FUTURE OF EIL

Having considered the above facts and ideas, the prognosis of a single stan-dard English does not seem very promising. Kachru expects that English varie-ties spoken in the Inner Circle countries and their speakers will lose control over the channels of “codification”, and that at some point the control will shift from Inner Circle language users to the Outer Circle users. According to NELSON(1995), the notion of what is “good” or “standard” English is expanding all the time.

GILSDORF(2002) predicts that there will be changes in the Inner Circle Eng-lish coming from all other EngEng-lishes, just as EngEng-lish has been influenced by other languages throughout its long history. MODIANO (2001) foresees that the number of speakers in the Outer Circle will increase and exceed that of the na-tive speakers in the Inner Circle. He also contends that English will not main-tain its status as a lingua franca, nor will the current native speakers remain-tain the authority as representatives of English.

English speakers in the Outer Circle are gaining a greater voice. MODIANO

(2001) notices that there is an increasing belief among English speakers in the Outer Circle countries that English is their own language, which can reflect their identities, cultures, values, and literature. For example, Nigeria has made English its own, developing standard Nigerian English, and also various dialects and registers and a great deal of special purposes English. A Nigerian teacher in Lagos said, “Without English, this society wouldn’t function. It is what makes Nigeria, Nigeria” (cited in GILSDORF, 2002). Kachru believes that the universalization of English and the power of this language have come at a price;

for some the implications are agonizing, while for others they are a matter of celebration.

The universalization of English involves two complex tasks: 1) a call for a language used for wider communication; and 2) a need to protect cultural di-versity (MODIANO, 2001). Advocates on either side (those who are for giving au-tonomy to Englishes outside the Inner Circle and those who are not) can misuse

this double-edged sword. An example is the varieties of English used in Amer-ica, Britain, India, Nigeria and Malaysia, which are all Englishes, but which have been localized and assigned the cultural identity of their speakers. While some proponents of cultural diversity believe that various Englishes add to the richness of the language, opponents who believe that there should be a standard variety for all non-natives to learn, argue that a World Englishes approach can undermine the originality and value of English and its native speakers. EIL, ac-cording to MCKAY (2002), is capable of achieving this task.

3. CONCLUSION

Salman RUSHDIE (1991) comments in an essay, “Commonwealth literature does not exist” that “the English language ceased to be the sole possession of the English some time ago”. As the USA, the largest English-speaking nation in the world, has only 20% of the world’s English speakers, it is obvious that no one can now claim sole ownership. This is actually probably the best way to de-fine a genuinely global language: that its usage is not controlled or restricted by any country or governing bodies. This loss of ownership is probably quite un-comfortable for those who feel that the language is theirs by historical right, but they have no alternative. There is no way in which any kind of regional social movement, such as the purist societies which try to prevent language change or restore a past period of imagined linguistic excellence, can influence the global outcome. In the end, it comes down to population growth (CRYSTAL, 1997).

In conclusion, there has never been a language so widely spread or spoken by so many people as a second language as English. There are, therefore, no precedents to help us see what happens to a language when it achieves genuine world status — in the end, there is only speculation. One thing is certain, how-ever: the balance between the competing demands of intelligibility and cultural identity is especially fragile, and can easily be affected by social change, new political alliances, or changes in population trends. Thus, we are left with the question as to whether English will continue on its path to becoming a global phenomenon with many faces, or will world events change the course of this ever-morphing language?

Global English: A proposal for comprehensibility 39

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BROWN K. (1995): “World Englishes: To teach or not to teach”. World Englishes 14:

233—245.

CRANDALL A.J. (2003): “They do speak English: World Englishes in U.S. schools”.

ERIC/CLL News Bulletin 26 (3), 1—3.

CRYSTAL D. (1997): English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

FIRTHA. (1996): “The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’ Eng-lish and conversation analysis”. Journal of Pragmatics 26 (2): 237—259.

GILSDORFJ. (2002): “Standard Englishes and world Englishes: Living with a polymorph business language”. Journal of Business Communication 39: 364—378.

KACHRU B.B. (1982): “Models for non-native Englishes”. In: KACHRU B.B. (ed.): The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 31—57.

KACHRUB.B. (ed.) (1982): The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. Urbana: Univer-sity of Ilinois Press.

KACHRU B.B. (1985): “Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle”. In: QUIRKR. and WIDDOWSONH.G. (eds.): English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 11—36.

KACHRU B.B. and NELSON C.L. (1996): “World Englishes”. In: MCKAY S.L. and HORNBERGER N.H. (eds.): Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 71—102.

MCKAY S.L. (2002): Teaching English as an International Language. New York: Ox-ford University Press.

MCKAY S.L. (2003): “The cultural bias of teaching English as an international lan-guage”. TESOL Matters 13 (4): A1, A4.

M^CK^AY S.L. and H^ORNBERGER N.H. (eds.) (1996): Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

M^ODIANOM. (2001): “Linguistic imperialism, cultural integrity and EIL”. ELT Journal 55: 339—346.

N^ELSON C.A. (1995): “Intelligibility and world Englishes in the classroom”. World Englishes 14: 273—279.

P^AKIR A. (1999): “Connecting with English in the context of internationalization”.

TESOL Quarterly 33 (1): 103—114.

Q^UIRK R. and W^IDDOWSON H.G. (eds.) (1985): English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

R^USHDIE S. (1991): “Commonwealth literature does not exist”. In: R^USHDIE S.: Imagi-nary Homelands. Essays and Criticism, 1981—1991. London: Granta Books.

R^USHDIE S. (1991): Imaginary Homelands. Essays and Criticism, 1981—1991. London:

Granta Books.

SEIDLHOFERB. (2004): “Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca”.

Review of Applied Linguistics 24: 209—239.

AGENTLESS CONSTRUCTIONS