Language Teaching and LPP--Reflection 3

Which norms or why?

                                                                   -----My understandings of Standard English

                                                                           Yang ke

Discussions of the spread of English always arouse nowadays people’s everlasting interests and concerns. According to Graddol (1997), the spread of English is projected to continue; and it is true that the speakers of English as a second, foreign, or other language outnumber native speakers. Thus the issues like the preferences of native speakers and non-native speakers, whose English or whose standards have become heatedly-discussed problems around the world where English is being used. The debate between Randolph Quirk and Braj Kachru (1985) leads to the consideration over the standards of English as an international language.

A lot of scholars have mentioned the importance of Standard English for the development of English in this changing world, such as McKay(2002), Randolph Quirk (1985), but there are also voices against it from Braj Kachru (1985).Quirk (1985) appealed for the common standard of use in all contexts of English language use, on the contrary, Kachru (1985) showed understandings for the varieties of English around the world especially in the outer circle and argued that the variety of norms help mutual communication. In Kachru’s view, local English should be taught, learned and respected as a new variety. Thus some researchers state that Standard English refers to whatever form of the English language is accepted as a national norm in an Anglophone country (Bex & Richard 1999), Trudgill (1999) argues that Standard English is a dialect which is socially superior to other dialects.

During their debate, one important question arises, that is: how can people define Standard English? It is interesting that the term of Standard English was given different explanations in different times. Such as Strevens’s (1983: 88) definition which does not associate the standardized accent with Standard English, later, Quick (1990) mentions Standard English particularly with the written form of language. But The Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics (Richards, Platt, and Weber 1985) defines Standard English as “the variety of a language which has the highest status in a community or nation and which is usually based on the speech and writing of educated speakers of the language (ibid.: 271).” The reality showed us clearly that even different countries have their own ideas about what constitutes standard English, particularly in the “inner circle” of English-speaking countries (USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) (Crystal 2003:60). Personally, I will regard the reality that there is no standardized Standard English because of the important influences from the language users. It is always the demands and practical usage of the language user that affect the form and the content of Standard English. Language is shaped by the experiences of the people who use it and changes with their changing needs.

In terms of English language education, scholars showed their concerns about the notions of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) or English as an International Language (EIL). Although the scholars claimed that the term EIL implies there is more emphasis on its international use rather than suggesting that there is a single international variety, for some countries in the expanding circle, EIL implies an assumption of a hegemonic influence of American English or British English. Just like Phillipson (2003 166) says “‘World Standard Spoken English’ is bound to be based on Anglo-American mother tongue norms”. Williams (2008, 2007) states there are negative educational consequences of continuing prejudices against non-standard dialects. Hudson (2000) presents his ideas that Standard English is now highly codified for non-native speakers, but not at all codified for native speakers.

According to Jenkins (2007), the “gatekeepers” (2007:239) such as government institutions, examination boards, universities, publishers, The British Council and other British and American cultural–political institutions control English language policy decisions. Thus the others, such as non-native English speakers and teachers’ attitudes and beliefs towards the English language will be influenced, which in turn lead to “linguistic insecurity” among NNES teachers (p. 246)

More importantly, the increasing recognition that regard English as the international language pose big challenges to English language teaching especially in the countries where English is being taught as a foreign language.  So it is time to create possibility of “’appropriate’ Englishes other than the ‘standard’ ones …into the constraints and structures of real classrooms… and …find out what teacher actually know about what they do in the classroom” (Tupas 2010). Also the educational policy maker, those education professionals should realize that in order to guarantee the ideal learning performance, the teacher should combine different teaching strategies according to the actual situation of the students and the practical needs of participants in the practical teaching, but not just follow the so called standard or norms.

References:

Bex, Tony; Richard J. Watts (1999). Standard English: The widening debate. Routledge.

of Hong Kong.

Crystal, David. (2003). English as a Global Language (2nd edition).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Graddol, D. (1997). The Future of English? [Electronic version]. London: The British

Council. Retrieved April 6, 2007, from http://www.britishcouncil.org/learning-elt-future.pdf

Hudson, Richard (2000).The language teacher and descriptive versus prescriptive norms: The educational context. A paper presented (in absentia) to a workshop in Paris on prescriptivism and foreign-language teaching in March 2000. http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/SEhudson.htm

Hymes, D. (Ed.). (1974). Studies in the history of linguistics: Traditions and paradigms. Bloomington:Indiana University Press.

Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitudes and identity. Applied Linguistics Series.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, Codification and Sociolinguistic Realism: The English Language in the Outer Circle. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McKay, S.L. (2003). Toward an appropriate EIL pedagogy: Re-examining common ELT

assumptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 1-22.

Phillipson, Robert (2003) English Only Europe? London: Routledge.

Quirk, R. (1985). Language varieties and standard language. English Today (1990), 6: 3-10

Richards, Jack, John Platt, and Heidi Weber. (1985). Longman dictionary of applied linguistics. Harlow, Essex, England: Longman.

Trudgill, Peter (1999).Standard English: what it isn’t. Published in Tony Bex & Richard J. Watts eds. Standard English: the widening debate. London: Routledge, 1999, 117-128.

Tupas, T. R. F. (2010). Which norms in everyday practice - and why? In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.). The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes (pp. 567 – 579). New York and London: Routledge.

Williams, Ann. (2008). Discourses about English: Class, codes and identities in Britain. In Marilyn Martin-Jones, Anne-Marie de Mejia and Nancy Hornberger eds. Encyclopedia of Language and Education Vol 3: Discourse and Education. New York: Springer 2008, 237-250.

Williams, Ann. (2007). Standard English and education. In D. Britain, Language in the British Isles (2nd edition) Cambridge University Press 2007, 401-16.

Reclaiming the local in LPP—Assignment 2

Chinatown—Light way to China without passport

          As a foreigner abroad, it is easily to get homesick. So anything that is related to his or her culture can bring some sweet memories and comforts back. This is what I experienced on my way to The Bureau of Immigration, Philippines last week.

I took this picture when I passed by Binondo, Manila on Jeepney to The Bureau of Immigration. I have been to the area Recto and Chinatown several times and this time I was driven by my desire to see something different in the hustle and bustle of the city after learning some theories relating to linguistic landscapes. It is the sign of a Chinese restaurant which is located in Binondo, the oldest Chinatown in the world (Raitisoja, Geni), attracted my attention. It is well known that in almost every country, one could find Chinatown and it is always famous for its business, wholesale stores and of course the food establishments that specialize in various Chinese cuisines. Here is one of them.

The languages in the sign

From the picture we can see clearly that both the Chinese language and the English language are used in the sign. Red Chinese characters or exactly, Chinese calligraphy are put in the striking position of the sign. To a certain extent, Chinese calligraphy can be said as one kind of semiotics for its way of writing and the impressions it may pose upon foreigners’ mind. And also it makes the feelings of being China obvious. Since the restaurant is located in the Philippines, a country that use the English language frequently, the English version of the restaurant sign is offered, too. There are English translations as “Hong Kong Seafood Restaurant” beneath Chinese characters “香港厨房”(which literally mean Hong Kong cuisine or Hong Kong Kitchen because the Chinese word “厨房” can be translated either into “kitchen” or “cuisine”).

According to Scollon and Scollon (2003 120), the position of the code in the sign suggest the different preferences. The preferred codes will be put at the top, left or center of the sign. So there are two purposes of putting the English sign in the less obvious place and in smaller size. First, it can give the message that the owner of the restaurant wants people feel more unique Chinese features from this sign. Second, to attract more Chinese food lovers by emphasizing Chinese color, anyhow, Chinese food is famous and well-received by a lot of people world wide.

The color of the sign

It is clearly that the restaurant just applies one color—red in its sign. It is well known that Chinese people like the red color very much, apart from the reason that China’s political background as a Communist country, the color red signifies prosperous, happiness and good luck in Chinese culture and Chinese people’s mind. It is interesting to see that wherever Chinese go, they will persistently show their culture-specific features no matter it is accepted by those foreign societies or foreign communities or not. In this way, they keep some of their local colors in this global world.

The environment

Although the sign of the restaurant is simple, the place it is located and the decoration of the environment say some extra things, too. First, there are two red lanterns in front of the sign which attract passerby’s attention easily and help to create more Chinese feeling. Lanterns in China are more than lighting devices and it is not exaggerated to say that red lanterns are regarded as one of the basic symbols of Chinese culture and foreigners see a red lantern and their mind think of China. People can easily find it everywhere in China, from the gigantic lanterns at the Tiananmen Gate and the small lanterns hanging on the front gate of houses and stores. The red color and round shape symbolizes Chinese’s hope and desire for brightness, harmony, happiness and reunion. Second, the combination of the two motorcycles in front of the restaurant and the two red lanterns contain some underlying meanings, too. Chinatown in Binondo is completely unique, it looks so Chinese but there were Jeepney and motorcycles everywhere so I knew that this place was a culture melting pot. There are churches and Chinese temples stay peacefully together, there are people talking both in Chinese and Pilipino, and tradition lives side by side with modernization. 

After several blocks, the Jeepney took me out of this seemingly Chinese world. I am back to the Philippines. I think it is worthwhile to exert more efforts in investigating how language had been used in presenting the ideology and power in the narrative construction of place, say Chinatown. According to Milroy and Gordon (Milroy and Gordon, 2003), place is perhaps one of the earliest variables that has been correlated with language use. The correlation between linguistic features and geographic areas can be the very important subject of modern sociolinguistics study. As Johnstone (2004) explains:

A space becomes a place through humans’ interaction with it, both through physical manipula­tion, via such activities as agriculture, architecture, and landscape, and symbolically, via such activities as remembering, formulating, depicting, and narrating. (p. 68)

     Thus the specific geographic factor can help to explain the possible meanings of the text, too. Just as Hymes (1996) argues, inequality does not derive from the linguistic system itself, but lies in the actual ways resources are combined in producing language.

References:

Hymes, D.H. (1996) ‘Speech and Language: On the Origins and Foundations of Inequality among Speakers’, in Ethnography, Linguistics, Narrative Inequality: Toward an Understanding of Voice, pp. 25–62. London: Taylor and Francis.

Johnstone, B. (2004) ‘Place, Globalization, and Linguistic Variation’, in C. Fought (ed.) Sociolinguistic Variation: Critical Reflections, pp. 65–83. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

In this article, Barbara Johnstone sates that place in one form or another is one of the most frequently adduced correlates of linguistic variation.  It is important to know that place as location,  place as meaning, local places in the postmodern world and the local meanings of local talk in doing ethnography and discourse analysis. It is useful to combine cross -disciplinary knowledge together when facing the questions about variation and change.

Milroy, L. and Gordon, M. (2003) Sociolinguistics: Method and Interpretation. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Raitisoja, Geni " Chinatown Manila: Oldest in the world", Tradio86.com, July 8, 2006, accessed March 19, 2011.

Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. (2003) Discourses in Place: Language in the Material World. London: Routledge.

Reclaiming the local in LPP—Reflection 2

Disappear or Rebuild?

Yang ke

With the increasing speed of globalization, the world village enables human beings enjoy countless conveniences which they had never imagined before. But at the same time, it poses contradictions of distorted identities of race and culture in people’s life due to the increasing mankind migration, shifting geopolitical boundaries, cultural collision and integration. Thus the merge between the local and global discourses of language policy becomes one of the important studies for educators, language planners and policy makers. This is also what Suresh Canagarajah attempts to mention in Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice. He wants people pay attention to the “greater negotiation between global processes and local conditions, leading to the construction of a diversified knowledge tradition that benefits from the richness of practices and values in human community’ (Canagarajah xiv).

To achieve this goal, scholars should always alert to the intervention of globalization, migration and various language use in the process of language planning and policy making. Just like Canagarajah says, “the local has negotiated, modified, and absorbed the global in its own way” (Canagarajah 9). The changes in the local positionality are either to resist the global and to achieve self survival. Thus it is important to have careful and detailed examination of the local knowledge for the reason that “local knowledge can motivate conversations between different localities, answering questions that transcend one’s own borders” (Canagarajah 20).

So the changes matter and languages keep disinventing and reconstituting. Personally, I will put the language users’ role in the priority place when thinking about the possible reason. With passing time, new things will come into being and old ones will disappear or die. It is a universal rule that people will change in different times, different places, and so people use different words to communicate. Just as Saussaure said, “Time changes all things: there is no reason why language should escape this universal law.” Since every generation will have their differences in using language from their last generation, thus it is true that language---as one of the forms of human being’s activities, changes. That is, new things exist in different forms, are named differently and mean differently.

 Take English as an example, the reasons for the spread of English are more about political, cultural, and economic reasons rather than just linguistic ones. The human being’s long history proved that language change often occurs in response to social, economic and political pressures and recorded many examples of language change fueled by invasions, colonization and migration. Actually, even without the abovementioned influences, English can change dramatically if enough users alter the way they speak it because the needs of speakers drive language change. It is especially obvious nowadays. With the development of science and technology, more and more new items are invented and need new words to name those things. Also science and technology affected people’s interaction with each other gradually, by using new and emerging expression and communication ways, people made the language change, too. Every English language user can represent a certain kind of local and thus put them together to make the big global by keep using them. So the changing English can be said as a result of interactions among social varieties, and among them, the user variation performs the leading role.

The widespread influences of English have made some people feel that they have escaped from the tower of Babel, but others have claimed that it is a kind of linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 2000). In The Problem of World English: Reflecting on Crystal and Phillipson, Douglas Chorpita analyzed the main ideas of Crystal and Phillipson towards English in this global world and introduced the readers the idea of caring approach (Chorpita, 2004-2005) which is helping in understanding the status of English. According to Douglas Chorpita, there is no problem with English but the people who use English have caused the problems and worries of the future of English and its relationships with other languages. To a certain extent, I agree with him because language has close interactions with its users and will be affected and shaped by the way it is used.

In terms of language planning and policy, I think educators and scholars should try their best to cultivate people’s “pluralistic mode of thinking where we celebrate different cultures and identities” (Canagarajah 20) and help people realize that there is no standardized Standard English due to the important influences of the language users. It is always the demands and practical usage of the language user that affect the form and the content of Standard English. Language is shaped by the experiences of the people who use it and changes with their changing needs. There is one more thing I want to make clear, that is, although languages change with time, as the needs of their users change, change does not mean evolutionary progress. It is language users who contribute to the positive and effective development of language. English differs with the user, and also with the different uses that speakers have for English.

All in all, diversification is one of the features of our world. Human beings prefer colorful life but they should know how to identify what they want among numerous facts also they should have tolerant heart towards those differences. Just like the combination of different colors which can create a totally new world and the creation will never be ended.

References:

Canagarajah, S. (2005). Reconstructing local knowledge, reconfiguring language studies. In S. Canagarajah (Ed.), Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice (pp. 3-24). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Chorpita, Douglas. The Problem of World English:Reflecting on Crystal and Phillipson. HS: English as a World Language. Wintersemester 2004/2005.

Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (2007). Disinventing and reconstituting languages. In S. Makoni & A. Pennycook (Eds.), Disinventing and reconstituting languages (pp. 1 - 30). Clevedon, Buffalo & Toronto: Multilingual Matters.

Phillipson, Robert. 2000. Linguistic Imperialism. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Blog Assignment 1---Yang ke

The shadow of the shadow

 Yang ke

It is interesting to find out what could be conveyed by languages, I mean the same things that have been demonstrated or talked by different languages at the same time. The news under the title of “Literacy and Development within China’s Minorities” by Alexandra Grey in The China Beat on March 20, 2012 and other articles written in Chinese are such a case. 

After discussing the relationships among literacy, schooling, development and ethnic identity, Alexandra Grey states that “literacy is not a set of skills independently learnt regardless of context, nor is it simply synonymous with schooling”. Through comparing the illiteracy rates in minority-language population and their Han counterparts, the author concludes that discrimination against both minority cultures and their languages exists. Furthermore, the author argues that the Chinese government’s Mandarin language policy bring harms against ethic diversity, too. Although there are bilingual educations in minority areas, the twofold requirements sometimes make minority children either lack of minority language or Mandarin literary knowledge which will damage their sense of identity and overall development in the long run.

On the contrary, the reports and articles in Chinese newspaper and TV (http://news.eastday.com/china/kpyj/tpz/index.html http://58.131.64.3:8010/pgyw/xsdt/nr.jsp?code=pgyw_xsdt&id=ba03c083357ae76c01360eadae0c0011 ) which covered the same issue put their emphases on different aspects. Most of them paid more attention to the possible benefits which will be enjoyed by minority population due to Chinese government’s bilingual education. The main tune is let the whole country see the harmonious reality in China language education.  

Frankly speaking, I experienced hard time in reading the newspaper articles about Chinese language policies recently due to the articles in Chinese and in English give me totally different pictures, which dragged me into the deep fog. In general, the articles written in Chinese I read recently more or less just advocate government language policy and appeal for the schools, government offices and the media to enhance awareness of a standard usage of Chinese—Mandarin (Putonghua). As the instructional language in schools, the official language in government and media and the basis of the writing system around the whole country of China, Mandarin overweighs other “dialects” in China.

Take the long history in which the land of China, territorially defined in various ways throughout the centuries and inhabited by people who speak differently into consideration, it is understandable that the Chinese government has been attempting to have one unified language and use this language standardization to achieve more efficiency and certainty in administrations and ties different nationalities together in the vast land. It seems here there is a strong connection between a common language and nationalism. According to Gellner (2006 49-59), the intervention of politics in language education can achieve some effects in unifying the state and the nation, it is true in China. To a certain extent, the unified Mandarin use in all works of life in China enables the society has more opportunities to develop and work with more efficiency. At the same time, people should also keep a clear mind in treating and keeping other dialects in China fairly.  

As Hymes(1996) mentions, language covers all those aspects about power, identity, opportunities and nationalism. Unfortunately, the reality is the politics plays too much in China. Although there are debates as to whether those above-mentioned active standardization efforts may eventually render extinct various dialects and their associated cultural nuances, the politics and power play silence all those against voices.

The sociolinguist T. Yasuda (2006 130) who states that the connection between culture and language as “the integration of culture and language”. Yasuda holds the idea that language, as one of the factors of culture, has very important position in the formation of identity and is one of the factors of identity, too. Personally, I think the following explanations can shed some clues to offer the possible reasons for the problem in China. First, the widespread English in this global world made China realized that some of its unique cultures have been eroded and eventually disappear due to people’s changing attitudes towards English and Chinese. So the government tries her best to have favorable language policies towards the Chinese language domestic and took great pains to set the Confucius Institute to diffuse the Chinese language abroad in order to keep Chinese culture and identity.

Second, in order to get lights from the shadow of English—the world lingua franc, Chinese government accidentally use the dominance of Mandarin cover the sky of the minority languages in China. The various minority groups in China thus have to struggle between their native languages and Chinese for the sake of maintaining the former for their heritages and identities and learning the latter for quality education and socioeconomic advancement. The whole process is just like a vicious circle. In relation to those outer countries’ experiences in coping with the spread of English, Chinese government can learn some lessons from them. Otherwise, there will never appear sunshine .

References:

Gellner, Ernest. (2006). Nations and Nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Hymes, D.H. (1996). Speech and language: on the origins and foundations of inequality among speakers. The MIT Press on behalf of American Academy of Arts & Sciences.

Tollefson, James W. (1991).  Revolutionary language policy. Planning language, planning inequality. Harlow: Longman. Chapter 6, pp. 136-166.

Ysauda, Toshiaki 安田敏朗. (2006). Tougo Genri tositeno Kokugo 統合原理としての「国語」 [National Language as a principle of social unification]. Tokyo: Sangensha.

Other sources:

UAA concerned by top Chinese official's comments on language policy in East Turkestan (Fri, 06/05/2009)

http://uyghuramerican.org/article/uaa-concerned-top-chinese-officials-comments-language-policy-east-turkestan.html

The reports and articles in Chinese newspaper and TV about Mandarin

http://news.eastday.com/china/kpyj/tpz/index.html http://58.131.64.3:8010/pgyw/xsdt/nr.jsp?code=pgyw_xsdt&id=ba03c083357ae76c01360eadae0c0011

Critical approaches to LPP—A reflection on language policy making

        Language, Power, and Society

                                                                                         Yang ke

As the human being in the society, nobody can escape the social, cultural, political and economical influences from the outer world. The only difference is how much influence he or she receives. Viewing the structures of the economic, the political, and the social as subtext, Jameson states that the subtext not merely as a passive ground which the text reflects or as a series of determinate contradictions but as a “political unconscious” (Jameson 20). “Everything is ‘in the last analysis’ political” (Jameson 20). It is from this understanding of history and other narratives about ideological influences that I combine Hymes’ ideas on speech and language (1996) with the English education realities and practices in China.

According to Hymes (1996), language can be seen as a set of resources which is available to human beings and is deployed in variable circumstances. It is important to realize that every act of language use is interacted with all kinds of social and cultural factors. So whenever people intend to study language, he or she should think carefully and seriously. In his essay Speech and language: on the origins and foundations of inequality among speakers (1996, chapter 3), Hymes shows the readers the differences between a linguistic notion of language and an ethnographic notion of speech, which leads to the further understandings towards the language actual use in society.

Hymes states that in terms of “adaptive growth” (Hymes 1996 17), “languages are potentially equal” (Hymes 1996 17). Since “all languages are equally adapted to the needs of those who use them” (Hymes 1996 17), the practical usages and different needs deeply situate language in a web of relations of power. Thus inequalities came into being and affect the development of languages consequently. This is especially true in understanding the role of English in communist China.

Today, it is an undeniable fact that English has become a global lingua franca (Crystal, 2003; Kachru, 1998, 2005). As the most commonly spoken foreign language, language of media, technology, and science, English is taught and learned all around the world. No exception in China. Although China shifts its emphasis on English education only after 1979 when the Cultural Revolution ended, after more than three decades’ effort and Chinese’s desire to increase the country and themselves’ competitiveness in the world, the number of English learners in China is over 300 million and keeps rising. Scholars (Crystal, 2008, p.5) state that mainland China has the largest English-leaning population in the world. In addition, English has become the only foreign language which is taught and learned in primary and middle school in China. In contrasting with the prosperous English study phenomena, after a thorough research, I think most of the foreigners will be surprised by the efforts been put by Chinese students in their several years’ English study, but they will also be shocked by the ineffectiveness of Chinese students’ English learning process.

In relation to common Chinese’s diverse responses to English study and compulsory social requirements for English certificate, the prosperous English learning atmosphere was created and keeps creating by Chinese government’s language policy in English education. I could not help thinking whether this will affect Chinese’s sense of national identity and the use of mother tongue. According to the theories of modern linguistics, language is not only a tool or a media, but a basic structure, it has the ability to organize new words and to restrict the human’s thinking structure, thinking mode. So the prevailing English study in China can be said as a reform happens with the language and should attract scholars’ attention and further study.

Bibliography:

Crystal, D. (2003). English as a Global Language (2^nd ed). Cambridge: Chambridge University Press.

David Crystal presents the readers very informative accounts of the rise of English as a global language from the perspectives of history, current status and potential of English as the international language of communication. In terms of the future of English as a world language, English on the Internet, and the possibility of an English "family" of languages, the author gives detailed demonstrations and explanations. He also alerts the native speakers to think about their future positions in this global English-speaking world.

Crystal, David (2008). Two thousand million? English Today, 24 (1), 3-6.

Hymes, D. (1996). Speech and language: on the origins and foundations of inequality among speakers. In Ethnography, Linguistics and Narrative Inequality: Toward an Understanding of Voice (pp. 25 – 62). London: Taylor and Francis.

Jameson, Fredric. (1981) The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Kachru, B. (1998). English as an Asian Language. Links & Letters, 5, 89-108.

Kachru, B. (2005). Asian English beyond the canon. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

In terms of further understandings of world Englishes, Braj Kachru demonstrates valuable insights on the forms and functions of English in Asia, its acculturation and nativization, and the innovative dimensions of Asian creativity. Kachru believes that anglophones in Asia have the right to determine the direction of their own varieties of English. He is for the idea that Asians have the right to establish their own canons of English and correctness.

Tollefson, J. W. (1991). Revolutionary language policy. In Planning language, planning inequality: language policy in the community (pp.136 – 166). New York: Longman.