Kachru (1985) has proposed a model to account for the spread of English globally. The model divides the population of English speakers into three concentric circles, Inner, Outer, and Expanding Circles, with Taiwan being an Expending Circle country in which English serves little communication functions. As significant as the model is, it has been severely attacked for its rigidity (e.g. Higgins 2003; Jenkins 2003; Pennycook 2003, 2010). Take Taiwan for an example, though the number of English users does remain small, numerous social factors, such as regions, gender and age, lead to drastic discrepancies in terms of distribution of English. Consequently, the heterogeneity in Taiwan is overgeneralized in Kachru’s model.
One server attack on Kachru’s model is its entailments of reproduction of Inner Circle hegemony, and the dichotomy of native and non-native English speakers.
Ownership, fist proposed by Widdowson (1994), is an alternative to the binary native
and non-native distinction. The concept of linguistic ownership, according to Widdowson (1994), and Norton (1997), refers to the legitimacy of using the language and self-claiming as an English user. The notion metaphorically extends language as a concrete object that can be possessed. In defining ownership, Wee (2002) summarizes the two major approaches. The purist school claims that English is owned by native speakers and that other variations of English are deviant forms. On the other hand, the pragmatic school (e.g. Jenkins 2000) holds the notion that English is owned by not only Inner Circle countries, but also by individuals who use the language. Therefore, the standard of English is not uni-centered (Kachru & Nelson 1996). Ownership has been a field of inquiry in second language acquisition. Studies in English ownership mostly adopt the pragmatic views. The study also approaches the discussion of ownership in the pragmatic view.118
Ownership of English is discussed in terms of two issues in the study, the legitimation of ownership and its influences on language ideology of English. The study has found that ownership of English is not self-claimed. Rather, it relies heavily on others’ legitimation through mechanisms such as standard language ideology (Lippi-Green 1997) and contexts, as discussed in Chapter 5. Standard language ideology refers to the preference for an idealized form which individuals use as a criterion to filter out what is believed to be nonstandard. Consequently, standard language ideology of English hold by hearers could invalidate accented English users’
control over the language. It shows that English competence, along with the legitimacy of ownership, refers not to the objectively measurable language skills.
Instead, the acknowledgement of competence is entirely subjective.
The two excerpts (20) and (21) in Section 5.1 are edited and reproduced in (36a) and (36b) respectively.
(36)
a. 12 SHARON 因為我有一個朋友也是
‘One of my friends (speaks accented English) as well.’
((omitted))
16 SHARON 然後就是有點台台
‘And (English which he speaks is) Taiwanese-accented.’
17 就覺得 (.) 他講話就是台灣國語
‘He speaks Taiwanese-accented Chinese anyway.’
18 可是他從國外回來
‘But he got foreign diplomas.’
→ 19 我就常常想說他講英文是不是也是這樣
‘I can’t help but think if he also speaks Taiwanese-accented English in the way which is similar to accented Chinese.’
b. 5 JOAN 我最沒有辦法忍受的是 (.) /æ/ 跟 /eI/
‘I can’t tolerate (mispronunciation between) /æ/ and /eI/.’
6 ANN 喔
‘Oh.’
119
7 JOAN
就是 ((laughs)) 我都好想要糾正他
‘I have this urge the correct the person.’
((omitted))
20 對 (.) 我很 (.) 沒有辦法忍受
‘Yeah. I am intolerant (of mispronunciation).’
((omitted))
21 而且這會影響到他的專業度
‘And it makes the person sound less profiessional.’
When English users speak accented English as shown in (36a) and fail to display native-like pronunciation as presented in (36b), they are usually sneered at with their legitimacy of ownership denied. Moreover, as Joan stated in line 21 in (36b), accented English also yingxiangdao tade zhuanyedu ‘makes the person sound less profiessional’. Standard language ideology disclaims not merely competence in English, but also authority that accompanies English. It shows that English is strongly indexical and the denial of ownership refers also to disclamation of all these attributes that English indexes.
Contexts determine code choices, as discussed in Section 5.3. Despite the high prestige which English enjoys, it is not universally preferred in each single context. It will be discussed in Section 6.3 that the inappropriate display of competence is taunted even when English is strongly favored. Standard language ideology and contexts implicates that competence in English and ownership of it are fluid rather than objectively definable and stable.
Ownership of English affects language ideology of it. Language ideology is the set of conceptualizations of language rooted in our experiences in social groups. It has been hypothesized in the study that ownership influences language ideology, as English users and non-English users are expected to have different experiences using and learning the language. Data from both English users and non-English users are analyzed under the identical categorization, which seemed to suggest that English
120
users and non-English users display parallel conceptualizations of English. However, it has been discussed in each section that ownership of English does affect how English is conceptualized.
The foremost language ideology of English as a necessity is shared by both parties. This established norm is observed form informants’ verbalized affirmation on English necessitation and the attack against incompetence. Yet, English users and non-English users differ in how and why the conceptualizations are reached.
Non-English users take English as highly instrumental, so they appreciate English users and position themselves as inferior to English users. English users are aware of instrumental and indexical values. They tend to neutralize English as a tool in global context perhaps to avert others’ appreciation. Otherwise, they may be criticized as easily as they are admired. In standard language ideology, English users and non-English users rely on different criteria for the evaluation. Despite the fact that both English users and non-English users reported to codeswitch, English users feel obligated to avoid English in local contexts. It can be observed that both English users and non-English users hold similar language ideology of English, they adopt different ways and take different positioning to sustain and reproduce the set of social norms.
In fact, it is through English users’ conscious minimization of their competence that the positive images which English projects are reinforced.