For starters, the dynamic model, is a claim that a uniform process underlies the

emergence of individual of individual postcolonial englishes. The similarities

described in the model are grounds in specific, cross - culturally parallel
sociolinguistic conditions in colonization, the changing long term relations between
the two main parties involved in colonization, the settlers strand and the
indigenous strand.
FIFTH SLIDE:
The dynamic model has been informed by theories of language contact which are
sociolinguistics which means the impact of extralinguistic conditions of
communication; social identity which is the reconstructions of who belongs to an
us groups versus others here marked by a tendency to a gradual convergence;
and language evolution.
Notably mufwene formed an idea of a pool of linguistic features and postulates a
unilateral implication that is a monodirectional causal relationship between 4 core
parameters.
4 core parameters:

The sociopolitical and historical background in colonial expansion shapes the

identity constructions of the two main parties involved,
the English-speaking settlers in a new region and the locals. These identities
(i.e. who feels associated with whom)
are decisive for the sociolinguistic conditions which shape the communicative
settings, and on these,
in turn, the resulting linguistic effects, the evolving distinctive structural
properties of new varieties, are dependent.
On that basis, it is suggested that emerging varieties proceed through five
consecutive:
1. Foundation: English is established in a new territory by colonial expansion,
brought by migrant functionaries and settlers. Among the latter, coming from
different regions and speaking different regional dialects, dialect contact and
koineizationare likely to occur.
2. Exonormative stabilization: After a territorys political stabilization as a
colony, contact between settlers and indigenous population increases.
3. Nativization: This is the central phase during which cultural and linguistic
transformations take place. The territorys gradual move toward political and
cultural independence brings about expanded contacts and a significantly reduced
social gap between the descendants of the original settlers and locals.
4. Endonormative stabilization: This stage is usually reached after political
independence, and associated with nation building: both the settlers and the
indigenous populations descendants increasingly identify as members of a newly-
born, young nation, marked by pride in itself and cultural self-dependence.
5. Differentiation: As a consequence of external stability and internal
cohesiveness having been reached, there is increasingly room for internal
differentiation, namely, for the gradual emergence of new dialects and sociolects
within the new variety.

SIXTH SLIDE:
The Dynamic Model was presented for the first time in 2001, as an invited plenary
at the Australian Style Council Conference in Sydney. It received a major impetus by
being published in Language (Schneider 2003). It was then worked out more
extensively in its most elaborate version in Schneider (2007) in a book in which it
was applied to 17 case studies of Inner and Outer Circle countries, including the US,
Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Hong Kong, India, Malaysia, South Africa, Kenya,
Nigeria, Barbados, and others.
In a number of publications the model has been explicitly re-applied to countries
discussed in Schneider (2007), partly with innovative suggestions and modifications
of details:
To Indian English: Mukherjee (2007) argues that Indian English has moved into
phase 4 and has reached a steady state equilibrium between forces of progression
and conservatism.
To Hong Kong English: Evans (2009: 297) uses demographic data and archival
sources to track the history of Hong Kong English from the beginning, and
substantiates, expands and confirms earlier views.
To South African English: Bekker (2009: 86) emphasizes the need for sub-varieties
to be allowed to run their own course, and sets South African Black English in
phase 3. In White South African English he observes original, settler-based
regionalisms (Bekker 2009: 88) rather than phase 5 developments.
To Philippine English: Bautista (2010) compares usage conditions of the subjunctive
in two Asian varieties and finds the prediction confirmed that Singaporean English is
more advanced than Philippines English.

SEVENTH SLIDE:
In addition, some authors have worked out new applications of the model, to
countries not discussed in Schneider (2007):
to Malta; Thusat et al. (2009) argue that English is in phase 3, nativization, in Malta,
and possibly moving into phase 4.
to Gibraltar; Weston (2011: 361) analyzes census data, colonial records and
documents which offer identity statements; on this basis he argues that Gibraltar
appears to have progressed to the fourth phase where a local variety of English is
salient and carries an identity function for its users and that the Dynamic Model
aptly captures the spread of English knowledge on the Rock (Weston 2011: 338).
to Ghanaian English; Huber (2012: 218) suggests that Ghana falls between the
Nativization Phase and the Endonormative Stabilization Phase.
to Cyprus English: Buschfeld (2013) argues for the 1974 Turkish invasion as an
Event X which re-directed identity alignments and linguistic developments.
to Japanese English: Ike (2012) suggests an application which adopts but also
modifies some components of the model.
In a few cases authors attempted to explicitly test claims made in the Dynamic
Model on empirical grounds:
Mukherjee and Gries (2009) They find an explicit correlation of verb-construction
associations with evolutionary stages in the Dynamic Model: the more advanced a
New English variety is in its evolution, the more dissimilar it is to British English at
the level of collostructions. (Mukherjee and Gries 2009: 489) On the other hand,
Gries and Mukherjee (2010), in a sophisticated statistical investigation of n-grams
(lexical co-occurrence preferences, fixed word sequences) in the same three Asian
Englishes, find resulting clusters which fail to replicate evolutionary stages.
Tan and Low (2010) provide comparative acoustic analyses of the monophthongs of
Malaysian English and Singaporean English. They find beginning divergence but no
really compelling evidence for a stage 3 vs. stage 4 difference.
Collins (2012) investigates the relative frequencies of occurrence of singular
agreement in there-existentials in seven Postcolonial varieties, also based on ICE
data.
Werner (2013) compares the co-occurrence behavior of certain time adverbials with
the present perfect or the past tense (PT), respectively, in 12 varieties (carrying out
a cluster analysis on ICE corpora data). He finds an increased PT-friendliness as an
indicator of endonormativity in advanced (phase 4 or close) varieties.
Van Rooy and Terblanche (2010: 407) seek to investigate whether South African
English has proceeded beyond phase 3, into phase 4, using corpus data on lexis and
looking into the criteria of generality, acceptability and codification.
Schneider (2012b) looks at complement clause alternatives, namely, the choice
between finite and nonfinite clauses, with or without that, and with or without
explicit modal, after verbs like want, expect, or advise.
Brunner (2012) studies measures of NP complexity, and finds Singaporean English
more advanced (in terms of complexity) than Kenyan English.
Marsdens dissertation (2013: 4) focuses on a core claim associated with stage 5:
her goal was to investigate Schneiders hypothesis of imminent regional
diversification in modern NZE, and she works out aspects of this diversification
process in great detail, arguing that the way in which linguistic variation is
appropriated and conceptualised in accordance with sociocultural conditions
(Marsden 2013: 41) is at stake at this stage.
EIGHTH SLIDE:
In a few publications substantial theoretical discussions have revolved around
aspects of the model. This has concerned the role of identity in the formation of new
dialects of English, which has been emphasized in the Dynamic Model but denied in
a competing framework suggested by Trudgill.
Trudgills (2004) model of new-dialect formation views these processes as
essentially deterministicit posits purely mechanical forces, such as the relative
numerical strength of competing input features, to drive the evolution of new
varieties mechanistically. The role of social and attitudinal factors and, especially,
any impact of identity are explicitly denied. Trudgill (2004; 2008) assumes a
tabula rasa situation of speakers from different dialectal backgrounds coming
together afresh
Barbara Johnston, the editor of the journal Language in Society, invited an extensive
discussion of this issue by various authors in her journal, printed as eight
Discussion papers in 2008.
Bekkers dissertation studied the historical phonology of South African English, with
this controversy in view, and he finds evidence, with respect to the BATH and
MOUTH vowels, showing Trudgills model of new-dialect formation to be inadequate
in accounting for the SAE data; and, consequently, support for Schneiders
emphasis on the importance of indexical factors in new-dialect formation.
Van Rooy, offers a fundamental theoretical discussion of variability as a key aspect
of variety evolution, derived from a comparison of Trudgills deterministic theory of
new dialect formation.
He recognizes that Trudgill emphasizes the distribution of input factors, while the
Dynamic Model highlights the developmental process as such and state that
Schneiders model is accepted as far as the social processes are concerned.
NINTH SLIDE:
Not surprisingly, the Dynamic Model has also met with some criticism, and some
limitations and weaknesses have been identified. A major contested issue is it
sapplicability and suitability, notably the joint treatment of Inner and Outer Circle
varieties in one and the same framework.
Mesthrie and Bhatt believe that the incorporation of dominion countries like
Australia. . . with ESL countries like Fiji seems unwarranted because different
conditions of installation applied
Similarly, Melchers and Shaw (2011: 31) posit that a strength of the Dynamic Model
is its applicability to so many varieties, including inner-circle ones. Indeed, this
joint perspective was deliberately intended and built into the system; it is an
essential feature of model making.
Mesthrie and Bhatt believe that the incorporation of dominion countries like
Australia.
Believe that the model grew out of an analysis of the Asia Pacific region and
question whether it is equally suitable for Africa and South Asia.
Raise an interesting and important issue, namely that the model has a predictive
aspect.
After a decade of the Dynamic Model being discussed, it can be stated that it has
been widely applied, accepted and partly transformed and certainly found to be a
powerful tool.
It is now time to return to the wider ramifications addressed at the beginning, the
question of a possible wider applicability and the ultimate boundaries of the
Dynamic Model.
Further criticism addresses details, some of which appear not to really fit in specific
instances. for instance, in their study of Malta, regret that the impact of Italian and,
recently, tourism remains unexplained. Weston looking at Gibraltar, is worried that
the model focuses more on similarities than on relative differences. Occasionally
the precise sequence of phases and their properties is open to discussion.
Mesthrie and Bhatt (2008: 35) raise an interesting and important issue, namely that
the model has a predictive aspectthat a variety at phase n is likely to proceed to
phase n + 1.
Finally, the same authors somewhat challenge the precise nature of the notion of
identity in the model, conceived very much as a public concept in terms of
nationhood (Mesthrie and Bhatt 2008: 35), downplaying other aspects like class,
status, etc. Here I also do not agree, quite to the contrary: it is true that a public and
national notion of identity is at stake but this applies predominantly to one stage,
endonormative stabilization, while in contrast in the subsequent stage 5 it is
explicitly stated that the focus of an individuals identity construction narrows
down, from the national to the community scale (Schneider 2007: 53), to gender,
age, class, ethnicity, and other kinds of social groups.
In sum, after a decade of the Dynamic Model being discussed, it can be stated that
it has been widely applied, accepted, and partly transformed, and certainly found to
be a powerful tool. It has its limitations, but to some extent these derive from the
very nature of a model, which is and abstraction from reality, not reality itself,
which highlights specific aspects while disregarding others
After this attempt at stock-taking it is now time to return to the wider ramifications
addressed at the beginning, the question of a possible wider applicability and the
ultimate boundaries of the Dynamic Model. Originally it was meant for Postcolonial
Englishes, that is, for mainly Outer and some Inner Circle countries; now the issue is
whether it has potential relevance for Expanding Circle contexts as well.
The purpose of the next section is thus, first, to ask and gain a selective survey of
what is going on in the Expanding Circle today and second to investigate whether
the Dynamic Model may be useful in these contexts as well. In each case, as far as
reasonably possible, I apply descriptive categories adapted from the Dynamic
Model, reflecting the four core parameters mentioned above which imply each
other unilaterally: language policy and English in education; attitudes to English;
sociolinguistic conditions of using and learning English; and structural
consequences.