Attitudes to English as a second and as a foreign language

(1)

MARTA DĄBROWSKA____________________________

Attitudes to English as a Second and as a Foreign Language

The subject of my paper has emerged frommyprofessional and private contactswith people worldwide, whichare carriedout most of the time by means of English, the contemporary languageof international com munication. Nowadays it would be impossible to disagree that, willy- nilly,we are experiencing aglobal rule of theEnglishlanguage (cf. Phillip- son 1992).English is spoken in all cornersofthe world;however,acloser scrutinyof the language used in variousparts of the globe and various contexts shows immediately that it is nota uniform entityby any means, and for this reason a new term Englisheshas been coined to atleast partly capture a number ofits distinctive varieties (cf. Platt,Weber, and Ho 1984; Kachru 1988; Mesthrie2000). Kachru (1988) in particular at tempted to analyse thediverse character of the varieties of Englishspo kenround theglobe, and as a resultpostulated avery helpful classifica tionofthose into three categories:

1) The inner circle, i.e. thecountries in which English is the first lan guage (GreatBritain,USA, Canada, AustraliaandNew Zealand).

2) Theoutercircle, which includes some post-colonial countrieswith English as one of the official languages beside the indigenous tongues (e.g. some Africanterritories,theIndian subcontinent and thecountries of thePacific).Thesearethe varieties whicharecom monly referred to as the New Englishes(cf. Platt, Weber,andHo 1984;

Mesthrie2000; Stockwell2002).

(2)

3)The expanding circle,i.e. the remaining countries in which English, aforeignlanguage there, isused as a language of internationalcom munication.

A question of interestthatarises at thispoint iswhether the perception of the English language inthose varyingcultural and social contextsis alike.

It shouldstandtoreason that theattitudestowardsthis language cannot be identical dueto the differing historical past of the above-mentioned territories and the present-day political and socio-economic relations with the inner-circle countries,as well as the individual sense of iden tityof thespeakers. Naturally,the factthat the inner-circle countries do notconstitute a homogeneous entity eitherwould bringin anadditional dimension to such a study.The answer tothe posited question therefore appears tobeavery complexone,and is unlikely to be thorough; my in

tention, however, is toidentifyatleast some broadtendencies towards English to be identified in theabove-mentioned contexts.

Studies investigating the perception of different languages or vari

eties of the samelanguage have a fairly long tradition. They are pre

dominantly based on the so-calledSubjectiveReaction Tests (cf. Labov 1966; Wolframand Fasold 1974; Wardhaugh 1991; Trudgill2003), devel

oped from subjectiveevaluation testsdevised by psychologists, notably Lambert, Hodgson, Gardner,andFillenbaum(1960), Lambert (1967) and Giles and Powesland (1975). The main objective of the original tests, based on the matched guisetechnique was to obtain some evaluation of a particular language variety from thelistenersexposed to the same (or similar) text read out in various languages or dialects - the texts were delivered by the sameperson, which, however, was asa rule ig nored by the text recipients. In sociolinguistics the method of Subjec tive Reaction Test to obtain additional datawasfirst employed by Labov (1966)inhismajorvariationist study of theNew York speech, in which, among othertechniques applied, he asked the respondents to rankthe tapedspeakers in termsoftheiroccupational suitability (cf. Wardhaugh 1991; Mesthrie 2000). Subjective reactions to a certain variety ofspeech could beprovoked byopenended questions of the“What-do-you-think- of”- or "How-do-you-evaluate-this”-type, which allows the informant to express their opinion freely; alternately, theymaysimply elicit the Yes/No type of answer to the statementsprovided (cf. Wolfram and Fa-

(3)

Attitudes to English as a Second and as a Foreign Language 319

sold 1974). In yet another technique,therespondents may beprovided witha series of bipolar scalesconsisting of descriptive oppositesof the

"good-bad"-typewith a number of steps in between them, on which theyhave to tick the position of a particular varietywith regardto the feature investigated. The technique is that of semantic differential, in which further dimensions of the subjective reaction can be often dis

tinguished, i.e. those of evaluation, potency and activityofa given vari

ety, e.g. "positive-negative"; “strong-weak” and “difficult-easy” (cf.Shuy, Baratz,and Wolfram1969). As Wolfram andFasold (qtd. in Coupland and Jaworski 1997:110) claim, “itistheperceptionof dialect differences and the social evaluation ofthesedifferencesby participatingmembersof the society which is the realbasis for the existence of social dialects,”

therefore subjective reaction tests have become a usefultool in the in

vestigation ofthe linguistic reality.

The open-ended and Yes/No category of questionsas well as the technique of semantic differential are two instruments I chose for my questionnaire to conduct an introductory research that aimed to analyse the perception of the English language by a variety of users.

An example of the open-ended question from my questionnaire is as follows: “I use English and my native language for separate con

texts and subjects (can you give examples?)” (Question 9). The ma jority of the remaining forms of elicitation are the Yes/No or Mul tiple Choice statements, for example: “The model of language and culture that I follow when speaking English is: a) British b) Ameri can c) other (which one?).” The final part of the questionnaire aims at assessing the model of language and culture with the help of the semantic differential analysis, in which the evaluation process is prompted by the following semantic scales: Difficult-Easy, Rough- Smooth; Informal-Formal; Awkward-Graceful; Vague-Precise-, Rigid- Flexible; Complex-Simple; Dumb-Smart; Non-Prestigious-Prestigious;

Uneducated-Educated; Negative-Positive and Primitive-Sophisticated.

The data was obtained by means of a questionnaire distributed byhand or viae-mail to friendsand acquaintances who can be said topossessa near-native command of English (noneof them, however, can beclassi fied as a native speakerof this language). This generated43 responses (out of nearly a double of the numberapproached). The respondents belong to the age group between 22 and 46, all ofthem but two have

(4)

obtained higher education, and they arenative speakers ofa variety of European and non-European languages.Thus, due to their social and national circumstances, they come to represent the non-nativeusersof English in thethree above-mentioned categories pertainingtothetypes of countries inwhichEnglish is used - the inner, theouter andthe ex panding circle,respectively. The informants fromthe inner circle include immigrants (i.e. speakers of English as a foreign language) to the USA (predominantly),UK andAustralia fromsuchcountriesas Poland, Ger

many,Switzerland, Palestine andTurkey (10 respondents). Theouter cir

cle - the former colonial territories -is represented by speakers (users ofEnglish as a secondlanguage) from such countries asIndia, Kenya, Ghana, MalaysiaandthePhilippines (8 respondents), andfinallythe re

maining 25 persons - the users of English as a foreign language from the expanding circle are natives of such countries as (predominantly) Poland, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ukraine, Germany, Mexico and South Korea.

According tothe varietyof criteria devised bysuch scholars as Lam bert (1955) andErvinand Osgood (1954), allthe respondents couldbe described as bilingual. The definitions of the concept ofbilingualism vary considerably, ranging fromBloomfield’s (1935) "native-like control of two languages” to Macnamara’s view (1967) thata bilingual person is “anyone who possesses a minimal competence in one ofthe four language skills ... in a language other than his mothertongue” (after Hamers andBlanc 1989:6). I subscribe to theviewof Titone (1972: 11), i.e. that bilingualism is “the individual’s capacity to speak a second language whilefollowing theconcepts and structuresof that language rather thanparaphrasing his or her mother tongue." Thus, the respon

dents canbe classified as bilingual; however,their bilingualismis to be differentiated further with thehelp of criteria postulated by theafore mentionedscholars, Lambert, and Ervinand Osgood (cf. Grucza 1981;

Hamers and Blanc 1989; Spolsky 1998), theseincluding: theageofthe second language acquisition, cognitive organisation, competence, the presenceofthe L2 community,cultural identity andthe status oftheir native language. Due to thelimitation of space a thoroughdiscussion of thoseisimpossible; therefore only avery general characterisation of the speakerswill be provided obtained from the personal informationfrom thequestionnaire as well as the knowledge of thecountriesof theirori

(5)

ginandresidence.Thus, thebilingualismofthe speakers from theinner circle may be describedasa minimum adolescentor possibly an adult bilingualism, coordinate, LI dominant, endogenous (attheir present cir

cumstances), but exogenous when acquiring L2, bicultural and,possibly, with theexceptionof the Turkish andPalestinian respondents, additive.

Thebilingualismof outer circlerespondents,i.e. ESLspeakers, by virtue oftheir early and fairlyconstant exposition to Englishcanbe classified as childhood,rathercoordinate, still LIdominant, endogenous,mono- culturaland, within the bounds oftheirowncountry,ratheradditive.Fi nally,therespondents from the expanding circlemay, on thewhole,be diagnosed classed with an adolescent/adult, coordinate, LI dominant, exogenous, monocultural (with a tendency tobecome bicultural), and additive bilingualism.

Withthesegeneral remarks in thebackground, let us proceed to ob servationsthatcanbemade with regard tothe respondents’ attitude to

wards English in the three groups. We shallbegin withthe users of En glishin the outer circle, i.e. the post-colonial territories,for whom En glish is theirsecond or possiblythirdor fourthlanguage, but at the same timean official language in their country, and subsequently juxtapose themto the English asa Foreign Language speakers in the tworemain ing contexts -withinand outside the English speakingcountries, re spectively. The dataprovidedbythese ESLspeakers showsthatthey use English often (62%) or sometimes (50%),and, what considerably marks them offfrom theother twogroups, as many as 62%of the respondents use this language when communicating with their parents and87% with their siblings.There is on thewhole a fairly stable highpercentage(from 62% to75%) of the use ofEnglish in all the contexts provided,i.e.with intimate friends,friendsand acquaintances in bothinformaland formal contexts,colleagues, superiors in formaland informal contexts,at work, atuniversity, alsowhen shopping or addressingstrangers in the street, thoughthelatterwas mentioned byonly37%of respondents (theanal ysis ofthecontexts indicated shows a bias towards theuseof English in the formal ratherthan informal contexts, such as school orwork, or to superiors in formal contexts- with theratioof 88% to 75%, respectively).

This can at least partly be explained bythe factthat,as an official lan guagein thosecountriesEnglishenjoys a high prestige there, and at the same timeit is an expectedchoice in those domains.

(6)

When askedabout their feelingsand reactions with regard totheir using English, the outer circlespeakers mainly focusedon three aspects (all ticked by 88% ofthe respondents): that theycan say all they want to, that they feel exactly the same when speaking English as when they areusing their own language,as well as that they switch into English unawares. Three other features that followed intermsof preference, but werecertainly selected by fewerpersons,werethe sense of freedom that the respondentsfelt when using English(63%),and, on theotherhand, the feelingof beingforced touse thelanguage and that English offered a greater chancetoget a better job - both indicated by (38%) of respon

dents. Also, someimportance was attachedto the factthat the respon dents could express themselvesbestonly when mixing both languages ata time (37%), whereas none of them mentioned e.g. the respect that their using English might evokeinthe audience, or the possible feeling of irritationinduced by this language inothers. This brief summary of the Yes/No questionsdemonstratesthat English hasbecome recognised as one of themany varietiesutilised in the formerpost-colonial territories, but mayhave to alarge extentlostits politically negative connotations - instead, it has become one of themultitude ofcodes thatareused in the AfricanandAsian context onadaily basis.

The general presentation of the responses generated by the Yes/No, Multiple Choiceand open-ended from the speakers ofEnglish as Foreign Language will be, in keeping with the above classification, subdivided into two groups -EFL usersinthe inner andinthe expanding circles,re spectively. As regardsthe inner circle, it has to befirstclarifiedthat 40%

of the respondents were womenwho had married foreigners, whereas most of the remaining ones were personswho had emigrated either for economic reasonsortostudy. Evenwith this varying background of the individuals some common denomination canbe drawn for all of them- that ofa(at least initially)positive and hopeful attitudeto those English- speakingcountries(theUSA,theUKandAustralia) that attracted them with achance of abetter-paid job, betterlife, andpossibly ahigher social status via marriage toaforeigner. Clearly,it is already at this initial stage that therepresentatives of the inner and outer circle differed consider ably.

Respondents from this group for obviousreasonsused L2 either all thetime- 50% of them or often - 40%. Interestingly, as many as 50% of

(7)

the informantsconsidered English theirsecond language even though none ofthem was brought up with it - they are all adult (or at most adolescent)coordinate bilinguals, incontrast toESLspeakers, who have beenclassified, byvirtue of havingstarted to learn English early intheir childhood, ascompoundchildhood bilinguals. 80% of them also con

sidered English their foreignlanguage. The analysisof the tables offre quencydemonstrated that 100%(intwo cases90%) of them usedEnglish in most of theprovidedcontexts(with intimate friends, friends and ac quaintancesaswell as superiors in bothformalandinformal situations, with colleagues, atwork and - if applicable- at school, in the shops, and in the street). The choice of Englishhere is naturally the unmarked one - the respondents have to function in a foreign language environment on adaily basis with the helpof English as the official language of a given country. It is difficult to establishwhether they do it out of pleasure - the useof English also with intimate friends mightatleastindirectlyallow for such aconclusion, thoughthe latter might also be of foreign origin, the dominant functionof English here, though, is certainly an instrumen tal one.

As regards theattitudetowards Englishthattherespondents in this group demonstrated, the following could be deduced from the answers provided. The largest number ofthem (80%)indicated that the knowl edge of English offeredthema betterchance toget a job, which obviously confirmstheabove-mentioned instrumental motivation for the use of English.An equallyhighpercentagepointed out thatthey used English unawares,and that theycould sayall theywanted, thereby proving their fluency in English - and a high degree of bilingualism.What also fea turedmarkedly in the responses was the sense offreedom that the use ofEnglish offered them (60%), andthe respondents’ identification with the L2 culture (60%). Moreover, two others choices should be mentioned:

the fact that theinformantsfeltthe same when using Englishas when they were usingtheirown LI (50%), andthat their using English evoked the feeling ofrespect from others (40%). Aquick glance attheESL users in this context indicates a marked difference betweenthetwogroups in terms of identifying oneself with the English-speaking culture. The inner circle speakers seem tohave to a largeextent accepted or shiftedinto thenew culture,possibly both for prestige as well as economic reasons, whereas the ESL users tend to maintain their cultural distinctiveness-

(8)

the feature of biculturalismwas marked by60% of theEFL users and only by 25% of the ESL users. A similardiscrepancyappeared withregard to ahigher chance ofgetting a job, which featuredhighly on thelistofthe inner circlespeakers (80%) as opposed to thealready mentioned 38% in the ESLgroup.

The third class of therespondents- that ofthe EFL users fromthe expandingcircles- all described themselves as EFLspeakers, though also somemembers ofthe group - 20% - treated English astheir sec ond language, despitethe fact that English is not an official language in theircountries. Unliketheinnercircle speakers, out ofwhom 50% used English all thetime, only 8% of the expanding circle speakers indicated this option. Otherwise, 48%of them resorted to English sometimes,and 40%often, which is on the whole similar to the frequencies of usageob tained with the ESL users (62% and 50%, respectively). Theanalysisof frequency demonstratesthatby farthe mosttypical context in which the respondents made use ofEnglish inthis group was that of work(88%).

Thispoints to a fairly formal context for the use ofEnglish, this being corroborated by fairlyhigh frequenciesof speaking English to colleagues (68%), and atschool (56%), the latterdomainselected by both student respondents, especially ofEnglishstudies, and teachers of English. On the other hand, Englishappeared to be popular also insome informal contexts - as many as64% ofrespondentschose this language to interact with intimate friends, while an evengreater number (72%) indicated that they spoke English withfriends and acquaintances in informal contexts.

The emotional reactions and attitudes generatedby the use of En

glishin thisgroup presented themselves as follows: similarlyto the other two groups, theclaim that thespeakerscould say all they wanted to ex ceededothers(76%), this again confirming ahigh degreeof bilingualism among them.Another sentiment sharedbythe speakers inall the three groups wasthe senseof freedom that the ability to use English evoked in them - here markedby 68% of the respondents.Nearlyas populara factor that the respondents indicated wasthe possibility of getting a bet ter job (60%),thefeatureof an instrumental treatment of English shared with the EFL users in the inner circle in particular.In this group, unlike inthe other two, thesense ofself-pridearoused by one’s own mastery of this foreign language was particularly visible- thestatement "I feel smart" wasselected by 48% of theusers(ascompared to 30%inthe in

(9)

nercircle and none in theouter one). Another element ofa positiveat

titude towards English that featuredrathermarkedly among this group, beingeven more pronounced than in thecase ofthe EFL users in the inner circlewas the senseof respect from others marked by44% of the respondents- thisfeature, on theotherhand,wasnot found amongthe outer circleusers atall. Also in this group, though to alesser degree, such aspects as using the foreign languageunawares, and identifying oneself with a different culture (notablytheBritishone, as 88% chose this vari ety as their model), bothindicatedby 40%of respondents,as well as the similarity of feelings that both LI and L2 evokedinthe speakers, at 36%, were well marked.

When analysing the question of the contextin which the English lan guage tends to be used, the three groups showedconsiderable similari

ties. Even though English is an official language in the inner and outer circles, but notinthe expandingone, andtheconditions of everyday life putdifferentdemands on the speakers in all thethree groups, a similarly high percentage of therespondents claimed to use LI andL2in different contexts - 60%, 75% and68% for the inner, outer and expanding circle, respectively. Thatwould indicate that forcertain subjects or interlocu tors theEnglish language appears to be particularly appropriate. Not all the respondents decidedto provide examplesofsuch contexts; however, thesurveyof the comments of those fewwho did may lead to a general conclusionthat English maybeassociated particularlywith official cir

cumstances. Andthus, a respondent from the inner circle claimed to of ten use English when trying to disciplineherchildren, another tended to useEnglish to writehispoetry. Naturally, they allindicatedthe context of work as the one in whichEnglishwasthe expected choice. Withregardto theoutercircle,where suchconstraintsshould notobey,some respon

dents stillindicated that theychose to speak English onlywhenin the office,or, as one respondent commented, English wasthe rightchoice to interact with other students orofficials. My personal observationwhen inKenyawas that Englishwasemployed in interactions withstrangers who appeared to beeducated, whereas,as I wastold,it would not be an appropriate choice whilespeaking to those in lower ranksorjobs, e.g.car cleaners - not out of sense of superiority, however, on thecontrary, out of respect notto make themfeel intimidated orlooked down upon. In thecaseof the representatives fromthe expanding circle, many of whom

(10)

happenedto be either teachersorstudentsof English (one ofthe major reasons fortheir mastery of English, and consequently, their bilingual ism),the useof Englishwas naturally connected with theirjobor inter

acting with other teachers or students, though themselvesnot necessar

ilyforeigners.Their useofEnglish hereis an indicator of group mem

bership, which gives theman additional sense of identity. Moreover, the students of English commented thatthey used thislanguage whendis

cussingsome universitysubjects or concepts from differentdisciplines (oftennothaving any Polish alternative to fall back on). Occasionally, some more specific contexts were indicated as e.g. telling jokes, refer

ring to literature ormovies, havingarguments with one'sbrother inEn

glish so that the parents would notunderstand, cooking in English or, with some respondents, speaking English tochildren to teachthemthe language. Itcan be seen, therefore, that the EFL users in theexpanding circle valued the ability touseEnglish highly ascomparedtothe former twogroups since they used the language in a broad varietyof contexts out of personal choice, whereas the EFLusers inthe inner circleandthe ESL usersas well simply had no alternativethere oracted according to the establishednorms.

Thisobservationleadsus directlyto the results ofthe assessment obtained through the semantic differential testmentioned earlier. In this part the respondents wereasked to indicate on the 12provided scales the position ofthe variety of English that theyfollowedasa modelwhen speaking this language.The instruction specified also that they should mark the position of the language and of the cultureassociated with it by separate letters iftheyevaluated each of the two differently. There

sults will allow us to compare the attitudestowards English as a Sec ond and asa Foreign Language manifested bythe three subgroups of respondents. Here,however, a certain limitation on the basis of compari son arises, namely,the factthat differentspeakers followed different lan guages (and consequentlycultures) as models.ThechoiceofAustralian inonecase may besafelydisregarded; however, as ithappenedwithre gardtothe inner circle immigrants, 80%of them happened to live in the USA, and theyalso indicated American English as the model. In the re

maining two groups 63% inthe outercircle andas many as88% ofthe expanding circlefollowedtheBritish variety ofEnglishand culture (only 8% indicate AmericanEnglish), additionally, within theoutercirclethe

(11)

Indian respondents pointed to their mixed background or, specifically, saidthattheyfollowed their own - Indian - modelof English.These dis

tinctions, therefore, have to beborneinmindwhen studying the results ofthe differential.

In this test thevalues assigned tothe six slots between the two ex tremes were1,2,3, 4,5, and 6respectively, so thelowerthevalueof the mean, thecloser to theleft-handside extreme the position ofthe lan guageand/or culture would be (which, with oneexception,wouldpoint to some negative evaluation). It has tobe observedherethat, as a rule, no extreme values were recorded for practically any of the scales tested;

some of them, however, did demonstrate quitemarked differences. In or

der to assess the obtained results fully,the numericalvaluesof the means obtainedhave been markedin the grid below(italics referto the inner circle, bold fontsto the outer circle, and bold italics to the expanding circle):

(12)

(13)

In conclusion to thisvery general survey of the perception ofthe En

glish language (and the respective culture) itcan be observed that onthe whole theEnglish language receives arather positive evaluationin terms ofdifferentvalues - it is rather easy, not very rough, ratherinformal, on the whole quitegraceful, fairly precise andflexible, not particularly com

plex, fairly smart, moderately prestigious,rather educated, sophisticated and evaluated quite positively. This considerablyfavourable perception becomes more diverse when specific categories of users are considered.

It maytherefore be concluded that the speakers from the post-colonial countries outlined the least positive imageof the language andculture of all the three, probably due to the factthat English is onlyone ofthe many languages anddialects that they know and/or encounterdaily. Thecom

parison tothose may, therefore,render English relatively less attractive thanothers, probably alsoduetothe colonialpast, and some negative connotations connected with the language that may have not been fully eradicated.The inner circlespeakers showed a moderately positive at

titude towards English - the language and culture were superimposed onthem, to the disadvantage of theirnativelanguages, the respective countriesare,however,welloffandable to provide for their inhabitants, also, lastbut not least, it was aconsciousdecision of those immigrants to choose that country; therefore, naturally, they must see some posi tives about them.The expanding circle speakers, as the rankings show, demonstratedthe most favourableattitude towards the(usuallyBritish) language and culture of all. The feelingon the one hand may be ex plainedon the grounds ofthe fact that,not being fully immersed in them on a daily basis they may have asomewhat idealisedimage of these in their mind, on theother,the positive attitude was probablyalreadythere atthe verystart, and that iswhat madethe European speakers under

taketo learnand studyEnglish.

(14)

REFERENCES

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1935. Language. London: Allen.

Coupland, Nikolas, and Adam Jaworski. 1997. Sociolinguistics. A Reader and Coursebook. Houndmills: Macmillan.

Ervin, Susan M., and Charles Egerton Osgood. 1954. "Second Language Learning and Bilingualism. ” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology Supplement 49: 139-46.

Giles, Howard, and Peter F. Powesland. 1975. Speech Style and Social Evaluation.

London: Academic P.

Grucza, Franciszek. 1981. "Glottodydaktyczne implikacje bilingwizmu. ” Biling

wizm a glottodydaktyka. Materiały z V Sympozjum zorganizowanego przez Instytut Lingwistyki Stosowanej UW, Białowieża 26-28 maja 1977. Ed. Fran

ciszek Grucza. Warsaw: Warsaw UP.

Hamers, Josiane, and Michel H. A. Blanc. 1989. Bilinguality and Bilingualism.

Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

Kachru, Braj B. 1988. The Alchemy of English: The Spread, Functions and Models of Non-Native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon.

Labov, William. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Wash

ington, D. C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Lambert, Wallace E. 1955. “Measurement of the Linguistic Dominance in Bilin

guals. ” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 50: 197-200.

Lambert, Wallace E. 1967. “A Social Psychology of Bilingualism. ” Journal of Social Issues 23: 91-109.

Lambert, Wallace E., Richard C. Hodgson, Robert C. Gardner, and Stanley Fillen- baum. 1960. “Evaluational Reactions to Spoken Languages. ” Journal of Ab

normal and Social Psychology 60: 44-51.

Macnamara, John. 1967. "The Bilingual’s Linguistic Performance. ” Journal of So

cial Issues 23: 58-77.

Mesthrie, Rajend. 2000. "Pidgins, Creoles and 'New Englishes. ’ ” Introducing So

ciolinguistics. Ed. R. Mesthrie, J. Swann, A. Deumert, W. L. Leap. Edinburgh:

Edinburgh UP.

(15)

Phillipson, Robert. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford UP.

Platt, John T, Heidi Weber, and Mian Lian Ho. 1984. The New Englishes. London:

Routledge.

Shuy, Roger W, Joan C. Baratz, and Walter Wolfram. 1969. Sociolinguistic Factors in Speech Identification. NIMH Final Report, Project No. MH 15048-01.

Spolsky, Bernard. 1998. Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford UR Stockwell, Peter. 2002. Sociolinguistics. London: Routledge.

Titone, Renzo. 1972. Le Biliguisme Précoce. Brussels: Dessart.

Trudgill, Peter. 2003. A Glossary of Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP.

Wardhaugh, Ronald. 1991. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. 2nd ed. Oxford:

Blackwell.

Wolfram, Walter, and Ralph W. Fasold. 1974. “Field Methods in the Study of Social Dialects.” The Study of Social Dialects in American English. Ed. W. Wolfram and R.W. Fasold. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice.