The Three-circle Model of World Englishes was developed by Kachru in 1985 and it remains one of the most influential theoretical accounts for grouping the assortments of English in the universe ( Mollin, 2006, p.41 ) . Kachru ( 1985 ) described the spread of English in footings of three homocentric circles: the Inner Circle, the Outer Circle and the Expanding Circle. These circles represent “ the type of spread, the forms of acquisition and the functional spheres in which English is used across civilizations and linguistic communications ” ( Kachru, 1985, p.12 ) . Although Kachru ‘s three-circle of English is still an of import initial stepping rock for the division of Englishes, drawbacks and fluctuations have been identified by several writers, including Kachru himself ( Yoneoka, 2002 ) . The Kachru ‘s Three-circle Model will be introduced and evaluated in this paper.
In the Kachru ‘s Three-circle Model, the Inner Circle Kachru ‘s theoretical account refers to the traditional bases of English, dominated by the mother-tongue assortments, where English Acts of the Apostless as a first linguistic communication ( White, 1997 ) . The states involved in the Inner Circle include the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The assortments of English used here are said to be ‘norm supplying ‘ . The Outer Circle consists of the earlier stages of the spread of English in non-native scenes, where the linguistic communication has become portion of a state ‘s main establishments, and plays an of import ‘second linguistic communication ‘ function in a multilingual scene ( Rajadurai, 2005 ) . Most of the states included in the Outer Circle are former settlements of the UK or the USA, such as Malaysia, Singapore, India, Ghana, Kenya and others ( Rajadurai, 2005 ) . The English used in the outer circle is considered as ‘norm-developing ‘ . The Expanding Circle refers to the districts where English is learnt as a foreign linguistic communication. The districts do non hold a history of colonisation by members of the Inner Circle and institutional or societal function. English is taught asa ‘foreign ‘ linguistic communication as the most utile vehicle of international communicating ( White, 1997 ) . The states in the Expanding Circle include China, Japan, Greece and Poland ( Crsytal, 1997 ) . The English used in the Expanding Circle is regarded as ‘norm dependant ‘ .
The Kachru ‘s theoretical account is in a dynamic nature. Harmonizing to Kachru ( 1985 ) , spliting English talkers into Inner, Outer and Expanding circles is preferred to the traditional indigen, ESL and EFL labels which involve the duality between native and nonnative talkers ( Rajadurai, 2005 ) . English native talkers are visually non privileged since they are non placed at the top of the Three-circle Model. However, the theoretical account is non sufficiently dynamic to reflect the world of English usage in the universe. It still prefers the English native talkers in the interior circle. The restrictions of the theoretical account will be discussed in the followers.
Harmonizing to Patil ( 2006 ) , the theoretical account assumes that the three circles represent lingual world absolutely. Kachru ( 1985 ) himself has noted that the homocentric circles may be oversimplified and fuzzed countries exist. Some particular instances like South Africa and Jamaica are hard to be classified. As Kachru himself has acknowledged, the fact is that the classs are non needfully reciprocally sole and gray countries exist between the circles ( Rajadurai, 2005 ) . Apart from the fuzzed categorization between circles, Tripathi ( 1998 ) points out that there are no mechanisms to distinguish assortments within a circle. Therefore, Crystal ( 1997 ) suggests non specifying the boundaries of Kachru ‘s homocentric circles in such absolute footings.
Kachru ‘s theoretical account describes the Inner Circle, Outer Circle and Expanding Circle as ‘norm-providing ‘ , norm-developing ‘ and ‘norm-dependent ‘ . However, Crystal ( 1995 ) remarks that the theoretical account can non stand for the world of international English usage because the world is frequently non so distinct. Crystal admirations it is hard to separate whether the Outer Circle looks to Inner Circle norms or it creates its ain norms. Norms development is besides possible in the Expanding Circle.
The Three-circle Model fails to see the growing of English in the universe. It can non account for the turning usage of English, viz. English as a tongue franca between talkers who do non portion a first linguistic communication ( Mollin, 2006, p.41-42 ) . English is now overpoweringly widespread in international scenes. It is the linguistic communication pick in international organisations, companies every bit good as academic universe ( Katzner, 2002, p.39 ) . It is besides normally used in the spheres of the cyberspace, international mass media and amusement ( Phillipson 1992 ) . Crystal ( 1997, p.22 ) states that “ the velocity with which a planetary linguistic communication scenario has arisen is genuinely singular ” . The so called “ Expanding Circle ” of foreign linguistic communication talkers included more than 750 million EFL talkers in 1997, compared to 375 million first linguistic communication talkers and 375 million 2nd linguistic communication talkers. It is of import to indicate out that the figure of English users is developing at a faster rate as a linguistic communication of international communicating than as a linguistic communication of intranational communicating ( Thesis, 2009 ) . International communicating has become a common phenomenon between the circles and the increased mobility of people has made personal relationships across linguistic communication boundary lines ( Thesis, 2009 ) . Kachru ‘s homocentric circles seem to admit diverseness but small commonalty across Englishes, depicting the English assortments as separate ( Burt, 2005 ) . Due to the increasing international communicating, the differentiation between the Outer Circle and the Expanding Circle becomes fuzzed and can non account for the turning usage of English in today ‘s universe.
In the Kachru ‘s theoretical account, the Expanding Circle refers to the districts where English is learnt as a foreign linguistic communication. However, because of the growing of English, the linguistic communication has become a necessity in today ‘s universe ; English is non merely learnt in the spread outing circle, or even largely, to enable communicating with the Inner and Outer Circles ( Patil, 2006 ) . The importance of English is keep increasing in the universe, particularly in the Expanding Circle. As a consequence, larning English can no longer be seen as larning a foreign linguistic communication in the traditional sense ( Patil, 2006 ) . Graddol ( 2006 ) has even argued that cognizing English has become a basic accomplishment in the planetary universe. Nunan portions the same feeling with Graddol that cognizing English makes more sense than merely “ larning English ” for EFL or ESL ( Robertson, 2005 ) .
The maps of English are extremely restricted in the Expanding Circle which can non reflect the existent usage of English. English languages in the Expanding Circle are seen as far removed from the Inner Circle nucleus and marginalized. As the description of the Expanding Circle mentioned in Kachru ( 1992 ) , “ The public presentation assortments of English have a extremely restricted functional scope in specific contexts ; for illustration, those of touristry, commercialism, and other international minutess ” . In fact, the scope of English usage in the Expanding Circle has become much wider due to the increasing growing of English. “ There is much more usage of English presents in some states of the spread outing circle, where it is ‘only ‘ a foreign linguistic communication… , than in some of the states where it has traditionally held a particular topographic point ” ( Crystal, 1997, p. 56 ) . For illustration, although Egyptian English is classified in the Expanding Circle, “ there are a figure of Egyptian contexts, such as medical specialty, higher instruction, the scientific disciplines, or in touristry, which extend limbs into the Outer circle every bit good. ” ( Yoneoka, 2002 ) . The above illustration shows that the maps of Expanding Circle English today are non every bit restricted as Karchru mentioned. It can be observed that there is a meeting of the Outer and Expanding Circles.
The Three-circle Model implies that the Outer Circle can non unify into the Inner Circle ( Patil, 2006 ) . However, sometimes it is hard to specify which one owns English as the first linguistic communication and which one knows English as a 2nd linguistic communication. “ There are several states where population motion, linguistic communication loss, divergent linguistic communication attitudes, and monolithic displacements in linguistic communication usage have made it hard to reply the inquiry: “ What is your first linguistic communication? “ ( Crystal, 1995, p. 363 ) . Therefore, non merely the categorization between the Outer and Expanding Circles, that between Inner Circle and Outer Circles can besides be tough.
Some research workers suggest that Kachru ‘s Three-circle Model should non establish the categorization of English talkers on national individuality. “ National individuality should non be a footing of categorization of talkers of an international linguistic communication. The more English becomes an international linguistic communication, the more the division of its talkers into ‘native ‘ and ‘nonnative ‘ becomes inconsistent. ” ( Brutt-Griffler and Samimy, 2001, p.104 ) . Mention to this job ; Rajadurai ( 2005 ) has presented a different Three-Circle Model: “ While admiting the fuzzed differentiations between circles, in rule, the interior circle could consist all users who are adept in English and able to instinctively codeswitch between international and national or regional assortments to pass on in the most appropriate manner. The 2nd circle could dwell of talkers who are adept merely in regional assortments, i.e. native and nonnative talkers with restricted intranational proficiency, while the outer circle could be made up of scholars of the linguistic communication. ”
Although English native talkers visually do non hold higher hierarchy since they are non placed at the top of the Three-circle Model, it still prefers the English native talkers in the interior circle. As Burt ( 2005 ) remarks, the Inner Circle clearly establishes at the top of the hierarchy. The thought that English is person ‘s 2nd linguistic communication implies that it is person else ‘s first linguistic communication. It gives the feeling that English belongs to the native talker who owns it as his first linguistic communication. Kachru has acknowledged that “ it is about ineluctable that anyone would take ‘second ‘ as less worthy ” ( Kachru and Nelson, 1996, p.79 ) . In order to ease the job, Yano ( 2001, p.122-123 ) has suggested that the ENL and ESL circles can unify into a individual ENL circle with two sets of assortments: familial and functional ENL.
To reason, Kachru Three-Circle theoretical account has restrictions to reflect the world of English usage. The theoretical account is oversimplified and the categorization among the three circles is fuzzed. In fact, the three assortments are reciprocally inclusive and gray countries exist. Due to the rapid growing of English, English position has increased in the Expanding Circle. English is non merely learnt but more widely used in different scenes. The categorization between the Outer Circle and the Expanding Circle becomes hard. Therefore, the Three-circle Model should be modified to a more dynamic one to stand for the existent usage of English. Alternatively of categorising the English talkers based on national individuality, the revised theoretical account can be classified in footings of the English proficiency in international and regional assortments. More research related to World Englishes should besides be conducted in the hereafter to run into the rapid growing of English.
