Error or Feature? The Issue of Interlanguage and ...lc.hkbu.edu.hk/book/pdf/v14_05.pdf ·...

HKBU Papers in Applied Language Studies Vol. 14, 2010

Error or Feature? The Issue of Interlanguage and Deviations in Non-Native Varieties of English

Julie Groves Hong Kong Baptist University

Abstract

The unprecedented spread of English globally into second- and foreign-language contexts has required new paradigms for classification, research and teaching. Some of the issues raised involve questions of which norms to use in an emerging ‘new Englishes’ variety – ‘standard’ English or evolving local models? If local norms are adopted, who defines these, and how should they be determined? This paper presents a synthesis of the literature relevant to these issues. The review first discusses both the characteristics and the consequences of this diffusion of English throughout the world, and presents a theoretical framework for the usage of these ‘World Englishes’. The application of the construct of interlanguage to the development of non-native English varieties is then examined. The review finishes with discussing when a linguistic deviation from a standard norm should be considered an error to be eradicated or a feature of the new variety to be accepted. Recommendations for future research, and implications for pedagogy will also be covered.

1. Introduction It is well-known that the English language has unprecedentedly become by far the most important international language, as well as the most common second or

Groves: Error or Feature?

109

foreign language learned around the world. Estimates earlier this century (Bolton, 2004) put the number of first-language users at around 375 million, and the total for second and foreign language users at over 1,000 million, with the number of English users in Asia alone now totalling over 600 million people. As Platt, Weber and Lian (1984) express it, “the spread of English to so many parts of the world and the increase in the number of those learning it and using it has been the most striking example of ‘language expansion’ this century if not in all recorded history. It has far exceeded that other famous case, the spread of Latin during the Roman Empire” (p. 1). The increasingly fast pace of change and resultant variation in the status, functions and features of English in diverse non-Western multilingual settings around the world has raised many sociolinguistic, linguistic, literary and pedagogical issues which have important ramifications both for research and teaching. One of the issues concerns the question of which norms to refer to in the education system: the exonormative (external) norms already imposed and originally imported by native speakers, or the endonormative (internal) standards that have evolved naturally as a result of ongoing language contact and use of the new variety in multicultural settings? On the one hand, there have been increasing calls that “the teaching of English be made to reflect local identities and incorporate local as well as worldwide norms” (Bruthiaux, 2003, p. 161). In some areas, such as Singapore, the Philippines and Nigeria, this shift is largely underway and endonormative standards are by-and-large being used in the education system (Kachru, 1986; Kirkpatrick, 2007). On the other hand, this implementation has not been without much opposition, and there are many other places where this idea does not seem to be welcome, including Hong Kong, where local idiosyncratic features tend to be evaluated negatively against a backdrop of discourse of ‘falling English standards’.


110

Much of this discussion hinges initially on the recognition and acceptance of emerging autonomous varieties of English, which itself has been highly influenced by certain Second Language Acquisition (SLA) paradigms such as interlanguage and fossilization (Selinker, 1972; Kachru, 1994). In spite of the research and literature presented to date in these areas, this relationship does not appear to be widely understood. This paper is therefore a synthesis of the current literature relating to these topics. Its main purpose is to revisit the construct of interlanguage in relationship to the issue of how deviations from standard norms should be defined in these new non-native varieties of English. The article first reviews both the characteristics and the consequences of this diffusion of English throughout the world, and presents a theoretical framework for the study of these new Englishes, which according to B. B. Kachru (1985a) present a novel situation that calls for new paradigms. In the light of this framework, the application of the construct of interlanguage to the development of non-native English varieties is then reviewed. Implications for pedagogy at tertiary level will also be discussed, and recommendations made for future research in this area.

2. New Contexts and Models for ‘World Englishes’ One of the most remarkable developments of the twentieth century was the unexpected and fast-paced expansion of the functions and acquisition of English around the world. Y. Kachru and Smith (2008) make a case for dividing this global spread into a total of four diaspora, rather than the traditional two. Beginning with being the language of only one small nation, English first expanded over the rest of the British Isles, then secondly crossed the seas to North America, Australia and New Zealand, where local languages were supplanted in each case. The third diaspora was largely to colonized countries


111

such as India, Nigeria, Singapore, and the Philippines, where English became an institutionalized second language. The fourth, more recent diaspora has been to countries like China, Japan, Korea, Brazil, Germany, and Saudi Arabia among others, who use English mainly as a foreign or international language. An important point to note is that, in contrast to the mainly monolingual contexts of the nations of the earlier first and second spreads of English (the ‘Old Englishes’, according to Foley, 1988), the third and fourth diaspora were to complex multilingual societies (resulting in the ‘New Englishes’, in contrast to the term ‘World Englishes’ which encompasses both ‘old’ and ‘new’ varieties, McKay & Bokhorst-Heng, 2008). The most notable aspect of this unparalleled spread is that since mid-last century, English has rapidly been growing roots in formerly foreign contexts, and becoming localized as an additional or alternative language in diverse multilingual and multicultural settings (Kachru, 1985a; Schneider, 2003). It is also necessary to realise that new linguistic ecologies have arisen that vary widely from place to place. As each transplanted non-native variety of English has come into contact with other languages and cultures in different ways, this has resulted in both nativization (impact of the native languages and culture on the local English variety) and Englishization (influence of English on the local varieties) (Kachru, 1992) in multiple locations at the same time. One consequence of this escalating diffusion of English has been an increasing pluricentality, with deviations from native speaker norms becoming a central feature of non-native varieties of English. In Foley’s words (1988, p. xii), English is “acquiring various international identities and thus acquiring multiple ownership” (p. xii). This phenomenon has led B. B. Kachru (1985a), among others, to adopt the new plural term ‘Englishes’ in place of the usually-uncountable term ‘English.’


112

It has also led him to propose a new paradigm for conceptualizing the expansion and localization of ‘World Englishes’. His idea was that the spread of English could “be viewed in terms of three concentric circles representing the types of spread, the patterns of acquisition and the functional domains in which English is used across cultures and languages” (Kachru, 1985a, p. 12). He names these the Inner Circle, the Outer Circle, and the Expanding Circle. The ‘Inner Circle’refers to native-English-speaking countries such as the UK, North America, New Zealand and Australia – the ‘settler colonies’ of Britain, who use English as their primary language. These are norm-providing, or in other words, endocentric. These are traditionally the areas that are looked to for English norms by the countries in the other two circles. Next, as a broad generalization, the ‘Outer Circle’ includes those countries, mostly in Africa or Asia, where English was spread as a second language through colonization. B. B. Kachru calls these institutionalized varieties, as English has official status and functions. These outer circle varieties have undergone some acculturation and nativization, already have a creative literature in their variety of English, and are the most conscious of a conflict between idealized linguistic norms and actual linguistic behaviour. In some of these countries, such as Nigeria, Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines, autonomous varieties of English have been recognized recently, hence these are termed norm-developing countries. The ‘Expanding Circle’ refers to those nations where English has the status of a foreign language, such as China, Japan, Thailand, Taiwan, Egypt and Korea. These are norm-dependent, or exocentric, generally looking to ‘standard English’ for their norms. There is no official role for English in these countries in these societies, and the use of English is generally restricted to limited, formal domains such as science and education.


113

Therefore according to this model the users don’t as yet have a consciousness of having formed their own variety of English. However, globalization is causing the expanding circle to broaden and deepen nowadays much more quickly than anticipated, so the picture is quickly becoming much more diverse (Kirkpatrick, 2007). Schneider (2003) notes that “the most vigorous expansion and developments of the language can be observed in Outer and Expanding Circle countries” (pp. 129-130).

3. Interlanguage versus New English variety Interlanguage (IL) was a concept first defined by Larry Selinker in 1972. Since then it has had a great influence on the manner in which SLA research has been conducted and the results interpreted, so it is important to note how it relates to the realities of these emerging non-native varieties of English. An IL “can be defined as the language of the learner” (Davies, 1989, p. 460), “a point on the way to a full natural language” (Davies, 1989, p. 461); a development process involving the “learner’s systematic approximations toward the target language” (Davies, 1989, p. 448). In other words, an interlanguage is a temporary language system which falls short of a complete language. Success in SLA is defined in terms of developing through these IL learner stages, and reaching native speaker competence; “productive performance in the TL [Target Language] by the second language learner which is identical to that produced by the native speaker of that TL” (Selinker, 1974, p. 43). Note that in the very definition of IL, the idea of norms being provided and judged by native speakers of the inner circle is taken for granted. Therefore taken literally, any time a learner does not master a particular native variety of English, his/her


114

English should be labelled an IL (Jenkins, 2009). In the situation of new non-native Englishes, the concept of IL is then generalized to whole groups of speakers who do not reach ‘target native language’ norms. In Selinker’s (1972) words, “Not only can entire IL competences be fossilized in individual learners performing in their own interlingual situation, but also in whole groups of individuals, resulting in the emergence of a new dialect (here Indian English), where fossilized IL competences may be the normal situation” (p. 38). Little space is given for the recognition of linguistic innovation; deviations are naturally interpreted as errors, and any distinctive features attributed to ‘first language interference’. Consequently non-native varieties of English have sometimes been referred to as ‘interference varieties’ (Kachru, 1986). In this way, any societal deviations from native speaker norms are automatically defined negatively, which is very problematic in an outer or expanding circle setting where it has already been noted that nativization naturally leads to deviations from original norms. The idea of ‘interlanguage’ was very useful and appropriate in the original context in which it was introduced, that of second language learners of English inside a native-speaking (Inner Circle) country. However many World Englishes scholars1 warn of a ‘monolingual bias’ in SLA research, which has lead researchers to neglect objective research of the newly emerging indigenous varieties of English. Yamuna Kachru (1994, p. 413) observes that this is partly because data for SLA research has been drawn from a wide variety of settings, including inner circle contexts, which have remained undifferentiated in analysis. As a result, she complains that ‘the evidence available on the acquisition and use of a second or additional language from research on world varieties of English has been either ignored in SLA-related literature, normalized as supporting the IL hypothesis, or mentioned only very briefly,’ and she calls for


115

reevaluating some of the key tenets of SLA to incorporate a bi-/multilingual perspective. Apart from the above circular reasoning that new second-language varieties of English should be equated with interlanguages, these scholars point out a number of other theoretical problems in making the comparison. Both Davies (1989) and Mufwene (2001) explain that the notion of interlanguage cannot be used to describe new societal varieties of English, on the basis that interlanguages are individual phenomena, accounting for individual variation, whereas new varieties of English are societal, based on a communal norm. Davies goes on further to explain that IL is a psycholinguistic construct, whereas English as an International Language (EIL) is a sociolinguistic construct.2 Davies (1989) also elaborates that while both EIL and IL include reduction in some way, EIL involves a reduction in (sociolinguistic) function, while IL involves a reduction in (linguistic) form. The two concepts are therefore not compatible. Additionally, the instability of an interlanguage cannot be compared with the relative ongoing stability of indigenous varieties of English (Sridhar & Sridhar, 1986). Another, more practical problem is that the IL concept assumes there is sufficient native speaker input available to learners to allow full acquisition of the target native norm, and therefore suggests that a learner is in some kind of intermediate acquisitional stage toward becoming native or native-like; however in many cases, the norm a speaker is aiming for may not be a native norm as such, but a localized indigenized variety3. There is also the presumption that the ideal motivation for SLA is ‘integrative’, i.e. “one that involves admiration for the native speakers of the language and a desire to become a member of their culture” (Jenkins 2003, p. 84, adapted from Sridhar & Sridhar, 1992, pp. 93-4), an idea which


116

is clearly not the aim of most second language learners in the outer or expanding circles, where English is taking on new localized identities and roles, and where few English users expect to rub shoulders with Inner Circle speakers on a regular basis. Davies (1989) adds to these discrepancies two more contextual factors: institutionalized varieties of English do not fossilize at a functionally unacceptable level, and neither do they have externally imposed functions. Likewise, Y. Kachru (1994) argues that it a construct such as IL is irrelevant in situations “in which a second or an additional language has definite societal roles in the linguistic repertoire of its users” (p. 414). Jenkins (2003, quoting in Sridhar & Sridhar, 1992) echoes this, that “the SLA process can [not] be studied without reference to the functions which the L2 will serve for the learner in his/her community” (pp. 93-94). B. B. Kachru (1983a) explains that “Indianisms in Indian English are, then linguistic manifestations of pragmatic needs for appropriate language use in a new linguistic and cultural context” (p. 2), an observation that could be generalized to other locations such as English in Hong Kong. Thus the differences in contexts and functions between monolingual and multilingual settings does not play a minor role. Coming from another perspective, Mufwene (2001) points out that it is not only second-language learners that acquire English imperfectly and produce ‘interlanguages.’ He believes that the role of contact – contact not just of non-English languages but also of different kinds of English dialects – is primary, and has been downplayed in the historic development of the different varieties of native English. Other languages preceded English in England and so even the British varieties of English have been influenced by local languages and cultures, with many features originally derived from Latin, Greek, French,


117

Germanic and Anglo-Saxon forms. The same is true for the imported inner circle varieties – American, Australian and New Zealand varieties all came into contact with and were impacted both by variant British dialects as well as local languages and cultures. It is not just non-native varieties such as Indian English that exhibit ‘interlanguage’ features; all Englishes reflect the backgrounds of all the people who have ever used it (Kachru & Smith, 2008). In fact the main difference between the present-day ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ varieties seems only to be length of time of existence, and therefore recognition and acceptance – all the ‘Old English’ varieties have ultimately completed a nativization process similar to that in progress in non-native contexts today (Kirkpatrick, 2007) – and historically at some stage each one has been embroiled in the same conflicts about language deficiencies, falling standards, language corruption, etc, that the emerging Outer and Expanding Circle varieties are now undergoing. We simply cannot expect that any kind of language contact will not lead to linguistic divergence, and should not be surprised to find these same phenomena occurring in a locality such as Hong Kong. Furthermore, it must be remembered that linguistic change is a natural process, occurring over time even when no language contact is involved (Mufwene, 2001). One simple example will suffice to illustrate this simple but powerful truth: the English subject-verb agreement system, which used to have many different inflections, has become less complex over time as people found that a simpler system met their communicative needs adequately. Nowadays our legacy is a subject-verb agreement system which only inflects for the third person singular ending. Furthermore, in some of the New Englishes, the third person singular plural marking already seems to be in the process of being dropped (Platt, Weber & Ho, 1984), and this is just one of the trends towards modification of the existing standards happening in New Englishes today. Putting


118

it another way, “Languages are quasi-organic entities. They evolve, change and die like other more biological organisms” (Laver & Roukens, 1996, p. 7). Therefore, variation in any setting is unavoidable (Gonzalez, 1983); “it is both natural and inevitable for varieties of the same language to develop differently over time in different localities and communities” (Hung, 2009).

4. Error or Feature? Of course, regardless of the acquisition setting, there will still be many genuine mistakes made by learners during the journey to acquiring greater communicative proficiency. The next question to ask, then, is in these developing new contexts, how do we determine the difference between an error and a genuine innovation? Gonzalez (1983), discussing the same question relating to Philippine English some years ago, commented that there was no one simple solution. The literature on the whole generally agrees that this is a partially subjective judgment, depending partly on the depth of usage and social acceptance of a particular form, as well as on the source of the form. Bamgbose (1998) highlights codification and social acceptance as the most important factor, as these provide agreed-upon standards that can be used in teaching and learning. One must bear in mind that there never has been a central, norm-providing institute for English (for instance, as with French). Its standard forms have largely been determined by actual usage, then encoded in dictionaries and other reference works, which in turn have helped to give them authenticity in the eyes of the public. And as McArthur (2001) remarks, “if there can be two national standards within one English, there can in principle be more than two” (p. 104). Thus Bamgbose argues that the dearth of codification is a major reason for the continued use of


119

exonormative (external) standards in new English varieties, and believes that codification should be the main priority at the moment. Chow (2001) illustrates this with the example of Australian English, reporting that the recognition of that variety was closely connected with the production of the Macquarie Dictionary which listed unique Australian items. In other words, it is ultimately the attitudes of the users, largely determined by codification, that determine the status of a variant form. Other writers, such as Gupta (1994) and Davies (1989) also highlight this important aspect of prestige, and note that it could be a problematic factor in the classification of new Englishes, and therefore by extension, in the selection of realistic and socially appropriate norms. Hung (2009), referring specifically to Hong Kong English (HKE), offers a rule-of-thumb which has also been suggested by Gonzalez (1983), Y. Kachru and Smith (2008) and Lowenberg (1992): that if a non-standard form “is commonly found throughout the whole spectrum of HKE speakers, including both high and low proficiency speakers, then … it would make more sense to call it a feature of HKE rather than an ‘error’.” He states that: “The question is whether everything in HKE which ‘deviates’ from ‘standard English usage’ (however defined) should be regarded as an ‘error’. What I’m interested in are genuine, distinctive ‘features’ of HKE, which are characteristic of HKE in general and not just low-proficiency users. They are a reflection of local culture and identity, and (in a broader sense) of the creativity of language.” He adds that this question can only be satisfactorily answered with the help of corpus data. Gonzalez (1983) confirms this in his own study of Philippine English, noting that ‘local features of pronunciation and grammar which have become common are no longer construed as errors, but have become legitimized features of Philippine English’ (Tay, 1991, p. 324). In this regard, Llamzon (1969) and Petzold (2002) both stress the role of the


120

‘educated elite’ in setting the linguistic standards in a community. Schneider (2007) concurs, that “from a strictly linguistic perspective, it would make sense to establish the careful usage of the educated members of a society as the target and as an indigenous language norm” (p. 18), suggesting that future research should focus on these users as being representative of the society as a whole. Lowenberg (1992) and B. B. Kachru (1983b) add further explanation by focusing on the linguistic processes that produce the new form. An error is due to random processes, whereas a true innovation “is the result of a productive process which marks the typical variety-specific features; and it is systematic within a variety, and not idiosyncratic. There is thus an explanation for each deviation within the context of situation” (Kachru, 1983b, p. 120). Gisborne (2009) explains that “the properties of the emerging new Englishes can be understood in terms of a selection of a number of grammatical features from a feature pool in the ecology” (p. 150). Relating this to Hong Kong English, he notices that there are systematic transfers from the substrate (local dialect – Cantonese). Joseph (1997) likewise argues cogently that local standards are solidifying in HKE, noting that Hong Kongers’ deviations from standard English follow regularly recurring patterns due to the influence of Cantonese. As Gupta (1994) summarizes succinctly, many features probably originate in learners’ ‘mistakes’ due to transfer processes, but then stabilize over time, so it is no longer appropriate to regard them as simply learner errors. To summarize, for a deviation to be considered a feature of a new variety, it must firstly have the prestige of its users (generally helped by codification), secondly, it must be used by the bulk of speakers, and thirdly, it must be systematic, due to the influence of the speech community’s first language(s) and culture. As mentioned previously, it is the prestige factor that


121

usually lags behind and perpetuates an endonormative outlook, even when in fact a functionally adequate local variety has come to be widely used throughout a society. As B. B. Kachru (1983b) comments, “The problem is that even when the non-native models of English are linguistically identifiable, geographically definable, and functionally valuable, they are still not necessarily attitudinally acceptable” (p. 124). Thus in the development of any variety, there is a period of time that B. B. Kachru (1983b) terms ‘linguistic schizophrenia’, when linguistic attitudes (being exonormative in orientation) do not match up with linguistic behaviour (being endonormative in practice). This is a phenomenon noted by the various scholars who have posited dynamic models for the development of new varieties of English (e.g. Kachru, 1992; Moag, 1982; Schneider, 2003, 2007). In short, according to these models, in every society where English has been transplanted, there is a period of time when competing norm orientations are likely to co-exist, a phase when the speech community holds both to ‘overt’ prestigious external norms and ‘covert’ local solidarity norms at the same time. However these development models all also uniformly predict that in the long term, barring unexpected events or language policy changes, speech communities will ultimately move on to determining their own norms (Schneider, 2003). The only unknown factor is the exact length of time it will take for this process to happen. Therefore we can add a fourth ‘ingredient’ here to distinguish between an error and a feature: the passing of time. As Schneider (2007) points out, the process of regional standards arising and being acknowledged can take generations or even longer, and acceptance of the local variety as a classroom model is one of the last steps in this process (Kirkpatrick, Deterding & Wong, 2008). B. B. Kachru (1983b) noted that by late last century, several of the outer circle institutionalized


122

varieties of English in Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia or the Philippines had already either gone a considerable way through or had already passed this stage. However other areas, such as Hong Kong, tend to hold more conservative attitudes and there may still be a significant way to go before such varieties become socially favoured and can be used as a pedagogic model (Jenkins, 2003).

5. Further Discussion and Recommendations Thus far we have seen that the spread of English into largely non-Western multilingual areas and its resultant diversification (“a pedagogue’s nightmare and a variationist’s delight”, Kachru, 1985b, p. 208) has necessitated new paradigms for teaching and research. This fact that the non-native speakers outside the traditional Inner Circle are systematically innovating and ultimately determining their own local norms for their variety of English has major ramifications for the teaching of English, especially at tertiary level, and also for any native English speakers who will be working or travelling in Outer or Expanding Circle countries for any period of time. With these points in mind, this article makes a number of recommendations. The first two recommendations concern pedagogy in the tertiary classroom. A flexible attitude is of primary importance. As Davies (1989) concludes, there is no one ‘right’ model for teaching English; just the most appropriate one considering the local sociolinguistic situation. Therefore it is recommended that when any variant items come to the fore in the classroom, both forms (‘standard’ and local) should be explicitly pointed out in the classroom (Hung, 2009). This means that monolingual teachers need to be aware of the preference for and usage of certain variants in their particular context, how they vary from


123

‘standard English’ (currently defined usually as RP or GA), and their possible future acceptance as a new feature of the variety. Conversely, local teachers need to know when their usage varies from the British or American standards. These differences also need to be taken into account when tests are designed (Lowenberg, 1992). Additionally, teachers need to raise students’ awareness of the features and functions of English globally. Ideally learners should be exposed to a variety of Englishes, both from inside and outside the Inner Circle, in order to enhance their ability to process different varieties of English (McKay & Bokhorst-Heng, 2008). This also holds true for Inner Circle speakers themselves, especially those travelling abroad; all English speakers, native or non-native, need to develop sensitivity to other varieties of English (Y. Kachru & Smith, 2008). The next recommendation regards the choice of English teacher for a multilingual context. In most parts of the world, Hong Kong being no exception, the monolingual teacher has reigned supreme, supposedly representing the idealized native speaker norm to students. However the learners are developing their own variety of English regardless of the good intentions of educators – and then being judged to be inferior by comparison. This article echoes Andy Kirkpatrick’s (2007) conclusion, that it would be more advantageous to employ as teachers multilinguals who can understand the language from both perspectives, who have already experienced and understand the process of language acquisition in the context of complex multilingual settings, and who can provide a more realistic model for their students. Finally, much more research awaits to be undertaken in order to ascertain the emerging features of the new varieties of World English. This research must take care to survey usage of the educated members of a society in order to be representative of


124

the speech of the whole community. Ideally these features, once determined, should be codified. Sociolinguistic research should not be neglected either; Benson (1997) reminds us that linguists have a responsibility to provide accurate assessments of both linguistic and sociolinguistic aspects of language varieties, including societal attitudes. Ultimately, appropriate and successful implementation of language policies, particularly concerning language in education, hinges on these.

6. Conclusion This article has raised several issues brought about by the changing sociolinguistic situation vis-à-vis world English varieties. To summarize, the all-important point captured in Kachru’s three concentric circles paradigm is that ‘the form and function of new Englishes must be considered according to ‘the context of situation which is appropriate to the variety, its uses and users,’ rather than being ‘characterized in terms of acquisitional inadequacy, or be[ing] judged by the norms of English in Inner Circle countries’ (B.B. Kachru, 1983b, p. 215). Thus to describe English varieties worldwide, the term World Englishes is favoured, as it attempts to place all varieties of English on par with each other without any one being a referent point. McKay and Bokhorst-Heng (2008, p. 128) conclude that ‘the World Englishes paradigm thus stresses the pluricentric nature of English: as a result of its spread and contact with indigenous languages, English has acquired many centres from which norms and innovations are created’. B.B. Kachru (1992) cautions that this new pluricentrality must be considered in both theoretical and applied research. He comments (B.B. Kachru, 1996, p. 75): ‘The attitudinal connotations of “interference,” again, show the extension of a monolingual paradigm to contexts of contact. This attitude


125

continues, in spite of the recognition that “interference varieties” are so widespread in a community and of such long standing that they may be thought stable and adequate enough to be institutionalized and hence to be regarded as varieties of English in their own right rather than stages on the way to a more native-like English.’ In the light of the above, this paper has reviewed the literature relevant to the question of when an item which deviates from a standard English norm should be considered an error or a feature of an emerging variety such as Hong Kong English. It is easy to see that while the interlanguage construct may be appropriate for learners fully immersed in native speaker contexts, it leads to somewhat circular arguments regarding to norms when applied outside this context. In short, if any variant form or item is both systematic, pervasive and accepted by its users, it should be considered a new feature rather than simply an example of interlanguage or of first language interference. However, relatively little research into the features of new varieties has been undertaken to date, and attitudes in some places remain relatively conservative. Therefore, as the process of the emergence and acceptance of new norms takes some time, it is likely that in many places such as Hong Kong, the question of error versus feature and which norms to adhere to, will be a subject of debate for quite some time to come. Notes 1 For instance, Sridhar & Sridhar (1986), Foley (1988), Brutt-Griffler (2002), Y. Kachru (1994), B. B. Kachru (1996). 2 When pressed, Selinker (1974, p. 51, footnote 15) himself admitted that from a sociolinguistic point of view the new second- and foreign-language varieties of English such as Indian English, Filipino English, etc, should be excluded from the typical IL situation. However he went on to say he believed that from the psychological perspective the idealizations are identical in all cases.


126

3 This may not be a conscious decision on behalf of the learner, but in most contexts where English is institutionalized as a second language, this can not be avoided. In a situation where the vast majority of teachers at every level of schooling are locally-trained, speaking a variety of English laced with local features, very few English learners have more than minimal, if any, contact with native-English speakers. Consequently the indigenous model is naturally perpetuated, despite the good intentions of educators to nurture native speaker standards. References Bamgbose, A. (1998). Torn between the norms: Innovations in world Englishes.

World Englishes, 17(1), 1-14. Benson, P. (1997). Language rights and the medium-of-instruction issue in Hong

Kong. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 1-21. Retrieved 22 Feb, 2007, from: http://sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/5/500025.pdf.

Bolton, K. (2004). World English. In K. Bolton, & B. B. Kachru (Eds.), World Englishes:

Critical concepts in linguistics: Vol. 1 (pp. 186-216). London: Routledge. Bruthiaux, P. (2003). Squaring the circles: Issues in modeling English worldwide.

International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 159-178. Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002). World English: A study of its development. Clevedon, UK:

Multilingual Matters Chow, P. M. S. (2001). The study of Hong Kong English vocabulary, with particular

reference to the study of official and political discourse in the HKSAR. Master’s thesis, University of Hong Kong.

Davies, A. (1989). Is international English an interlanguage? TESOL Quarterly, 23(3),

447-467. Foley, J. (Ed.). (1988). New Englishes: The case of Singapore. Singapore: Singapore

University Press. Gisborne, N. (2009). Aspects of the morphosyntactic typology of Hong Kong English.

English World-Wide, 30(2), 149-169. Gonzalez, A. (1983). When does an error become a feature of Philippine English? In

R. B. Noss (Ed.), Varieties of English in Southeast Asia: Selected papers from the RELC Seminar on Varieties of English and their Implications for English Language Teaching in Southeast Asia: Vol. 11 (pp. 50-172). Singapore: Singapore University Press.


127

Gupta, A. F. (1994). The step-tongue: Children’s English in Singapore. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Hung, T. (2009, May 17). Hong Kong English or Language Error? Message posted to Language Learning Forum of Language Centre of HKBU at http://lc.hkbu.edu.hk/sall/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3

Jenkins, J. (2003). World Englishes: A resources book for students. London & New York:

Routledge. Jenkins, J. (2009). Exploring attitudes towards English as a lingua franca in the East

Asian context. In K. Murata, & J. Jenkins (Eds.), Global Englishes in Asian contexts: Current and future debates (pp. 40-56). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Joseph, J. E. (1997). English in Hong Kong: Emergence and decline. In S. Wright, & H.

Kelly-Holmes (Eds.), One country, two systems, three languages (pp. 60-73). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Kachru, B. B. (1983a). The Indianization of English: The English language in India. Oxford:

Oxford University Press. Kachru, B. B. (1983b). Models for non-native Englishes. In K. Bolton, & B. B. Kachru

(Eds.), World Englishes: Critical concepts in linguistics: Vol. 4 (pp. 108-130). London: Routledge.

Kachru, B. B. (1985a). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The

English language in the outer circle. In K. Bolton, & B. B. Kachru (Eds.), World Englishes: Critical concepts in linguistics: Vol. 3 (pp. 241-269). London: Routledge.

Kachru, B. B. (1985b). Attitudes and usage: English in the world context. In S.

Greenbaum (Ed.), The English language today (pp. 207-226). Oxford: Pergamon Institute of English.

Kachru, B. B. (1986). The alchemy of English. Oxford: Pergamon. Kachru, B. B. (1992). World Englishes: Approaches, issues and resources. World

Englishes language teaching, 25, 1-14. Kachru, B. B. (1996). World English agony and ecstasy. In K. Bolton & B. B. Kachru

(Eds.), World Englishes: Critical concepts in linguistics: Vol. 1. (pp. 69-88). London: Routledge.

Kachru, Y. (1994). Monolingual bias in SLA research. In K. Bolton, & B. B. Kachru

(Eds.), World Englishes: Critical concepts in linguistics: Vol. 5 (pp. 413-416). London: Routledge. (Reprinted from TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 795-800.


128

Kachru, Y., & Smith, L. E. (2008). Cultures, contests and world Englishes. New York: Routledge.

Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for international communication and

English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kirkpatrick, A., Deterding, D., & Wong, J. (2008). The international intelligibility of

Hong Kong English. World Englishes, 27(3/4), 359-377. Llamzon, S. J. T. A. (1969). Standard Filipino English. Philippines: Ateneo University

Press. Laver, J., & Roukens, J. (1996). The global information society and Europe’s linguistic

and cultural heritage. In C. Hoffman (Ed.), Language, culture and communication in contemporary Europe (pp. 1-27). Charlotte Hoffman.

Lowenberg, P. H. (1992). Testing English as a world language: Issues in assessing

non-native proficiency. In K. Bolton, & B. B. Kachru (Eds.), World Englishes: Critical concepts in linguistics (pp. 385-397). London: Routledge.

McKay, S. L., & Bokhorst-Heng, W. D. (2008). International English in its sociolinguistic

contexts: Towards a socially sensitive EIL pedagogy. NewYork: Routledge. McArthur, T. (2001). World English and world Englishes. In K. Bolton, & B. B.

Kachru (Eds.), World Englishes: Critical concepts in linguistics: Vol. 1 (pp. 89-124.) London: Routledge.

Moag, R. F. (1982). The life cycle of non-native Englishes: A case study. In The other

tongue: English across cultures (pp. 270-288). Oxford: Pergamon. Mufwene, S. S. (2001). The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. Petzold, R. (2002). Toward a pedagogical model for ELT. World Englishes, 21(3), 422-

426. Platt, J., Weber, H., & Lian, H. M. (1984). The new Englishes. London & Boston:

Routledge and Kegan Paul. Schneider, E. W. (2003). The dynamics of new Englishes: From identity construction

to dialect birth. In K. Bolton, & B. B. Kachru (Eds.), World Englishes: Critical concepts in linguistics: Vol. 1 (pp. 125-185). London: Routledge.

Schneider, E. W. (2007). Postcolonial English – Varieties around the world. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.


129

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. In International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 3, 209-231.

Selinker, L. (1974). Interlanguage. In J. C. Richards (Ed.), Error analysis: Perspectives on

second language acquisition (pp. 31-54). London: Longman. Sridhar, K. K., & Sridhar, S. N. (1986). Bridging the paradigm gap: Second language

acquisition theory and indigenized varieties of English. World Englishes, 5(1), 3-14.

Sridhar, K. K., & Sridhar S. N. (1992). Bridging the paradigm gap: Second language

acquisition theory and indigenized varieties of English. In B. B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures (2nd ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Tay, M. W. J. (1991). Southeast Asia and Hong Kong. In J. Cheshire (Ed.), English

around the world sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 319-332). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

About the author: Julie Groves has taught ESOL in New Zealand, mainland China and Hong Kong, and has also been involved with teacher training in mainland China. She completed her MA in Linguistics at Chinese University of Hong Kong, with her thesis topic being attitudes towards the status of Cantonese in Hong Kong. Her current research interests are self-access language learning, Hong Kong English, language attitudes and language planning. Until recently she has been a Lecturer in English at the HKBU Language Centre. Email: [email protected]

Error or Feature? The Issue of Interlanguage and ...lc.hkbu.edu.hk/book/pdf/v14_05.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of Error or Feature? The Issue of Interlanguage and ...lc.hkbu.edu.hk/book/pdf/v14_05.pdf ·...