The World Englishes Paradigm and Beyond

Weinreich's (Reference Weinreich1953) pioneering work sets the agenda for much of the research in the field of contact linguistics. Recognizing the impact on this field of the worldwide prominence of English, Kachru (Reference Kachru1986, Reference Kachru and Kachru1992) provides the foundation for an understanding of English as a global phenomenon. A locus for the WE paradigm is Kachru's (Reference Kachru1986, Reference Kachru and Kachru1992) inner/outer/expanding circles model of English as a global language. This model offers a template for thinking about the range of issues associated with the rise of English as an international language. Building on the work of Kachru, Phillipson (Reference Phillipson1992) is well-known for his influential work on the nature of English as a global/imperialistic language. In place of Kachru's ‘circles model’, Phillipson presents a core/periphery model of English as an imperialist global language.

This founding WE paradigm, while informative and essential, is nonetheless limited, and these limitations indicate the need for a perspective that moves beyond that paradigm. Bolton (Reference Bolton2005) refers to this as the ‘critical turn’ in WE (Bolton, Reference Bolton2005: 74). Bolton (Reference Bolton2005) highlights the work of Pennycook (Reference Pennycook2001, Reference Pennycook2003) as primarily representative of this new critical perspective in WE. However, rather than classify this approach as yet another development within the WE paradigm, I suggest that it is more effective to characterize this critical turn as a post-WE approach. Rather than represent another stage in the evolution of the same WE approach, the critical turn emerges as a substantive break from the WE paradigm.

One of this post-WE perspective's main influences is Michel Foucault's (Reference Foucault1990) analysis of power, which presents power as diffuse and embedded in discourse, knowledge and institutions throughout society, rather than as centrally located in dominant structures. The resultant notion of governmentality (Foucault, Reference Foucault, Burchell, Gordon and Miller1991) can be drawn upon in order to focus on the mechanisms of power in more localized contexts as revealed in relational dynamics that involve individual agents. Alastair Pennycook incorporates this notion of power in his attempt to develop a more critical applied linguistics (Pennycook, Reference Pennycook2001). In his treatment of global Englishes, Pennycook builds on this account of power by drawing upon Judith Butler's (Reference Butler1997) account of performative identity, i.e. the idea that identity is not something pre-given (for example by societal gender roles) but rather something that is enacted, or performed by individuals. All of this informs Pennycook's critique (Pennycook, Reference Pennycook2003, Reference Pennycook2010) highlighting the inability of the WE paradigm to conceptualize the phenomenon of globalization and the way this phenomenon affects language practices at the local, micro-level in terms of what individual agents actually do with language. What is needed in this regard, Pennycook argues, is a robust account of performativity. Performativity refers to the activity of individual agents expressing their identities through idiosyncratic language use.

Specifically, Pennycook isolates two gaps that need to be filled in the current analytic framework offered by the WE paradigm (Pennycook, Reference Pennycook2003: 514–515). The first has to do with how the behaviour of individual language-users is expressed. The WE paradigm remains anchored in the modernist constructs of nation, identity and location; hence it is only able to present a picture of local community in contrast to the national or global. It is unable, that is, to present a picture of the local as a positive, constructive context unto itself. Second, when it comes to individual agents, according to the WE paradigm ‘identities are pre-given and tied to nationalities’ (Pennycook, Reference Pennycook2003: 515); this paradigm thus lacks the analytic tools to make sense of what is actually happening with English as it is used by individuals at the micro-level. Ultimately, the WE paradigm is ‘far too exclusionary to be able to account for many uses of English around the world’ (Pennycook, Reference Pennycook2003: 521). In particular, it is not conceptually equipped to account for how English is used in contexts where the global and the local combine to produce a ‘glocal’ (Steger, Reference Steger2013) manifestation of a language. We will see that the Malaysian context – the varied use, appropriation and even rejection of English – provides a forceful example in this regard.

A Note on Performativity and Reconfigured Agency

A post-WE approach informed by a poststructuralist perspective highlighting performativity clearly must confront the question of agency. That is, we need to ask what individuals can really do with language, to what extent they are free or restricted. A key element of critical applied linguistics as envisioned by Pennycook (Reference Pennycook2001, Reference Pennycook2010) and others is the call to individual expression and resistance. A perspective looking beyond the WE framework must clarify that a focus on individual language users’ choices does not entail subscription to a naïve account of agency (i.e. to an overly optimistic view that exaggerates the free will of individuals or the extent of the impact their actions can have). Offering some vital reflections on the limits of individual agency, Ahearn (Reference Ahearn2012) provisionally defines agency as ‘the socioculturally mediated capacity to act’ (Ahearn, Reference Ahearn2012: 278). Inspired by the work of Vygotsky (Vygotsky, Reference Vygotsky, Cole, John-Steiner, Scribner and Sourberman1978), sociocultural theory takes these mediating factors (cognitive, cultural, interpersonal, etc.) into account. Moreover, linguistic ecology (Haugen, Reference Haugen1971; Spolsky, Reference Spolsky2004), considers language use in its wider context, as an interrelated ecosystem involving the macro and the micro. If we view individual agency through this combined theoretical prism, then, it emerges as an eminently realistic construct. Indeed, such a nuanced perspective helps locate what Brown (Reference Brown2015) terms ‘agentive interstices’ – sites of precisely the sort of performative acts that cannot be captured by the WE paradigm. We should understand this reconfigured conception of agency as implicit in the post-WE approach; indeed, given the centrality of performativity, no other type of agency could be at work. Explicitly highlighting the restricted or meditated aspect of individual agency more effectively anchors it in the ‘real world’.

The Malaysian Context

Malaysia is an informative site of language contact since it can be drawn upon to illustrate both the limits of the WE paradigm as well as the merits of a post-WE approach focussing on performative agency. In terms of the traditional WE framework, Malaysia is considered an outer circle country (Kachru, Reference Kachru1986) or, employing Phillipson's terminology, a country in the periphery (Phillipson, Reference Phillipson1992). Colonised by the British in the early 18^th century, Malaysia achieved official independence in 1957. In terms of language policy and planning, Malaysia has experienced a number of developments since achieving independence in 1957 (Hashim, Reference Hashim2009). These developments range from the implementation of Bahasa Malaysia (BM) as the official language of all levels of education in 1971, to the institution of a policy in 2003 that made English the medium of instruction (MOI) for math and science in all elementary and secondary schools, to the subsequent repeal of this same policy in 2012 (Liu & Ricks, Reference Liu and Ricks2012).

The 2003 policy shift is particularly noteworthy. In 2003, a new language policy was instituted by the Malaysian government: Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran Sains dan Matematik dalam Bahasa Inggeris (PPSMI). This policy made English the MOI for Math and Sciences in all primary and secondary schools. Three factors seem to have motivated the change of policy: economic factors, educational factors, and the media's representation of Malaysia's need to be competitive on a world stage on which English plays a central role (Hashim, Reference Hashim2009: 40–41). However, on July 8, 2009, the Malaysian government announced it would abandon PPSMI (Brock-Utne, Reference Brock-Utne2012; Hashim, Reference Hashim2009). In 2012, BM again became the MOI in national schools, with Chinese and Tamil being used in vernacular schools (Brock-Utne, Reference Brock-Utne2012).

This brief overview of post-independence language policy in Malaysia raises an obvious question: why the shift away from PPSMI in 2012? Several factors can be specified. First, after the institution of PPSMI, there were a large number of high-profile protests and demonstrations by politicians, linguists and the ethnic Malay majority (Brock-Utne, Reference Brock-Utne2012; Hashim, Reference Hashim2009). Clearly, many Malays saw PPSMI as a threat to the Malay language. Similarly, the vocal Chinese and Tamil minorities protested that it would erode their respective cultures (Hashim, Reference Hashim2009). Scholars and public intellectuals argued that PPSMI undermined efforts to modernize BM (Brock-Utne, Reference Brock-Utne2012). Other individual actors (teachers, students, parents) (Hashim, Reference Hashim2009) also played a key role (some examples will be discussed in the final section of this paper). In addition, reports that academic results in targets subjects had dropped (Brock-Utne, Reference Brock-Utne2012; Liu & Ricks, Reference Liu and Ricks2012) led to a widespread reappraisal of the policy. General public discourse, such as coverage in Malaysian newspapers (Yang & Ishak, Reference Yang and Ishak2012; Samuel et al., Reference Samuel, Khan, Ng and Cheang2014), must also be taken into account.

The various periods of language contact in Malaysian history have conditioned the ongoing development of a shared Malaysian English tied to sociocultural practices (Hashim & Leitner, Reference Hashim and Leitner2011). English as used in Malaysia exhibits distinct systematic characteristics – in terms of syntax, lexis, phonology, discourse features, etc. (Baskaran, Reference Baskaran1994; Lowenberg, Reference Lowenberg and Cheshire1991) – that justify the label Malaysian English (ME). Broadly speaking, two versions of English have emerged: standard/educated ME and colloquial ME (Baskaran, Reference Baskaran1994; Rajadurai, Reference Rajadurai2007; Pillai, Reference Pillai2008; Hashim, Reference Hashim2009). However, rather than merely designate a putative non-standard variety of the English language characterized by certain linguistic attributes, the term ME here refers collectively to the variety of ways in which English has been received, taken up, deployed and utilized, consciously or unconsciously, in the multilingual and multiethnic Malaysian sociolinguistic cultural milieu. It is here that the WE paradigm proves epistemologically inapplicable, i.e. it does not illuminate the agentive interstices of micro-level ME use (Ariffin & Husin, Reference Ariffin and Husin2011).

To sum up, Malaysia's colonial history, along with other concomitant modern factors, seems like the prototypical basis – the perfect conditions – for what Phillipson (Reference Phillipson1992) dubs ‘linguistic imperialism’. However, language contact history and policy development in Malaysia displays the complexities of how English is actually received, resisted, appropriated or employed in so-called outer circle or periphery countries. The WE model does not account for these complexities, nor does it capture certain micro elements of the sociolinguistic landscape. To be sure, it cannot be denied that ‘English increasingly intrudes on territory occupied earlier by other languages’ (Phillipson, Reference Phillipson and Ricento2006: 350). All the same, imposed language policy ‘does not hinder language and creativity and personal choice of the speakers in their context of interaction’ (Ariffin & Husin, Reference Ariffin and Husin2011: 244). As seen in Malaysia with the introduction and subsequent repeal of the PPSMI policy, in contexts in which the incursion of English unfolds in idiosyncratic ways and in which unpredictable means of resistance and appropriation are encountered, the WE model (including the linguistic imperialism framework) is not informative.

Performativity, Reconfigured Agency and the Malaysian Context

A crucial context of interaction is of course the educational milieu. Given the complexities of classroom contexts, teacher implementation of the PPSMI policy varied widely (Hashim, Reference Hashim2009). ME in this context is inseparable from teachers’ use of code-switching and code-mixing in the classroom (Tan & Lan, Reference Tan and Lan2011; Ariffin & Husin, Reference Ariffin and Husin2011). There is a tension between the varieties of English used in Malaysia and the demands and expectations of classroom English (Pillai, Reference Pillai2008). In a study (Then & Ting, Reference Then and Ting2009) conducted in three secondary schools during the now-repealed PPSMI policy period in Malaysia, teachers were observed to manipulate various language resources in order to reach learning objectives. In all classes, teacher code-switching between BM and English were frequent (although less frequent in the second English language class). Indeed, such mixing of codes is a salient feature of ME. Of particular interest are the instances of code-switching in the science classroom, a context falling under the purview of the PPSMI policy. While English was the official language of instruction, the teacher reverted to BM mixed with English when necessary. (Then & Tang, Reference Then and Ting2009: 7). BM was embedded in the teacher's speech in a way that characterized the discourse as distinctive ME as much as outright code-switching (though the distinction between the two is clearly blurred). In the English language class, the teacher was also observed to employ ME – a mixture of BM and English – to further various classroom learning objectives (Then & Tang, Reference Then and Ting2009: 11).

Idiosyncratic use of language is a ‘necessary tool for teachers to achieve teaching goals’ (Then & Ting, Reference Then and Ting2009: 1). While the interpretive lens of performativity is not drawn upon by the authors, I submit that this study also provides an excellent example of teacher code-switching as a performative act of meditated agency. In other words, we can view these moments of code-switching through the prism of performativity to better articulate a salient aspect of how English is/is not deployed in these instances, thereby capturing a feature of language use that cannot be accounted for using the WE model. Regardless of any state or institution-imposed language policy, these language users exert their own (limited, mediated) agency in specific micro-contexts. What they do with their words/language in any given situation is an implicit agentive act expressive of identity, just as it is an explicit attempt to achieve a communicative goal or solve a problem.

The formal education context, of course, is just one aspect of the ME story; individuals in less formal educational contexts also draw upon idiosyncratic linguistic resources. An example of one such context involves a Malaysian Indian, Laurie, as she narrates a story to a group of children in Sunday school (Rajaduria, Reference Rajadurai2007). Laurie shifts between colloquial ME and educated ME in attempting to achieve her communication goals (Rajaduria, Reference Rajadurai2007: 420). Laurie is working in a much less formal educational setting than were the teachers considered in the previous study. She employs a number of meta-discourse markers – including the colloquial particle ‘lah’ (Reference Rajadurai2007: 419) – in her attempts to focus the children on the lesson. ‘Lah’, a ‘tone-bearing colloquial particle’ (Reference Rajadurai2007: 417), possesses a vast range of meanings (cf. Tongue, Reference Tongue1974) and is particularly characteristic of ME.

Beyond (formal or informal) education situations, an array of contexts reveal positive, collaborative aspects of ME as deployed by individual speakers, or actors on the ground (Lee & Koo, Reference Lee and Koo2015). Another example from a case study (Rajadurai, Reference Rajadurai2007) reports on a Malaysian Chinese (Steve) in his late twenties speaking to a group of representatives of an advertising agency who wanted to see certain changes in the newspaper he was representing. A proficient speaker of English, Steve was quite capable of using more standard model of English, or what can be termed ‘educated Malaysian English’ (Rajadurai, Reference Rajadurai2007: 414). However, he opted to employ a more colloquial variety of English – characterized by a number of phonological and syntactic features – in order to communicate with his audience. Steve's (English) language choices were a function of his intention to strike a balance between his respective objectives. For instance, he introduced a change to the newspaper logo in the following way: ‘We feel this new logo is more vibrant and fresher lah. Yah?’ (Rajadurai, Reference Rajadurai2007: 416). To a representative's remark regarding the extent to which the proposed logo differs from the current one, Steve responded: ‘this is the most err, radical one lah’ (Reference Rajadurai2007: 416). To a comment from another representative that the new logo is ‘clearer’, Steve replied, ‘clearer ah. Yah, OK. So I'll just continue lah’ (Reference Rajadurai2007: 417). Steve too punctuates his speech with particles distinctively used in a more colloquial variety of ME in order to build a rapport with his audience. A further instance of a Malaysian ‘glocal’ workplace is the airline industry, in which is evident a complex and ever-shifting mix of English and ME (Lee & Koo, Reference Lee and Koo2015). An examination of the manner in which an English-ME hybrid is adopted by individuals in this professional milieu reveals that the broad WE paradigm is ill-equipped to capture ‘the complexities of how the English language has been localized in Malaysia’ (Lee & Koo, Reference Lee and Koo2015: 48).

Individual language users thus display a mediated agency, and the data in these various studies can be drawn upon and (re)considered in the light of the theoretical orientation of a post-WE perspective. To be sure, these individuals are limited in their choices, most immediately by their employment circumstances; in addition, their actions are confined to a horizon more broadly mediated by a variety of sociocultural factors. It would be an oversimplification to characterize these language users as engaged in intentional acts of identity formation, yet a focus on the performative aspects of the language practices of these speakers of ME reveals something that happens with their use of English (or Englishes) that is not revealed vis-à-vis the theoretical framework of the WE paradigm, which is not structured in such a way as to highlight ‘the conjuncture of global-local influences’ (Lee & Koo, Reference Lee and Koo2015: 50). A post-WE perspective (emphasizing conceptions of performativity and mediated agency) can capture micro-context nuances of language use for which the WE paradigm, with its focus on macro constructs such as nation, class and gender, is not able to account.