies in Robinett and Schachter (1983)l.
However, let me go back to the concepts ‘interlanguage’ and ‘fossilization’.
‘Interlanguage’ is “the type of language produced by second- and foreign-language
learners who are in the process of learning a language” (Richards et al., 1985: 145) and
‘fossilization’ refers to “. . . linguistic items, rules, and subsystems which speakers of a
particular NL [native language] will tend to keep in their IL [interlanguage] relative to a
particular TL [target language], no matter what the age of the learner or amount of
explanation and instruction he receives in the TL” [Selinker (1972) in Robinett and Schachter
(1983: 177)].
Inter!anguage, then, is a developmental process, and fossilization is a static condition.
One is developmental in the sense that it is model- (or target-) oriented, and suggests
directionality in terms of attaining stages toward a goal. The other is static and indicates
‘freezing’ with respect to creativity.
There are at least three problems with these two concepts with particular reference to
world Englishes. These are:
(a) Acceptance of a unimodel approach to creativity: The creative use of language is
seen with reference to the model provided by the target language, and the goal of
acquisition if determined by the acquisition of an exo-normative model;
(b) Rejection of the contact features as undesirable interference: This has even resulted
in a failure to recognize subtle creative processes due to the influence of the contexts
of contact. The effects of contact have only been viewed in a negative sense.
(c) Emphasis on a ‘unidimensional’ view of functions: The ‘unidimensional view’
provides a misleading picture about the functions of English, and about the
innovations in English. This view is misleading in more than one sense. First, it
results in a serious corpus constraint. Variety-specific generalizations are made on
one type of data (e.g. scripts provided by students), ignoring the implications of
the cline of bilingualism. Second, the ‘interference’ is not related to function: the
result is that external discoursal and interactional norms are imposed on a variety.
The ‘interference’ in, for example, Singaporean English or Pakistani English is not
always the result of acquisitional deficiency; there is sometimes a clear motivation
for it. Often, in newspaper registers, for example, the aim is to establish, contextually
speaking, an identity with readers [see, for example, Kachru (1982) for references].
The insightful dimensions of creativity in English such as non-native literatures in English,
and inrranational registers (‘mixed’ or ‘unmixed’) seem to have escaped the attention of
10 Braj B. Kachru

second language acquisition researchers in English. In fact, as I have said elsewhere (Kachru,
1987), David Crystal is not alone among linguists who believe that “. . . it is quite unclear
what to make of cases like Nabokov and others” [see Paikeday (1985: 67)]. It so happens
that, in bilingual societies, most literary creativity is done in a language or a variety which
is not one’s first-language variety. The constraints of ‘interlanguage’ and ‘fossilization’
on such creativity are simply not applicable. If a text is not viewed in this broader context
the result is misleading generalizations of the type which we find in Bell (1976) and Selinker
(1972). Bell (1976: 155) considers ‘Indianized English’, or ‘Anglicized Hindi’ ‘xized’ varieties,
because “. . . the motivation or possibility of further learning is removed from a group
of learners.” How misleading!
It is essential to consider the multiple dimensions of creativity and then make
generalizations. By multiple dimension I mean cretivity of various types, appropriate to
different contexts, genres, and so on. Consider, for example, Fig. 2.

exponents of creativity

Fig. 2.

PRAGMATIC CONTEXTS: SUCCESS VS FAILURE

The third question concerns the user and uses. Research on the pragmatics of English-
that is, on the variables of pragmatic success and failure in world Englishes-is basically
determined in terms of: (a) the formal characteristics of the code or its varieties, (b) the
participants in an interaction, and (c) the ‘effective results’ of verbal communication.
Linguistic encounters in the Outer Circle are primarily viewed with reference to variables
of the Inner Circle.
This, of course, raises several questions, because the underlying sociolinguistic
presuppositions are mistaken. One basically wrong assumption is that non-native varieties
of English are primarily used for international purposes. That actually is not true. In the
Outer Circle, the interaction with native speakers of English is minimal. In India, Nigeria,
Singapore, and the Philippines, to give just four examples, the localized (domesticated)
roles are more extensive, and more important, than are the international roles.
Another mistaken assumption is that, when English is used internationally, a native
speaker is usually involved. This emphasis on the native speaker of English in all
interactional contexts is of doubtful sociolinguistic validity. The real-world situation is that,
in the Outer Circle, the predominant functions of English involve interlocutors who use
English as an additional language-Indians with Indians, Singaporeans with Singaporeans,
Indians with Singaporeans, Filipinos with Chinese or Japanese, Nigerians with Kenyans,
 World Englishes and applied linguistics 11

and so on. This point has been clearly brought out in Smith (1987) with empirical data
from several parts of the world.
In such intrunational and Outer Circle encounters, the users of institutionalized varieties
of English are certainly not using just one type of English; they expect an Indian to sound
like an Indian and to use the discoursal strategies of an Indian, and they expect a Nigerian
to come up to their notion (however stereotypical) of a Nigerian user of English. The
interlocutors in such interactions expect a functional range of varieties, and they certainly
adopt the strategies of ‘mixing’ and ‘switching’ depending on the participants. It is thus
the contexts of encounters which determine the international strategies used in a linguistic
interaction.
I am certainly not advocating that we should not expect linguistically (and contextually)
maximal pragmatic success in what have been claimed to be the ‘survival’ registers. My
claim is that, for determining the pragmatic success of the largest range of functional
domains for English, the local (domesticated) pragmatic contexts are important, because
it is these contexts that matter the most to the largest number of English users in the Outer
Circle. The interaction with native speakers is only marginal. In an earlier paper (Kachru,
1986b), I have suggested that this claim applies to several subregisters-e.g. legal or
medical-in India and Nigeria, to give just two examples.
In the Outer Circle, the members of English-using speech fellowships interact with a
verbal repertoire consisting of several codes, and the use of each code has a ‘social meaning’.
We seem to have underestimated the linguistic manipulation of the multilingual contexts
in which English is used. We see this manipulation when we watch a Singaporean doctor
talk to a Singaporean patient, or an Indian or a Pakistani doctor interact with a patient
from his or her region. The manipulation takes place in lectal switch, code mixing, and so on.
And, while discussing the pragmatics of a code, let me bring in an aspect of world
Englishes generally ignored by applied linguists: the use of subvarieties of English in, for
example, literary creativity. This aspect has been ignored particularly by those linguists
who work ir. the areas of applied or contrastive stylistics. What immediately comes to mind
is the nativized styles and discourse in the Englishes used in the Outer Circle [see, for
example, Smith (1987)l. Consideration of this aspect of English is important, since the
writer of English in the Outer Circle is faced with a rather difficult situation; he/she is
a bilingual or multilingual, but not necessarily a bi- or multicultural. And he/she is using
English in a context which gives the language a new linguistic and cultural identity [see,
for example, Dissanayake and Nichter (1987), Gonzalez (1987), Kachru (1983, 1986c), and
Thumboo (1988)l.
Now, the pragmatic success of such codes is not determined by the attitude of the native
speaker toward the code, but by the effectiveness of such codes within the contexts of use
such as stylistic effectiveness, emotional effectiveness, and effectiveness in terms of identity.
Let us consider, for example, the creative writing of three contemporary Singaporean writers
of English: Kripal Singh, Arthur Yap and Catherine Lim.
Singh’s Voices and Yap’s 2 Mothers in a hbd Playground are both poetic compositions,
and Lim’s stories A Taxi Driver and A Mother-in-law ’s.Curse exploit distinctly different
stylistic devices to achieve what I believe is maximum pragmatic success in textual terms.
Voices essentially uses mixed codes; Yap contextually, as it were, ‘legitimizes’ the use of
an attitudinally low variety and shows the effectiveness of various types of mixing; e.g.
the poem contains jamban (‘toilet bowl’ in Malay), toa-soh (‘drive a car’ in Hokkien),
ah pah (‘father’ in Hokkien), and constructions such as ‘What boy is he in the exam?’,
12 Braj B. Kachru

‘Zscold like mad but what for?’, ‘Sit like don’t want to get up’, and so on. Lim provides
convincing examples of appropriate code alteration true to the sociolinguistic contexts of
Singapore.
It is through such linguistic devices of diglossic switch and mixing (as in Yap’s poem)
that various local stylistic resources for creativity are exploited. True, there is a linguistic
dilemma in this: if such creativity is evaluated within reference points provided by the Inner
Circle, or taking the native speaker as the primary reader of such texts, one might say
that there are ‘innappropriate’ uses of varieties of English. However, if the creativity is
viewed from the perspective of the code repertoire of a Singaporean creative writer and
a Singaporean reader, the codes are appropriate in terms of use. And, for those who are
familiar with the Singaporean sociolinguistic contexts, the language has been used with
maximum pragmatic success.
Another example is from the state bordering on Singapore. In Malaysia, Asiu Week (24
May, 1987: 64) tells us that “English-medium drama by local playwrights is a recent trend”.
In the play Caught in the Middle, there is an attempt to ‘go completely Malaysian’. The
strategies used are the following: the bulk of the dialogue is in English, but there is switching
and mixing between Bahasa Malaysia, Cantonese and Tamil. We are told that
“. . . ‘Malaysian English’ spoken, especially marks a progression toward more realistic
language in more realistic settings-the home, the pub”. Consider the following excerpt:
Mrs. Chandran: Aiee-yah, mow fatt chee ka la (can’t do anything about it). Clean it up, Ah Lan. The
rubbish-man will be coming soon, and you know he doesn’t take rubbish that isn’t nicely packed and
tied up. Ah Lan (the amah); Rubbish is rubbish-lah. Supposed to be dirty, what. Real fussy rubbish-man,
must have neat rubbish to take away.
Lloyd Fernando’s observation is that Malaysian English provides realism to the play:
.
. . it exploits that with good humor. Malaysian English is now a dialect, recognized as such. In some
situations, if you don’t speak like that, you are regarded as a foreigner. By using it [Malaysian English]
the playwright draws us into the magic circle @. 64).
The point here is that the parameters for determining pragmatic success cannot always
be, and should not always be, determined by the Inner Circle. Achebe (1976: 1 l), therefore
has a point when he says that:
I should like to see the word universal banned altogether from discussions of African literature until such
a time as people cease to use it as a synonym for the narrow, self-serving parochialism of Europe.
Let me give another example here from the register of advertising in Japan. Of course,
Japan is not a part of the Outer Circle, and from my point of view that fact makes this
example even more significant. The example throws a different light on our use of the
term ‘pragmatic success’, and I believe supports what I have suggested above.
The pragmatic success of English in advertising in Japan, as illustrated by the following
example, must be seen with reference to the attitude of the Japanese toward English, and
their “consuming passion for English vocabulary” (Asia Week, 5 October, 1984: 49):
I. Kanebo cosmetics: for beautiful human life
2 . Tokyo Utility Company: my life, my gas
3 . Shinjuku Station Concourse: nice guy making; multiple days autumnfair; planning and creative; let’s
communicate.
Asia Week makes an apt observation about contextual justification of these examples:
. . . to the English speaker they [vocabulary items] may be silly, childish, or annoying. Sometimes a double
meaning makes them unintentionally funny. But the ubiquitous English of Japanese ads conveys a feeling
to Japanese (p. 49).
The use of these phrases-deviant from the native speakers’ perspective-has a deep
psychological effect from the Japanese point of view; and, from a commercial perspective,
 World Englishes and applied linguistics 13

that is just what an advertisement should achieve. This point is clearly emphasized in the
following extended excerpt:
To produce one such phrase requires the expensive services of an ad agency as sophisticated as anywhere.
A creative director gathers the team and concepts are tossed about, a first-rate copywriter works on the
theme, a lengthy rationalization is prepared for the client, a decision eventually made to launch. Cost:
maybe millions of yen. Everyone understands that it is substandard English. Ekplains a copywriter at Dentsu:
‘yes,of course we know it sounds corny to an American, even objectionable to some. But what theforeigner
thinks of i f is immaterial. The ad is purely domestic, a lof of market research has gone into it. It evokes
the right images. I f sells. ’ For product names, English words that seem dismayingly inappropriate to the
foreign listener are sometimes chosen. The most frequently quoted example is a very popular soft-drink
called Sweat. The idea of using a body secretion as an enticing name for a fluid to drink out of a can
is just as unpleasant to a Japanese as to an Englishman, but sweat conjures a different image: hot and
thirsty after vigorous activity on the sporting field. The drink’s Pocari in Hong Kong. Some English words
enjoy a fad season. Currently very much in are life, my, be, and cify, the last-named suffering from the
phonetic necessity to render the s before i as sh. My City is a multi-storeyed shopping complex in Shinjuku
where you can shop for my-sports things to take to your my-house in your my-car. New remains popular.
I f no suitable English word exists, nothing is lost, coin one. Some, indeed, are accidentally rather catchy:
magineer. Others elicit only sighs. Creap is a big selling cream-powder for coffee. Facom was perhaps
not such a felicitous choice considering the open back vowel for Japanese. Currently in season are words
ending in -fopia, presumably from utopia. There was a Portopia. a Computopia and a Sportopia. The
brand-new Hilton Hotel boasts a splendid shopping annex called the Hiltopia [emphasisadded: (Asia Week,
5 October, 19841.

CULTURAL CONTENT OF ENGLISH

The fourth question is rather controversial: what is the culture specificity of English?
There are two views on this point. One view holds that English is essentially an exponent
of the Western Judeo-Christian tradition. It is believed that it is this association and cultural-
load of English that interferes in more than one sense with the native socio-cultural traditions
in Asia and Africa. Therefore, the second, non-culture-specific view, takes the position
that “. . . The English language is different from other languages in that it ‘extends’ the
meaning of particular words beyond the culture-specific connotations because of the
international demands made on it” [Lyons [quoted in Street (1984: 78)]].
The first view, culture-specific, seems to be used in more than one sense. A number of
scholars in Britain and the USA feel that the culture-specificity of English is its essential
characteristic, and that the non-culture-specific view dilutes that position of the language.
In the Outer Circle, those who oppose English use the culture-specificity of English as a
basis for arguing that the use of English is an intrusion into their native cultures. Thus,
according to this group, English is an ‘alien’ language not only in the sense that it does
not belong to the linguistic stock of the region, but also in that it represents a culture alien
to the local socio-cultural traditions.
It seems to me that the strength of English is not its culture-specificity with reference
to Britain or America, or non-culture-specificity in the sense Lyons presents it, and which
Street rightly rejects [for details see Street (1984: 66-94)]. The strength of English lies in
its multicultural specificity, which the language reveals in its formal and functional
characteristics, as in, for example, West Africa, South Asia, and the Philippines. These
characteristics have given the English language distinct cultural identities in these regions,
and recognition of this fact is essential for any insightful research on the world varieties
of English. A good parallel example is that of Christianity and Islam in Asia: these two
religions have become so much a part of the local cultural traditions that it is not very
insightful to consider these now as ‘foreign’.
14 Braj B. Kachru

IDEOLOGICAL CHANGE
The fifth question is closely related to the preceding discussions since culture-specificity
and ideological change seem t o go hand in hand. I believe that in discussions of ideological
change, undue emphasis seems to have been laid on one type of ideological change-the
positive or negative aspects of Westernization. The reality seems to be in between the two
extreme positions [see Kachru (1986d)l. A process of rethinking and re-evaluation is needed
to see what English has contributed in the past and continues t o contribute in the present
in the Outer Circle-as indeed do other languages-towards self-identification and
self-knowledge.
A good example is again provided by Japan. Consider the following observation from
JAAL Bulletin (December 1986: 7):4
Prof. Takao Suzuki of Keio University lectured on ‘International E n a s h and Native English-Is Engbsh
really and International language? Dividing English into International English and Native English, he
criticized Japanese teachers of English for teaching Native English, dealing only with the literature, history
and lifestyles of England and America. He urged us to recognize the fact that English is no longer the
sole property of native English speakers.
Japan’s relations with Europe and America have changed from ‘vertical’ (unidirectional inflow of
advanced technology and culture) to ‘horizontal’ (economical and cultural exchange on equal terms).
Accordingly, he argued, English teaching in Japan should also change from emphasizing the conventional
‘receiver’ type to emphasizing the ‘sender’ type in order to express ourselves and our culture. While using
English as the ‘form’, he suggested, we should use as the ‘content’ Japan and other non-English cultural
phenomena such as Korean history, Arabic religion, or German literature.
The last question is about communicative competence and it has many faces. My preceding
discussion of pragmatic success, culture-specificity, and ideological change naturally leads
us to the area which is vaguely represented in ‘communicative competence’ [for further
discussion see Savignon (1987)l. In recent years, communicative competence has become
one major area to which applied linguists have paid serious attention. A partial bibliography
on communicative language teaching includes over 1180 items [see Ramaiah and Prabhu
(1985) and Berns (1985)l. Again, considerable research on this topic has been done with
specific reference to the teaching of English in the Outer and Expanding Circles of English,
and this research comes in various vintages. The most popular and, at the same time,
rewarding for the publishing industry is research on ESP (English for Specific Purposes).
Research on ESP, manuals for its use, lexical lists, and other aids are guided by the
assumption of the culture-specificity of English, in which ‘appropriateness’ is determined
by the interlocutors from the Inner Circle. I have shown in an earlier paper on this topic
that this assumption is only partially correct [see Kachru (l986b)l.
However, as an aside, I would like to mention a recent paper by Francis Singh (1987)
which insightfully discusses the role of power and politics in the examples chosen to illustrate
various grammatical points in three grammar books used in the Indian subcontinent,
Nesfield (1895), Tipping (1933) and Wren and Martin (1954). She then contrasts the
examples used by these three grammarians with that of Sidhu (1976), an Indian teacher
of English. The conclusions Singh arrives at are very illuminating. These four grammar
books provide paradigm examples of power and politics as these reflect in the genre of
school textbooks.
What we need now is a study of the same type for ESP texts. My guess is that the results
concerning the underlying assumptions of such texts will be, to say the least, provocative.

WHERE DOES APPLIED LINGUISTICS FAIL THE OUTER CIRCLE OF ENGLISH?

And now I come to, what to me is the heart of the problem, and it naturally is
 World Englishes and applied linguistics I5

controversial. Where does applied linguistics fail the Outer Circle of English? It is true
that the last three decades have been the decades of significant strides for the development
of applied linguistics. True, we must recognize the fact that applied theory has been used
in areas which were almost unresearched before. And the result of this extension and
application of the linguistic sciences has been insightful. It is now realized, though belatedly
in the USA, as Lakoff (1975: 336) tells us, that “. . . the theoretical linguist must deal
with problems of the intellect and morality, with reality and sanity . . .” And, turning
to applied linguists, Lakoff continues “. . . the applied linguist must concern himself with
decisions among possible theories, universals of grammar, relations among grammatical
systems”. But, then, that is only one side of the coin. There is, naturally, another side
to this coin-a side which has traditionally been left without comment. A side which touches
millions of users of English in the Outer Circle.
It is this side of applied linguistics which concerns educators, policy planners, parents,
children and, above all, a multitude of developing nations across the proverbial Seven Seas.
The implications of applied linguistic research raise questions, and result in various types
of concerns. As I said at the outset, these are questions of theory, empirical validity, social
responsibility, and of ideology. Let me briefly present some of these here.
First, is the question of ethnocentricism in conceptualization of the field of world Enghshes.
The world Englishes in the Outer circle are perceived from the vantage point of the Inner
Circle. The perception of the users and uses of English in that circle is not only in conflict
with the real sociolinguistic profiles of English, but is also conditioned by an attitude which
has divided the English-using world into two large groups. One group, defined in most
unrealistic terms, comprises those who seem to be expected to learn English for
communication with another particular group. And the other group comprises those who
continue to look at the diffusion of English essentially in pedagogical terms. This
ethnocentric perception has created a situation which is obviously incorrect on many counts.
The second question relates to what has been termed in the literature ‘the Observer’s
Paradox’. The ‘Observer’s Paradox’ applies in several ways to observations on English
in the Outer Circle. First, there is an idealization of contexts of use; second, the focus
is on static categories of the lectal range as opposed to the dynamic interactional nature
of the functions; third, the observer isolates the use of English from the total repertoire
of the user; and fourth, the researcher does not recognize the confusion between the
performance and the model.
The third question involves the ‘paradigm trap’. The paradigm trap seems to constrain
not only description of the varieties, but also discussion of creativity in the use of the
language, models for teaching, and teaching methodology. One notices this constraint in
several ways: in the theoretical and methodological approaches used to describe the
sociolinguistic contexts, and in the data selected for analysis; in the description of the
acquisitional strategies and the resultant description of such language, and the
generalizations made from such data (e.g. interlanguage and fossilization); and in the
evangelical zeal with which the pedagogical methods are propagated and presented to the
developing Third World, often with weak theoretical foundations, and with doubtful
relevance to the sociological, educational and economic contexts of the Outer Circle.
The fourth question relates to the frustrating signs of excessive commercialization of
professional minds and professional organizations. In professional circles, in ESL/EFI,
programs, there still is the syndrome that the English language is part of the baggage of
transfer of technology to the Outer Circle. This one way transfer-of-technology-mentality
16 Braj B. Kachru

is fortunately being abandoned by pragmatic-and forward looking-social scientists

working on the problems related to the developing world. But, unfortunately, in the
ESL/EFL circles the old paradigm still continues.
The above concerns do not exhaust the list, they are only indicative of the tensions which
one notices in the literature. However, there are some other, in my view fundamental,
concerns for applied linguistic research, which have broader significance. I would like to
discuss these briefly.
These issues concern conceptualizations about the users of English internationally,
conceptualizations of the theoretical frameworks adopted for the description of the English-
using speech fellowships in the Outer Circle, and the question of the ‘renewal of connection’
between the theoretical frameworks and the uses and users of English.5
First, let me discuss the conceptualization concerning the users of English internationally.
In the post-l950s, the dominant paradigms of linguistic research were taken monolingualism
as the norm for linguistic behavior in linguistic interactions. This is particularly true of
the USA. This position, unfortunately, has resulted in a rather distorted view of bilingual
societies, and bilingualism in general. As a consequence, the manifestations of language
contact have been viewed from the wrong perspective. Muhlhausler (1985) is right in drawing
our attention to the fact that language contact has been receiving less and less attention
in linguistic literature.6
The concept that seems to have survived in applied linguistics is ‘interference’. And here
Joshua Fishman’s (1968: 29) observation has, unfortunately come to haunt us. He says
that linguists tend to see language in two ways “. . . the first being that of two ‘pure’
languages, and the second that of ‘interference’ between them”. That observation may
not apply to all linguists, but is certainly true of most dominant research paradigms used
for the study of world Englishes. The term ‘interference’ had acquired a negative
connotation, attitudinally very loaded.
What such statements convey, unfortunately, is that multilingualism is an aberration,
and monolingualism is the norm. However, the reality is that monolingualism is the
exception, and the largest number of users of English are bi- or multilinguals; such bi-
or multilingual users of English bring to the English language a multicultural dimension,
not only in the Outer Circle, but even in Scotland, Wales, Ireland, and so on [see, for
example, Walker (1984)l.
It is not that the relationship of language and the sociocultural context is not recognized.
Indeed it is, as for example by Quirk (1986: 19), when he says:
. . . even the simplest, shortest, least technical, least momentous texts have a structure involving profound
interactions between language and the world, between individual and culture in which they operate: involving
extensive assumptions about shared knowledge and shared attitudes, reasoned inferences about the degree
to which participants in even such simple communications are willing to operate (emphasis added).
However, when it comes to recognizing the implications of the use of English in, for
example, the Asian or African contexts, the results of such uses on the form and functions
of English, and the reflections of such uses in the literatures written in English, there is
serious resistance to the interrelation between language and the world, as we find in Quirk’s
observation: the important process of cross-over is missing. That is unfortunately true of
Quirk’s own papers [see, for example, Quirk (1988, 1989)l.
Related to this is the conceptualization of theoretical frameworks used for description
and analysis of English in the Outer Circle. It is unfortunate that the types of models used
for such descriptions by applied linguists have been rather uninsightful. What is needed
 World Englishes and applied linguistics I:

is to view the uses and the users of English within the theoretical frameworks which may
be considered ‘socially realistic’. What I have in mind are, for example, the framework
presented by J. R. Firth, M. A. K. Halliday, Dell Hymes, and William Labov. Halliday
(1978: 2) tells us:
A social reality (or a ‘culture’) is itself an edifice of meanings-a semiotic construct. In this perspective,
language is one of the semiotic systems that constitutes a culture; one that is distinctive in that it also
serves as an encoding system for many (though not all) of the others . . .
He adds:
The contexts in which meanings are exchanged are not devoid of social value; a context of speech is itself
a semiotic construct, having a form (deriving from the culture) that enables the participants to predict
features of the prevailing register . . . and hence to understand one another as they go along.
The advantage of such frameworks as that of Halliday is that they provide a context for
description, they relate language to use, and yet they bring out the formal distinctiveness;
they assign a ‘meaning’ to what has merely been termed ‘interference’ or ‘fossilization’.
They provide a dimension to the description which many structural and post-structural
paradigms have failed to provide. A socioculturally satisfactory description and theoretically
insightful analysis must still seek the “renewal of connection with experience”, as Firth
(1957: xii) would say. And here, the crucial word is ‘experience’.
It is not too much to ask that claims about the form and functions of English in the
Outer Circle be justified in terms of the renewal of connection. This implies that the
observations about English in the Outer Circle should be valid in terms of the following:
(a) the sociolinguistic contexts, (b) the functional contexts, (c) the pragmatic contexts, and
(d) the attitudinal contexts.
What I have said above is broad generalization: it gives the impression that all current
approaches to world Englishes have ignored the above contexts. That actually is not correct.
The above discussion may be summarized in terms of a bundle of fallacies which show
in the dominant approaches to world Englishes. The fallacies are of the following types:
theoretical, methodological, formal, functional and attitudinal (Table 1).
But all the bees are not out of my bonnet yet. The issues raised in this paper, though
restricted to applied linguistics and world Englishes, apply to other areas of applied
linguistics too. Here, I must go back to the position which I presented at the beginning.
I do not see applied linguistics divorced from the social concerns of our times, nor from
the concerns of relevance to the societies in which we live. This view, of course, entails
a responsibility. The question of responsibility brings several other issues t o the forefront:
the issues of social identity, of attitudes, of cultural values, and of culturally-determined
interactional patterns and their acceptance, and, above all, of choosing the most insightful
paradigms of research.
In other words, the question of the whole semiotic system is involved here. And, more
important, in answering questions about Englishes across culture, we get only glimpses
of the truth. True, these glimpses are tantalizing, but they do not present the whole truth
about the users and uses of English. And here, once more, I must go back to Dwight
Bolinger’s inspiring Presidential address to the Linguistic Society of America (1973), in
which, with reference to a different context, he says “Truth is a linguistic question because
communication is impossible without it” (p. 549). We, as applied linguistics, cannot
justifiably be just ‘social sideliners’. And if I may continue with Bolinger’s quote, the issue
becomes more complex, since as he aptly warns us, “a taste of truth is like a taste of blood”.
The task of applied linguists working on various aspects of world Englishes is very
intricate, very sensitive, for the consequences of such research are immense. This research
18 Braj B. Kachru

Table 1. Types of fallacies about world Englishes (the Outer Circle)

Theoretical Methodological Formal Functional A ttitudinal

Paradigm trap Cynicism about Variety-specific -No consideration of Us/them dichotomy

ontological status generalization on range’ and ’depth’
Ideal hearer-speaker of varieties one type of data Non-recognition of
Non-recognition of historical depth
Monolingualism as Non-recognition of Non-recognition of pluricentricity
the norm varieties within a institutionalization Emphasis on
variety Non-recognition of ‘integrative’as
Emphasis on static ‘Error’-oriented multiple sociocultural opposed to
as opposed to Ignoring socio- approach identities ‘instrumental’
dynamic linguistic contexts motivation
users/uses Unidimensional Undue emphasis on
generalizations international as Stress on exocentric
Non-recognition of developed/ opposed to models without
cline of: developing intrunational roles pragmatic
(a) bilingualism justification
(b) intelligibility No distinction Variables for the
(c) acceptability between aquisitional following, e.g.
deficiency and creative determined on the
Non-recognition of deviation/innovation basis of Inner
‘verbal repertoire’ Circle:
No attempt to (a) pragmatic
Ambilingualism as contextualize success/failure
the norm nativization (b) intelligibility/
interpretability/
Directionality toward comprehensi-
monomodel Non-recognition of bilility
systemicness (c) communicative
competence
Non-recognition of (d) ESP
social identity with
lectal shifts, discoursal
strategies, mixing,
switching, and the
cline of ‘norms’

touches us all in very meaningful and far-reaching ways. A large segment of the human
population is involved in using English across cultures, and across languages. In our task,
we have to satisfy many gods and, most of all, we have to remind ourselves more often
than we actually do that the situation of English around the world is unprecedented in
many respects, and approaches to it have to be unprecedented too, formally, socio-
linguistically and attitudinally. It seems to me that our present paradigms and attitudes
are simply not up to the challenge which our discipline is facing.
And the profession at large does not show that we are aware of the issues which confront
the largest segment of users of English in the Outer Circle. We must be courageous and
ask ourselves, like a Brahmin priest asked of Gautama Buddha some 2500 years ago, “What
are you then? Are you a god, a demigod, some spirit or an ordinary man?” “None of
these”, answered the Buddha, “I am awake.”
The problem is that applied linguists have not been asked the question. We seem to have
no accountability; therefore, we do not know whether we are ‘awake’ about the challenges,
and the social implications of our research. Perhaps the time has come to ask ourselves
some serious questions: questions of social concern and of social responsibility; in other
words, questions concerning accountability.
 World Englishes and applied linguistics 19

NOTES

I. This is a slightly revised version of the plenary paper presented at the 8th World Congress of Applied Linguistics
in Sydney, Australia, 16-21 August 1987. A version of this has appeared in Studies in the Linguistic Sciences,
19(1), 127-152 (Spring 1989).
2. David Crystal provides an optimistic estimated figure of 2 billion users of English. He says . . if you
‘ I .

are highly conscious of international standards, or wish to keep the figures for World English down, you
will opt for a total of around 700 million, in the mid 1980s. I f you go to the opposite extreme, and allow
in any systematic awareness whether in speaking, listening, reading or writing, you could easily persuade
yourself of the reasonableness of 2 billion.” However, he hastens to add, “ I am happy to settle for a billion
. . .” [see Crystal (1985:9)]. The population figures for the countries listed in the three circles are from
Encyclopedia Britannica 1989, Book of the Year. Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica.
3. For further discussion and references see Kachru (1985), Kachru and Smith (1986) and Pride (1982).
4. Japan Association of Applied Linguistics.
5. See, for example, Kachru (1981: especially p. 77).
6. As Miihlhausler (1985: 52) correctly suggests, aspects related to language contact are treated somewhat
peripherally in introductory text-books o n linguistics. A random survey of such textbooks clearly proves
Miihlhausler’s point. He says “. . . We can observe a marked decrease in the number of pages devoted
to language contact phenomena . . .” (p. 52). For a detailed discussion on language contact and for references
see Hock (1986).

REFERENCES

Achebe, Chinua (1976) Morning Yef in Creafion Day. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Bailey, R. and Gorlach, M., eds (1982) English as World Language. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Bell, Roger T. (1976) Sociolinguistics: Goals, Approaches, and Problems. London: Batsford.
Berns. Margie S. (1985) Functional approaches and communicative competence: English language teaching in
non-native contexts. Ph.D. dissertation, University of lllinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Bolinger, Dwight L. (1973) Truth is a linguistic question. Language, 49, 539-550.
Crystal, David (1985). How many millions? The statistics of English today. 1985. English Today, 1, 7-9.
Dissanayake, Wimal and Nichter, Mimi (1987) Native sensibility and literary discourse in Sri Lankan English.
In Smith (1987).
Firth, John R. (1957) Papers in Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.
Fishman, Joshua A . (1968). Sociolifiguistic perspectives on the study of bilingualism. Linguistics, 39, 21-49.
Gonzalez, Andrew (1987) Poetic imperialism or indigenous creativity? Philippines literature in English. In Smith
(1987).
Greenbaum, Sidney (1989) Standard English and the international corpus of English (MS).
Halliday, Michael A. K. (1978) Language as Social Semiotic: the Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning.
Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Hock, Hans Henrich (1986) Principles of Historical Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kachru, Braj B. (1981) Socially realistic linguistics: the Firthian tradition. International Journal of Society 01
Languages, 31, 65-89.
Kachru, Braj B. (1982) The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
[Paperback edition (1983). Oxford: Pergamon Press.]
Kachru, Braj B. (1983) The lndianization of English: the English Language in India. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press.
Kachru, Braj B. (1985) Standards, codification, and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the outer
circle. In English in the World: Teaching and Learning of Language and Literature. Edited by Randolph
Quirk and Henry Widdowson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11-30.
Kachru, Braj B. (1986a) The Alchemy of English: the Spread, Functions and Models of non-native Englishes.
Oxford: Pergamon Press. (Reprinted in 1990 by The University of Illionis Press, Urbana-Champaign, IL)
Kachru, Braj B. (1986b) ESP and non-native varieties of English: toward a shift in paradigm. Sfudies in the
Linguisric Sciences, 16( l ) , 13-34.
Kachru, Braj B. (1986~)The bilingual’s creativity and contact literatures. In Kachru (1986a).
Kachru, Braj B. (1986d) The power and politics of English. World Englishes. 5 , 121-140.
Kachru, Braj B. (1987) The past and prejudice: toward demythologizing the English canon. In Language Topics:
Papers in Honor of M. A . K . Halliday. Edited by Ross Steele and Terry Threadgold. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Kachru, Braj B. (1988). The spread of English and sacred linguistic cows. In Lowenberg (1988: 207-228).
Kachru, Braj B. (1989) Liberation linguistics and the Quirk concern (MS).
20 Braj B. Kachru

Kachru, Braj B. and Smith, L., eds (1986) The Power of English: Cross-culturalDimensions in Literature and
Media, World Englishes, 5(2/3).
Lakoff, Robin (1972)Language in context. Language, 48, 907-927.
Lakoff, Robin (1975)Linguistic theory and the real world. Language Learning, 25(2), 309-338.
Lowenberg, Peter H. (1986)Sociolinguistic context and second-language acquisition; acculturation and creativity
in Malaysian English. World Englishes, 5, 71-83.
Lowenberg, Peter H., ed. (1988)Language Spread and Language Policy: Issues, Implications and Case Studies.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Lowenberg, Peter H. and Sridar, S.N.,eds (1986)World Englishesand Second Language Acquisition Research.
World Englishes. 5.
McArthur, Tom (1987)The English languages. English Today, July.
Miihlhausler, Peter (1985)Patterns of contact, mixture, creation and nativization: their contribution to a general
theory of language. In Developmental Mechanism of knguage. Edited by C.-N. Bailey and R. Harris. Oxford:
Pergamon Press, pp. 51-87.
Nesfield, J. C. (1895)English Grammar Series, Book I K Idiom. Grammar and Synthesisfor High Schools. Calcutta:
Macmillan.
Paikeday, T. M. (1985)The Native Speaker b Dead! Toronto: Paikeday Publishing.
Platt, John, Weber, H. and Ho, M. L. (1984)The New Englishes. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Platt, John and Singh, K. (1985)The use of localized English in Singapore poetry. English World-Wide, Yl),43-54.
Prator, Clifford (1%8) The British heresy in TESL. In Language Problems in Developing Narions. Edited by
Joshua A. Fishman, C. A. Ferguson and J. Das Gupta. New York: John Wiley.
Pride, John B. (1981) Native competence and the bilingual/multilingual speaker. English World-Wide, 2(2),
141-153.
Pride, John B. (1982)New Englishes. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Quirk, Randolph (1985)The English language in a global context. In Quirk and Widdowson (1985).
Quirk, Randolph (1986) Word at Work: Lectures on Textual Structure (LKY Distinguished Visitor Series).
Singapore: Singapore University Press.
Quirk, Randolph (1988)The question of standards in the international use of English. In Lowenberg (1988:
229-241).
Quirk, Randolph (1989)Language varieties and standard language. JALT Journal. ll(1). 14-25.
Quirk, Randolph and Widdowson, Henry, eds (1985)English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language
and Literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ramaiah, L. S. and Prabhu, N. S.(1985)CommunicativeLanguage Teaching:u Bibliography. Gurgaon. Haryana:
Indian Documentation Service.
Richards, Jack, Platt, J. and Weber, H. (1985)Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. London: Longman.
Robinett, Betty Wallace and Schachter, Jacquelyn, eds (1983)Second Lunguage Learning: ContrastiveAnalysis,
Error Analysis, and Related Aspects. Ann Arbor, M I : University of Michigan Press.
Savignon, Sandra (1987)What’s what in communicative language teaching. English Teaching Forum, 30(4), 16-21.
Selinker, Larry (1972)Interlanguage. In Robinett and Schachter (1983: 173-196).
Shastri, S. V. (1985)Towards a description of Indian English: a standard corpus in machine-readable form.
English World-Wide, 6(2), 275-278.
Sidhu, C. D. (1976)An Intensive Course in English. New Delhi: Orient Longman.
Singh, Frances B. (1987)Power and politics in the context of grammar books: the example of India. World
Englishes 6(3), 195-199.
Smith, Larry E., ed. (1981)English for Cross-Cultural Communication. London: Macmillan.
Smith, Larry E., ed. (1983)Readings in English as an International Language. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Smith, Larry E. (1987)Discourse across Cultures: Strategies in World Englishes. London: Prentice-Hall
International.
Sridhar, Kamal K. (1985)Sociolinguistic theories and non-native varieties of English. Lingua, 68,85-104.
Sridhar, Kamal K. and Sridhar, S. N. (1986)Bridging the paradigm gap: second language acquisition theory
and indigenized varieties of English. World Englishes, 5(1), 3-14.
Street, Brian V. (1984)Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thumboo, Edwin (1988)The literary dimension of the spread of English: creativity in a second tongue. In Lowenberg
(1988:361-401).
Tipping, Llewlyn (1933)Matriculation English Grammar of Modern English Usage. London: Macmillan.
Trudgill, Peter, ed. (1984)Applied Sociolinguistics. New York: Academic Press.
Walker, A. G. H. (1984)Applied sociology of language: vernacular language and education. In Trudgill (1984:
159-202).
Wren, P. C. and Martin, H. (1954)High SchoolEnglish Grammarand Composition, revised edition. New Delhi:
S. Chand.

(Received 10 October 1989.)