80427

Download the full version of the ebook at
https://ebookfinal.com
World Englishes A Cognitive Sociolinguistic

Approach Applications of Cognitive
Linguistics 1st Edition Wolf
https://ebookfinal.com/download/world-englishes-a-
cognitive-sociolinguistic-approach-applications-
of-cognitive-linguistics-1st-edition-wolf/
Explore and download more ebook at https://ebookfinal.com

Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.
Language and Time A Cognitive Linguistics Approach 1st

Edition Vyvyan Evans
https://ebookfinal.com/download/language-and-time-a-cognitive-
linguistics-approach-1st-edition-vyvyan-evans/
ebookfinal.com
Creativity and Artificial Intelligence A Conceptual

Blending Approach Applications of Cognitive Linguistics
1st Edition Cã¢Mara Pereira
https://ebookfinal.com/download/creativity-and-artificial-
intelligence-a-conceptual-blending-approach-applications-of-cognitive-
linguistics-1st-edition-ca%c2%a2mara-pereira/
ebookfinal.com
Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality in Spanish Semi

Auxiliaries A Cognitive Functional Approach Applications
of Congnitive Linguistics 1st Edition Cornillie
https://ebookfinal.com/download/evidentiality-and-epistemic-modality-
in-spanish-semi-auxiliaries-a-cognitive-functional-approach-
applications-of-congnitive-linguistics-1st-edition-cornillie/
ebookfinal.com
Applied Cognitive Linguistics II Language Pedagogy
https://ebookfinal.com/download/applied-cognitive-linguistics-ii-
language-pedagogy/
ebookfinal.com
Historical Cognitive Linguistics 1st Edition Margaret E.
Winters
https://ebookfinal.com/download/historical-cognitive-linguistics-1st-
edition-margaret-e-winters/
ebookfinal.com
Handbook of Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience

Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience 1st Edition Charles
A. Nelson
https://ebookfinal.com/download/handbook-of-developmental-cognitive-
neuroscience-developmental-cognitive-neuroscience-1st-edition-charles-
a-nelson/
ebookfinal.com
A Cognitive Functional Approach to Nominalization in

English Liesbet Heyvaert
https://ebookfinal.com/download/a-cognitive-functional-approach-to-
nominalization-in-english-liesbet-heyvaert/
ebookfinal.com
Cognitive Linguistics and Religious Language An

Introduction 1st Edition Peter Richardson
https://ebookfinal.com/download/cognitive-linguistics-and-religious-
language-an-introduction-1st-edition-peter-richardson/
ebookfinal.com
Word Power Phrasal Verbs and Compounds A Cognitive

Approach Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn
https://ebookfinal.com/download/word-power-phrasal-verbs-and-
compounds-a-cognitive-approach-brygida-rudzka-ostyn/
ebookfinal.com
World Englishes A Cognitive Sociolinguistic Approach
Applications of Cognitive Linguistics 1st Edition Wolf
Digital Instant Download
Author(s): Wolf, Hans-Georg
ISBN(s): 9783110196337, 3110196336
Edition: 1
File Details: PDF, 1.09 MB
Year: 2009
Language: english
World Englishes: A Cognitive
Sociolinguistic Approach
Hans-Georg Wolf
Frank Polzenhagen
Mouton de Gruyter
World Englishes
≥
Applications of Cognitive Linguistics
8
Editors
Gitte Kristiansen
Michel Achard
René Dirven
Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez
Mouton de Gruyter
Berlin · New York
World Englishes
A Cognitive Sociolinguistic Approach
by
Hans-Georg Wolf
Frank Polzenhagen
Mouton de Gruyter
Berlin · New York
Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague)
is a Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin
앪
앝 Printed on acid-free paper
which falls within
the guidelines of the ANSI
to ensure permanence and durability.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Wolf, Hans-Georg, 1963

World Englishes : a cognitive sociolinguistic approach / by Hans-
Georg Wolf, Frank Polzenhagen.
p. cm. ⫺ (Applications of cognitive linguistics ; 8)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-3-11-019633-7 (acid-free paper)
1. English language ⫺ Variation ⫺ Africa. 2. Africa ⫺ Langua-
ges ⫺ Influence on English. 3. Cognitive grammar ⫺ Africa.
4. Intercultural communication ⫺ Africa. 5. Sociolinguistics ⫺
Africa. 6. English language ⫺ Africa. I. Polzenhagen, Frank.
II. Title. III. Series.
PE3401.W65 2009
4271.96⫺dc22
2008046447
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.
ISBN 978-3-11-019633-7
ISSN 1861-4078
쑔 Copyright 2009 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin
All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book
may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publisher.
Printed in Germany
Contents
Acknowledgments ................................................................................... vii

List of abbreviations ................................................................................. ix
Preface ...................................................................................................... xi
1. Approaches to world Englishes:
Paradigms, positions, and perspectives ................................................ 1
1.1. Cognitive Linguistics and the study of world Englishes ........... 1
1.2. The world Englishes paradigm .................................................. 2
1.2.1. Dominant perspectives in world Englishes research ................. 2
1.2.1.1. The English studies approach .................................................... 4
1.2.1.2. The English corpus linguistics approach ................................... 4
1.2.1.3. The sociolinguistic approach ..................................................... 5
1.2.1.4. Pidgins and creole studies ......................................................... 8
1.2.1.5. The lexicographical approach ................................................... 9
1.2.1.6. Applied linguistics approaches ................................................ 10
1.2.1.7. “Common errors” studies ........................................................ 11
1.2.1.8. The “ecology of language” approach ...................................... 12
1.2.1.9. Critical linguistic approaches .................................................. 13
1.2.1.10. The generativist approach ....................................................... 14
1.2.1.11. “Popularizers” and “futurologists” .......................................... 14
1.2.2. A critical appraisal of the world Englishes paradigm .............. 15
1.2.2.1. A critical assessment of the descriptivist
approach to world Englishes ................................................... 16
1.2.2.2. A critical assessment of the critical approach to
world Englishes ....................................................................... 20
1.2.2.3. A critical assessment of hybridizationism ............................... 26
1.3. The Cognitive Linguistic paradigm and the study of
language variation ................................................................... 28
1.3.1. Cultural conceptualization research ........................................ 29
1.3.2. Cultural script research ............................................................ 35
1.3.3. Cultural keyword research ....................................................... 36
1.3.4. Social cognition research ......................................................... 39
1.3.5. Sociolinguistic metatheory research ........................................ 43
1.4. Scope, methodology, and the empirical basis of our study ..... 47
vi Contents
2. The cultural model of community in African English:

A comparative account ....................................................................... 57
2.1. Analytical tools: Conceptual metaphor, cultural models,
conceptual networks ................................................................ 57
2.2. Aspects of the African community model ............................... 72
2.2.1. The reference point of the kinship-based community model .. 72
2.2.2. Relations of group membership: The identity dimension ....... 77
2.2.3. Relations of mutual obligations: The nurture dimension ........ 91
2.2.4. Spiritual relations: The cosmological dimension .................. 101
2.2.5. Relations of tensions: The occult dimension ......................... 120
2.3. Interim summary ................................................................... 158
2.4. The African community model and politics .......................... 159
2.5. Summary and implications of the analysis ............................ 178
3. Reflections on the study of intercultural communication ................. 183

3.1. Arguments for a hermeneutic approach to the study of
intercultural communication .................................................. 183
3.1.1. Some general problems with current
functionalist pragmatics ........................................................ 183
3.1.2. Gadamer’s hermeneutics and Cognitive Linguistics ............. 184
3.2. Foci of a hermeneutic approach to intercultural
communication and a critique of functionalist positions ....... 188
3.2.1. Emphasis on meaning ............................................................ 188
3.2.2. The recognition of conceptualizations at group level ............ 195
3.2.3. Emphasis on succeeding communication .............................. 201
3.3. Intercultural understanding and the problem of relativism ... 202
3.4. Concluding remarks .............................................................. 207
4. Conclusion ........................................................................................ 209

Appendix 1: Dictionary sample ............................................................. 211
Appendix 2. Questionnaire .................................................................... 221
References .............................................................................................. 227
Index ...................................................................................................... 275
Acknowledgments
It should not be too immodest, in a co-authored book, to first of all thank

each other for constant mutual support and inspiration. Our cooperation
spans at least 7 years, in which we have produced a number of joint
articles, and many of the ideas expressed therein found their way into this
book. As to our appreciation of “third parties,” the person we wish to men-
tion first and foremost is René Dirven, to whom we dedicate this book on
the occasion of his 75th birthday. René is not only one of the shapers of the
field of Cognitive Linguistics and a leading figure in widening its scope
to applied, pragmatic, and sociolinguistic issues, but also shows an excep-
tional, if not unique, commitment to advance more junior colleagues, and
readily grants them his persistent and ever-challenging academic guidance.
He endorsed our proposal and gave shape to the book by encouraging us
to base our investigation more on cognitive-linguistic than sociolinguistic
grounds. We also thank Gitte Kristiansen, the series-editor in charge of our
proposal, for her discerning observations and suggestions on the manu-
script, and for her helpfully strict but at the same time patient handling
of the editing process. We are indebted to friends, colleagues, and the
anonymous reviewer of the manuscript for numerous thoughtful comments.
And we are grateful to Steven Sorensen for meticulously proofreading the
manuscript from a native-English perspective.
Hans-Georg expresses further gratitude to The University of Hong
Kong, his academic “exile” and “home.” The University of Hong Kong is
an outstanding place to work and do research, not only in terms of funding
and facilities, but also in terms of collegiality and intellectual excellence.
Frank’s very special thanks go to his teacher Peter Lucko at Humboldt-
University Berlin, to whom he owes much.
Yet most of all, we are indebted to our loved ones. Without Maimouna’s
approving of Hans-Georg’s move to Hong Kong, he would not have had
the opportunity to continue work in the profession he was trained in; while
without her strength and character to endure the times of separation, sus-
taining such a situation would not be possible. Frank is thankful to Céline
and Nils-Joschka for having encouraged his half-year research leave to
Hong Kong, during which the present book took shape. Their love and
support are his most precious good every day.
viii Acknowledgments
Further acknowledgments
Some parts of this book use material from

Polzenhagen, Frank and Hans-Georg Wolf (2007). Culture-specific concep-
tualisations of corruption in African English: Linguistic analyses and pragmatic
applications. In: Farzad Sharifian and Gary Palmer (eds.), Applied Cultural
Linguistics: Implications for Second Language Learning and Intercultural Com-
munication, 125-168. [Converging Evidence in Communication and Language
Research 7]. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
with kind permission by John Benjamins Publishing Company
and
Polzenhagen, Frank (2007). Cultural Conceptualisations in West African
English: A Cognitive-Linguistic Approach. [Duisburger Arbeiten zur Sprach-
und Kulturwissenschaft / Duisburg Papers on Research in Language and
Culture 69]. Frankfurt (Main) – Berlin: Peter Lang.
with kind permission by Peter Lang GmbH.
List of abbreviations
AD Alliance for Democracy

APP All People’ Party
BNC British National Corpus
CEC Corpus of English in Cameroon
CL Cognitive Linguistics
CS Cognitive Sociolinguistics
DAE Association for the Development of African Education
EAfrE East African English
ICE International Corpus of English
ICE-EA International Corpus of English-East Africa
ICM Idealized Cognitive Model
L1 First language
L2 Second language
NSM Natural Semantic Metalanguage
PDP People’s Democratic Party
PE Pidgin English
RP Received Pronunciation
RPWAE Research Project on West African English
WAE West African English
WAfrE West African English
WE World Englishes
Preface
With this book, we intend to make a substantial contribution to Cognitive

Sociolinguistics (CS), an exciting new field within Cognitive Linguistics
(CL), and at the same time advance and establish CS as a new paradigm
within the field of world Englishes (WE). Our test case for the application
of CS methods to world Englishes is the cultural model of community
expressed in African varieties of English, aspects of which have been
discussed from various angles in earlier works (see, e.g., Wolf 2001, 2003;
Wolf and Polzenhagen 2007; Polzenhagen and Wolf 2007; Polzenhagen
2007). Here, we will not only unify our account and develop our descrip-
tion of this cultural model further, but we will also broadly outline a con-
solidated metatheoretical framework of CS and WE, and the repercussions
our findings have for Cognitive Linguistics and the study of intercultural
pragmatics.
From the outset, CL has focused on the role people’s conceptualizations
play in the shaping of socio-cultural reality and vice versa. In recent years,
with the acknowledgment that the object of study is natural language, the
issue of linguistic variation has come to the foreground in CL. As has been
stressed by Geeraerts (2003b, 2005), taking seriously the “usage-based
commitment” of CL inevitably leads to a Cognitive Sociolinguistics with
an emphasis on the study of language variation. It thus seems reasonable to
merge the focus on conceptualizations and on linguistic variation in a
theoretically more encompassing concept of variation, in which linguistic
variation is seen as an expression of conceptual variation. Cognitive Socio-
linguistics, as defined by Geeraerts (2003b, 2005) and Dirven (2005), is
equipped with the rich theoretical apparatus of CL and is methodologically
open to various kinds of empirical approaches. Yet it is especially the
incorporation of corpus linguistics into CS, coupled with “traditional” CL
methods, that allows for a fine-grained analysis of variation in this wider
sense. The use of corpus linguistic methods, as solid empirical tools, also
distinguishes CS from Cultural Linguistics, another sub-branch of CL (see
section 1.3.1). As both approaches share the interest in conceptual variation,
we see their difference to be more methodological than programmatic.
xii Preface
Given the methodological openness of CS just mentioned, the findings gen-

erated by cultural-linguistic research may well be situated within a wider
cognitive-sociolinguistic framework.
Although we do provide an overview of how the link between language
variation and culture is addressed in Cognitive Linguistics and related
fields, it is not the purpose of this book to present an integrated theory in
that respect. We do, however, wish to highlight one important theoretical
aspect, namely that the study of cultural variation intrinsically is an inter-
pretative endeavor. So, if, on the one hand, the usage-based commitment
of CL leads to a Cognitive Sociolinguistics, at the same time, the interpre-
tative nature of the study of cultural conceptualizations leads to the recog-
nition of the hermeneutical dimension of CL (see Harder 2007: 1256).1
This recognition is one reason for dealing with one particular model in
hermeneutics, namely Gadamer’s approach, more extensively in the latter
part of this book; another reason is that Gadamer’s ideas, in union with
the methodological toolbox of CL, can overcome certain shortcoming in
functionalist approaches to cultural variation.
With the programmatic tenet of CL, i.e., its insistence on the interrela-
tion of language, thought, and culture, coupled with the variationist com-
mitment of Cognitive Sociolinguistics, it is compelling to apply the prin-
ciples and methods of CL, or, specifically, Cognitive Sociolinguistics, to
the study of WE. Our book argues for CS as a new model within the field
of WE, because, as explained above, we deem CS as especially suited
to investigate the cultural dimension of variation. WE is a testing ground
par excellence for the programmatic extension of CL. In this field, variation
can be studied among different varieties of one language, which still share a
common lexical core. This eliminates problems of translatability and com-
parability which occur when variation across different languages is dis-
cussed. Furthermore, these varieties are firmly rooted in a whole range
of different cultural settings and thus lend themselves to a comparative
socio-culturally oriented analysis. Here, CL can contribute to a better un-
derstanding of cultural variation expressed in these varieties (cf. Dirven
2005: 39).
Chapter 1 explores how the (meta)theoretical insights of CS apply to
world Englishes in particular. First, we will introduce and categorize the
various approaches in this field, with a special emphasis on works done on
1
We shy back from using the term “Cognitive Hermeneutics”, because our
intention is not to establish yet another sub-field of Cognitive Linguistics.
Preface xiii
English in Africa or African English.2 We will argue that these approaches

suffer from theoretical and methodological restrictions, which impede a
systematic and comprehensive investigation of culture. Although “culture”
is a keyword in Western and academic discourse (see Bennett, Grossberg,
and Morris 2005) and is, for the most part, recognized as a factor in
the evolution of the various second language varieties of English (cf. the
“Research Center for World Englishes” homepage), sociolinguists working
on WE are having difficulties in tackling culture as a linguistic phenome-
non or bypass the consequences of cultural contact altogether. In the second
part of this chapter, we will survey the various strands within CL and cog-
nate disciplines that have contributed to a wider understanding of variation.
Thirdly, we will explain how these strands feed into our study and will
introduce our methodological assumptions and empirical basis.
Chapter 2 contains the core of this book, namely our cognitive-socio-
linguistic analysis of the cultural model of community in African English.
This model consists of a vast range of interrelated conceptualizations which
form part of an overarching cosmology. Our analysis will concentrate on
four conceptual and discursive clusters – which we will call “relations,”
following anthropological terminology, see the sections 2.2.2 to 2.2.5. – of
the community model, pertaining to group membership; mutual obligations
within the community; spirituality, i.e., an extension of the ‘community’
into the realm of the supernatural; and tensions within the community, most
readily perceived as witchcraft. As our data show, this model, in its gen-
erality, is common to and expressed in all regional varieties of African
English. Thus, a side-effect of this book is a confirmation of claims re-
garding sub-Saharan Africa as a cultural unit (cf. p. 77). More importantly
for the discussion at hand, though, our study, using a mix of methodologies,
will demonstrate that cultural-conceptual variation shows in language to an
extent other approaches in the WE paradigm cannot grasp.
Chapter 3 will carry the insights gained from our cognitive-sociolin-
guistic investigation over to the field of intercultural pragmatics and to
CL itself. We will argue that functionalist approaches do not suffice to cap-
ture the complexities of meaning that are played out in intercultural com-
munication. Given the fact that a major part of world-wide intercultural
2
Terminologically, the construction “English in X” indicates a focus on the role
of English in the sociolinguistic situation of individual countries or a continent,
whereas the compound form places the emphasis on the variety itself (but also
see Wolf 2001: 22-23).
xiv Preface
communication is conducted in English, our application of cognitive-socio-

linguistic methods to a second language variety of English is especially
pertinent. At the same time, our call for strengthening semantic perspec-
tives on intercultural communication reflects back on CL as a hermeneutic
enterprise.
Paradigms, positions, and perspectives
1.1. Cognitive Linguistics and the study of world Englishes 3
Over the last three decades, the field of linguistics saw a number of major
and remarkable evolutions. Among the foremost developments is the
emergence of two new and growing research paradigms, the Cognitive
Linguistics framework and the world Englishes paradigm, which are now
firmly established on the linguistic agenda world-wide. The driving forces
that have led to the rise of the two frameworks are quite different. CL was
proposed as a genuine theoretical paradigm, in explicit opposition to and
out of disagreement with the then and still dominant framework of Genera-
tive Grammar. It is thus, most of all, an outgrowth of theoretically oriented
discourse and of a paradigm shift within the discipline of linguistics itself,
and unites linguists, controversies notwithstanding, who share a common
theoretical perspective. The forces that led to the rise of the WE paradigm
are crucially different in this respect. This research framework is essentially
linguistics’ recognition of, reaction to, and reflection on drastic social and
sociolinguistic developments brought about, first of all, by the dynamics
of globalization. Unlike CL, it is not constituted by a common theoretical
background. Rather, the common denominator of the WE paradigm is the
joined interest in the linguistic effects and implications of these societal
processes, and there is a high heterogeneity of theoretical perspectives.
Until very recently, these two paradigms have evolved in almost com-
plete isolation from each other. This is mainly due to the fact that the
proponents of the WE movement did not have a background in CL, nor
sought to draw from the insights developed in this field; in turn, the major
carriers of CL had a strong theoretical orientation and a limited commit-
ment to sociolinguistic issues. Over the last few years, however, some first
attempts have been made to merge the two paradigms: CL scholars are
turning to WE as a field for application of their approach, and, concur-
rently, linguists working on WE against a sociolinguistic background are
beginning to seek theoretical support and inspiration in CL. Our book is
3
Some ideas expressed in this chapter can also be found in Wolf (2008fc).
Paradigms, positions, and perspectives
1.1. Cognitive Linguistics and the study of world Englishes 3
Over the last three decades, the field of linguistics saw a number of major
and remarkable evolutions. Among the foremost developments is the
emergence of two new and growing research paradigms, the Cognitive
Linguistics framework and the world Englishes paradigm, which are now
firmly established on the linguistic agenda world-wide. The driving forces
that have led to the rise of the two frameworks are quite different. CL was
proposed as a genuine theoretical paradigm, in explicit opposition to and
out of disagreement with the then and still dominant framework of Genera-
tive Grammar. It is thus, most of all, an outgrowth of theoretically oriented
discourse and of a paradigm shift within the discipline of linguistics itself,
and unites linguists, controversies notwithstanding, who share a common
theoretical perspective. The forces that led to the rise of the WE paradigm
are crucially different in this respect. This research framework is essentially
linguistics’ recognition of, reaction to, and reflection on drastic social and
sociolinguistic developments brought about, first of all, by the dynamics
of globalization. Unlike CL, it is not constituted by a common theoretical
background. Rather, the common denominator of the WE paradigm is the
joined interest in the linguistic effects and implications of these societal
processes, and there is a high heterogeneity of theoretical perspectives.
Until very recently, these two paradigms have evolved in almost com-
plete isolation from each other. This is mainly due to the fact that the
proponents of the WE movement did not have a background in CL, nor
sought to draw from the insights developed in this field; in turn, the major
carriers of CL had a strong theoretical orientation and a limited commit-
ment to sociolinguistic issues. Over the last few years, however, some first
attempts have been made to merge the two paradigms: CL scholars are
turning to WE as a field for application of their approach, and, concur-
rently, linguists working on WE against a sociolinguistic background are
beginning to seek theoretical support and inspiration in CL. Our book is
3
Some ideas expressed in this chapter can also be found in Wolf (2008fc).
2 Approaches to world Englishes
explicitly meant to be a contribution to this evolution. It is, however, not

just a call for exploring common ground between the two paradigms. To us,
merging the two perspectives is more than a matter of possible inspirations
that the frameworks may take from one another. Rather, we regard the
synthesis of the two paradigms as a necessary and, in fact, an inevitable
development. The aim of the present chapter is to give substance to this
claim and to review the still small body of literature along these lines. The
overall organization of this chapter is largely determined by the above ob-
servation that the CL paradigm is driven by a common theoretical vantage
point and that the WE paradigm, in turn, is mainly constituted by the in-
terest in a common subject. Accordingly, we first set out to delineate the
dominant perspectives within the WE framework and then review studies
that apply CL theory to WE.
1.2. The world Englishes paradigm
1.2.1. Dominant perspectives in world Englishes research

In the literature, the label world Englishes is mostly used to refer to the in-
stitutionalized second-language varieties of English spoken around the
world, i.e., to what Kachru (1985) has called the “outer circle” of English,
like Indian English or Nigerian English. A near-synonymous term is New
Englishes (cf. Pride 1982; Platt, Weber and Ho 1984). Yet given the global
spread of English, the term WE may also include the varieties of English
emerging in what Kachru (1985) has called the “expanding circle” as, for
example, Japanese English (cf. Stanlaw 2004). This more inclusive view
is further justified by the fact that the border between the “outer” circle and
the “expanding” circle is fuzzy and in motion. At the other side of the
spectrum, WE may then be understood as encompassing the “inner circle”
varieties as well, like, most prominently, British or American English.
Here, too, the border between the “circles” is in motion. In a number
of countries that would generally be regarded as belonging to the “outer
circle,” significant groups of speakers have emerged or are emerging who
speak English natively rather than as a second language (L2).4 Also, some
varieties may be more typical examples for each circle than others, or may
4
Note, for instance, that in one of the numerous recent publications on WE,
Melchers and Shaw (2003), a country like Liberia is placed with the “inner
circle” of native-English countries (for a review, see Schneider 2005: 98).
explicitly meant to be a contribution to this evolution. It is, however, not

just a call for exploring common ground between the two paradigms. To us,
merging the two perspectives is more than a matter of possible inspirations
that the frameworks may take from one another. Rather, we regard the
synthesis of the two paradigms as a necessary and, in fact, an inevitable
development. The aim of the present chapter is to give substance to this
claim and to review the still small body of literature along these lines. The
overall organization of this chapter is largely determined by the above ob-
servation that the CL paradigm is driven by a common theoretical vantage
point and that the WE paradigm, in turn, is mainly constituted by the in-
terest in a common subject. Accordingly, we first set out to delineate the
dominant perspectives within the WE framework and then review studies
that apply CL theory to WE.
1.2. The world Englishes paradigm
1.2.1. Dominant perspectives in world Englishes research

In the literature, the label world Englishes is mostly used to refer to the in-
stitutionalized second-language varieties of English spoken around the
world, i.e., to what Kachru (1985) has called the “outer circle” of English,
like Indian English or Nigerian English. A near-synonymous term is New
Englishes (cf. Pride 1982; Platt, Weber and Ho 1984). Yet given the global
spread of English, the term WE may also include the varieties of English
emerging in what Kachru (1985) has called the “expanding circle” as, for
example, Japanese English (cf. Stanlaw 2004). This more inclusive view
is further justified by the fact that the border between the “outer” circle and
the “expanding” circle is fuzzy and in motion. At the other side of the
spectrum, WE may then be understood as encompassing the “inner circle”
varieties as well, like, most prominently, British or American English.
Here, too, the border between the “circles” is in motion. In a number
of countries that would generally be regarded as belonging to the “outer
circle,” significant groups of speakers have emerged or are emerging who
speak English natively rather than as a second language (L2).4 Also, some
varieties may be more typical examples for each circle than others, or may
4
Note, for instance, that in one of the numerous recent publications on WE,
Melchers and Shaw (2003), a country like Liberia is placed with the “inner
circle” of native-English countries (for a review, see Schneider 2005: 98).
Approaches to world Englishes 3
be perceived as more central members of each category.5 The smallest

possible common denominator of WE studies is thus their focus on the
differences between and the local identities of the various regional/national
varieties of English. With this focus, WE studies meet the assumption of
sociolinguistics as the “linguistics of particularity” (Figueroa 1994: 5).
Another current strand, the study of a “World English,” is, to some degree,
opposed to this particularity perspective, in that “World English” is usually
understood as some idealized norm of a uniform international and inter-
nationally intelligible English (see, e.g., Bolton 2003: 4; Seidlhofer 2003;
Jenkins 2003).
As noted in the introduction to this chapter, the WE paradigm is in itself
highly heterogeneous. The approaches that may be subsumed under this
heading on the basis of their common concern with English as an inter-
national language vary significantly with respect to their linguistic and
philosophical bases, their theoretical footings, their methodologies, their
scopes, and also their evaluations of the global role of English. For the
purpose of our discussion, we will first provide a possible grouping of
the various approaches. Beyond the heuristic value of such a classification,
this will allow us to pinpoint our specific targets of criticism in our subse-
quent discussion.
The issue of classification may be approached from a number of very
different angles. One possible perspective is to group the various strands
according to the traditions they represent and according to their main foci.
An excellent recent survey of the field from this vantage point is given by
Bolton (2003: 7-36; also see 2005). His resulting classification groups the
research on WE into some 10 categories and sub-categories. As a starting
point of our discussion, we present Bolton’s classification, in a slightly
rearranged, modified and extended form. While Bolton’s undertaking was a
characterization of the WE paradigm in general, without focusing on the
literature on a particular region, we also apply this matrix to highlight past
and present research in the field of our immediate concern, i.e., English in
Africa. Relating works on English in Africa to these paradigms is important
for understanding the way English in Africa is perceived, analyzed, and
evaluated by scholars. Given the wealth of literature, we cannot be exhaus-
tive, but will only mention works that we deem especially representative of
5
Cases in point would be, for example, Hong Kong English and Singapore
English, with the former being more on the outer fringes of the outer circle, and
the latter more on the inner fringes.
the various categories and/or are relatively recent. Of course, not all of the
works we cite fall squarely into one of the different categories alone, and
some may be referred to more than once.
1.2.1.1. The English studies approach
The “English studies” approach originated in English philology, the study

of the history of English, and phonetics. It is exemplified by the work of
British-born linguists such as Robert Burchfield, David Crystal, Sidney
Greenbaum, Tom McArthur, Randolph Quirk, John Wells, and David J.
Allerton. Following Bolton, one may also place related research done
outside the Britain-based core within this camp, including the German
strand of English studies, with scholars like Manfred Görlach and Edgar
Schneider. African English and its regional varieties have received some
attention in this approach: Spencer (1971) is a foundational collection of
articles on English in West Africa, and Schmied (1991) is perhaps the most
notable, if not only, book-length study with a continental scope that came
out of this academic school. A book on one specific national variety
of West African English under this heading is Jowitt’s (1991) study on
Nigerian English. Besides, there are a number of book chapters, journal
articles, and handbook entries providing general surveys that can be
assigned to the “English studies” approach (e.g., Todd 1982; Hancock and
Angogo 1982; Bokamba and Todd 1992; Mufwene 1992; Hansen 1993;
Crystal 2003b: 361-362). Given that many of the authors mentioned here
were the first ones to work on a given L2-variety of English, the studies
they produced are often of an exploratory nature. The focus is mainly on
linguistic usages and features in a broader varietal framework. Hence, this
approach overlaps considerably with the linguistic features and linguistic
situation approaches discussed below.
1.2.1.2. The English corpus linguistics approach
This strand has grown from the early corpus-linguistic movement in the
1960s and is closely tied, also via some of its major representatives, to the
“English studies” approach. As regards our immediate field of study, it has
reached its preliminary peak with the International Corpus of English (ICE)
project (see Greenbaum 1996; ICE 2002) which, with its comparative
outlook, is the most important compilation of corpora for the study of WE

so far. EAfrE is represented by a corpus of Kenyan and Tanzanian English
(ICE-EA) compiled by a team led by Josef Schmied (see Hudson-Ettle and
Schmied 1999, and ICE East Africa Homepage n.d. for details). First
studies are available that make use of this corpus, in particular Schmied
(2004), Haase (2004), and Skandera’s (2003) book on idioms in Kenyan
English. WAfrE was to be represented by a corpus of Cameroon English
(CEC) compiled by a team of Cameroonians (for details, see Tiomajou
1995). However, work on it stopped when the corpus was near completion,
and the CEC was eventually not included in the ICE.6 Still, it is a valuable
resource and it was drawn upon in a number of studies by the present
authors (e.g., Wolf 2001, 2003, 2006; Polzenhagen 2007; Polzenhagen and
Wolf 2007; Wolf and Polzenhagen 2007). Also within the framework of
the ICE project, a Nigerian English corpus is currently prepared at the
University of Augsburg by a team led by Ulrike Gut, and a South African
English component (ICE 2007). In section 1.4., we will give a more de-
tailed description of the African English corpora, together with a discussion
of corpus-based analysis and the use of corpora in the study of varieties.
1.2.1.3. The sociolinguistic approach
This is in itself a heterogeneous category. Its common denominator is the

footing of this type of research in the more general sociolinguistic or
language-in-society tradition. Extending Bolton’s (2005, 2003: 7-36) sub-
classification, the following strands may be identified within this broad
category:
a. The linguistic features approach

This approach takes a micro-sociolinguistic focus on linguistic variation in
and among the different varieties of English. It overlaps, to a considerable
extent, with the “English studies” approach (section 1.2.1.1.), but is also
rooted in the tradition of European dialectology and lexicography and
variationist studies in general. Prominent proponents include Peter Trudgill,
6
However, work lead by Josef Schmied, Chemnitz Technical University, is on
the way to prepare the CEC for the “ICE-light” project (Gerald Nelson,
personal communication).
Jean Hannah, and Jenny Cheshire. African varieties of English have

received a good deal of attention in this approach. Since the distinctiveness
of African English is most conspicuous in the realm of pronunciation, it is
no surprise that phonological studies make up the major part of this
category (the study of lexical features could be included in this category as
well, but, in accordance with Bolton’s classification, is treated separately
here in section 1.2.1.5.). The foremost scholar on the phonology of the
African varieties of English is, without doubt, Simo Bobda, who has gone
beyond the description of individual varieties by taking a comprehensive
comparative perspective (see, e.g., Simo Bobda 1995, 2000a, 2000b, 2001,
2003; Simo Bobda, Wolf, and Peter 1999). Recently, Talla Sando Ouafeu
(2006) has taken the level of specificity in the phonological investigation of
a world English variety to new heights in his book on intonational meaning
in Cameroon English. The description of all the variant usages of a single
national variety of African English has been attempted by Kujore (1985)
for Nigerian English. Country-specific surveys have recently been given in
Kortmann and Schneider’s (2004) Handbook of Varieties of English. They
also provide overviews of the linguistic situation in the relevant countries
and hence incorporate the perspective of the approach dealt with in the
following section.
b. The linguistic situation approach

The specific focus of this research is on the linguistic situation in the WE
regions. The framework includes, inter alia, a consideration of the his-
torical development of the linguistic situation in a given territory, of the
regional, social, and functional distribution of English and other languages
spoken in that territory, language policy, and on speakers’ attitudes. It is
often coupled with the “linguistic features” approach. Part 3 of Gramley
and Pätzold’s survey (2004) can be mentioned here (2004: ch. 14), as well
as Hansen, Carls, and Lucko (1996); both works also include sections on
English in Africa. Schmied (1991) is still the only work that could be cited
in this sub-category which has been dedicated to the whole of the African
continent, although it places more weight on English in East Africa. Major
recent studies on the linguistic situation in West African countries are
Igboanusi and Peter (2005) on Nigeria, and Wolf (2001) on Cameroon;
an ongoing PhD-project at Tilburg University by Juffermans aims at the
investigation of the linguistic situation in Gambia. Maryns’ (2000) book
on English in Sierra Leone is a combination of the “linguistic situation”
approach with the “linguistic feature” approach. English in Sudan is dealt

with in an article by Peter (2003). The linguistic situation in East Africa in
general, with special reference to English and Kiswahili, is investigated by
Mazrui and Mazrui (1993). A very good overview of the linguistic situation
in South Africa can be obtained from the collective volume on this topic
edited by Mesthrie (2002). For aspects on the linguistic situation in another
Southern African country, namely Botswana, the reader can be referred to
Nyati-Ramhobo (2006). Language attitudes in the whole of Sub-Saharan
Africa are the scope of Adegbija (1994).
c. The ‘socially realistic’ study of world Englishes

This approached is linked, most prominently, to the work of Braj B. Kachru.
It takes a macro-sociolinguistic perspective on the implications of the
spread of English in culturally diverse settings and resulting issues of
linguistic and literary creativity. We are unaware of studies on English
in Africa that are explicitly and fully based on Kachru’s ideas, except for
Bokamba (1992) – unlike many studies on English in Asia (see Y. Kachru
and Nelson 2006, for an overview). Yet scholars looking from the
Kachruvian angle at outer-circle varieties of English in general regularly
turn to the literary debate between the African writers Chinua Achebe
and Ngugi Wa Thiong’o on the role of English as a medium for cultural
expression in second language contexts (see, e.g., the debate between
Bisong 1995 and Phillipson 1996), and draw on findings from studies on
African English produced in different paradigms to justify their arguments
(see Kachru and Nelson 2006: ch. 14). In turn, terms like contextualization
and bilingual creativity, which were proposed by Kachru (see below) have
found their way into studies of English in Africa not explicitly coming from
the Kachruvian school (see, e.g., Wolf 2001).
d. The sociology of language approach

The seminal figure in this field is Joshua Fishman. Authors here concen-
trate on questions pertaining to multilingualism, ethnicity and identity,
language loyalty, nationalism, language and religion, language and educa-
tion, language development and planning. By its very nature, this approach
does not focus on one language alone but looks at the interplay and
dynamics of language(s) and society. In the African context, works that
do consider these questions with respect to the English language or have
a strong English component would most prominently include Bamgbose
(1991, 2000), Mazrui (1975, 2004), Mazrui and Mazrui (1998), but also
Baldauf and Kaplan (2004), and recent articles in Pütz, Fishman, and
Aertselaer (2006).
1.2.1.4. Pidgins and creole studies
The inclusion of this category in the WE paradigm hinges, of course, on the

understanding that the studies in question pertain to English-related contact
languages, and that these varieties can be considered as varieties of English
in a wider and general sense7 or even as part of the national varieties of
English on structural and sociolinguistics grounds (e.g., Nigerian Pidgin
English as part of Nigerian English). Studies in this rubric mostly make use
of the theoretical apparatus developed in the “English studies” approach
(see section 1.2.1.1.), the “linguistic features” approach, the “linguistic
situation” approach, and the “sociology of language” approach discussed
above in section 1.2.1.3., but also of the apparatus of the “lexicographical”
approach described below in section 1.2.1.5.
Major proponents of pidgin and creole studies include John Holm, Peter
Mühlhäusler, Salikoko Mufwene, Suzanne Romaine, and Loreto Todd. In
the African context, English-related pidgins and creoles are primarily a
West African phenomenon, and these speech forms have been documented
and analyzed in a whole range of studies. Book-length contributions to the
topic of English-related pidgins and creole varieties in West Africa include
Fyle and Jones (1980), Jones (1983), and Njeuma (1995) on Sierra Leone
Krio; Eze (1980), Barbag-Stoll (1983), Elugbe and Omamor (1991), and
Faraclas (1996) on Nigerian Pidgin English; Huber (1999) on Ghanaian
Pidgin English; and Mbassi-Manga (1973), de Féral (1989), and Schröder
(2003) on Cameroonian Pidgin English. Only smaller studies exist on the
pidginized/creolized varieties of English spoken in Gambia and Liberia:
Aku, the Gambian variety of Krio, has been dealt with by Dalphinis (1986)
and Peter and Wolf (2003), and aspects of the various forms of creolized
and pidginized English in Liberia have been discussed by Singler (1987,
1990, 1997). A comparative survey of the varieties of Pidgin English as
they are spoken in Ghana, Nigeria, and Cameroon is given by Peter and
Wolf (2007).
7
The inclusion of creole- and pidgin-related articles in the recent Handbook of
Varieties of English (Kortmann and Schneider 2004) is based on this assumption.
1.2.1.5. The lexicographical approach
The focus of this approach is on the compilation of variety-specific

dictionaries and glossaries. As regards African English, the present state of
the art is quickly described. With Dalgish (1982), there is an early quite
extensive compilation of English lexical material coming from the Sub-
Saharan region; however, his focus is on Africanisms in native varieties of
English, not on African English as such. South African English is perhaps,
in lexicographical terms, the best documented variety so far, with two
published dictionaries (Branford and Branford 1991; Silva et al. 1996). As
regards West African English, a first milestone is Igboanusi’s (2002)
dictionary of Nigerian English usage, which also incorporates the earlier
research on the lexicon of this variety (e.g., Adegbija 1989; Igboanusi
1998). A similar attempt at a description of Nigerian English is being made
by Blench (2005), but at present, only a partial initial draft is available.
Lexical peculiarities of Ghanaian English are described, more recently, by
Dako (2003, also see Dako 2001) and listed online in the Ghana Unofficial
Dictionary (1999). Aspects of the lexicon of Cameroonian English are dealt
with, inter alia, in Simo Bobda (1994c), Mbangwana (1989), Wolf (2001),
Echu (2003), and comprehensively in Kouega (2006, 2007). Furthermore,
on the internet, a list of Camfranglais items is available, which also
contains items relevant to Cameroonian English (Cook Summer 2005).8
With respect to lexical peculiarities of the English spoken in Gambia
(Peter, Wolf and Simo Bobda 2003), Sierra Leone (Pemagbi 1989), and
Liberia (Hancock 1975; Schäfer et al. 2002) the available literature is still
scarce. So far the least has been published on the lexicon of East African
English. No comprehensive and systematic effort has been made yet to
describe the lexical peculiarities of this regional variety as a whole. One
finds an analysis of the lexicon of Kenyan English in Skandera (2003), and
lexical data from East African English in general in short vocabulary lists
in Hancock and Angogo (1982: 316-318), Zuengler (1983: 116-118), and
Schmied (1991: 80-81), yet these authors’ aim is not primarily lexico-
graphical; furthermore, on the internet, a glossary existed on the important
topic of local alcoholic drinks in East Africa (University of Durham n.d.),
which is, however, no longer accessible.
8
Camfranglais is an emerging variety which incorporates elements of various
native languages, French, English, and Pidgin English.
What is generally missing is comparative research on the distribution of

lexical items in the various regional and national varieties. Items have been
identified that are specific or typical of a particular country, yet it is largely
unexplored whether these features are also exclusive, i.e., do not occur
elsewhere in the region, or even beyond. This perspective is evidently
crucial to the question about whether emerging national varieties, for
instance Nigerian English, can indeed be delineated on linguistic grounds,
or if one may at best speak of more global regional varieties like West
African English or East African English. Some first steps towards a com-
parative account are made in Wolf and Igboanusi (2003), for Cameroonian
and Nigerian English. A larger-scale research project with this objective
(henceforth also referred to as RPWAE) is in progress at Humboldt
University Berlin and The University of Hong Kong, in the framework
of which a comprehensive dictionary of West African English is being
prepared (see section 1.4.).
1.2.1.6. Applied linguistics approaches
Again, this is a category that comprises a broad spectrum of research

ranging from studies on problems of bilingualism and interference to peda-
gogical issues of teaching English in second language contexts. In this field
of research, English is more often than not considered in relation to other
languages that co-exist with it in the political or institutional setting under
investigation. The most prominent name associated with this area is per-
haps Henry G. Widdowson. Recent works in the applied linguistics branch
of WE include Gnutzmann (1999), Seidlhofer (2003), and Weideman and
Smieja (2006); the contribution by Brock-Utne (2006) in the latter volume
deals specifically with Tanzania. Further recent case studies and articles
focussing on language policy in Africa are available in DAE (1996),
Alexander (2003, 2004), and Ouane (2003). A West African perspective on
English language teaching is provided in a section comprising several
articles in Bamgbose, Banjo, and Thomas (1995). Furthermore, with a criti-
cal view towards the norm-setting hegemony of native varieties of English,
Atechi (2006) addresses issues of intelligibility and pedagogical implica-
tions for speakers of non-native varieties in general and Cameroon English
in particular.
1.2.1.7. “Common errors” studies
This area broadly pertains to English language teaching and is thus related
to the applied linguistics approaches. However, its target is on variety-
specific “mistakes,” not on general questions of English language peda-
gogy. The quotation marks in the previous sentence are used because in the
field of WE, the notion of ‘mistakes’ is something of an embarrassment or
at least a problem for those who propagate the acceptance of varietal norms
and peculiarities. From an inner circle perspective and for English language
purists, all forms that deviate from the standard of the native varieties (or
even from British English, English English, the Received Pronunciation)
may count as errors. Yet from a world Englishes perspective, the problem
of errors is far more complex, as it is tied to the question of (endonormative
and exonormative) standards and codification, one of the key and most
hotly debated issues. The question of standards is likely to be never re-
solved, given its complexity and ideological charge, and the debate cannot
be revisited here (for an overview, see Wolf 2001: 18-22; but also the
Kachru – Quirk Debate in Tickoo 1991: 153-231; and Honey 1997: 243-
253). In contexts where L2-speakers of English are insecure about their
second language skills and in absence of an endormative standard, there is a
market for publications with titles like “The most common Hong Kong
English language errors and how to avoid them” (Bird 2001). Interestingly
enough, it is often proponents of the WE paradigm that are involved in
projects designed to identify “errors” in L2-varieties with the aim to help
learners to overcome them and hence to become more “native-like” (see,
e.g., the website created by Bolton and Luke, under The Department of
Linguistics, The University of Hong Kong 2005; Simo Bobda 1994b).9
However, if these are “common errors” – see the title of Jowitt and
Nnamonu’s book (1998) Common Errors in English – one wonders to what
9
We do not raise this point to criticize our cherished colleagues in their effort to
improve the language skills of L2 learners, given the existence of “linguistic
apartheid” in terms of first and second language varieties of English described
by Simo Bobda (2004). Yet we would like to draw attention to possible argu-
mentative inconsistencies, i.e., on the one hand arguing for the legitimacy of
WE varieties including their peculiar features and on the other hand identifying
those peculiar features as mistakes that need to be rectified. But perhaps such
inconsistencies cannot be avoided as long as variety-specific codifications are
missing, and we ourselves are not free from them, for example, when it comes
to correcting student papers written in English by Hong Kong students.
extent these errors could be seen as part of a norm; in Jowitt and

Nnamonu’s case, African English.10 Books that deal with errors by speakers
of particular West African varieties are Simo Bobda (1994b) for Cameroon
English, and Kujore (1985) for Nigerian English. On the other side of the
continent, Hocking (1974) has collected East-Africanisms he deems as
errors. In his effort to correct them, he explicitly prescribes a native-speaker
usage, with British English or American English as the only acceptable
norms (see Hocking 1974: 57-60).
1.2.1.8. The “ecology of language” approach
This strand is not distinguished by Bolton, and research along these lines
would fall into several of his other categories. This loose interpretation
of the “ecology of language” approach is justified in the case of the nu-
merous studies in which the “ecology of language” view is adopted as a
convenient heuristic metaphor for the explanation of linguistic processes,
such as language change and the emergence of contact languages; in these
studies, one would find, for example, the use of terms like “language
environment” or “linguistic landscape” rather than “linguistic situation.”
A prominent example is the work of Mufwene (e.g., 2001), but ecological
metaphors are omnipresent and spreading throughout the recent literature.
However, when the ecological view is understood in a stricter, ecolinguistic
sense (see, e.g., Fill 1993, 1996), it represents, also according to its self-
definition, a distinct theoretical paradigm, which justifies a separate
mention of this strand. Ecolinguistics has strong roots in the sociolinguistic
movement, in particular through one of its forefathers, Einar Haugen
(1972), yet it clearly goes beyond traditional sociolinguistic concerns in
that it views language as part of an overarching ecology which comprises
not only the linguistic and socio-cultural but also the natural environment
(on the intellectual roots of ecolinguistics, see Mühlhäusler 2000).11 The
WE branch of the ecolinguistic approach is most prominently represented
10
Jowitt and Nnamonu are fully aware of this problem. Their solution is to not list
certain lexical deviations as errors, but they include, for example, the addition
of plural-s to uncountable nouns, a common feature in L2-varieties of English
(see Jowitt and Nnamonu 1998: vii).
11
On the distinction between a metaphoric and literal ecolinguistic understanding,
see Polzenhagen and Dirven (2008fc).
by the work of Peter Mühlhäusler (e.g., 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 2001, 2003),
whose focus is on English and English-related speech forms in the Pacific
region. We are unaware of any comparable in-depth studies on African
varieties of English along strict ecolinguistic lines. The African context has
received attention by this strand primarily for its linguistic and biological
diversity (see, e.g., Nettle and Romaine 2000; Skutnabb-Kangas 2000,
2003) and in studies that focus, more narrowly, on linguistic “eco-
systems.” Ecolinguistics has a strong critical commitment and thus overlaps
to a considerable extent with the category described in the following
section (1.2.1.9.).
1.2.1.9. Critical linguistic approaches
The explicit focus of these approaches is on socio-political, socio-cultural,

and general ideological implications of linguistic and sociolinguistic de-
velopments. Unlike the Kachruvian ‘socially realistic’ approach (section
1.2.1.3.), which emphasizes actual and potential gains from the evolution of
WE, critical approaches hold an essentially negative view of this process in
terms of the perceived detrimental effect of English on indigenous cultures
and languages. Proponents of the critical view have their philosophical
background in a variety of traditions ranging from romantic thinking, neo-
Marxism to post-modernism. The critical approach has been applied, from
a historical perspective, to the colonial period (e.g., Pennycook 1998),
yet the main focus is clearly on current implications of globalization.
Key notions include that of ‘linguistic imperialism’ (Phillipson 1992),
‘linguistic human rights’ (e.g., Skutnabb-Kangas 2000; Skutnabb-Kangas
and Phillipson 1994; and Phillipson 2000), and ‘linguistic diversity’ (e.g.,
Nettle 1999; Dixon 1997; Nettle and Romaine 2000). Particular emphasis is
placed on mother-tongue education (see, e.g., Ouane 2003a, 2003b, 2003c;
and Pattanayak 2003a). There is a large overlap with ecolinguistically
oriented criticism (e.g., Maffi 2001; Mühlhäusler 1996a, 1996b). For Eng-
lish in the African context, these critical views are echoed in Roy-Campell
(2001), but also quite prominently by the writer Ngugi Wa Thiong’o (e.g.,
1986a, 2005).
1.2.1.10. The generativist approach
The generativist program is explicitly non-sociolinguistic, or, perhaps more

precisely, traditionally does not consider sociolinguistics as linguistics
“proper”. Thus, the combination of generativist theorizing with a WE per-
spective is a limited one. However, a number of issues that are hallmarks
of sociolinguistic research are also of immediate interest to the generativist
endeavor, albeit from a more narrowly structural and/or typological per-
spective. These issues include, most prominently, second-language acquisi-
tion, code-switching, and creole linguistics, and they have received a great
deal of attention in generativist studies. Furthermore, over the last decade,
generativist linguists have begun to turn explicitly to regional and historical
varieties of English as objects of study, and, generally speaking, the varia-
tional perspective is getting more and more prominent on the generativist
research agenda.12 In turn, in the vast field of studies from authors with an
explicit background in WE research, one can find the application of the
generativist framework. There is, for instance, a strong generativist strand
in pidgins and creole studies, with Bickerton as a key figure. With respect
to our immediate concern, i.e., African varieties of English, the theoretical
apparatus of generativist phonology has also been prominently applied to
Cameroon English phonology by Simo Bobda (1994a) and Simo Bobda
and Chumbow (1999), and to Nigerian English phonology also by Simo
Bobda (2007), in order to explain regular and rule-governed patterns in
these varieties.
1.2.1.11. “Popularizers” and “futurologists”
The “popularizers” Bolton (2003: 28-32) discusses are McCrum, Cran, and
MacNeil (1986) and Crystal (2003b [1995], 1997), and in the works of
these authors, one also finds references to English in Africa (see Bolton
2003: 30; and above). Graddol is the only author mentioned by Bolton for
12
This development is reflected, beyond the body of individual studies, in
Radford’s (1997) widely read introduction to the minimalist approach, which
uses illustrative material from various varieties of English, and also by the fact
that it is not unusual anymore to find a chapter on sociolinguistics in recent
introductory text books written from a generativist perspective, e.g., O’Grady,
Archibald, Aronoff and Rees-Miller’s (2004: ch. 15) widely used course book.
the futurology of English, and indeed, for a projection of sociological de-

velopments on a global scale, Graddol, with his 1997 book The Future of
English? and ongoing research (see Graddol n.d.) seems to have a mo-
nopoly in this area. For future grammatical developments of the English
language, an article by Kortmann (2001) may serve as an example. Graddol
is concerned with global trends, and does not specifically predict the future
of English in Africa, and we are not aware of any author who has dealt
extensively with this issue.
1.2.2. A critical appraisal of the world Englishes paradigm

From a cognitive-linguistic point of view and for our present purpose, the
different strands outlined in the previous section based on Bolton (2003,
2005) can be usefully placed in three prototype categories with partially
overlapping clusters at their boundaries.
The first category takes a descriptive perspective on WE. The focus is
on linguistic variation per se and descriptions of either specific linguistic
features of varieties, the linguistic situation in English-speaking countries,
or language attitudes. At the core of this category is thus work done within
the “English studies” approach (see section 1.2.1.1.), the “English corpus
linguistics” approach (see section 1.2.1.2.), the “linguistic features”
approach and the “linguistic situation” approach (see section 1.2.1.3.), the
pidgins and creole studies (see section 1.2.1.4.), and the lexicographic
approach (see section 1.2.1.5.). Furthermore, work from the “applied
linguistics” approaches (see section 1.2.1.6.), the “common errors” studies
(see section 1.2.1.6.), and the generativist approach (see section 1.2.1.10.)
is partly placed within this category, but also studies along the lines of the
“ecology of language” approach (see section 1.2.1.8.).
The second category takes a critical perspective on WE and comprises
approaches which emphasize actual or potential negative consequences of
the role and spread of English and which, in their strongest version,
subscribe to the view that the use of English alienates its second language
speakers from the cultures of their mother tongues (cf. below). This cate-
gory would primarily include strands situated in the “ecology of language”
approach (see section 1.2.1.8.), the “critical linguistic” approach (see
section 1.2.1.9.) and the “sociology of language” approach (see section
1.2.1.3.), but also studies from the “applied linguistics” approaches (see
section 1.2.1.6.).
The third category is the hybridizationist perspective, comprising the

“socially realistic” study of world Englishes (see section 1.2.1.3.) and,
partly, “applied linguistics” approaches (see section 1.2.1.6.). Constitutive
of this category is the view of WE as culturally hybrid products of bilingual
and bicultural speakers.
It is important to stress that these categories are meant to characterize
dominant perspectives rather than to give labels to individual authors. The
generalizations that necessarily come with this broad classification may not
do justice to scholars who find themselves in an in-between position. Note,
however, that we explicitly view these categories as overlapping, i.e., for
instance, the hybridization or the critical view do not at all exclude a de-
scriptive commitment, although they may also come along without any
strong descriptive element. Likewise, taking primarily the hybridization
perspective is not even incompatible with considering or sharing some of
the positions that are constitutive of the critical approach. Membership in
these categories is often a matter of degree; there are central cases as well
as those at the periphery. Individual and periphery instances do not impinge
upon the heuristic value of the above classification. Furthermore and more
specifically, as stated earlier, the categories allow us to pinpoint our criti-
cism in the subsequent discussion. We argue that the approaches situated
in the three categories, their numerous merits notwithstanding, have failed
to adequately account for a crucial aspect of variation, namely the cultural-
conceptual dimension of WE, and that this failure is due to theoretical and
methodological shortcomings inherent in these approaches. In our opinion,
these shortcomings have led to a dead end in this respect and cannot be
overcome unless a cognitive-linguistic perspective is taken.
1.2.2.1. A critical assessment of the descriptivist approach

to world Englishes
Descriptive studies of WE clearly dominate the field13 and they have given
shape to the paradigm itself. Indeed, one can hardly keep pace with the
constantly growing and meanwhile impressive body of descriptively ori-
ented works that have been published on WE.
13
Brown’s (2001) survey of papers presented at past WE conferences and
consultation of experts has shown this clear dominance of the descriptive
approach.
The first focus of descriptive work is on the various standard levels of

linguistic analysis, in particular the phonetic/phonological, the grammati-
cal, and the lexical features of WE. Here, the core of the studies has its
theoretical and methodological footing in the structuralist tradition. Their
perspective is thus to identify varieties as distinct linguistic systems in
the structuralist sense, often with a comparative component. These studies
attest to the broad range of varieties of English, and this approach deserves
full recognition for bringing to light, legitimizing, and meticulously
documenting the numerous varieties of English that exist. From a CL per-
spective, the core of the descriptive approach advocates, however, a far
too narrow understanding of “form” and of what counts as “linguistic
peculiarities.” This narrow understanding deliberately excludes important
dimensions of variation, inter alia, “linguistic peculiarities” like cultural
keywords (see section 1.3.3.), differences in prototypicality and entrench-
ment, and differences in frequency, traceable, e.g., in corpus analyses.
Unaddressed are also crucial aspects of relations between linguistic units,
beyond standard structuralist formal and semantic parameters. Specifically,
little or no attention is paid to the fact that linguistic material from various
domains is systematically linked through metaphoric and metonymic
mappings, which constitutes a key dimension of relatedness.14 The methods
developed in CL allow for a systematic investigation of these phenomena.
Closely tied to the narrow understanding of formal variation is another
crucial shortcoming of the descriptive approach. Extra-linguistic (e.g.,
socio-cognitive) data receives little or no attention in linguistic studies
along this line. In this type of research, the cultural component of WE is at
best seen as optional, in addition to or in service of formal descriptions, but
it is certainly not granted legitimacy by itself. Cultural cognition is put out
of the scope of linguistic analysis. A quote by Quirk (1981: 152), who,
referring to Indian English, pointed out that “the natural processes of
language-culture interaction have produced a large number of phonological,
grammatical, lexical and stylistic features,” attests to this narrow focus
14
A view expressed by Huber, author of a book on Ghanaian Pidgin English
(Huber 1999) exemplifies the descriptivist stance: In his review of Wolf (2001),
he disagrees with Wolf on the viability of a cognitive-linguistic approach to
WE. He forms his opinion on the basis of the alleged absence of “linguistic
peculiarities,” i.e., formal differences, in the description of the worldview of
Cameroonians expressed in their variety of English (Huber 2004: 209-210).
This criticism attests to the narrow understanding of form and formal variation
in the core descriptivist view.
of linguistic interest. Quirk’s observation is most certainly true, but there

is a substantial amount more to language-culture interaction in varieties of
English than the production of novel linguistic features and variety-specific
lexicons (also see Wolf 2001: 2, 2004: 135, 2008). In its neglect of socio-
cultural cognition, the descriptivist approach is heir to a strict Saussurean
divide of language and culture, with language being seen as the only true
object of linguistic analysis. In the Saussurean conception, language is
regarded as a self-contained system of forms and meanings “où tout se
tient,”15 which has severed language from the conceptual world of its
speakers and the culture that offers them the models and frames to live,
think and act in (see Dirven, Wolf, and Polzenhagen 2007). While the
structuralist approach has evolved in many respects since its early
Saussurean days, it still seems to be largely oblivious to the “cultural turn”
in linguistics (see Auer 2000). In the specific case of descriptive work on
WE, the neglect of cultural cognition is certainly striking. In a recently
published resource book on World Englishes for students (Jenkins 2003),
for instance, the keyword “culture” and its derivations cannot be found in
the index at all. It is also absent from the index to the volumes 1-20 (1980-
99) of the journal English World-Wide: A Journal of Varieties of English,
certainly one of the main journals in the field and the prime outlet of
descriptive work on WE. In the journal’s issues from 2000, 21(1) to 2004,
25(1), “cultural” appears only in the title of two paper, in Cheng and
Warren (2001) and in Peeters (2004). With Malcolm and Rochecouste’s
(2000) study on event and story schemas in Australian Aboriginal English,
there is, however, one article with an explicit cultural-linguistic background
(see section 1.3.1.).
It is not our intention to question the right, desire, and need of a
paradigm, a journal or an author to keep a tight and clear profile, nor do we,
to repeat, imply any disrespect for the merits of the descriptive approach.16
15
On the origin of the phrase, see, e.g., LINGUIST List 14.1954. Note that the
methodological and terminological apparatus used by descriptive studies is
designed to capture language from this restricted angle, i.e., as a “linguistic
system.” It does not provide the appropriate tools needed to address the
conceptual level.
16
The first author of the present book has taken the descriptive approach in
several articles himself, and our current work on a dictionary of West African
English (RPWAE) is a “prototypically” descriptivist endeavor (see section 1.4.
for a description of this project). It is, however, also precisely in this work that
we strongly feel confronted with the limits of descriptivism.
Rather, we are concerned with delineating perspectives and with identify-

ing dimensions that are neglected by a particular approach, and it is merely
a statement of facts that the cultural dimension of language is outside the
scope of the core of the descriptivist approach. Descriptivists provide at
best a “thin” description (to pick up a Geertzian term) of linguistic items in
their embeddedness in a socio-cultural context.17 CL explicitly seeks for a
“thick” description. It explicitly rejects the view of language as a self-
contained system (cf., e.g., Langacker 2002: 1): For a cognitive linguist,
meaning is “encyclopedic,” i.e., no principled dividing line is drawn be-
tween “linguistic semantics” and “world knowledge” (cf. Taylor 1993: 8),
and “meaning” is equated with “conceptualization” (cf., e.g., Langacker
2002: 1). Culture, then, is not an external category in linguistic investi-
gations; rather, it is an integral dimension of it. In particular, it is a central
tenet of CS, as we understand it, that the conceptual content an item has for
a particular socio-cultural group needs to be taken into account in studies
on language variation. It is important to notice that this stance constitutes a
veritable shift in perspective vis-à-vis descriptivist accounts.18
17
The narrow emphasis on “form” is also prominent in discussions of “interna-
tional English” and in studies on the “intelligibility” of L2-speakers of English.
The focus here is on syntactic divergence and phonological differences (see,
e.g., Seidlhofer 2003; Atechi 2006). The category ‘culture’ hardly ever receives
much attention in these discussions; or, worse, some even treat Western-based
concepts as a kind of neutral base for an international English (see Johnson
1990). The discussion of an international English overlaps with studies of
English as lingua franca interactions (see House 2003), and CL can make a
valuable contribution to a meaning-oriented approach to intercultural commu-
nication as well (see chapter 3).
18
Consider, as in illustration, the study of variety-specific lexical peculiarities
of English items in the New Englishes. Many standard descriptivist accounts
in the structuralist tradition, with their focus on “linguistic systems,” analyze
these items, roughly speaking, in terms of “mother-tongue interference” and/or
“semantic shifts/extensions” of common-core English items vis-à-vis (Western)
Standard English. CL would seek to identify the conceptualizations underlying
these items: Rather than speaking narrowly of “mother-tongue interference,”
these items would be regarded as formally different manifestations of a com-
mon conceptual structure in the speaker’s mother tongue, on the one hand, and
in the L2 variety of English, on the other hand. Respectively, rather than
speaking of “semantic shifts/extensions,” the CL account would make clear that
there are diverging conceptualizations underlying the use of an item in
(Western) Standard English and the New English variety.
The second focus of the descriptivist approach is not on the linguistic

system as such, but is based on a broader, and thus less restricted under-
standing of “description,” namely that of the sociolinguistic situation in
WE countries, and, from a more speaker-centered vantage point, of lan-
guage attitudes and issues of linguistic identity. This research cluster has
yielded comprehensive accounts of the sociolinguistic settings in which
WE are embedded (see, e.g., Hansen, Carls, and Lucko’s 1996 introductory
survey, and also the relevant studies cited from the “linguistic situation”
approach in section 1.2.1.3.). One specific input the CL perspective can
make to this field of study is the cognitive approach to social identity (see
section 1.3.4.).
1.2.2.2. A critical assessment of the critical approach to world Englishes
Critical studies generally take a holistic approach, in that they explicitly

view languages as being inextricably linked to their socio-cultural, political,
linguistic, and, sometimes also natural environment. One of their major
objectives is ideological criticism. Ideologies targeted include (neo)-impe-
rialism, (neo)-colonialism, elitism, and unecological thinking. At a more
general level, the critical approach targets the processes of globalization,
where the above ideologies are found to crystallize. In our discussion, we
will not be concerned with these ideologies in themselves,19 rather we will
focus on the more narrowly linguistic arguments put forward in critical
studies. The strong misgivings critical authors have about globalization
translate, in this approach, into a highly negative view of the role of WE.
Three sets of assumptions made within the critical approach about WE
stand out here. Their common denominator are the emphasis on indigenous
languages and the view of English as a threat.
The first set of assumptions derives from the key focus of the critical
approach on linguistic diversity, and from its strong concern about what has
19
A discussion of these ideologies is far beyond the scope of the present book.
Suffice it to say that we do share some of the general ideological criticism
expressed by authors situated in the critical approach. There is no denying the
fact that these ideologies exist and that their effects are as harmful as their basis
is questionable. It is, however, at odds with the realities to reduce globalization
to these ideologies. We also differ sharply from many critical authors as regards
their assumptions about the role of language, and WE in particular.
been termed, in biological metaphors, ‘language death’ and ‘language

attrition’ among the lesser-spoken languages. Here, the global spread
of English is perceived and presented as a major threat to world-wide
linguistic diversity. The assumption goes that English replaces local lan-
guages at a massive scale, either completely or in specific domains, which
affects, to put it in the logic of the biological metaphor,20 the “vitality”
of local languages. This is essentially a sociolinguistic argument, since
it makes claims about shifts in the sociolinguistic situation in the regions
in question. Several points need to be made here. Factually, English is far
less a replacement language than the threat rhetoric suggests. As Mufwene
(2002), for instance, observes, the threat-scenario may apply to settings
where English is spoken as a vernacular, i.e., especially in former “settle-
ment colonies.” In former “exploitation colonies,” however, where the use
of English was restricted to a small set of domains and a relatively small
number of speakers, the situation appears to be markedly different. In such
settings, the shift to dominant prestigious local languages as national
languages rather than a shift to English constitutes a potential “threat”
to small indigenous languages (cf. Mufwene 2002: 13). For the specific
African context, this is clearly the more realistic picture, since exploitation-
style colonialism was the general pattern pursued during British rule on this
continent.21 Examples of such dominant local languages include Haussa
and Wolof in West Africa (on Wolofization in Senegal / Gambia see Peter
and Wolf 2003), Swahili in East Africa (see, e.g., Mufwene 2002: 16;
Batibo 2006: 271-275), Lingala and Munukutuba for Congo-Brazzaville
(Khabirov 2004), and Arabic. The threat rhetoric is dubious in yet another
respect: It takes a markedly negative and disrespectful stance towards
linguistic choices made by speakers and speech communities. Generally,
given the strong emphasis on diversity in the critical approach, it is al-
together surprising that the emergence of the numerous local varieties of
English is rarely acknowledged by proponents of this approach as a genuine
20
There is a strong trend in current critical approaches to adopt a biological/
ecological model of language inspired by ecolinguistics. Against the back-
ground of this model, the threat-view metaphorizes English as an alien species
which invades and destroys local linguistic, cultural and biological ecosystems;
see Polzenhagen and Dirven (2008fc) for a detailed discussion.
21
The former British colonies in today’s Republic of South Africa are an ex-
ception, since there was considerable settlement-style colonialization. Like-
wise, Hong Kong does not readily fit the scheme, as it was neither a settlement
colony nor an exploitation colony.
and crucial dimension of diversification. They thus rather pass over the
findings of those descriptivists who have worked out the innumerable novel
linguistic features of the New Englishes. Also, the negative stance towards
the spread of English obscures the fact that these second-language varieties
are an enrichment of the linguistic potential of individual speakers as
well as at the level of speech communities, which is again an aspect of
diversification. Thus the claim made that English is a “killer language,”
propagated, e.g., in Skutnabb-Kangas (2000), is often at odds with the
sociolinguistic realities of the regions in question. The fact that this claim
is currently popular and sweepingly made among linguists calls for meta-
theoretical criticism. The “scientific” models underlying analyses of socio-
linguistic settings and developments, and the ideologies inherent in these
models, need to be scrutinized. Here, CL lends itself for application, since
it offers analytic tools for a critical assessment of ideologies and scientific
models (see section 1.3.5.).
The second set of assumptions is derived from the emphasis of the
critical approach on socio-cultural identity. With respect to culture, authors
in this camp are exponents of what Polzenhagen and Dirven (2008fc),
leaning on Geeraerts (2003a), have termed the ‘romantic model’:22 Here,
languages are seen primarily as the medium to express cultural identity and
as a reservoir of cultural knowledge. Against this background, the indige-
nous languages are regarded as the authentic bearers of autochthonous
culture. The same romantic stance, however, is not taken towards the
second-language varieties of English. Rather, “English” seems to be treated
as a monolithic entity which inextricably embodies a Western worldview
and, with its spread, transports this worldview globally.23 The processes of
22
For fuller summaries and a critique of the critical perspective, also beyond
the aspect of culture, see, e.g., Mair (2002, 2003); Lucko (2003); Wolf and
Igboanusi (2006); Polzenhagen and Dirven (2008fc).
23
To further illustrate the logic of this paradigm, one may loosely apply Reddy’s
(1993 [1979]) metaphoric models of language, well-known within the field of
CL: The critical view of English would roughly correspond to the conduit
metaphor, in that English is seen as the container through which Western ideas
are transported to other cultures, and changes of meaning are not admitted. The
hybridizationist approach – and the position we espouse – would rest on the
toolmaker’s paradigm, in which different (cultural) environments lead to
changes in meaning and may result in difficulties in understanding (see chapter
3). Given that the third paradigm, descriptivism, is basically mute on the issue
of culture, it cannot really be characterized in terms of Reddy’s models.
globalization are seen as a homogenization of the world’s culture(s) in

Western terms,24 as reflected in such notions like ‘MacDonaldization,’
‘MacWorld,’ or ‘Englishisation’ (see, e.g., Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas
1999). The latter term makes the supposed agency of English in this
process explicit. With Schmied (1991: 104), one may call this type of
argument and the camp of its proponents “alienationist”: Essentially, the
claim is made that the English language is the conceptual Trojan horse of
Western culture and world-view, and that the adoption of English alienates
its new speakers from their own original culture embodied by their mother
tongue. This view thus rests on deterministic assumptions about the relation
between culture, thought, and language.25 The camp metaphor used above
is certainly justified, given the current heated debate on the role of English
world-wide. It is all the more justified as the “alienationists” are in sharp
opposition to other ‘camps’ in WE research. They are at odds with those
descriptivists who document the various linguistic manifestations of the
“indigenization” processes the New Englishes have undergone and undergo
in their respective settings, manifestations which to a considerable extent
go back to the cultural background of the speakers (albeit this background
is not sufficiently accounted for in the work of the descriptivists). Aliena-
tionists are also fully at odds with hybridizationists (see below), whose very
research program is to analyze WE as the product of socio-cultural fusion
24
The inappropriateness of this reductionism, which unduly cuts down globaliza-
tion process to homogenization, is also noticed by authors situated in the
critical approach themselves. Pennycook (2003a: 15), for example, explicitly
rejects the simplistic homogenization view and takes a positive stance towards
WE. Based on his postmodernist notion of ‘wordliness,’ he regards the new
forms of English as transformed and reinvented by the local people to their
advantage, thus recognizing the processes of diversification linked to globaliza-
tion. This, however, does not place him among the hybridizationists, since he
explicitly takes distance from this approach and cautions against what he finds
an apolitical relativism of the WE linguistic hybridity advocates, in that they
ignore “the broader political context of the spread of English” (Pennycook
2003b: 516). His critical commitment crystallizes in the very notion of ‘wordly
English,’ too: These new forms of English are, at the same time, a means of
resistance and a counter-force to globalization, as a defense of the “local.” See
Holborow (1999: 80-86) for a longer critique of Pennycook; also see Wolf and
Igboanusi (2006: 335-338, 348).
25
Again, there are critical authors, most prominently Pennycook, who notice and
challenge this “determinism of some critical approaches” (Pennycook 2001:
71).
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
Section 4. Information about Donations to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws

regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine
the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states

where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot

make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current

donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and
credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About

Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several

printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by
copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus,
we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear
about new eBooks.
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
back
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade
Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!
ebookfinal.com

80427

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

80427

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

80427

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Download the full version of the ebook at

World Englishes A Cognitive Sociolinguistic

Explore and download more ebook at https://ebookfinal.com

Language and Time A Cognitive Linguistics Approach 1st

Creativity and Artificial Intelligence A Conceptual

Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality in Spanish Semi

Applied Cognitive Linguistics II Language Pedagogy

Handbook of Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience

A Cognitive Functional Approach to Nominalization in

Cognitive Linguistics and Religious Language An

Word Power Phrasal Verbs and Compounds A Cognitive

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Wolf, Hans-Georg, 1963

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

Acknowledgments ................................................................................... vii

2. The cultural model of community in African English:

3. Reflections on the study of intercultural communication ................. 183

4. Conclusion ........................................................................................ 209

It should not be too immodest, in a co-authored book, to first of all thank

Some parts of this book use material from

AD Alliance for Democracy

With this book, we intend to make a substantial contribution to Cognitive

Given the methodological openness of CS just mentioned, the findings gen-

English in Africa or African English.2 We will argue that these approaches

communication is conducted in English, our application of cognitive-socio-

1.1. Cognitive Linguistics and the study of world Englishes 3

1.1. Cognitive Linguistics and the study of world Englishes 3

explicitly meant to be a contribution to this evolution. It is, however, not

1.2. The world Englishes paradigm

1.2.1. Dominant perspectives in world Englishes research

explicitly meant to be a contribution to this evolution. It is, however, not

1.2. The world Englishes paradigm

1.2.1. Dominant perspectives in world Englishes research

be perceived as more central members of each category.5 The smallest

1.2.1.1. The English studies approach

The “English studies” approach originated in English philology, the study

1.2.1.2. The English corpus linguistics approach

outlook, is the most important compilation of corpora for the study of WE

1.2.1.3. The sociolinguistic approach

This is in itself a heterogeneous category. Its common denominator is the

a. The linguistic features approach

Jean Hannah, and Jenny Cheshire. African varieties of English have

b. The linguistic situation approach

approach with the “linguistic feature” approach. English in Sudan is dealt

c. The ‘socially realistic’ study of world Englishes

d. The sociology of language approach

1.2.1.4. Pidgins and creole studies

The inclusion of this category in the WE paradigm hinges, of course, on the

1.2.1.5. The lexicographical approach

The focus of this approach is on the compilation of variety-specific

What is generally missing is comparative research on the distribution of

1.2.1.6. Applied linguistics approaches

Again, this is a category that comprises a broad spectrum of research

1.2.1.7. “Common errors” studies

extent these errors could be seen as part of a norm; in Jowitt and

1.2.1.8. The “ecology of language” approach

1.2.1.9. Critical linguistic approaches

The explicit focus of these approaches is on socio-political, socio-cultural,

1.2.1.10. The generativist approach

The generativist program is explicitly non-sociolinguistic, or, perhaps more