Ne i RODIC a Te! few : a aie Vays eae et s)) Prone tera ies Sanco pms ree Scorn OT] fee) Allou re] ive me it! set on nobody never help me do my work?” Rodica Albu Using English(es)Rodica ALBU Rie
, As.. To ‘these they add’ a sixth class, that of varieties according to interference®®, in the language learning/acquisition process. If the models proposed by Coseriu, Gregory, Rona, Halliday and Quirk et al. are brought together, the result would look like this: SYNCHRONIC VARIETIES ———__ f/f DIATOPIC DIASTRATIC DIAPHASIC (Cosprtu, RONA) (CoseRtu, RONA) (Coserm) also called also called also called local-regional social-cultural diatopic (RONA) geographic dialect social dialect functional-stylistic (GREGORY) (Grecory) (variety according to) __(variety according to) Region (QUIRK ETAL.) Education and Social Standing (QUIRK ET AL} (according to) / HALLIDAY: Content Channel Participants QUIRK ET AL; Subject matter Medium, Auitude HALLIDAY: Field Mode Tenor. s below) the language of. spoken written (See STY The varieties according to content (that is, according to subject matter or field of discourse) can be labelled as “the language of...” bundle of © It is debatable whether this sixth class can actually be treated as a class of genuine varieties of English. 27Using English(es) varieties, whether they are well-defined, nationally or even intemationally recognized, specialist varieties (more precisely, specialist vocabularies), e.g., the language of legal documents or international Business English, or more limited and less rigorously defined, e.g. the language of cooking, or — why not — the language of gossip over an afternoon cup of tea. The term register is widely used to denote varieties that are topic-marked. ‘The two varieties according to whether the vocal (spoken medium) or the non-vocal channel (written medium) is used are spoken English and written English. (See SPEECH AND WRITING.) The advent of computers and of such devices as telsprompters or telephone answering machines has created an awareness of the complexity of practical situations which involve a mixed medium. (See, for instance, CRYSTAL 1995: 291-293) ‘The labels tenor and participants roughly coincide; they both point to the speaker's stylistic options that take into account his or her relationship with the addressee (or interlocutor). The term attitude is more comprehensive: it includes one's attitude towards the addressee, towards the utterance, and towards the situation. The situational varieties that thus result are commonly called styles. Actually, the choice of one of the “styles” identified in connection with attitude is correlated with the choice of field and channel. These styles usually represent divisions linguists draw along a continuum known as levels of formality or the formality scale, which ranges from very formal to highiy informal. (See 3.3.6 below) Since both in the layman's speech and in linguistic discussions there is an abundance of terms denoting varieties on different taxonomic bases, Quirk has proposed the following taxonomy of varieties of English starting from already existing classifications: content-marked Use-related tone-marked ethnopolitical User-related non-native linguistic non-institutionalised native : ‘ { institutionalised 28 Common issues Use-related varieties are those "that an individual assumes along with a relevant role and a given individual may have a mastery of several such varieties." (QUIRK 1995: 23) From such use-related varieties, "we distinguish user-related varieties, where in general an individual is tied to one only.” (QUIRK 1995: 23) A further distinction is that between varieties identified on ethnopolitical grounds and those identified on linguistic grounds. One may speak of “African English” or “Indian English” on ethnopolitic grounds, whereas Kachru's sense of “Indian English” (see KACHRU 1986, QUIRK 1995, CRYSTAL 1995, MCARTHUR 1998) has a linguistic basis. ‘As for the next distinction, non-native varieties include varieties of English produced by speakers whose mother tongue is different from English. If one accepts Quirk’s approach one may include here such varieties as “Romanian English” or “Russian English sor Quirk remarks, "ironically, each variety /of this kind/ is best manifest in those who by commonsense measures speak it worst.” (QUIRK 1995: 14) Yariationist linguists usually focus on the study of English as a native or second language; foreigner's varieties are the main concem of English teachiong methodologists, psycholinguists, educators, and, occasionally, of ethnographers, sociologists, phoneticians ard phonologists. Of the native varieties, two are institutionalised "in the sense of being fully described and with defined standards observed by the institutions of state” (QUIRK 1995: 14): British English and American English. The standards of Australian English — and perhaps of one or two more “Englishes” -- are informally established, but most native varieties are not institutionalised and "while sharing a notable stability as compared with non-native varieties, they resemble these to a slight extent in being on a socioeconomic cline, such that the features marking an individual as being a speaker of Yorkshire English or New York English tend to disappear the higher up the socioeconomic scale he or she happens to be." (QuiRK 1995: 14-15) Regional and social variation results in dialect continua rather than in well-defined homogeneous varieties. Unlike these, there are “slices” of English which appear as relatively homogeneous, well-defined and distinct from varieties of similar social status particularly by their specific/special/specialized vocabularies. One brief example will suffice 293.2.2. Further theoretical and terminolo; Using English(es) If I check this manuscript by using the “speller” programme and the “grammar” programme I am sure to have the surprise — in fact I have already had it — that quite a few of the lexical items belonging to the “professional jargon”, “specialized language” or “sublanguage” of “variationist” “linguists (dialectologists, geolinguists, sociolinguists, discourse analysts, psycholinguists and stylisticians) are not recognized as existing in the vocabulary of the English language as defined by the author of the above-mentioned computer programmes. al distinctions 3.2.2.1. On the dynamism of language The question "why isn't a language homogeneous?" may sound infantile but it may as well stimulate philosophic meditation on language, particularly on the “after Babel dilemma”, It has been remarked that two antynomic forces act within any language, a centrifugal force, leading to diversity, and a centripetal force, manifest in the tendency towards unity. During a certain period in the history of a language one of the two tendencies may prevail over the other, the balance or prevalence largely depending on extralinguistic factors: geographic, historical, social, political, cultural or psychological. The dynamism of human interection determined by the concurrent influence of all these factors determines the never-ending processes of variation and change at different levels in the structure and architecture of a language. 3.2.2.2. Language and dialect Theoretically, dialects are mutually intelligible versions of one language. When mutual intelligibility is lost, then the two versions are separate languages. A dialect comes to be called language for purely linguistic reasons or for social, cultural and political reasons. A” historical language (q.v.) is a language whose limits are established in the course of history and is recognized as such by its own speakers and by the speakers of other languages. (See HISTORICAL LANGUAGE, RHOTICITY.) It does not necessarily coincide with a national language, the latter label being also a matter of political decision. The national languages of the United States, Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia and so on are all called English for linguistic reasons: given a little practice, speakers of any one of them can understand and communicate with speakers of any 30 Common issues other." On the other hand, within the same country — for our discussion the best example is the United Kingdom — there are great differences between the speech of inhabitants of different regions, e.g., between the northerners’ speech and the southerners’ speech. Actually, geogrephic variation leads to the existence of dialectal continua rather than well- delimited dialects. In this respect in his Course in General Linguistics Saussure remarks: ‘The notion of natural dialects is therefore incompatible with the notion of fixed well-defined zones. This leaves us with two choices: (1) we may define a dialect by the totality of its characteristics — which involves choosing one point on the map and encompassing only the regional speech-forms of a single locality since the same peculiarities will not extend beyond this point; or (2) we may define a dialect by one of its characteristics, and simply map the spread of this characteristic — which obviously is an artificial procedure since the boundaries that we mark off correspond to no dialectal reality. (SaussURE 1959: 202) Just as the limit between languages is largely a matter of convention, so is, the limit between dialects. Actually, linguistic studies often contain references to dialects and dialects systems rather than to languages. Let us now return to the cradle of the English language, the British Isles, particularly Great Britain. The great differences between the southem and the northem dialects have often been remarked upon by outsiders and thoroughly analysed and described by specialists. The history of the language accounts for this differentiation, as well as for the similarities between British local varieties and Irish, American or Australian varieties. ‘A frequently quoted example is that of the consequences resulting from the incomplete character of the Great Vowel Shift of Early Modern "However, political boundaries often influence the terminology. Danish and Swedish are mutually intelligible, but are called separate languages because Denmark and Sweden are separate countries. Conversely, the speech of a Cantonese is totally incomprehensible to a native of Shanghai, yet because both Canton and Shanghai are within the boundaries of the same country, they are both labelled as Chinese, 31Using English(es) English. Thus in the North words like fight and right may still be pronounced [fiG)t] (Middle English [figt]) or [ri(-)t]; [a:] may still be used Where we would expect the diphthong [au], e.g. about; for some speakers meet and meat are not homophones; Middle English [o] did not undergo phonetic split between [] and [vu]; preconsonantal [r] is preserved, particularly in the far north speech, which is fully rhotic. This last feature is also encountered in Irish English and American English varieties; however the actual realization of [r] is different. (See RHOTIC VARIETIES (OF ENGLISH.) In order to understand the basic types of variation in group usages — historical, geographical, and social — and their interdependence, we have to operate with a number of relevant concepts, for which definitions and classifications are needed. 3.2.2.3 Accent and dialect The notion of accent will be used in this book to denote varieties of pronunciation. The notion of dialect will be applied to varieties which are distinguished from each other also by differences of grammar and vocabulary. This distinction has been reinforced by Trudgill’s many books, the spirit — and often the letter — of which I am following in these lines. He wrote about thirty years ago: ‘The term dialect refers, strictly speaking, to differences between kinds of language which are differences of vocabulary and grammar as well as pronunciation. The term accent, on the other hand, refers solely to differences of pronunciation. (Trupatte 1974: 17) In British and American linguistics this distinction give the notion of dialect (q.v.) a more precise sense. made in order to A note should be made on two expressions, (a) "to speak a dialect” and (b) "to speak dialect". The former means “to speak a variety, which includes the standard variety”; the latter means “to speak a nonstandard variety; using regionalisms, very likely with noneducated features”.' (See also DIALECT, pp. 106-7) » Crystal's attempt at answering the question “Who first called it RP?” has led him, to the dialectologist A. J. Ellis and his book On Early English Prominciation, 1869 (CRYSTAL 1995:365), 32 Common issues 3.2.2.4. Accent and dialect models. In the course of time, economic, social, cultural and political circumstances concur to the selection and acceptance of one of the varieties of a language as the prestigious form, used in writing by an elite of a speech community, gradually institutionalised as the “best”, further spread and imposed by education, mass media and official relations. A similar process imposes a “pronunciation model” but to a lesser extent. ‘The accent preserved as a model wherever British English is taught is RP, that is, “received pronunciation”, whose nineteenth century serse was “accepted in the best society”. RP has its origin in the south-east of England (London and surrounding areas) but is now a social accent because it is associated with the BBC, the Public Schools in England, and with members of upper and upper-middle classes. They say that only 3% of the English population speak RP. Nevertheless, it is the accent most frequently taught to foreign learners in European countries for severai reasons: (A) It is the most thoroughly described of the British accents. (2) Itis largely used by radio and TV. G) It is associated with social prestige (using the “best” accent may give one a better chance to climb up the social scale). In the United States one speaks of General American, which, like RP, applies to the pronunciation of the people who do not have a recognizable local accent but which, unlike RP, is used by a larger segment of the population — about two-thirds, according to some authors. ‘The corresponding dialect used as a model is labelled as Standard English, which is spoken by the educated people throughout the British Isles and which can be better described as Standard British English. It is the variety normally used in writing; normally used for teaching in schools and universities: and normally heard on radio and television. Unlike RP, Standard English is not restricted to the speech of a social group. Actually, the speech of most speakers of Standard English is marked by the influence of regional accents. Moreover, there is also slight regional lexical and grammatical variation, which 33Using English(es) justifies linguists to speak of the following, varieties as subsumed to Standard British English: ~ Standard English English (spoken in England and Wales); - Standard Scottish English; - Standard Irish English. (Here is one illustrative example: in Standard Scottish English they say They hadn't a good time or You had a good time, hadn't whereas in standard English English the auxiliary did is use didn't have a good time and You had a good time, didn't you?) ‘There is hardly any difference between the British and the American standards, especially in their written forms. Minor spelling differences are insignificant. American sociolinguists who use the term Standard with regard to American English speak of cultural levels and summarize the different cultural levels in two — subclasses, substandard/non-standard and standard, the latter presenting itself in a number of regional varieties that follow the main dialect areas. 3.2.2.5. More about social variation and social varieties Language does not only vary horizontally, across regional boundaries, but also “vertically”, across social boundaries. Society can be subdivided in a variety of ways, for example, by religion, ethnic background, social-class affiliation, years and quality of formal education, professional affiliation, age, and gender. All these are reflected in language. There is relative homogeneity in language use within certain brackets along the social scale as well as among language users belonging to an ethnic or religious group, for example. At present, linguists speak of social dialects with a high degree of confidence. Standard English itself is one of these, since it is the dialect with the highest social status, normally used in the media and in the education system. Modern dialectology has extensively dealt with the linguistic expression of social stratification in the great conurbations of the English-speaking world. The resulting discipline, urban dialectology, combines the methods of traditional dialect geography and sociological methods of investigation. In the United States, sociolinguists have tried to define such ethnic varieties as African-American Vernacular English and Chicano English. Likewise, socioeconomic status varieties were identified in New York by Labov and his team, and in Norwich, Englané, by Trudgill. In the 34 3.2.3.1. Various approa: Common issues same areas class distinctions were investigated side by side with gender distinctions. If empirical data include identification of respondents (q.v.) in terms of sex, age, birthplace, mother tongue, family background, education, knowledge of languages, religion, etc., statistical processing facilitates interpretation of variants (q.v.) in thei interplay with all these parameters. 3.2.2. The study of functional variation Social variation does not go hand in hané only with geographic variation but also with functional-stylistic variation. The study of such phenomena as hypercorrection, code-switching, and register variation evidence among other things the efforts of language users to adjust their speech patterns to contexts of language use. hes to functional varieties As Halliday has remarked, one speaks a geographic/social variety (often equated to a dialect) because one “belongs to” (comes from, or has chosen to move into) “a particular region, social class, caste, generation, age group, sex group, or other relevant grouping within the community. Dialects do not have clear-cut boundaries, the phenomenon is really one of continuous “dialectal variation’.” (HALLIDAY 1989: 44) But language also varies according to the functions it is being made to serve — what is going on, who are taking part, what role the language is playing. These variables collectively determine the functional variety, or register, of the language that is being used. One speaks this kind of variety because one chooses to select it from one's speech repertoire (q.v.) as appropriate for the circumstances of the communication act that is being made. A large amount of scholarly work has been devoted recently to subject matter varieties. The term register has also been used to describe the “type of language characteristic of discourse restricted to particular subject matter, although subject matter is usually considered to be just one of several factors determining register” (Amold M. Zwicky and Ana D. Zwicky, "Register as a Dimension of Linguistic Variation", in KITTREDGE & LEHRBERGER 1982: 1). “Investigations of scientific articles, technical manuals, legal documents, and even cook books reveal systematic usage and, of course, specialized vocabulary that 35Using English(es) suggest sublanguages within a natural language.” (bid) (See REGISTER, SUBLANGUAGE.) Of course, “a register” is just as much an abstraction as “a dialect”; but, again, people are aware that language varies in this way and readily talk about “the language of poetry”, “the language of law” or “the language of cooking”. In a sense registers are both social and functional varieties. To the extent to which a lawyer's speech is marked by “the language of law” even outside professional contexts of use, it displays the lawyer's affiliation to a social-occupational group. Not all registers can be considered sublanguages; for instance, baby talk (q.v.) or the language of newspaper headlines are not sublanguages because they are not related to well-defined semantic domains. By contrast, recipes, in addition to forming a register, also constitute a sublanguage, with a vocabulary in a restricted semantic domain (i.e., a specific terminology) as well as a specific discourse structure. The idea of sublanguage as part of a natural language, with a grammar of its own, was developed in a systematic way by Zelig Harris in his work on discourse analysis. (The notion of sublanguage was developed independently in the Soviet Union beginning in the late 1960s.) For him the notion of sublanguage is like that of subsystem in mathematics. “Although the set of sentences in a sublanguage is a subset of the set of sentences in the whole language, the grammar of the sublanguage is not necessarily included in the grammar of the whole language; rather the two grammars intersect.” (/bid.) Interesting studies of sublanguage grammars have been pursued in the field of automatic translation. The description of a sublanguage involves a certain degree of freezing of the dynamic model of linguistic investigation, following the homogeneity within heterogeneity principle. The theoretical construct of functional language (g.v.) described by Coseriu may prove useful in guiding the researcher. (See COSERIU 1994: 61.) 36 Common issues Another term that deserves comment is that of functional style. In Romania the notion is used in much the same way as is “style of lenguage” used by the Russian linguist LR. Galperin: A style of language is a system of interrelated language means. which serve a definite aim in communication. Each style is recognized by the language community as an independent whole. The peculiar choice of language means is primarily dependent on the aim of the communication. One system of language means is set against other systems with other aims, and arising from this, another choice and arrangement of the language means is made. Thus we may distinguish the following styles within the English literary language: 1) the belles-lettres style, 2) the publicistic style. 3) the newspaper style, 4) the scientific prose style, 5) the style of official documents, and presumably some others. (GALPERIN 1971: 18) Galperin’s “style of language” and Romanian linguists’ “functional style” can be cquated to each other and to the term “register”, on which Hymes remarks: “for situation-specific use, the British term register has gained acceptance.” (HYMES 1974, quoted in KITTREDGE & LEHRBERGER 1982: 214). The varieties called registers or functional styles are closely related to styles (in the sense associated with the relationships between speakers and their interlocutors or audiences in terms of formality, politeness and dominance), but they are “associated with specific contexts or situations and with specific functions of language in those contexts” (KITTREDGE & LEHRBERGER 1982: 214). (See also FUNCTIONAL-STYLISTIC VARIETIES.) 37Using English(es) 3.2.3.2. Styles and the formality scale ‘The number of styles delineated along the formality scale differs from author to author. Quirk et al. hesitate between a two-way, three-way and five-way division The most frequently quoted is Joos’s division of the “formality scale” into five styles: frozen (q.v), formal (q.v.). consultative (q.v.), casual (q.v.), and intimate (q.v.). STYLES 00s 1967) frozen formal ative casual intimate (QUIRK ET AL. 1972) (rigid) FORMAL, pal INFORMAL (fa jar) For didactic reasons in the teaching of EFL a simplification of Joos's scale is desirable. Preston & Shuy (1976) suggest that @ division of the formality scale into two — formal and informal — is enough for teaching purposes. I would add an unmarked (neutral) area in the middle, following Quirk et al ‘The examples below illustrate each of the five styles and, at the same time, show .the ways in which the range of choices is limited by the parameters of the situation (participants, location, occasion of use, communication channel, the nature of the task ete). intimate Out! casual Run along, now! consultative Would you mind leaving room a moment? formal The audience is required to kindly leave the room for a few moments. frozen The management respectfully requests the conferees to vacate the auditorium between sessions in order to facilitate the operations of the custodial stuff. If a parent is speaking to child who is embarrassingly present, the range of choices may go from intimate to consultative. The degree of likelihood for the formal version is next to zero. whereas the 38 Common issues illustration of the frozen style is unlikely to occur under any circumstances. . The following diagram suggested by H. A. Gleason Jr. relates the selection of style, which he calls key, to the selection of typical channel. Following Joos, Gleason speaks of five keys, which he labels oratorical, formal, consultative, casual and intimate. He adds two more of a different nature, the literary keys (“edited English”) and the spoken keys, and connects the two ‘spectra — the “literary” ane the “spoken” — by dotted lines suggesting functional equivalence: Literary Keys (Edited English) ‘Semiformal Spoken Keys Deliberative Informal Consultative This diagram suggests that “if something is to be written so as to convey the same impression as would deliberative speech, it must have a somewhat more elaborate or formal structure. If a match for casual conversation is to be written, the difference in structure wiil be extreme.” (Gleason, in PRESTON & SHUY 1987: 331) 3.2.3. The dynamism of the academic canon between margin and center/centre In academic curricula the growing interest in sublanguages of one kind or another has gone hand in hand with the change of the literary canon. Central authors appear to have been used up, and Black writers, women writers, or contact literatures have been placed in the foreground. In a similar manner, as some linguists’ interest in the study of Standard English seems to have diminished, there has been a change of focus in the 39Using English(es) direction of Black English Vernacular, women's speech or contact languages (see PIDGINS). It is also interesting to remark that, just as the interest in dialects once paralleled the interest in the study of Jocal folk culture, the present interest in sublanguages parallels the interest in subcultures. In language studies, as in many other areas, the “margin” — geographic, political or social — becomes the centre of interest. In European English departments, the teaching staff, willing to transcend the subjects devised under the homogeneity hypothesis in the traditional academic curricula, are looking for virgin study areas and rush to the Caribbean Islands or to New Zealané to do research and, back home, teach, for example, Jamaican English or even Tok Pisin. On the other hand, extensive communication and exchange reinforces the real need to appropriate one’s message to a certain socio-cultural context, and that is more and more accurately reflected in the current teaching of English, or, rather, of Englishes. The dynamism of human interaction determined by the concurrent influence of geographic, historical, social, political, cultural and psychological factors determines the never-ending process of variation and change at different levels in the structure and architecture of a language." That is why it can be foreseen that, once established, the production of variationist approaches will continue, although it may also be foreseen that, when the “academic market” has been saturated with them, there may arise a renewed interest in the study of language under the prevailing homogeneity hypothesis. °° Trucgill’s most recent estimate of the percentage of Standard English English speakers is “the top 12-15% of the social scale”. (PETER TRUDGILL 1996, “Standard English and the National Curriculum". In The European English Messenger Volume V/1 Spring 1996.) 40 4. ENGLISH AS A WORLD LANGUAGE OR THE LEAST EFL STUDENTS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT IT 4.1. The Spread of English It has been remarked that, on the one hand, the widespread use of English and its current position as the world language is not accidental and that, on the other hand, it cannot be attributed to any intrinsic linguistic superiority of English as a language This spread began with the establishment of the British Empire. The colonization process started at the end of the sixteenth century" but the Empire developed to its full in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and, with it, English was first spreed by settlers, and thea imposed in the overseas territories as the language of administration. The loss of most of the colonies after World War II did not interrupt the expansion of the English language. The position of the United States, which took over the political, economic and military hegemony of the world, has largely been the diffusion factor that ensured the continuity of this expansionist process.'* * Actually, the colonisation of Ireland started in the second half of the twelfth century (1169), the first attempt at colonising Newfoundland took place in the sixteenth century (1583) and that of colonising Virginia in 1583 (repeated in 1587) **"The German professor Herbert Pilch (1975 lecture notes) summarizes the overseas development of English in the following four-phase model: (1) Transportation to overseas coasts by explorers, traders, settlers. The English language establishes its dominant position. (2) Spread inland through conquest, prepared by geographical surveys, supported by railroad building; weks and goldrush; romantic legends (the American Dream, the Australian Legend) of frontiersmen (Davy Crockett, Paul Bunyan), slaughter of the aboriginal population (excest in South Africa), () National Consciousness. Political independence of the Mother Country, democratic ideology; attempts to set up a “national language” different from (British) ‘English’ (Noah Webster, Sidney J Baker); cult of regional slang (witness the reception of Salinger’s novel Catcher in the Rye), in Europe instead of inversely, eg.. Australian English black tea “tea wi American, English square “old fashioaed™. Technically, we say that the FOCAL AREA Ge. the area whence innovations spread) shifts overseas from London, 21Using English(es) Such inferences were based on previous I Nevertheless, English could not have achieved the dominant position it has today without its almost worldwide uniformity. This uniformity was not easy to foresee two centuries or even one century ago. In 1800 the famous American Noah Webster wrote: time, a language in North America, as different from the future language of England as the modern Dutch, Danish and Swedish are fom German or from one another. In 1877 the British philologist Henry Sweet predicted that a century late> “England, America, and Australia will be speaking mutually unintelligible languages, owing to their independent changes of pronunciation.” On the other hand, the German linguist Jakob Grimm declared in a lecture published in 1852 that English might “be called justly the language of the world”. The fact that today English is the only serious candidate for a world language would not be possible if it were split in many mutually unintelligible dialects. It has been shown that the relative homogeneity of English is due to several factors: () In the period of spread, English was quite homogeneous as a standard/written language (which formed the educated norm0 and had become morphologically simplified; (2) The diffusion of English throughout the world is a recent phenomenon, and widely disparate dialects simply have not had time to develop: (3) Nearly universal literacy in most English-speaking countries has retarded change, especially in written English; (4) Modem developments in communications — telephone, radio, motion picture, tape recordings, satellite television, the Internet — have united English speakers, retarding dialectal differences, familiarizing all speckers with the sound of other Englishes, and superimposing a kind of world standard over regional varieties. All that does not mean that there are no differences among the Englishes used around the world. Differences in pronunciation \uistic events such as the formation of Romance languages from the regional varieties of Latin spoken in different parts of the Roman Empire. The dialects of Latin eventually gave rise to distinet languages such as: French, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian and Spanish. 42 English as a world languages (especially of vowels and of intonation patterns) and differences in vocabulary as well as in semantics of the same vocabulary are more extensive than variation in morphology and syntax, and they affect mutual intelligibility more seriously than grammatical differences English has been affected by its diffusion throughout the world; phonologically, one can discern the retention of older pronunciation and, to a lesser extent, the influence of other languages spoken or formerly spoken in the regions, which may have affected the pronunciation of English sounds and modulated the intonational contours in terms of pitch of voice and rhythm. The vocabulary has been enriched with terms that have not only entered a particular regional variety of English but also the common vocabulary of all varieties of English.'’ As for grammar, a neat division can be drawn between standard grammar, which displays little variation from one country to another, and the grammar of non-standard varieties, waich, in their turn, surprisingly share many features. (See 5.1- 5.5 below.) In a geo-political perspective, it is convenient to speak of: + British and Irish English; + American English; * Canadian English: * Caribbean English: * Antipodean English (including Australian, New Zealand and other South Pacific varieties); + African English; * South Asian English; and + East Asian English.*® Various regional and national standards have been established or are becoming established in various parts of the planet and, at the same time a “core standard” seems to be universally accepted. That made 7 Such words are bungalow, pagoda, dinghy, dungaree and jungle (Hindi), shaw! (Turkish), kangaroo (Australia), pyjamas (Persia), tatoo (Polynesia); tea (China), inkee (Dutch proper name) and many, many others are commonly mentioned 16 justrate this point. However, innovation by word-formation and change of meaning is nore substantial than borrowing. "The spatial criterion used in separating these varieties does not relate to any linguistic homogeneity, e-g., East Asian forms of English spoken in Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines or China are all different, 43Using English(es) Tom McArthur (1987)? speak of British and Irish Standard English; American Standard English; Canadian Standard English (very close to ‘American Standard English); Caribbean Standard English; Australian, New Zealand and South Pacific Standard English; West, East and South African Standard(izing) English; South Asian Standard(zing) English and East Asian Standard(izing) English. (See STANDARD ENGLISH, STANDARDIZATION.) McArthur also speaks of World Standard English as the most widely accepted “common core” of the English language. The formula International English (TRUDGILL & HANNAH 1994) is applied with reference to World Standard English or to various specialized registers such as international business English, scientific English, the language of politics, the language of geography and so on. Caribbean linguists seem to prefer the label Internationally Accepted English (ALLSOPP 1996: LIV), abbreviated as /4E, for the core shared by the several brands of Standard English in the world, One can never exaggerate when stating that the differences between standard varieties are insignificant. The pronunciation differences can easily be recognized and accepted as such in a face-to-face conversation. In a scheme aiming at classification, partly reflecting iachrony, Trudgill and Hannah (1994) offer a bird's-eye view of these differences in the following diagram: 1098765 6789n 10 ais12 Northern, Scotland England alae Zesland KEY 1. /a/ rather than /ze/ in path ete. 2. absence of non-prevocalic /r/ ioned in McArthur 1998: 97 and reprinted in Crystal 1995: 111 44 English as a world languages 3. close vowels for /ze/ and /e/, monophthongization of /ai/ and saul. 4. front /a/ for /a:/ in part ete. 5. absence of contrast of /o/ and /: 6. /ee/ rather than /a:/ in can’t ete. 7. absence of contrast of /o/ and /a:/ as in bother and father 8. consistent voicing of intervocalic /t/ 9. unrounded /a/ in pot. 10. syllabic // in bird 11. absence of contrast of /u/ and /u:/as in pull, and pool. as in cof and caught Mutual understanding is complete in written form, provided, of course, the decoder is familiar with the register used by the author of the written message. (In any language professional jargon can appeer as fully opaque to the uninitiated.) In the same line, Quirk (1995: 30-31) states the following: 1 would be particularly annoyed at irrelevant emphasis on the different varieties of English when I came to realise they matrered so little to the native speakers of English - to those who effortlessly read the novels of John Updike, Beryl Bainbridge and Patrick White, perceiving no linguistic frontier to match the passzorts (American, British, and Australian) of these writers. And when T came to realise that the best grammars and dictionaries similarly related to a Standard English that was freely current throughout the world. Indeed the widespread approval of the Kingman Report confirms that the mass of ordinary native-English speakers have never lost their respect for Standard English, and it needs to be understood abroad too [...] that Standard English is live and well, its existence and its value alike clearly recognized. This needs to be understood in foreign capitals, by education ministries, and media authorities; and understood too by those from the UK and USA who ‘each English abroad. 4.2. “Contact literature” in English Apart from the literature in the major countries where English is the national language to which Professor Randolph Quirk refers in the 45Using English(es) 43. quotation above, in the countries where English has official status a distinct body of literature has developed in this language, including novels, short stories, poems, essays and journalism, which reflect the linguistic and sociocultural contact of two or more languages and cultures, related or not, and whose features separate them from the canons associated with British and American literature. These “contact literatures” in English are characterised by nativization and acculturation (q.v.). Nativization “refers to the formal textual features of such creativity”; it “contributes to linguistic processes which are localized and provide an identity to the text”. Raja Rao's The Serpent and the Rope is mentioned as an exampie of an Indianised text; Gabriel Okara's The Voice is an example of an Africanised text. Acculturation refers to “the thematic or contextual localization of such writing”; it is “a matter of cultural identity which English acquires by its Africanisation or _Indianisation” (Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics, vol.5: 2787). Some authors belonging to this new creative tradition have received international recognition: Wole Soyinka of Nigeria and Derek Alton Walcott of the West Indies received the Nobel Prize in literature (in 1986 and 1992, respectively); Raja Rao of India received the Neustadt International Prize (1988); the British writer of Indian origin Salmon Rushdie (b. Bombay 1947) is widely acclaimed in the English-reading world. ‘The diffusion of English and its concentric circles The main focus of the present introduction has been on terminologies, classifications and illustrations related to the varieties of English in its cradle, Great Britain, with occasional references to the United States, Canada, the Caribbean, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand, that is, to the areas that represent “the traditional historical and sociolinguistic bases of English as a native or first language” (Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics, vol.5: 2787), In a model (KACHRU 1985) that captures the diffusion of English in terms of three concentric circles, these areas are collectively called the Inner Circle and are populated by a majority of people speaking what Quirk et al called ENL (English as a Native Language) 46 venice abl English as a world languages ‘The regions of the world formerly colonized by Britain and the USA, in which English was the language of empire building, are known together as the Outer Circle. Many regions in Africa, Asia and the West Indies are included here. The notions of ESL (English as a Second Language) and New English are associated with it. (See ESt and NEW ENGLISH in the “Glossary”. Finally, the Expanding Circle includes the areas in which English is primarily a foreign language. (See EFL.) Unlike the speakers in the first two circles, the users of English in the Expanding Circle do not “belong” to any regional or social English speaking community; they learn the social-cultural variety called Standard English, reaching various degrees of linguistic and communicative competence, and one or several special varieties, in most cases the register(s) related to their profession/occupation; some of them acquire a passive knowledge of other varieties to which they are exposed via radio and television programmes, pop music, publications in English and computers Obviously, Kacru’s “three-circle” model is similar to the ENL-ESL- EFL division proposed by Quirk et ai (1972). Far from being homogeneous, ENL includes varieties separated by significant differences of accent, grammar and vocabulary”®. Apart from that, significant groups of speakers of ENL inhabit certain ESL territories, and, conversely, there are significant numbers of ESL/EFL speakers in ENL territories. To complicate the overall picture, there are English- based pidgins (q.v.) and creoles (q.v.), which “do not fit the tripartite model well, but run inconveniently across the three categories” (McArthur 1998: 44). In both the Outer and the Expanding Circle language interference is common. (See INTERFERENCE) The interlanguage varieties produced by ESL/EFL leamers are characterized by interference phenomena, that is, by the transfer”) of features of the mother tongue or of another dominant language on pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary. and discourse features. However, the ENL model represents the ideal to be reached. On the other hand, there is a lot of code mixing and code 2° Compare southern English English and Scots, RP and Cockney or Black English and “mainstream English” ="Commonly described as “negative transfer” 47Using English(es) switching which occur among ESL/EFL speakers, sometimes resulting in blended forms (mixed languages), which receive blended names, such as Frenglish or frangiais, depending on the dominant direction of the mixing. 5. SOME GRAMMATICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEE) STANDARD ENGLISH AND NON-STANDARD Quite different from the case of ESL/EFL, pidgins (q.v.) and creoles DIALECTS (a.v.) are the result of the practical need for linguistic interaction Within the framework of this general introduction a description of between people who do not share a common language. In the case of phonological, intonational, lexical, grammatical and discourse pidgins and creoles, especially in postcreole continua, it is difficult to elements that differentiate English regional and social varieties is out say when English has ceased to be English and has become a different of question even if one limits oneself to the British area. language. However, I shall try to point to some forms that are most common in non-standard, mainly urban, varieties of Present-day British English and T shall try to present them against the background of Standard English, closely following Trudgill’s suggestions. (See PIDGINS, CREOLES, PIDGINIZATION, CODE MIXING, CODE, SWITCHING, INTERLANGUAGE, BILINGUALISM.) Some grammatical variations can be found throughout Britain and even in the overseas varieties. The explanation of this widespread distribution lies in the fact that, in these cases, it is the standard dialect that has diverged from the other varieties, mainly by the impositions made by normative grammars in the eighteenth century and later. 5.1 Negation in non-standard varieties 5.1.1 Multiple negation { A good example is that of multiple negation, also known as the | double negative/negation, which can be found in non-stanéard varieties throughout the world. Compare: Standard English: / had no money./ I didn't have any money. Non-standard English: / didn't have no money. ‘The label “multiple” is better than “double” because examples of the following type can also be heard: She couldn't get none nowhere. This construction, which was common until the eighteenth century and is still employed by many speakers, has parallels in other languages, Romanian included (V-a gdasit nici una nicdieri). Today it is considered “low prestige” C*wrong” in prescriptive terms). 48Using English(es) 5.1.2. Other aspects of negation ‘The form ain't, well known from movies and pop songs, is found in Britain, but not everywhere.. It is equated to the verb o be and the auxiliary have, more precisely to am not, aren't, isn’t, haven't, hasn't, but never to the full verb fo have, e.g., ain't coming; He ain’t done it. It is also widely spread overseas, occasionally also replacing the negative past tense auxiliary didn’t. The Dictionary of Caribbean English Usage contains such examples as: Ain't nobody never been there?, ... they believe him ain't guilty, and I ain't see the car hit Leslie, in which ain’t replaces hasn't, isn’t and didn’t, respectively The form aren't, which is standard for the second person singular, for plural forms and for the first person interrogative in disjunctive questions (aren't 12), can also be used in negative statements —/ aren't ~ in parts of West Midland and Scotland. The forms no/nae instead of nor are found in most Scottish dialects (He's no coming. I've nae got it. I cannae go.) and the forms nae/na are found in Scots and north-eastern English (J canna come. I donna ken, that is, “I don't know”). In non-standard dialects never, in contrast to Standard British English, can refer to a single occasion and functions in the same way as the form didn’t: Inever done it. (“1 didn't do it.) Tnever seen him last night. Itwas never sure what brought it. "You done it.""T never.” 5.2. Verb Forms 5.2.1. Present tense verb forms The third-person-singular ending -s is an “anomaly” in the verbal paradigm. It is not found in lower-class East Anglia nor in many non- standard American varieties, so that the verb paradigm is completely regular: know/ You know/ He know .../ He don't know. In other parts of Britain (parts of the north and west of England; especially the south-west of west Wales) the paradigm is regular in the sense that all 50 i | | Some grammatical differences that. In parts of the west of persons take -s, €.8., / likes it, You knows thar. In paris of he week ot England and further north, this leads to a di and the auxiliary do: | Present “| past Past Participle Full verb dos [duiz]__| done done Auxiliary do | aia = | est she can, don't she? Example (Berkshire dialect): My wife dos the best she can, de to be a more general feature of non- The regular paradigm Seeman exemple in African-American English: standard grammar. Here is an ple is Doan nobody never help me do my work: 5.2.2. Past tense verb forms rb form levelling in non- re is a marked tendency toward verb f ein Medan! dialects: One can find wlontiny of form ether between an ‘ast tense forms or between the pas’ the erent andthe pas nie FP ace ety ma wee Sand English presents three different forms. Thus the Standard Puglish ter. saw-seen is replaced by see-see-seen oF by see-seer-secr (ee MENG 29, 30) and, instead of Standard English give-gave-giver. ore ee oe an instance of complete levelling, that is ei gene a elie verb forms, e.g. bring-brung-brung (fo! pug substantially differ from the corresponding, standard forms. f r and of the i c wes © forms of the full verb do an The: difference between ative (ave above) is the result of the levelling, process that has affected only the full verb (do:done-done). Example: You done plenty of that in your time, didn't you? Irregular past forms may be regularised’ (¢. g.sce-seed seed both in the dialectal speech of England and in South Midland and Tosi ‘American English) and the paradigm of the verb 10 is true of both British and American English, ¢-.» ® We can also recall the Shakespearean an! shrinked and helped. d Biblical verb forms blowed, growed, sl CCUsing English(es) I knowed you wasn't Oklahoma folks. Gohn Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath, 1940) Oceasionally, new irregular forms are introduced. This phenomenon has even resulted in generally accepted irregular forms which parallel the regular forms in American English speech in the case of dive and sneak,: dive-dove/dived-dived and sneak-snuck/sneaked-snuck/sneaked. 5.2.3. Double modals In Standard English modal verbs never combine in the same verb phrase. Such combinations can be heard in the north-east of England, Scotland and parts of the southern United States: I might could do it. He may can come. The following combinations are mentioned in Greenbaum (1996: 154): might could, might should, won't can’t, would could, should can, may can, will can. Notice that the second modal is usually can or could. The set of data regarding verb forms in African-American English speech recorded by William Labov in 1965 includes several examples of the following type: You might could go to the church and pray a little — that still might don’t help you (quoted in LABOV 1998: 110-153, available on the Internet) Apart from the widely spread might could combination, on can notice the unusual postposed do-support is the structure might don’t help, which cancels the postulated clash between a medal auxiliary and the primary auxiliary do along the syntagmatic axix 5.2.4. Disjunctive questions Just as in informal Romanian, eh? can be used as a disjunctive question in Scotland and Canada. In other parts of the world the forms is it? / isn't it? are generalized. Occasionally, one can even hear the 52 | ) Some grammatical differences formula nor so?, which can be equated to Rom. nu-i asa? or Fr. n’est- ce pas? Crystal (1995 299) lists the following invariant question tags: Js it? (Zambia, South Africa, Singapore, Malaysia) isn’t it? (South Asia, Wales, Papua New Guinea, West Afri not so? (West Africa, South Asia, Papua New Guinea) no? (SW USA, Puebio) 5.3. Pronouns 5.3.1. Personal pronouns The use of object forms me for the first person singular in all English counties (except Rutland, Berkshire) and us in north-eastern English, and the survival of the older distinction between the informal second- person singular form shou/thee and the format and/or plural you are not difficult to decode. But the outsider may be completely confused by the system of pronouns surviving in eastern south-west, which opposes not the subject and object functions, but the strong and weak position. Different systems occur in different places. Here is an example: STRONG WEAK you ee he er (subject) ‘n (object) she er we us they 'm | ‘Thus one can hear: You wouldn't do it, would ye? He/She wouldn't do it, would er? No, give it to he/she. Some of these dialects have a peculiar gender system, ¢.g., mass nouns such as water are usually referred to as if and count nouns such as free are referred to as he/er/'n. Notes: wo 3Using English(es) (1) The object forms of personal pronouns (me, us etc.) are commonly used as subject: Because me and John said [...] (GREENBAUM 1996: 167), Me and she is friends, Well, me don't know where you been (ALLSOPP 1996: 377) (2) The object form me /mu/ is also used as a possessive adjective in different non-standard varieties, regional and socio-ethnic: /mz/ boysfriend. 5.3.2 Demonstrative pronouns and adjectives The demonstrative pronouns and adjectives in Present-day Standard English are: this, that, this, those. In Scottish dialects, as well as in ‘American social dialects, the forms them and they can be heard for “those”, particularly in their adjectival use: Sunday morning they all mrn into glamour girls, in them big hats and jong gloves, with they skinny high heels and they skinny selves in them tight girdles-wouldn't nobody ever know what they look like the rest of the time. /Emphasis added — R.A./ (Becky Birtha, Johnnieruth, in Breaking Ice. 1990: 71) In the text above, also notice the non-standard forms of the possessive adjectives, as well as other non-standard morpho-syntactic features. In the north of England and Scotland the form yon also occurs, for reference to objects more distant than those ieferred to by frat/ those/there® 5.3.3. Possessive pronouns and adjectives Non-standard forms of possessive pronouns include: thine, hisn, hern and hersn, ourn/ourns/oursn, yourn, theirn. Other non-standard possessive forms can be found in adjectival position, as in: me daddy, thy mouth, it forehead (referring to a child), wring the neck of him, with we eyesAvith us eves. 5.3.4 Reflexive pronouns = Non-standard demonstrative pronouns also include: shis here, thick or thuck for this; that there, thick there and yon for there: thick other on, thick over there, thon, yvon(d), vons for that over there. Plural forms include these here, thesen, theasum, theys, tho etc for these: they (over there), thore, thosen for those; and they over there, thick (over) there, tho here, thosen yonder etc for those over there, 54 Some grammatical differences In some dialects reflexive pronouns have a regularised paradigm, the rule possessive pronount-self/selves being extended to third-person forms: hisself, theirselves. Upton et al (1992) record personal pronouns used as forms of reflexive pronouns, ¢.2., wash me, sit thee down, he killed he alongside with wash mysel/mysen, sit thysel/thyselphysen down, he killed himseli/himsen/ hisself/self. (See Map 32) 5.3.5 Relative pronouns The standard forms of relative pronouns are who, referring to human nouns, which to non-human nouns, shat to both, and the zero form replacing noun phrases functioning as objects, e.g., This is the man who/that loves me. This is the man whom/that/- I love. This is the book which/that/- I need). These forms are also found in non-standard dialects, but apart from them one can find a number of additional forms, as exemplified below: That was the man what done it which at ‘The form what is particularly common. Notice the last case, marked by — , where zero-relativisation applies to subject position. Occasionally, relative pronouns in object position are reinforced by resumptive pronouns, which results in structures similar to Romanian o} doubling: ...this thing, which I found it yesterday. Possessive relatives may also differ from Standard English: That's the man what his son done it. (what his = “whose”) That's the chap as his uncle died. (as his = “whose”) 5.4. Nouns 5.4.1. Non-standard plurals Here are some of the phenomena that may be encountered in non- standard dialects which distinguish them from standard dialects with respect to plural form: * count nouns may have a zero plural, e.g., have three sisters + regular or double plurals may be used instead of the irregular plural 55Using Englishes) of standard varieties, e.g., childs or childers (for children), mouses or mices (for mice * older plural endings may still be found in non-standard speech, e.g., kine (for cows), een or even (for eves), shoon or shoen (for shoes), housen (for houses), starn (for stars). 5.4.2. Accompanying articles In non-standard English, the indefinite article * may take the form a [a) before a vowel a April fool, a orange: * may appear (1) before nouns that are plural in form though singular in meaning, ¢.g., a rongs, a bellows (Upton et al 1992: 480) or before numerals, e.g., about a ten [o'clock], a six months, a two year ago and even if there was a one(Upton et al 1992: 480): * may be lacking in contexts in which it is present in Standard English, e.g., [the children get] holiday, [I’ve never known} such fool, an hour and half, for hour (= ‘for an hour”) In non-standard English, the definite article + is pronounced in a variety of ways. In Upton et al 1992 twelve forms are recorded, among which [t], [d]. [0]. [0]. [?] and combinations of these (e.g., [Ot], and even [3]; *_ is often pronounced [59] in contexts in which RP users say [3i(:)]. e.g., the oven, the other, the heat (with initial vowel) 5.5. Adjectives and adverbs 5.5.1. Comparatives and superlatives The analytic and synthetic comparative and superlative forms may co- occur in non-standard varieties (cf. Shakespeare, Julius Caesar: “This was the most unkindest cut of all”) She is more rougher than he is. She is the most roughest. Occasionally, one can hear such forms as usefuller (and even more usefuller), foolisher, littler, as well as worsest, worstest, [he did his] wellest. 56 Some grammatical differences 5.5.2. Formally related adjectives and adverbs In Standard English many related adjectives and adverbs are normally distinguished by the absence or presence of —/y, respectively. In dialects these forms are not distinct: He ran slow. She speaks very clever. They done it very nice. In the case of some adverbs, forms without -/y are also found in colloquial English (Come quick!, although some speakers may not accept this as standard. In informal American English rea/ and sure are used as intensifiers and good and bad as adverbs of manner. (Cf GREENBAUM 1996: 145) Prepositions There is a large degree of variation in the usage of prepositions in British dialects, particularly in the use of prepositions of place: He was at London. He went up the park I got off of the bus. The preposition on often stands for the standard English of, as in: What sort on (a) kni Twenty or thirty on them. Never heard nothing on it. I'm sure on it. ‘The preposition of may be omitted in contexts in which it appears in the standard dialects: What sort knife? 5.7 Conjunctions In non-standard dialects and is sometimes omitted: go sit, come sit thee down. This is a common phenomenon in American speech, even among educated standard English speakers, e.g., go get it. There are occasional unexpected replacements, such as nor used instead of than; or than, to or while instead of rill: [They are] older nor their wives. L-] thanitoAwhile the sun goes down, s76. SOCIAL VALUES OF SOME PHONOLOGICAL FEATURES One can speak standard English with a local accent, Thus in England one will tell a Northerner ftom a Southerner by their pronunciation and ‘one will also be able to identify a Scotsman, an American or an Indian by the way they pronounce individual sounds, 2s well as by the more general intonation patterns marking their speech. However, certain phonological features are more likely to be associated with lower prestige varieties than others, irrespective of the geographical area under consideration. Classical sociolinguistic studies have focused on such phonological variables, most of them binary, which have various social values associated with them. Parentheses are used to set off sociolinguistic variables — e.g. (ing) — thus distinguishing them formally from the phonemes and phones that represent their realizations in speech, e.g., [1] and [1]. The following are meant only as. illustrations of the social dimension oF pronunciation. 6.1, The English variable (ing) ‘The two realizations of the English variable (ing) are correlated with extralinguistic factors: the socioeconomic statas and gender of the speaker, the formality/informality of the speech situation, its physical location, and the nature of the particular lexical item. The realization of (ing) as [m] tends to be correlated with higher socioeconomic status, female speakers and formal situations. “Academic” words such as analysing, considering arz more likely to be pronounced with [1]. Students themselves tend to use [im] endings more frequently in classroom situations and [m] outside classes. One can also hear the latter more frequently in the pronunciation of pop singers and hardly ever in the interpretation of /ieder, for example. We can conclude that [in] is associated both with non-standard English speakers and with the casual style of standard speech. 6.2. Bay, boat, and the like ‘The standard diphthongal pronunciation is replaced by non-standard monophthongal realizations in various parts of the English-speaking ! | 6.4, The variable significance of rhot Social values world. This may as well be an overall present-day tendency of the English language towards simplifying the pronunciation of diphthongs and triphthongs, a tendency which is associated with “advanced speakers” and which appears side by side with the diphthongal realization in the pronunciation of older, uppermost SES clusters of speakers. 6.3. The variable (th): (three) between “tree” and “free” ‘The pronunciation of () and (6) closer to the alveolar stops [t] and [d] than to the standard interdental fricatives [0] and [d] has been associated with working-class speakers, with African American speakers, as well as with the north-south dialect division in Ireland, where [6] and [3] occur more regularly in Ulster than in the souther varieties of Irish English. The [f]-[v] realizations have also been noticed in mid and final position among Atrican American speakers (something as “sumfin”). All these are also to be found in the speech of foreigners, some of whom may as well pronounce (6) and (8) as [s] and [z]. This final altemative (thing as ‘sing’ or ‘sin") seems to occur only among non-native speakers. ty Apart from the geographic distribution of rhotic (“r-ful”) and non- rhotic (“r-less”) accents (see §4.1 above), the absence of non- prevocalic /r/ now connotes “lower class” in New York, just as its presence may connote for a Londoner “American speech” or “dialect speech”. Historically, variable rhoticity appears to have been “accepted” in England up to the twentieth century and actually still is, depending on region. (See Map 27: ARM) 6.5. RP in the past and today Although RP is a minority accent, it is commonly presented as the prestige pronunciation variety; at the same time, there are millions of people who find it oversophisticated and artificial or who simply ignore it. Occasionally, even “natural” users of RP make efforts to adjust to more “popular” accents. Trudgill estimates that only 3-5% of the English use RP. 2 SES = Socioeconomic status. 59Using English(es) Historically, RP as a regionless accent associated with “the ruling class” dates back to the later nineteenth century. The spoken form of this new ‘good English’ evolved by the end of the nineteenth century into what Daniel Jones in 1917 called ‘Public School Pronunciation’, and in 1925 ‘Received Pronunciation’ (RP), and in terms of pronunciation, grammar, and usage into “Received Standard (English)", Henry Cecil Wyld’s term at the same time Events and processes of this kind, which led in Western Europe to the prominence and spread of the ‘high’ varieties of particular languages, can be broadly described in terms of the six categories: politics, communication,. literature, religion, technology and industrialization. (MCARTHUR 1998: 107) Originally, it seems to have adopted some low-status south-eastern features which “were definitely not conservative upper-class usage and were sometimes considered as ‘vulgar’ (Milroy 2001: 26). For example, the back variety of /a/ and the use of intrusive /1/ were of Cockney origin! Whatever the origin of some of the individual features of RP, its diffusion was ensured through the system of boarding education, particularly in public schools. It thus became “a badge of identity that showed membership of a fairly defined stratum spanning the higher professional and business classes” and also “a guarantee that the speaker could be regarded 2s educated” (MILROY 2001: 20). As the British Empire was at its height and “the old aristocracy was not capable of servicing all the higher administrative needs of the empire” (Mitroy 2001: 27), middle class speakers became conscious of the need for careful speech as a condition — among many — for social and political success. “RP became symbolic of the suitability of an individual for high office”, “one of the most important passports to career preferment and remained so long after the demise of the British Empire” (MILROY 2001: 27, 28). The status of RP has undergone considerable changes since 1960. In his article “Received pronunciation; who ‘receives’ it and how long will it be ‘received"?, James Milroy analyses these changes in a sociolinguistic perspective: 60 Social values ¢ kind of model of language change that we have been advocating Fae snd ot roast ooo would predict that change would cnter RP to (eitcoy & MinRY speakers develop numerous weaktie contacts with ane te ant EF Peace, Although there are still some bastions of sre ere Oe olilch accees Ws restricted, the very noticeable social ce ee nice oes Generally come about since 1960 oF #0 chute changes that have mor’ Sondiviows are present for changes to enter RP, a roe ecriy RD. more rapidly than before ~ to the extent that or what was formerly Be raclalinguistde position that it used to have. Kip le the product of a particular period in British history, during which IRF is the product of eran aeclal and" political’ functions. “As. the sme se that sunponied ite continuance as a high prestige accent Sei a epenti iis uniquely “reeeived" status bas largely disappeared. [-..1 Seen from this point of view, the high status of RP is entirely understandable, and given the social changes and wider access to Gducation in the later twenticth century, the decline of RP as uniquely Statusful is also understandable: the social conditions that maintained it as an influential minority accent have greatly weakened, and as a minority accent it is particularly vulnerable to change or replacement (MILROY 2001: 31, 32) ‘The prediction made by Gimson in 1970 in a discussion of the tendency among some young RP speakers to affect more “popular accents may also be of interest in this context: If this tendency were to become more widespread and permanent, the result could be that, within the next century, RP could become so diluted that it could lose its historic identity and that a new standard with a wider popular and regional base would emerge. (GIMsoNn 1970: 86) Interesting remarks about attitudes to English accents and to RP in particular come from the series of research programmes carried out by the social psychologist Howard Giles and his associates. In his recent article “Received pronunciation. Sociolinguistic aspects”, Peter Trudgill summarises their findings with respect to RP as follows: 61Using English(es) It was apparent from Giles’ work that RP was perceived as being an accent associated, in the absence of information to the contrary, with speakers who were competent, reliable, educated, and confident. It was also perceived as being the most esthetically pleasing of all British English accents. On the other hand, RP speakers scored low on traits like friendliness, companionability, and sincerity, an messages couched in RP also proved to be less persuasive than some messages in local accents. (Notice also that there is a long history in American science fiction and horro: films for sinister, menacing characters to be given RP accents.) (TRUDGHL 2001: 8) To this, Trudgill adds his personal findings. Rather than paraphrase, 1 would — again — quote extensively from the recent article of the eminent sociolinguist and dialectologist: As far as changes in the last twenty years are concerned, we actually, I believe, lack reliable research on most of these issues, but it is a matter of common — and not necessarily reliable — observation that the RP accent is no longer the necessary passport to employment of certain sorts that it once was. Non-RP accents are very much more common on the BBC, for example, than they were forty years ago. And telephone sales companies, as I know from frequent telephone calls from such companies asking for my advice, now think about which regional accents will be most effective rather than automatically employing non-regional RP. Discrimination on the ground of accent still unfortunately occurs in British society. But the discrimination is no longer against ali regional accents but only against those from, as it were, lower down the triangle. And it is also no longer permitted in British society to be seen to discriminate against someone on the basis of their accent — it has to masquerade as something else. I take this hypocrisy to be a sign of progress, of an increase in democratic and egalitarian ideas. This has also, probably, though again we lack the rerscarch, had the consequence than an RP accent can be even more of a disadvantage in certain social situations than was formally the case. In many sections of British society, some of the strongest sanctions are exercised against the people who are perceived as being “posh” and “snobbish”. These factors probably mean that many fewer people than before are now 62 Social values speakers of what Wells (1982) has called acquired RP, that is, many fewer people than before who are not native speakers of RP attempt, as adolescents or adults, to acquire and use this accent. Even Conservative Party politicians no longer have to strive for RP accents, as a recent Conservative Prime Minister once did. (TRUpGILL 2001: 8) Some linguists look upon “Estuary English” (q.v.) as a competitor for RP. Actually, “parallel to the development of a large dialect region centred on London, whose lower middie-class accents have been referred to as ‘Estuary English’, we are seeing the development of similar areas elsewhere [...] focusing on centres such as Belfast, Dublin, Cardiff, Glasgow, Newscastle, Nottingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and Bristol” (TRUDGILL 2001: 12). A pedagogical question arises at this point: is it worth spending so much effort teaching RP to non-native speakers, as we tend to do here, in Romania? Again, Peter Trudgill’s answer may be inspiring. He mentions David Abercrombie’s statement in Problems and Principles in Language Studies that “it would make much more sense on purely phonetic grounds to teach, for example, Scottish pronunciation” and then replies: “my own response to the issue of ‘why teach” RP’ is ‘why not?*. We have, after all, to teach something.” (TRUDGILL 2001: 4). Indeed, RP is still a convenient choice for the EFL teacher as it is, ater all, the most thoroughly described accent. However, if we impressionistically evaluate the tendencies in the speech of young Romanians, whether their teachers expose them to RP or not, we can easily notice the massive orientation towards what is looked upon as “American pronunciation”. One English-speaking empire has fallen. A new English-speaking empire has risen. At present, the political and economic hegemony exercised by the United States has contributed to the increasing popularity and higher status of phonological features that are commonly identified as “American” among the younger generations of EFL speakers, at least in the countries of the former Soviet block. 637. THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE — WHITHER NOW? It is an acknowledged fact that English is the present-day lingua franca of the planet. Some take it as a blessing and others as a form of “linguistic imperialism” but no one can deny the phenomenon, whether they call it International English, World English or Global English, It seems that Grimm’s prediction was closer to reality than Sweet's. (See 4.1.) Since one may speak of different standards at different times (e.g., the standard in the 1890s vs. the standard in the 1990s), at different places (e.g, British English vs. American English) and on different occasions (e.g., apologizing to a friend vs. apologizing to the boss), it is pragmatically appropriate to speak about successful usage. This is, “in short, a matter of combining the rules of grammar and the acceptable meanings of words in a union that takes careful account of the particular context and of our particular relationship with the addressee” (QUIRK 1995: 20) Terminology can be negotiated, grammar differences can be overlooked, and people can still understand each other in English despite differences. There can, however, appear “accent-bars” which may lower the degree of mutual intelligibility between two people coming from different speech communities to such an extent that each may think that he or she is the only speaker of English and the interlocutor is not. In this respect Henry Sweet was not entirely wrong when he predicted the separation of English into “daughter” languages in a hundred years’ time. The newly gained confidence in national values of countries like Australia or Jamaica has naturally changed attitudes to local phonological and lexical features. The fashion of looking up to RP as the ideal pronunciation belongs to the past. With reference to England, Peter Trudgill remarks that “much regional variation is being lost as the large number of Traditional Dialects covering small geographic areas gradually disappear [...]. These, however, are being replaced by a much smaller number of new | | The English language — whither now? Modern Dialect areas covering much larger areas. The dialects and accents associated with these areas are much less different from one another, and much less different from RP and Standard English, than the Traditional Dialects were. However, and this is crucial, in terms of phonology they are for the most part currently diverging, not converging. The work of the European Science Foundation Network on Dialect Divergence and Convergence, which recently had its final conference in Reading, paints a very similar picture world-wide.” (TRUDGILL 2001: 12) Trudgill illustrates this statement with examples taken from urban centres such as Liverpool, Newcastle and Cardiff, where speakers are adopting some of the nationwide features but also demonstrate independent divergent developments (e-g., the merger of the vowels of near and square in Norwich).** He concludes with respect to the convergence-divergence issue that This is probably part of a much larger scale world-wide pattern where varieties of English around the world, while they may demonstrate lexical convergence, ere diverging phonolog:cally: Accents of English from New Zealand to the United States are getting less like one another, not more. (TRUpGIL 2001: 22) ‘The picture is complicated by the variety in the pronunciation of individual sounds and in intonation patterns that are characteristic of ESL and EFL speakers. However, the amount of “meaningless noise” can be reduced, given enough time for verbal contact as well as genuine goodwill and the sincere desire to get communication going. Very often a lot of body language such as big smiles and hand gestures can make up for the imperfection of verbal communication. Apart from that, we can notice how certain phonological features migrate from the “lower prestige” varieties into the casual speech of educated people. A notable example is the realization of the variable 3A similar phenomenon has been described in New Zealand speech. See Margaret A. Mac Lagan & Elizabeth Gordon, “Out of the AIR into the EAR: ‘Another view of the New Zealand diphthong merger’, in Language Variation and Change 1996: 125-47. 65Using English(es) (ing) as /m/. Such forms as gonna, wanna, lets are also worth mentioning, but they would also involve a discussion of grammaticalisation processes in English. In terms of lexis, no one can possibly master the bulk of the English vocabulary or of any language. The lexical set that belongs to the “common core” of World English can be subject to a process of “negotiation” (What is the Scots word for...? What is the technical term for...? What do you call this where you come from?), and thus ‘one can adjust to the more specialised terms of various semantically- restricted domains or to the region- or group-specific lexical items, if necessary. It only takes a few minutes for the international, “regionally neutral”, traveller looking for a toilet to learn that they have washrooms in Canada and restrooms in the US for the purpose. It will take, of course, much longer to get adjusted to the intricacies of some technical vocabulary, for the knowledge of the specific vocabulary is possible only if it is paralleled by an understanding of the “slice of reality” the specific terms refer to. Similar vocabulary enrichment through “negotiation” can be found among speakers coming from different regions of any other language speaking area. My Romanian readers may already have noticed that etaju! inti means “etajul inti’? for an inhabitant of Romania, and “parter” for a Romanian speaker from The Republic of Moldova, a difference that is similar to that between British and American usage. Very often the active use of a term like porwmb does not exclude the passive knowledge of its allonyms, the regionally marked terms popusoi and cucuruz. Mutatis mutandis, this also applies to the speakers of English: they may say /ift, but they also understand the American term e/evator; similarly, they may never use bonnie lass, but they know what this Scottish syntagm means. It is through this “terminological negotiation” that the English lexicon keeps enriching its stock, not only with lexical items picked from the languages of the former British colonies, but from any language that happens to lend one or several of its lexical items to the “international stock” at a particular time (e.g., sputnik, perestroika). Some of the new 66 tania asia The English language — whither now? acquisitions are circumstantial and short-lived, e.g., my former American colleagues who came to Iasi as Fulbright lecturers would include mémdligd and legitimarie in their English conversation shortly after their arrival. Others have entered many other modern languages and form a common basis for occasional mutual intelligibility even among speakers of unrelated languages, particularly in restricted semantic domains. On the other hand, English lexical items have invaded the vocabularies of various other languages and thus contribute to this international common stock. As for the grammar of the English language, the role of linguistic prescriptivism in the imposition of a set of rules as the only legitimate norm “on people who have perfectly serviceable norms of their own” (Kroch & Small 1978: 45) has often been remarked upon. Standard grammar includes rules that have made the prestige variety depart from the commonsensical rules of natural dialect speech (e.g., the ase of shall and will, the complex rules for disjunctive questions, the use of any, no and their compounds in negative sentences, and, generally, the ban on “double negation” in Standard English). This accounts for the fact that an impressive number of features that are described by specialists as specific to English English dialects can also be identified in other regional and social varieties throughout the English-speaking, world (and occasionally in the interlanguage of some EFL learners) and they form an “international” set of features defining “non-standard English speech”, e.g., the tendency towards regularising the present tense verb paradigm (see 3.1.2), omission of the copula, verb form levelling, multiple negation, disjunctive question levelling, double modals (see 5.2), regular reflexive pronouns, the use of them for “those” and the omission of relative pronouns in subject position (See 53). Some of these features have begun to find their way (back?) into spoken, colloquial, relaxed forms of speech among educated speakers of a standard form of English. They may in time become “accepted” at higher levels of formality. 67Using Englishes) In support of this idea, let us remember that the use of who for whom and, later, of the postposition of prepositions and the corresponding omission of the relative pronouns functioning as objects came about naturally in everyday speech but met with resistance among British educators and purists. This resistance was mocked at in the famous retort “This is the kind of English up with which I cannot put? ascribed to Winston Churchill. In similar ways, the rule for the shall/vill distinction, introduced by cighteenth-century grammarians and diffused and maintained through education in England, never gained solid ground in the US or Ireland. At present, the “American” forms prevail even in British English use. Such examples demonstrate that the natural dynamism of language is stronger than the inflexibility of rules and that standard varieties are no exception, despite the slower rhythm in the dynamics of change within @ standard variety in general and within its grammar in particular. In this respect let me resume part of a quotation rom Trudgill in 6.5 above: And it is also no longer permitted in British society to be seen to discriminate against someone on the basis of their accent (Trudgill 2001: 8). (Emphasis and italics added — R.A.) The use of shey and them as sex-neutral personal pronouns and of their(s) as a sex-neutral possessive pronoun/adjective for the third- Person singular, particularly co-referential with impersonal or generic forms like somebody, everybody, one, may have been enhanced by the feminist. movement. “PC” supporters have debated over such co- referential forms as he, he or she, she or he and even the artificial and short-lived written form s/he. The they solution seems to have brought peace in this dispute. *° Colin Yallop Gn HALLIDAY ET AL 2004: 39) mentions that the witti to Churchill (quoted by Yallop as “this a form of pedantry up with which I a will not put”) came as a reaction to such pronouncements as “a preposition is a bad word to end a sentence with” (2). 68 The English ianguage ~ whither now? Similarly, one notices the increasing relaxation in the use of would forms in conditional clauses (e.g., [/ 1 would have known, I would have told you), the re-creation of second-person plural forms of personal pronouns (such as you ali/y'all, you guys, you ‘uns as well as the form youse, which has a wider geographic distribution), the frequency of past tense forms with present perfect meanings (e.g., Did you read “Hamlet”?), and the general “descent” along the formality scale towards the colloquial zone, all of them particularly in the speech of Americans, educated Americans included. Are they going to “contaminate” other English standards as well? Or, perhaps, have they already done so?” This and many other questions related to present-day tendencies in the use of English that may determine the future shape(s) or even the future fate of a language that has been subject to a long and varied hybridization process in different parts of the world cannot and are not to be answered here. Rather, these lines are an invitation to personal observation and reflection concerning the various facets of today’s and tomorrow’s English. Chambers (2000: 12) offers a short 1 vernaculars share throughout the English-speaking world: = (mg), unstressed final as in walking and something, with standard [1] inct from vernacular [511]. >), or final consonant cluster simplification, with standard fist or hand di from vernacular fis’ or han’ final obstruent devoicing, with standard had or bid distinct from vernacular forms in which they are hamophonous with hat or = default singulars, with standard forms like They were going distinct from vernacular forms like They was going. multiple negation, with standard forms like He didn't want any apples dis:inet from vernacular forms like He didn't want no apples. + verbal adjectives, with standard forms like /e is very big distinct from vernacular forms like He very big. 69cs ll TERMINOLOGICAL GLOSSARYUsing English(es) A AAVE African American Vernacular English See BLACK ENGLISH, EBONICS. ABORIGINAL ENGLISH The “set of terms which is mostly used by [Australian] Aborigines and which relate to their attitudes and concerns, made up partly of standard English words like business and clever, which have been given new meanings, partly of Australian pidgin words which have outlived the stigma attaching to a contact language, and partly of words originating in Aboriginal languages, especially words like koori, which manifest a pride in Aboriginality” (GODDEL et al 1996: 216; source: RAMSON 1988) ‘The Pre-European peoples of Australia, known as Australian Aborigenes ( daddy wants); tongue or as a second language. (See Maps 19 and 20.) The sub-varieties of English as mother-tongue in Australia share many | features with those in Britain. Class and regional differences are fewer than in the UK or the USA. Broad Australian seems to be derived from a mixture of Southern and Midland British accents. Many Aboriginal Australians speak both an Aboriginal mother tongue and an f i r i ‘ ‘ dropping unstressed syllables (good bye => bye/bye-bye). All this English-derived pidgin. Some have adopted a creole English as their suggests that adults with no knowledge of one anothers talle hace mother tongue. | arrived at much the same linguistic formulas. ; Some of the words that the English-speaking settlers borrowed from the languages of the Aboriginal peoples and that are now part of the international stock are: boomerang, dingo, kangarco, koala, wombat. See ABORIGINAL ENGLISH, AUSTRALIAN PIDGIN BACK SLANG A form of slang where words are reversed. English back slang tends to reverse words letter by letter while French backward slang tends to reverse words by syllables. Back slang evolved in England. One of the places it flourished was in butcher shops, where it allowed the butcher to order his assistant to bring out the old piece of meat for this customer. A word was coded by writing it backwards and trying to make a sensible pronunciation, although certain sounds like “th” didn’t actually get reversed, and extra AUSTRALIAN PIDGIN The language of contact between European settlers and Aboriginals, “used particularly in the earlier part of the nineteenth century and now largely obsolete” (GRADDOL et al 1996: 216). 78 79Using English(es) vowels were inserted as necessary. In some cases, syllables were added or dropped, vowel sounds modified, or a single letter, such as "h". became pronounced, e.g., beemal for lamb, cool for look, dello for old. namesciop for policeman. Syn.: backwards slang. BAHAMIAN ENGLISH The language of the Bahamas (islands placed between the Caribbean and the southern USA), a former British colony, independent since 1973. The varieties spoken in the Bahamas range from standard US usage through non-standard usages to a creolised English sharing features with US Black English and Caribbean creoles. BALANCED BILINGUALISM “Very strong (almost equal) command of two languages” (SPOLSKY 1998: 121). BARBADIAN ENGLISH ‘The varieties of English spoken in Barbados, one of the Lesser Antilles, a former British territory, independent since 1966. The standard variety is increasingly influenced by US norms. “Bajan” shares lexical features with Caribbean creoles. BASIC ENGLISH A reduced and simplified form of English meant to facilitate teaching and learning, created in the 1930s by C.K. Ogden. It consisted of 850 English words (600 “things”, 150 “qualities” and 100 “operators”, which included 16 full verbs and two modals, may and will) and a number of very simple rules (e.g., all plurals were formed by adding —s; comparatives and superlatives were formed by using more and most: adverbs were formed by adding —Iy to “qualifiers”. Since the outcome was unnatural, Ogden’s attempt failed. See ARTIFICIAL LANGUAGE. BASILECT ‘The idealization of the variety that deviates most extensively from the acrolect; the variety associated with the lowest social class (WELLS 1982a: 18); the “broadest” form of creole (PETYT 1980: 187). Often referred to as broken English, dialect, the talk, raw talk, patois etc. See also ACROLECT and MESOLECT. 80 Glossary BBE See BRITISH BLACK ENGLISH BES Bilingual English Speaker (q.v.). BEV Black English Vernacular. See BLACK ENGLISH, BICULTURALISM ‘The ability of an individual to display two sets of rules for appropriate communicative behaviour, that is, to change not only language codes but also ways of speaking and acting, including greeting forms, timing between questions and responses, and nonverbal behaviour. Like bilingualism, and unlike diglossia and dinomia, the term refers to individual distribution BILINGUAL ENGLISH SPEAKER (BES) In Jennifer Jenkins’ terminology, a proficient user of English and at least ‘one other language, regardless of the order in which the languages were leamed (JENKINS 2003: 83). BILINGUALISM The ability of an individual — or of the individuals of a speech community (q.v.) — to speak two (or more) languages with comparable accuracy. It has been statistically estimated that about half the world population is bilingual (Grosjean 1982: vii, mentioned in MESTHRIE 2000: 38) and that there are about thirty times as many languages-as there are countries (Romaine 1989b: 8). BISLAMA An English-based pidgin spoken in Vanuatu, in the South Pacific BLACK AMERICAN ENGLISH See BLACK ENGLISH; AAVE, EBONICS, GULLAH. BLACK ENGLISH Also called Black American English, African American English. 81