In addition to time and place, which are inseparable from sociolinguistic variation, language may vary according to age, social class, sex or (social) gender, ethnicity, medium, style, and register. Contact between speakers often leads to change, and different patterns result according to whether this contact involves first-language (L1) or second language (L2) acquisition. Thus, ‘family tree’ aspects of language change are largely accounted for by transmission (involving L1 acquisition), whilst ‘wave model’ changes can be explained in terms of diffusion (involving L2 acquisition). Languages with a high degree of L2 contact will tend to simplify, whilst stable bilingualism or isolation will often lead to complexification. Contact may be interlinguistic or intralinguistic, sometimes resulting in complex linguistic repertoires, with up to four different levels existing simultaneously (national standard, regional standard, interdialectal koiné, local dialect). Contact may also result in code-switching, the emergence of contact vernaculars, and ‘language death’. The receptiveness of a variety to contact influence depends on the extent to which its social networks are open or closed and on the social attitudes of its speakers. Standard languages emerge through a variety of conscious and unconscious processes, and attempts may be made to give non-standard speech varieties a distinct linguistic identity through codification and the creation of literature.

This chapter surveys the historical background of the global spread of English and its linguistic consequences. Since World Englishes are mostly products of colonialism, it surveys the history of European colonization and colonization types, the growth and decline of the British Empire, and the role of the United States in the globalization of English. It discusses the tension between the internationalization and the localization of English, the range of variety types which have consequently grown in specific circumstances; and offers numbers of varieties and speakers involved, including a global map of countries in which English has some sort of a special internal status. It is shown that, surprisingly, the global growth of English gained even more momentum after the end of the colonial period. The constant leitmotif in all of this is the relationship between the language-external and the internal, the direct functional relationship between historical events and constellations, the communicative patterns caused by these, and, consequently, their effects upon the development of linguistic forms and varieties.

South African history provides a uniquely complex environment for the development of New Englishes, a fact reflected in recent work which has both questioned Schneider’s Phase-4 ‘placement’ of South African English (SAfE) in terms of the Dynamic Model (DM) and argued for refinements to the DM to account for SAfE’s current relative lack of homogeneity and the different phases that different South African Englishes appear to be in. It is argued here that the sociohistorical role played by the Afrikaans-speaking community is the main source of this unique complexity. The European background of the IDG strand created conditions for extremely rapid convergence with the STL strand, in effect ‘collapsing’ Phases 1 to 3 of the DM. Concurrently, Afrikaner separatism and nationalism actualized a countervailing divergent tendency that has not been incorporated into the DM. Thus, the DM rests on an overly optimistic social psychology and sociology, with an over-emphasis on convergent forces; while the actualization of this convergence explains existing developmental similarities across New Englishes worldwide, it is an historical accident unreflective of a ‘deeper’ (universal) balance between centripetal and centrifugal forces.

This paper summarizes scholarly approaches to varieties of South African English, mainly from the perspective of World Englishes theorizing. South Africa's complex ethnic composition has produced a range of distinctive varieties of English and has defied simplistic notions of dialect evolution. Neither Kachru's “Three Circles” model nor Schneider's “Dynamic Model” allow coherent accounts of South African English as a whole in their respective frameworks. In contrast, many South African scholars, often extrapolating from the “Dynamic Model”, have highlighted the need to focus on internal sub-varieties rather than favouring a national, overall perspective. The questions of how uniform or diverse South African English is and how these relationships can be modelled are widely addressed in scholarship, including ongoing changes, as for example the recent emergence of a pan-ethnic middle class compromise variety described primarily by Rajend Mesthrie.