VARIETIES OF ENGLISH

During your senior high school, you must have encountered the term World Englishes
(WE) or varieties of English in class. WE actually stands for the localized varieties of English as
they are used or spoken in certain areas. In the Asian context, the concept was introduced by Braj
Karchru. The famous “Three Concentric Circles of Asian Englishes” attributed to Kachru
presents the three circles; Inner circles with ENL (English as a native language) member
countries; the Outer with ESL (English as a second language) member countries; the Expanding
Circle with EFL (English as a foreign language) member countries. Examples of countries
belonging to the Inner Circle are the USA, UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Kachru’s
Outer Circle is comprised of Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Pakistan, among others
while the Expanding Circle is composed of countries such as China, Japan, Taiwan, and
Thailand. Aside from the fact that the Outer and Expanding Circles are ESL- and EFL- speaking,
respectively, they have been colonized by some member countries in the Inner Circle making the
varieties they speak as post-colonial. It is then to be understood that people have different
linguistic and cultural backgrounds making intercultural communication a significant variable in
communication.

The Expanding Circle e.g.

China Caribbean Countries Egypt

Indonesia Israel Japan
Korea Nepal Saudi Arabia
South Africa South America Taiwan
CIS
The Outer Circle e.g.

Bangladesh Ghana India

Kenya Malaysia Nigeria
Pakistan Philippines Singapore
Sri Lanka Tanzania Zambia

The Inner Circle

USA UK Canada
Australia New Zealand

Three Concentric Circles of English

According to Bautista and Gonzalez (2006), the structural characteristics of these new
varieties differ. This is brought about by the mother tongue or home languages of those who
learn or acquire English. And even it terms of social features, differences can also be highlighted
in that there is a continuum of basilectal, mesolectal, and acrolectal varieities of English within
the same speech community. The acrolect then comes to the closest to the standard while the
basilect digresses thoroughly from it and comes closest to the pidgin. Mesolect or the middle
variety is midway between the acrolect and basilect. Bautista and Gonzales use the term edulects
for these varieties resulting from certain types of education ascertained by social class but are
conveyed or transferred by the kind of instruction of the school system especially for those
coming from higher-income families and/or better educated classes.
As regards to structural variation, Kachru and Nelson (2006) claim that these varieties of
English are influenced by the local language(s) in various areas of their grammars and exhibit
specific phonological, lexical, syntactic, and discoursal characteristics (p.35). For instance, in
terms of stress and rhythm, Outer and Expanding Circle varieties observe syllable-timed rhythm
rather than stress-timed rhythm. Nigerians say ‘success for suc’cess and Indians and Nigerians
say recog’nize for ‘recognize. Moreover, speakers from the Outer Circle and Expanding Circle
do not make any changes in their pronunciation to make a distinction between nouns and verbs in
pairs which Inner Circle countries observe as in the case of ‘import and import and do not utilize
contrastive stress for focusing (Bamgbose, 1992 & Gumperz, 1982a, 1981b, as cited in Kachru &
Nelson, 2006). As regards to sounds, Outer and Expanding Circles do not observe initial
aspiration of voiceless plosives such as p, t, k and these are often perceived by Inner Circle
countries as b, d, g. Some speakers of Expanding Circle varieties, as in the case of Japanese
speakers, do not properly distinguish between r and l.
According to Pope (1976, as cited in Kachru & Nelson, 2006), in the case of syntactic
features, question-answering systems differ between Inner and Outer-Expanding Circles. While
the former observes the positive-negative system where the answer follows the polarity of the
question (i.e., If the question is in the positive, the answer confirming the assumptions of the
questioner is in the positive, and the answer disconfirming the assumption of the questioner is in
the positive), the latter observes the agreement-disagreement system which poses difficulty to
speakers who follow the positive-negative system particularly in interpreting the yes or no of the
response unless it is followed by a clarification(i.e., Yes, I think you’re right; No, that’s not so)
(p.45).
With respect to lexicon, vocabulary words peculiar only to some English varieties in
Southern Asia can be noted as seen in the following examples (pp. 189-190):
1. Singapore English: actsy ‘show off,’ missy ‘nurse,’ chop ‘rubber stamp,’ Marina kids
‘youngsters who spend their leisure time at or around Marina Square, a shopping
centre,’ graduate mothers ‘graduate (well-educated) married women, encouraged to
have children and accorded certain privileges in Singapore,’ as compared to non-
graduate mothers (Pakir, 1992, as cited in Kachru & Nelson, 2006);
2. Philippine English; deep ‘puristic or hard to understand’ as an attribute to language,
stick ‘cigarette,’ high blood ‘tense or upset,’ blow out ‘treating someone with a snack
or meal,’ motel ‘a hotel used for pre-marital or extramarital affairs,’ manualize ‘to
preapare manuals,’ go ahead ‘leave before others with host’s permission,’ studentry
‘student body,’ Amboy ‘ a Filipino perceived to be a pro-American,’ promdi ‘from the
province,’ behest loan ‘unguaranteed bank loan given to presidential cronies,’ pulot
boy ‘boy who picks up tennis balls in a game;’ and balikbayan box ‘a box where
Filipinos returning from abroad put all their shopping,’ among others (Bautista, 1997,
as cited in Kachru & Nelson, 2006); and
3. Malaysian English: antilog ‘a male hated by a girl,’ popcorn ‘ a loquacious person,’
kachang ‘peanuts, easy,’ slambar ‘relax, red spot, open shelf ‘girls who are popular
and those who are not,’ day bugs ‘those who come to attend school but do not live in
residence halls’ (Said & Ng, 2000, as cited in Kachru & Nelson, 2006).

When Bautista’s monograph on Defining Standard Philippine English: Its Status and
Grammatical Features came out in 2000, she answered the usual questions asked about
Philippine English: Is there a Standard Philippine English? And When does an error
become a feature of Philippine English? She stressed that just like any other new variety
of English (Indian English, Singaporean English and Nigerian English), Philippine
English is legitimate, having its own grammatical, lexical, and syntactic features.
Gonzales (1985, as cited in Bautista, 2000) identified the following lexical features in
Philippine English (p.76):
1. Preference for specific words and collocations specifically shall, could, such,
wherein, of (to signal possession);
2. Unusual words and collocations, specific terms, and word combinations which
may have been originally confused with other collocations but which, because of
 frequent use, have become fixed combinations in their own right (e.g., results to
instead of results in); and
3. Unusual prepositional usage, including omission of prepositions in two-word
verbs, addition of prepositions to verb phrases, local use of different prepositions
in noun phrases following certain verbs or adjectives.
The syntactic features identified include the following (pp. 76-77):

1. Word-order features, consisting of the placement of the time adverb before the
place adverb, placement of the adverb between verb and object, placement of the
adverb between noun and prepositional phrase, placement of the indirect object
introduced by to between verb and direct object, other usual adverb placements;
2. Use of articles, including absence of the definite article, unusual use of the
definite article, absence of the indefinite article;
3. Noun sub-categorization, consisting of the non-pluralization of count nouns, the
reclassification of General American English (GAE), mass nouns as count nouns,
mass noun pluralization, pluralization of adjectival nouns in compounds;
4. Pronoun-antecedent incongruence;
5. Subject-predicate incongruence;
6. Reclassification of GAE transitive verbs as intransitive verbs and
7. Tense-aspect usage consisting of unusual use of verb forms and tense, use of the
perfect tense where the simple past tense or even present perfect tense is called for
in GAE, lack of tense sequence.

As for the question “When does an error become a feature of Philippine

English?”, Gonzalez (1085) has this to say:
When do these errors cease to be errors and become part
of the standard? If enough educated elites in the society ‘commit’
these errors in effect have been accepted by the society as the
standard (p. 189).

The foregoing discussion only shows how dynamic English is. These are only
some of the essential features of some varieties of English which should be given full
attention by users coming from different cultures. From the variety of English used by the
native speakers such as British, Americans, Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders,
English has evolved into post-colonial varieties and should not be mistaken as errors
most especially if they have become the standard in the speech community and have been
codified. As the poet Gemino Abad (1997, p. 8) aptly put it: “English is ours. We have
colonized it too.”
You have to be aware of and recognize intercultural communication as you need
to be sensitive to the people around you who belong to different cultural heritages and
have their own linguistic identity. When you encounter them, you will be able to avoid
misunderstanding, avoid communication breakdown, and overcome language barriers
with less difficulty since you are exposed to their own language features. This way, you
will be able to enhance your personal and social interaction.

LANGUAGE REGISTERS/REGISTERS OF ENGLISH

When it comes to language variation, the terms genre, register, and style are
often encountered. David Crystal (2008) defines register as “variety of language defined
according to its use in social situations e.g. a register of scientific, religious, formal
English. (p. 409).” He added: “In Hallidayan linguistics, the term is seen as specifically
opposed to varieties of language defined according to the characteristics of the users (viz.
their regional or class dialect), and is given a subclassification into filed, mode and
manner of discourse (p. 409).
Crystal (1964) further discusses style and register:
 Language being the product of interaction among the members
of society, must ultimately be studied according to the social context in
which it is found. Within a language, there are variations in style
and register, which differentiate and formally characterize distinct social
situations. Style refers to the degree of formality attached to particular
interpersonal social situation which is reflected by differences in language
—for example, the kind of language used while talking to a friend will
differ noticeably from that used in addressing a superior, in otherwise the
same situation. Register refers to a kind of language whose forms are
of a definable social situation, regardless of the status of the participants
---thus one finds the register of legal language, liturgical language, and so
on (p.149)

It is to be noted that genre and register overlap and are sometimes used
interchangeably. According to Lee (2001), whereas genre is associated more with the
organization of culture, register is associated with the organization of culture. To this end,
register is understood as the context-specific variety of language to which the field-mode-
tenor framework is important.
To give a concrete example, with the genre of recipe, field may be analyzed in
terms of social setting and the communicative purpose in which the text is produced.
Tenor may be described in terms of the role/s required of the writers and readers
including the cultural values shared by both. Mode could be explained in light of the
knowledge of other texts required of speakers/listeners and writers/readers as regards the
genre including the formal text features.
Language register then refers to the formality of language which one speaks.
Different registers are used in different situations. It is through registers that you are able
to determine the kind of lexicon or vocabulary to use as well as the kind of structure to be
used. Even in writing, you may use a formal or an informal register. In some instances,
even a neutral language register is identified.
The formal register then is used in formal speaking and writing situations. In a
state of the nation address classified as a formal communicative situation, the speech is
usually delivered using a highly-polished language, read from a manuscript. This is
certainly allowed since the President occupying the highest position in the country could
not afford to make mistakes. On the contrary, a priest delivering his homily, more often
than not, speaks extemporaneously and uses ordinary language. This is so since the
audience is composed of various audiences coming from different walks of life. The
priest should also be able to touch the very core of the listeners’ hearts so that they live
the preachings they hear.
The formal register is likewise appropriate from use in professional writing like
project proposals, position papers, and business letters as in the case of writing to a
superior or to a head of a certain organization. It is more impersonal, objective, and
factual. Informal register, which is more casual in tone, is appropriate for people with
whom you have established a more personal relationship as in the case of friend s and
relatives. This type of writing may sometimes be emotional as an intimate relationship
exists between the speaker and listener or writer and reader.
Earlier in the discussion, it was mentioned that register refers to the kind of
language whereby the forms used define the social situation, notwithstanding the status of
the interlocutors. Thus, legalese or legal language is highly characterized by archaic
expressions, technical jargons intrinsic only to the community of legal professionals,
embedded structures, nominalizations, passive voice, as well as long, kilometric
sentences which are not the features of textese or language of texts. Conversely, the
features of SMS language or textese language, are exactly the opposite—use of
abbreviations, acronyms, slang words, and expression. This is so since messages used to
be limited to a certain number of characters/spaces which made texting much easier and
quicker. However, misinterpretation and/or miscommunication in text messaging may
arise if vocabulary and knowledge of context are limited. Hence, extra care should be
practiced when comprehending text messages.