Week Fowr-teeyn.

For starters, this chapter began with referencing the growing presence of English in our modern world. It says that, “the current Growth of English is due largely to the increasing number of second language speakers of English who are learning English within their own country.” This is directed at Kachru’s outer and expanding circles. This increase of English speakers for which English is their L2 means an increase of bilingual children those countries. This bilingualism, along with a few select forward-thinking parents, means that future generations may very well acquire English as their L1, or simultaneously with the traditional language of their country.

This raises to me a few questions regarding the future linguistic effects of the outer and expanding circles on Standard English. As for right now, there is Standard British English, the Queen’s/King’s English, American English, and half a dozen other types from the main English-speaking states. But, if the majority of English-speakers someday are not in an inner circle community, then would their way become the standard? Or would whatever country has the most economic power reign supreme?

This transitions smoothly into my next observation. The book cites four varieties of English in Nigeria. The first is socially unacceptable and “internationally intelligible.” Number two is socially acceptable but has “low international intelligibility.” The third is socially acceptable and “internationally intelligible.” Lastly, the fourth variation is “identical with Standard British English in [its linguistic forms].” This leads me to wonder if the standard is the best route. Sure, it is internationally understandable, but the book says that only 10% of the population speak that fourth variety. Shouldn’t the standard be the most common? Should the international community put more emphasis on an Earthly Standard English or just let the tides flow as they may?

If the standard English were to change, or a global standard were to form, what would be its accent? Would the accent matter as long as the syntax and pragmatics were appropriate? And to change this accent, could an individual permanently change their own? The Lippie-Green reading for class says that “it is not possible for an adult to substitute his or her phonology (one accent) for another, consistently and in a permanent way.” It goes on to explain that this is the typical linguist’s view, whereas the non-linguist will give an example about their third cousin who ‘dropped’ or ‘gained’ an accent to be more socially acceptable. This is bologna in my opinion. Yes, we may consciously train ourselves to speak one way, but when we are our most tired, most pissed-off, or drunkest, the original version grace us with its presence. If this does not seem to be the case, then the accent is being completely faked—go ask Dr. Smith upstairs his opinion and your dissenting one will be shut down. I believe in being able to train oneself to a point where an accent is nearly undetectable, but it takes years and does not fully envelop the language used. This seems impossible to me.