Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6

Selection and editorial content © Ruanni Tupas 2015

Individual chapters © Respective authors 2015
Foreword © Arjuna Parakrama 2015
All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication
may be made without written permission.
No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted
save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence
permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency,
Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.
Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication
may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.
The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this
work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
First published 2015 by
PALGRAVE MACMILLAN
Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited,
registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke
Hampshire RG21 6XS.
Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth
Avenue, New York, NY 10010.
Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies
and has companies and representatives throughout the world.
Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States,
the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries.
ISBN 978–1–137–46121–6
This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully
managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing
processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the
country of origin.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

Typeset by MPS Limited, Chennai, India.

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6

 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6

Contents

List of Figures and Tables ix

Foreword by Arjuna Parakrama x
Acknowledgments xiii
Notes on Contributors xiv

Introduction: From World Englishes to Unequal Englishes 1

Ruanni Tupas and Rani Rubdy
Part I Approaches to Unequal Englishes
1 Inequalities of Englishes, English Speakers,
and Languages: A Critical Perspective on
Pluralist Approaches to English 21
Ryuko Kubota
2 Unequal Englishes, the Native Speaker,
and Decolonization in TESOL 42
Rani Rubdy
3 Structures of Feeling in Unequal Englishes 59
Joseph Sung-Yul Park
4 Global English and Inequality: The Contested
Ground of Linguistic Power 74
Peter Ives
Part II Englishes in Nexuses of Power and Inequality
5 ‘Just an Old Joke’: Chinglish, Narrative, and Linguistic
Inequality in the Chinese English Classroom 95
Eric S. Henry
6 English in Japan: Indecisions, Inequalities, and
Practices of Relocalization 111
Glenn Toh
7 Performing Gayness and English in an Offshore
Call Center Industry 130
Aileen O. Salonga

vii

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6

 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6
viii Contents

Part III Englishes in Changing Multilingual Spaces

8 Earning Capital in Hawai’i’s Linguistic Landscape 145
Christina Higgins
9 Glocalization and the Spread of Unequal Englishes:
Vernacular Signs in the Center of Beijing 163
Lin Pan
10 Singlish Strikes Back in Singapore 185
Catherine Chua Siew Kheng
Part IV Englishes in Unequal Learning Spaces
11 Contesting the Raj’s ‘Divide and Rule’ Policies:
Linguistic Apartheid, Unequal Englishes, and
the Postcolonial Framework 203
Vaidehi Ramanathan
12 Unequal Englishes in Imagined Intercultural Interactions 223
Phan Le Ha
13 Preparing Teachers for ‘Unequal Englishes’:
The D-TEIL Experience in Cuba 244
Ian Martin and Brian Morgan

Index 265

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6

 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6

Introduction: From World Englishes

to Unequal Englishes
Ruanni Tupas and Rani Rubdy

‘The functional equality of all languages’, according to Hymes (1985,

p. v), ‘has been a tenet of the faith from the founders of structural lin-
guistics to most practitioners of linguistics today’. This faith has been
‘the progressive force’ that has resulted in ‘the appreciation of the mar-
velous variety of forms taken by human linguistic creativity’ (p. v). This
volume argues that it is the same faith in linguistic equality that has
served as political and ideological anchor for much of the work on the
development and spread of the English language around the world. It
is ‘progressive’ in the sense that it has repudiated and unmasked practi-
cally all deep-seated beliefs about what constitutes the nature of English
today. There is no one English, but many Englishes. No one has exclu-
sive rights to the language; anyone who speaks it has the right to own
it. The norms of use are multilingual norms and the strategies to teach
English are also multilingual in nature. The English language is deeply
embedded in the multilingual and multicultural lives of its speakers—
so who are the native speakers of English today? To insist that those
who can be called native speakers are only those who come from Inner
Circle countries, especially the United States and the United Kingdom
(where users of English are typically described as ‘native speakers’),
is to disenfranchise the majority of English speakers today. In other
words, the tenet of linguistic equality has provided language scholars
(e.g. Kachru 1986; Labov 1969) with the intellectual ammunition to
question unjust and destructive discourses and practices which govern
and saturate the teaching, learning, development, and spread of the
English language.
The same tenet, however, has also served to create political and ideo-
logical blinkers to the way the English language and its role in the world
today have been understood. The so-called ‘non-native’ speakers of

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6

 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6
2 Ruanni Tupas and Rani Rubdy

English have mangled and ‘destroyed’ the language for their own uses
(Ashcroft et al. 1989), so it is, supposedly, wrong to assume that English
continues to subjugate people’s minds and perpetuate various forms of
social inequality. Consequently, embracing the idea of linguistic equal-
ity has become a double-edged sword in scholarly investigations into
the pluralization or indigenization of English: on the one hand, it has
demolished the idea of the supremacy of a monolithic English language
(Kachru 1986); on the other hand, it has divested the language of its
colonial moorings, thus subtly affirming and perpetuating the hegem-
onic power of English today (Tupas 2004). The artificially constructed
dichotomy has been stark: the English of the past is no longer the
English of the present. The English of the past was a colonial language
while the English of the present is a postcolonial one. The tenet of lin-
guistic equality in this sense has helped pave the way for the de-linking
of the past from the present, and the de-linking of discourses about
English then from discourses about English now (Kumaravadivelu 2006;
Phillipson 1992; Tupas 2001).
The implications are massive, and one of the major ones is the the-
oretically-forked and simplistic understanding of the English language
today: English is a powerful language, but speakers of the language,
including those linguistically disempowered and subjugated through
various infrastructures of control (e.g. colonialism, capitalist globaliza-
tion), have demonstrated their ability to resist the power of English as
well (Bisong 1995; Brutt-Griffler 2002). Certain inequalities resulting
from the dominance of English in societies around the world may have
existed, but instead of being confronted, these inequalities are brushed
aside in the theorization of the nature of English language use today.
In other words, we have been seduced into celebrating our victories
over English but forgetting the massive inequities sustained and per-
petuated by the unbridled dominance of English today. The rhetorical
packaging of this position goes something like this: This is not to dis-
count the divisive nature of English. However … But what actually happens
next is that the divisive nature of the language is ignored or forgotten
in the analysis. In more sophisticated renderings of this position, the
strategy is to accord equal weight to the two opposing ends of the
debate. Thus, English should be seen as ‘a simultaneous instrument for
liberation and continued oppression’ (Lee & Norton 2009, p. 282). This
is supported theoretically by a particularly enticing view of language:
‘language is as much a site as it is a means for struggle’ (Pennycook 1994,
p. 267). In the end, however, the focus on struggle and liberation draws
attention away from questions about how our lives are conditioned by

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6

 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6
Introduction 3

forces largely beyond our control. We need alternative ways of concep-

tualizing the role of English today in which our victories are recognized
and apprehended (this must be emphasized) but must be set against
the backdrop of what Gregory (2004) refers to as the colonial present
where English continues to be deployed across unequal learning and
multilingual spaces.
Thus, this volume proposes the notion of unequal Englishes as a way
to understand English today. The spotlight is on the unequal ways and
situations in which Englishes are arranged, configured, and contested. It
does not repudiate the notion of linguistic equality; it remains a ‘tenet of
the faith’. However, linguistic equality is viewed as a thoroughly political
and ideological question which therefore cannot be blind to configura-
tions of power and social relations in different societies today. In other
words, linguistic equality is both the start and the end point of the
notion of unequal Englishes. On the one hand, it assumes that Englishes
are all linguistically equal but their political legitimacies are uneven;
it does not romanticize equality of Englishes. On the other hand, it
highlights various forms of inequality between them in the hope of
clearing social and ideological spaces from which to mount mobiliza-
tions towards linguistic equality. Unequal Englishes begins with the same
assumption as most everybody else’s—languages and linguistic varieties
are equal—but then asks, ‘But are they really?’ Unequal Englishes refuses
to join the party; the celebration is a work-in-progress, not a given. It
aims to probe deep into the structures, contexts, and configurations of
inequalities of Englishes, and then seeks to find ways to address them.
All chapters in this volume deal with the notion of unequal Englishes.
Although questions about inequalities between Englishes are not
new (Canagarajah 2006; Parakrama 1995; Pennycook 2008; Rubdy &
Saraceni 2006; Saxena & Omoniyi 2010; Tupas 2001), there is a need for
a volume that trains its lens primarily on unequal Englishes, and in a sus-
tained and systematic way unpacks this notion in broader geopolitical,
sociocultural, and theoretical contexts. Parakrama’s (1995) book almost
two decades ago focused on class-based inequalities of Englishes in Sri
Lanka. Phan’s (2008) more recent work features a case study of day-to-
day struggles in identity formation of Vietnamese teachers of English
as an International Language. This volume’s geopolitical trajectory
includes the Philippines, Cuba, China, Canada, India, Malaysia, the
United States, Singapore, and South Korea, and its specific social and
ideological contexts of analyses are wide-ranging, including textbooks
and classrooms; teachers, would-be teachers and students; call centers;
linguistic landscapes; stories, narratives and jokes. More importantly,

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6

 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6
4 Ruanni Tupas and Rani Rubdy

several chapters propose various ways to unpack and engage with

inequality in unequal Englishes. It is not enough to say that Englishes are
unequal. It is also important to begin asking about the very nature of
inequalities of Englishes. It goes without saying that this volume is an
exploration of various ways we can understand, examine, and trans-
form inequalities of Englishes.

The problem with Englishes

But first, how did our notion of unequal Englishes come about? Over the
last four decades or so, Braj Kachru and the proponents of the World
Englishes (WE) paradigm have contested monolithic and ethnocentric
visions of English, not least on account of their inadequacy in meeting
the goals and needs of speakers in the Outer Circle (within Kachru’s
concentric circles model) but also for their undemocratic implications,
emanating as they do from an Anglo-American global hegemony. In
particular, the assumption that British (in some contexts American)
English is the only valid standard of English, and the notion that the
‘native speaker’ is the only model that all learners should aspire to
has been put to question. Indeed, Kachru has been at the forefront
of overtly opposing conservatively purist views of English (e.g. his
response to Prator 1968; the debate with Quirk in Kachru 1991) and
has long advocated the use of local varieties as educational models in
regions of the Outer Circle.
The WE analytical framework was developed primarily in relation
to contexts where English arrived as a colonial language and subse-
quently became established as an additional language within national
linguistic repertoires. In those settings, English often has official status
and is used intra-nationally in various domains such as administration,
education, and the media (Saraceni 2009). Countries such as India,
Singapore, and parts of West, South, and East Africa are examples of
former British colonies where English has had a long history of naturali-
zation, nativization, and indigenization that has resulted in the exist-
ence of regional varieties of the language which some scholars also now
call New Englishes. The penetration of English into the sociocultural
landscape has made it possible for its users to appropriate the language
and construct hybrid and multiple cultural identities for themselves.
The localization and appropriation of English in these communities
evidence the many ways that users of English index their ownership
of the language (Higgins 2009; Widdowson 1994) through altering it to
fit their local contexts and purposes. Ownership of English, in this case,

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6

 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6
Introduction 5

signals the emergence of native speakers for each of the new varieties
that have emerged from the expansion of the language.
However, as Modiano (1999) points out, in such communities where
‘near-native’ proficiency in British or American English is juxtaposed
with a local variety, ‘which has traditionally been defined as a sub-
standard variety, the use of a “prestige” variety can serve to establish
class stratification and social division’ (p. 23). Because it effectively mar-
ginalizes speakers of local varieties, an insistence on Inner Circle models
is exclusionary and not in keeping with the democratic ideology of
linguistic diversity. Proponents of WE, on the other hand, promote the
notion of a pluricentric model—and the legitimacy of multi-canons—to
redress the inequality that necessarily results from privileging any one
model as ‘superior’ or ‘the best’. Pluricentrism as an ideology proposes
that global appropriation of English has occurred and that recognized
varieties of English have emerged around the world which are not sub-
ordinate forms to ‘native speaker’ varieties of the language. McArthur’s
(1987, p. 334, cited in Saraceni 2009) comment in referring to the jour-
nal World Englishes, that the acronym WE represents a ‘club of equals’,
reflects the conscious efforts of WE to create this ethos behind the aca-
demic endeavor. Bhatt (2001) reiterates this point in noting that ‘World
Englishes, in its most ambitious interpretation, attempts to decolonize
and democratize applied linguistics’ (p. 544).
However, while WE research has challenged the monolithic nature
of English in significant ways, it has been critiqued for not going far
enough, for reproducing the same normative linguistic framework and
thus contributing to an exclusionary paradigm. A major shortcoming
pointed out is that the Englishes of the post-colonial world are often
described along the lines of monolingual models, by comparing their
grammatical structures with those of center Englishes, thus reinforc-
ing centrist views on language while ignoring eccentric, hybrid forms
of local Englishes. Thus, this paradigm ‘follows the logic of the pre-
scriptive and elitist tendencies of the centre linguists’ (Canagarajah
1999, p. 180).
Moreover, WE has also been severely critiqued for its mapping
of English varieties along national borders, whereas from a linguistic
point of view the identification and description of these country-based
varieties have been rendered highly problematic, particularly in light
of the effects of globalization and transcultural flows. Saraceni (2009)
notes that national borders have become ever more porous and perme-
able allowing for border crossings and the mixing of global and local
norms freely, precipitated by pop music, the Internet, online chatting,

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6

 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6
6 Ruanni Tupas and Rani Rubdy

and email, especially among modern youth. These developments clearly

indicate that, ‘pluralization of English into Englishes around the world
goes well beyond national borders and is a phenomenon far more com-
plex than country-based labels suggest’ (Saraceni 2009, p. 181).
More importantly, however, another point concerning the inad-
equacy of Kachru’s concentric circles model in capturing the complexity
of Englishes that relates to discussions of unequal Englishes is its failure
‘to take adequate account of social factors and social differences within
the circles’ (Holborow 1999, pp. 59–60). In arguing for the legitimacy of
New Englishes on a national basis, it tends to focus on a narrow selec-
tion of standardized forms in particular communities and overlooks
difference within regions as well as those that may accrue with reference
to social class, ethnicity, education, and so on. As Parakrama (1995)
argues, ‘The smoothing out of struggle within and without language is
replicated in the homogenizing of the varieties of English on the basis
of “upper class” forms. Kachru is thus able to theorise on the nature of
a monolithic Indian English’ (pp. 25–26).
These points are as much a reflection of the measure of the power
and persistence of the linguistic assumptions and ideologies linked to
discourses about English as a global language in mainstream applied
linguistics as of the limitations of WE to fully supplant monolithic
understandings of the global spread of English. Ideologies such as
those to do with Standard English, the nation state, the native speaker,
the myth of the monolithic nature of English, and the attendant eth-
nocentric attitudes were all forged during the period of the colonial
enterprise—the period when English’s unquestioned status over other
languages was established—and have gone unchallenged since. Such
ideologies have tremendous continuity over time and form part of the
prevailing colonial legacy, undercutting attempts at more symmetrical
understandings of the pluricentricity of English, despite the efforts of
scholars like Kachru and his followers to replace them with more demo-
cratic alternatives. This is evident also from the fact that the impact of
such academic debate on language teaching practice in many of the
Outer Circle countries has been marginal.
Thus, in spite of efforts by proponents of WE to introduce viable alter-
natives to Inner Circle Englishes as educational models, clearly, their
uptake is hindered by ideologies and discourses about Standard English
and native speakerism (Holliday 2005, 2006) that have been deeply
entrenched and sustained since colonial times, thus perpetuating
inequalities related to language heirarchization. The following section
tackles such inequalities by introducing key ideas from each of the
chapters in this volume about how unequal Englishes may be investigated.

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6

 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6
Introduction 7

Part I: Approaches to Unequal Englishes

The focus of Part I of the volume is how to approach inequalities of

Englishes theoretically. As mentioned earlier, it is important that we ask
what it means to investigate linguistic inequality as opposed to linguis-
tic equality. The chapters in this volume train their theoretical lenses
on the notion of inequality but they frame their understanding of this
sociolinguistic idea in overlapping yet also different ways.
For example, in the opening chapter of the book, Inequalities of
Englishes, English Speakers, and Languages: A Critical Perspective of Pluralist
Approaches to English, Ryuko Kubota proposes a critical approach to
examining the plural nature of English. The chapter first unpacks the
hidden ideological underpinnings of pluralist approaches to English
and argues that their common respect for cultural difference is essen-
tialist in nature. These pluralist approaches fail to account for complex
diversities of Englishes as shaped, for example, by people or groups’
racialized subjectivities and ideologies. For Kubota, Pennycook’s notion
of postcolonial performativity also belongs to this group of pluralist
approaches; although far more nuanced because of its focus on fluid
global linguistic flows and local practices of language, nevertheless it
sidesteps questions about structural inequalities between and within
nations and across injustices shaped by race, gender, class, and other
categories. Thus, a critical alternative to pluralist approaches must look
at inequalities that mediate relations between Englishes, English users,
and other languages.
In Unequal Englishes and Decolonization in TESOL, Rani Rubdy takes
up many issues raised by Kubota but develops the concept of unequal
Englishes along the lines of continuities between past and present ide-
ologies of English. She argues that the supremacy of ideologies about
Standard English and the native speaker of English is at the root of
unequal Englishes, and these ideologies have much to do with globali-
zation and colonization processes. Therefore, to address the problem
of inequalities of Englishes is to engage in the dynamics of these
broader processes and not simply be tied down to questions about
Englishes as linguistic phenomena alone. Drawing upon the work of
Kumaravadivelu (2003), Rubdy differentiates between nativization and
decolonization, arguing that the problem of unequal Englishes is best
addressed by practices and processes of decolonization where speakers
of English take control of the language and decide on their own how
best to learn and teach it.
On the other hand, in Structures of Feeling in Unequal Englishes, Joseph
Park approaches inequalities of English through the lens of ‘structures

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6

 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6
8 Ruanni Tupas and Rani Rubdy

of feeling’ (Williams 1997), which help frame linguistic inequalities as

both structural and subjective, political and personal. To illustrate these
inequalities theoretically, Park probes into the complex phenomenon of
yeongeo yeolpung, or the English frenzy in South Korea, and then demon-
strates how, first, it is not enough to link the power of English simply
with macrostructures of globalization, neo-imperialism, transnational
capital, rigid social class divisions, and educational reproduction; and
second, that inequalities of English are deeply subjective as well, felt by
individuals as anxiety, frustration, and uneasiness. This fear of English
can be traced back to an emerging Korean subjectivity in the early twen-
tieth century when Korea needed to break away from its so-called deca-
dent dynastic past and become part of the dynamic and modern group
of nations. Throughout the twentieth century, Korea’s increasingly
unequal relationship with the United States in practically all spheres
of life (economic, political, cultural) has thus shaped the affective rela-
tionship between the two countries, from which can be drawn such
feelings of anxiety over English, especially over perceived inabilities of
the ‘illegitimate Korean English learner’ to speak like ‘the authoritative
American native speaker’ (Park, this volume). Such feelings have taken
on newer forms of linguistic inequality as Korea upgrades and expands
its human capital in the service of globalization, making learning
English an individual moral imperative. Therefore, unequal Englishes
are deeply affective in nature, not in the simple sense of the individual
psychological insecurities of English language learners, but in the sense
of internalized structures of feeling through which speakers of English
experience—and potentially transform—English-induced inequalities.
Peter Ives, in his chapter, Global English and Inequality: The Contested
Ground of Linguistic Power, closes Part I of the volume. Unlike the first
three chapters, Ives initially steps back from engaging with the notion
of unequal Englishes and, instead, aims to unpack the polemics of the
political idea of inequality itself. Thus, he asks whether ‘inequality
should be understood as existing between and among languages and
language varieties themselves, or is the real issue of social justice to be
located exclusively in relations among users of language?’ (Ives, this
volume). According to him, many studies, like that of Pennycook and
Canagarajah, relate questions of inequality to speakers rather than
languages themselves, in a sense saying that it is relationships between
individual speakers, rather than their languages and language varieties,
that are unequal. For Ives, inequality is located in structural relation-
ships between languages and language varieties themselves. In other
words, individual speech practices within which unequal Englishes are

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6

 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6
Introduction 9

located may be best examined through concepts that relate these prac-
tices to larger but shifting structures of power in society.

Part II: Englishes in Nexuses of Power and Inequality

Part II of this volume is composed of chapters situated in different

sociocultural contexts—China, Japan, and the Philippines—thus locat-
ing unequal Englishes in unique configurations of power and inequality.
In other words, while inequalities of Englishes are shaped broadly by
processes of globalization, specific social and ideological phenomena
constitute these inequalities. In the first chapter of this part, ‘Just an Old
Joke’: Chinglish, Narratives, and Linguistic Inequality in the Chinese English
Classroom, Eric S. Henry unpacks joke narratives on English in China,
arguing that such talk about language is an effective dominant practice
of producing English linguistic inequality in the country. Focusing on
joke narratives about Chinglish in the classroom, the chapter shows
how this evolving variety of English as a substandard form (Dongbei
English) indexes a typical Chinese English learner who uses the language
inappropriately and who takes on an identity associated with cultural
backwardness. Moreover, by locating the Chinese speaker’s experience
abroad (or specifically in the United States), where the Chinese speaker
is perpetually involved in usually humorous inappropriate uses of
English with ‘native’ speakers, the narratives participate in the modern
imaginings of a desirable ‘foreign’ culture in China, while stigmatizing
one that is a local and supposedly inward-looking regional culture. In
the process, teachers, as the narrators of these stories who have had
experience using English abroad, legitimize popular desires to study
the standard form of English in order to participate in China’s march
towards modernization through its globally-oriented market economy.
In the classroom, the narratives unremittingly view English language
acquisition in China with suspicion, implicitly addressing students as
non-experts and backward, and thus remind students to continue pay-
ing for English lessons in order to become the ideal speaker of English.
Writing about Japan, on the other hand, Glenn Toh reconfigures
socio-historical and structural inequalities inherent in the understand-
ings, practices, and realizations of the use and presence of English in the
country. Entitled English in Japan: Traumas, Inequalities and Practices of
Locality, Relocalization and Localism, the chapter argues that the various
realizations and enactments of English in Japan are closely tied in to
the intricacies and traumas of Japan’s post-war occupation by English-
speaking Allied powers led by the forces of the United States. Mediated

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6

 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6
10 Ruanni Tupas and Rani Rubdy

by nationalist ideologies predicated upon questions concerning the

uniqueness of Japanese identity, Toh surfaces the dualistic attitude of
the Japanese society towards (American) English. On the one hand,
American English is revered while, on the other hand, it is viewed with
suspicion. Consequently, local language practices in Japan which inte-
grate English blur the line between being ‘Japanese’ and being ‘foreign’,
thus making these practices unacceptable to many. The matter of English
and Englishes is one that the Japanese are not entirely comfortable with
and structural and ideological inequalities and prejudices linked to the
appropriation of English in Japan are not easily surmountable.
This time writing about the Philippines, Aileen O. Salonga in
Performing Gayness and English in the Offshore Call Center Industry, high-
lights the intricate embeddedness of sexuality and class in the making
of inequalities of Englishes. According to her, there is a phenomenon
that is taking place only in the Philippine call center industry: the sig-
nificant number and success of gay men. She shows how some of the
sociolinguistic practices in the industry—for instance, the ‘feminized’
call center speech style and the emphasis on performance—make it
conducive for gay identities to flourish, especially where performing
acceptable Englishes is concerned. This allows for possibilities of lin-
guistic agency among gay men in a workplace known for its systems
of control. In the end, however, sexuality is only one of the social
categories that relate to success in the industry. English proficiency, or
the ability to switch between desirable or acceptable Englishes, is deter-
mined by intersecting class-induced subject positions, and is thus the
more crucial determiner of success. In other words, to perform gayness
in the industry is not enough for gay men to be successful; their success
is mediated by their ability to perform Englishes deemed desirable by
the industry. By and large, the industry is still closed to Filipino gay men
who are poor and have not gone to the ‘right’ schools.

Part III: Englishes in Changing Multilingual Spaces

Part III of the volume is composed of chapters which locate unequal

Englishes at the heart of massive and dynamic twenty-first century
transformations of societies. The focus is on the role of inequalities of
Englishes in these social changes and how such inequalities are being
transformed by speakers themselves, who are multidialectal and mul-
tilingual users of English. Thus, dominant concepts in the chapters
in this part of the volume are globalization, cosmopolitanism, mod-
ernization, and migration, and the authors seek to account for how

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6

 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6
Introduction 11

these broad social forces impact the formation and transformation of

Englishes and their speakers.
In Earning Capital in Hawai’i’s Linguistic Landscape, Christina Higgins
examines the place of Hawai’ian English in the symbolic economy of
the state, accounting for its transformations from being an unremark-
able lingua franca on plantation fields to being an ‘unequal language’
vis-à-vis the more standard US mainland English propagated through
racially and socially discriminating structures of schooling. In more
recent years, pidgin has taken on more positive meanings and valua-
tions, as evidenced in public signs where people’s voices are increasingly
being articulated through this local use of English. Such prestige shifts
are especially seen through the use of pidgin as both local commodity
and local politics, thus making Hawai’i a curious case for the study of
globalism and cosmopolitanism. Pidgin on signs reflects the local peo-
ple’s attempts to resist the consuming power of a cosmopolitan sophis-
ticated identity, including their opposition to governmental activities
that are difficult to trust.
The second chapter in this section of the volume, Glocalization on
Display: Vernacular English Signs in the Center of Beijing, analyzes the use
of language of public signs on Dashilan, a six-century old commercial
street in the center of Beijing in China undergoing changes due to
modernization and globalization. Lin Pan frames her analysis within
an understanding of globalization as glocalization, where both ‘global’
and ‘local’ actors shape each other’s actions and practices. Such interac-
tion and intermeshing of forces are unequally distributed across people
and institutions with varying access to symbolic and material resources
of capital and cosmopolitanism. The signs analyzed in the chapter
show how ‘global English’ or ‘Standard English’ has relocated from the
English-speaking world to other parts of the world and transformed
into different manifestations of English largely due to local people’s dif-
ferentiated access to such a translocal linguistic resource. The glocaliza-
tion of English in this sense points to unequal spread of the language,
thus the Englishes on signs are rooted in unique cultural, political, and
socioeconomic circumstances.
Catherine Chua Siew Kheng, in her chapter, Singlish Strikes Back
in Singapore, describes the colorful contemporary politics of English
in Singapore, arguing that years of demonizing Singlish, the local col-
loquial English which functions as the country’s inter-ethnic lingua
franca, has failed to uproot the language from its sociocultural moor-
ings. In fact, with Singapore’s increasingly super-diverse cosmopolitan
society, due mainly to the phenomena of migration and globalization,

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6

 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6
12 Ruanni Tupas and Rani Rubdy

Singlish is not only expected to widen its linguistic and functional

reach among new citizens, permanent residents, and foreigners work-
ing in the country but, more crucially, also renders the deep-rooted,
state-sanctioned beliefs about English progressively outdated. Vigorous
policies and initiatives aimed at perpetuating inequalities between
Singlish and Standard Singapore English are increasingly under pressure
to validate the relevance and currency of these language policies and
campaigns in the midst of Singlish becoming an undeniably inextrica-
ble part of a ‘new’ Singapore.

Part IV: Englishes in Unequal Learning Spaces

Part IV of this volume examines Englishes in unequal learning spaces.

Although there is no intrinsic or natural link between the study of
unequal Englishes and the study of learning contexts, the reality is that
sociolinguistic renditions of the pluralization of English around the
world will be viewed by many as hugely important in the context of
education (Canagarajah 2006; Jenkins 2000; Kirkpatrick 2010; Matsuda
2012; McKay 2002). Thus, in these chapters the discussion revolves
around issues relevant to TESOL (the Teaching of English to Speakers
of Other Languages) and is based on textbooks, students, and teachers.
Vaidehi Ramanathan, in Contesting the Raj’s ‘Divide and Rule’ Policies:
Linguistic Apartheid, Unequal Englishes, and the Postcolonial Framework,
provides a situated postcolonial account of how teachers and students
on the ground contest divisive language policies in India by localizing
English and deploying vernacular pedagogical practices in vernacular-
medium classroom settings. These postcolonial linguistic practices help
us examine the appropriateness of concepts propagated by West-based
TESOL, such as ‘communicative competence’, ‘appropriate teaching
methods’, and ‘English-only’ policies. In the process, they can also
potentially inform West-based TESOL teacher education by sensitizing
teachers to the dangers of their being complicit with socially divisive
language policies. Vernacularizing English both through content and
ways of teaching the language exposes the divergent social realities
from which TESOL emerges in situated practice.
On the other hand, Phan Le Ha, in Unequal Englishes in Imagined
Intercultural Interactions, probes into how international students in
English-medium schools in Malaysia privilege native English-speaking
lecturers and ‘foreign’ students in imagined intercultural interactions.
In the process of doing so, the students reproduce colonial dichoto-
mies of self and other, where the ‘West’ continues to be the source of

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6

 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6
Introduction 13

knowledge and authority over questions of standards in the English

language. Such imagined interactions, where ‘native’ English is the
desired standard and going ‘abroad’ is the final destination of English
language learning for many of the students, affirm unequal ownership
of the English language despite its having spread across practically all
parts of the world. In broader terms, this phenomenon is embedded in
processes involving the internationalization of English-medium educa-
tion, along with the legitimization of other forms of knowledge coming
from the English-speaking West.
The last chapter of this section, Preparing Teachers for ‘Unequal
Englishes’: The D-TEIL Experience in Cuba, is a strategically important
closing chapter for this volume. The authors, Ian Martin and Brian
Morgan, tackle a practical yet profound question: what do we do with
unequal Englishes? They describe the theory and practice of an under-
graduate EIL program in Canada whose key feature is a three-week
practicum held at a university in Cuba. The program aims at providing
students with a critical space to reflect on and engage with dominant
concepts and ideologies in the teaching of English, such as the endur-
ing belief in the supremacy of the native speaker. Student reflections
show an emerging critical EIL teacher identity through their grounded
understanding of local classroom practices and a deeper appreciation
of the non-native English teacher advantage. The authors highlight
the fact that preparing students (who would be teachers) for unequal
Englishes actually also prepares students for various forms of inequalities
as well, including linguistic and varietal inequalities, as well as gender,
economic, and social development inequalities.

Conclusion

‘Critical linguists’, according to Jenkins (2006, p. 165), ‘can be divided

into anti-imperialists such as Phillipson, who would prefer English(es)
not to be the most widely used world language, and those such as
Canagarajah and Parakrama, whose concern, like Kachru’s, is more
with resisting the hegemony of native speaker standards and appro-
priating English for their own local use’ (p. 165). It is not clear how
well this dichotomy holds politically and ideologically. Does this make
Canagarajah (1999) not anti-imperialist in his widely acclaimed book,
Resisting linguistic imperialism? Similarly, does this make Parakrama
(1995) not anti-imperialist in his stirring critique of the Kachruvian
paradigm in order to advance his agenda in De-hegemonizing language
standards—learning from (post)colonial Englishes about ‘English’? This is a

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6

 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6
14 Ruanni Tupas and Rani Rubdy

curious dichotomization of the work of ‘critical linguists’ since appar-

ently those engaged in ‘resistance’ and ‘de-hegemonizing’ standards
cannot be ‘anti-imperialist’.
This positioning perhaps becomes more intelligible if we read
Jenkins’ complete statement about how she and scholars associated
with English as a Lingua Franca or ELF view themselves vis-à-vis the
‘critical linguists’: ‘Taking a very different approach, though one
which shares some common ground with that of the latter group
of critical linguists, is Brutt-Griffler (2002), who presents the spread of
WEs [World Englishes] as resulting from the agency of its non-mother
tongue speakers rather than from their passivity and exploitation. This
is a position that she shares with ELF researchers’ (p. 165, italics added).
In other words, Jenkins associates her politics with those who resist
linguistic imperialism because of their valorization of individual agency
and resistance, but nevertheless distances herself and her group from them
by refusing to acknowledge the crucial role of linguistic imperialism
in the spread of English around the world. That is, what we think she
wants to say is that in advancing the agenda of ELF, what matters is the
agency of speakers, and talk about passivity and exploitation is irrel-
evant. If we are to take her position as the position of other scholars in
the same research area, then ELF rejects any possibility of the English
language and its speakers being located in structures or conditions of
inequality in society today. Pushed to its logical conclusion, modern
society is romanticized as a congregation of individual speakers whose
choices are completely free of social influences.
As this whole introduction, hopefully, has shown, this is what happens
if ‘agency’ and ‘exploitation’ are not viewed conceptually as constituting
each other. Again, our point is ‘simple’, although admittedly theoretically
complex to operationalize: a focus on agency does not mean exploitation
is gone and a focus on exploitation does not mean there is no agency.
Practically all fields in the social sciences have fiercely debated the rela-
tionship between agency and exploitation, between agency and struc-
ture, between colonialism and postcolonialism, or between imperialism
and political action (Dirlik 2002; Hays 1994; Hobson & Ramesh 2002;
Larsen 2005). But between Marx, Durkheim, and Weber, for example,
who advance theoretical treatises in favor of one over the other, none
reject the importance of the other (Elder-Vass 2010); between Giddens
and Bourdieu, and Mouzelis and Archer, on the other hand, theoreti-
cal attempts have been made to reconcile both sides of the dichotomy
(Elder-Vass 2010; Parker 2000). The ELF position seems not-of-this-world
because of its insistence or covert belief that one part of the equation

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6

 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6
Introduction 15

either does not exist at all, or at least should be ignored. Whatever our
theoretical persuasions are, it is important to begin with the assumption
that ‘we cannot successfully theorize the social world without recogniz-
ing and reconciling the roles of both structure and agency’ (Elder-Vass
2010, pp. 3–4). One cannot choose between agency and exploitation,
between freedom and unfreedom; to do so is politically naive.
Interestingly, despite the ‘far reaching’ (2006, p. 170) implica-
tions of EFL research for teaching, Jenkins gives a sobering—and yes,
correct—account of why, despite reflecting ‘the sociolinguistic reality
of the largest group of English users, that is, the majority of those in
the expanding circle, it [ELF] may prove difficult to put it into practice’
(p. 170). Some of these deep-rooted challenges are the following: (1)
‘the belief in native speaker ownership persists among both native and
nonnative speakers—teachers, teacher educators and linguists alike’
(p. 171); (2) ‘With standard American or British English being the only
varieties considered worth learning in many parts of the world, then
equally, those considered best-placed to teach English in those places
are its native speakers’ (p. 172); (3) ‘the examination boards are unlikely
to be spurred into action by much of what is written on testing, which
tends to fall back on acceptance of a native-speaker standard’ (p. 175);
and (4) ‘it is gratifying to observe that the study of the subject World
Englishes is growing around the world … although the paradigm shift
has not yet started to filter though into language teaching itself, where
much more needs to be done to raise learners’ awareness of the diversity
of English’ (pp. 173–174). From our perspective, Jenkins is giving an
account of inequalities of Englishes.
Our volume, however, diverges from the ELF position in a profound
way because while in many ELF scholars’ formulation ‘the intercon-
nections between structure and agency are lost’ (Hays 1994, p. 57), we
assume that inequalities and Englishes are inextricably linked and must
be theorized together. Our position is that the focus on inequalities could
bring our attention back to why Englishes and agency can empower
us only if we locate them in the colonial present (Gregory 2004). Why
do those challenges to ELF, above, continue to persist today? We can,
of course, rely on different frameworks to answer this question, but
if we continue to purge exploitation from our academic and intellec-
tual vocabulary, we might as well count ourselves implicated in what
Jenkins (2006) refers to as the ‘counter discourse’ (p. 172) in the acad-
emy which frustrates genuine efforts to revise, change, and transform
the teaching and learning of English around the world. The refusal
to acknowledge the fact that the ‘forces of globalization, empire and

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6

 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6
16 Ruanni Tupas and Rani Rubdy

English are intricately interconnected’ (Kumaravadivelu 2006, p. 1) is

unfortunate but understandable because it is, after all, symptomatic of
‘the entrenched nature of empire’ (p. 1).

References
Ashcroft, B, Griffiths, G, & Tiffin, H 1989, The empire writes back: theory and
practice in post-colonial literatures, Routledge, London & New York.
Bhatt, R 2001, ‘World Englishes’, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 30,
pp. 527–550.
Bisong, J 1995, ‘Language choice and cultural imperialism: a Nigerian perspec-
tive’, ELT Journal, vol. 49, pp. 122–132.
Brutt-Griffler, J 2002, ‘World English: a study of its development’, Multilingual
Matters, Clevedon, England.
Canagarajah, S 1999, Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Canagarajah, S 2006, ‘The place of World Englishes in composition: plu-
ralization continued’, College Composition and Communication, vol. 57, no. 4,
pp. 586–619.
Dirlik, A 2002, Rethinking colonialism: globalization, postcolonialism, and the
nation, Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies, vol. 4, no. 3,
pp. 428–448.
Elder-Vass, D 2010, The causal power of social structures: emergence, structure and
agency, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Gregory, D 2004, The colonial present, Blackwell, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Hays, S 1994, ‘Structure and agency and the sticky problem of culture’,
Sociological Theory, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 57–72.
Hobson, JM & Ramesh, M 2002, ‘Globalisation makes of states what states make
of it: between agency and structure in the state/globalisation debate’, New
Political Economy, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 5–22.
Holborow, M 1999, The politics of English: a Marxist view of language, Sage
Publications, London.
Higgins, C 2009, English as a local language, Multilingual Matters, Bristol.
Holliday, A 2005, The struggle to teach English as an International Language, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Holliday, A 2006, ‘Native-speakerism’, ELT Journal, vol. 6, pp. 385–387.
Hymes, D 1985, ‘Preface’, in N Wolfson & J Manes (eds), Language of inequality,
Mouton Publishers, Berlin, New York, & Amsterdam, pp. v–xi.
Jenkins, J 2000, The phonology of English as an International Language: new models,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Jenkins, J 2006, ‘Current perspectives on teaching World Englishes and English
as a Lingua Franca’, TESOL Quarterly, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 157–181.
Kachru, B 1986, The alchemy of English: the spread, functions and models of non-
native Englishes, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Kachru, B 1991, ‘Liberation linguistics and the Quirk concern’. English Today,
vol. 25, pp. 3–13.
Kirkpatrick, A 2010, The Routledge handbook of World Englishes, Routledge,
London & New York.

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6

 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6
Introduction 17

Kumaravadivelu, B 2006, ‘Dangerous liaison: globalization, empire and TESOL’,

in J Edge (ed), (Re-)locating TESOL in an age of empire, Palgrave Macmillan,
Basingstoke, pp. 1–26.
Labov, W 1969, ‘The logic of non-standard English’, in J Alatis (ed), Georgetown
monograph on languages and linguistics, Georgetown University Press,
Washington, DC, vol. 22, pp. 1–44.
Larsen, N 2005, ‘Imperialism, colonialism, postcolonialism’, in H Schwarz &
S Ray (eds), A companion to postcolonial studies, Blackwell, Malden, Oxford, &
Carlton, pp. 23–52.
Lee, E & Norton, B 2009, ‘The English language, multilingualism, and the politics
of location’, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, vol. 12,
no. 3, pp. 277–290.
Matsuda, A 2012, Principles and practices of Teaching English as an International
Language, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.
McKay, SL 2002, Teaching English as an international language: rethinking goals and
approaches, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Modiano, M 1999, ‘International English in the global village’, English Today,
vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 22–28.
Parakrama, A 1995, De-hegemonizing language standards—learning from (post)-
colonial Englishes about ‘English’, Macmillan Press, London.
Parker, J 2000, Structuration, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Pennycook, A 1994, The cultural politics of English as an International Language,
Longman, Harlow.
Pennycook, A 2008, ‘Multilithic English(es) and language ideologies’, Language
in Society, pp. 435–444.
Phan, LH 2008, Teaching English as an International Language: identity, resistance,
and Negotiation, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.
Phillipson, R 1992, Linguistic imperialism, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Prator, CH 1968, ‘The British heresy in TESOL’, in J Fishman, CA Ferguson, &
JD Das Gupta (eds), Language problems in developing nations, John Wiley,
New York, pp. 459–76.
Rubdy, R & Saraceni, M 2006, English in the world: global rules, global roles,
Continuum, London & New York.
Saraceni, M 2009, ‘Relocating English: towards a new paradigm for English in the
world’, Language and Intercultural Communication, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 175–186.
Saxena, M & Omoniyi, T (eds), 2010, Contending with globalization in World
Englishes, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.
Tupas, R 2001, ‘Global politics and the Englishes of the world’, in J Cotteril &
A Ife (eds), Language across boundaries: selected papers from the Annual Meeting of
the British Association for Applied Linguistics, London & New York, BAAL with
Continuum Press, pp. 81–98.
Tupas, R 2004, ‘The politics of Philippine English: neocolonialism, global poli-
tics, and the problem of colonialism’, World Englishes, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 47–58.
Widdowson, H 1994, ‘The ownership of English’, TESOL Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 2,
pp. 377–389.
Williams, R 1977, Marxism and literature, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6

 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6
Index
agency, 14–5, 23, 33, 35, 49, 51, 53,
60, 71, 76, 85–6, 97, 130–1, 135–6,
168, 246, 248, 252, 256, 259
agentive, 21, 49, 111, 168
appropriation(s), 21, 35, 44, 53, 60,
166, 244
of English, 4, 5, 15, 111,
166, 223
of academic English, 24
anxiety, 61, 63, 68–71, 107
bilingualism, 99, 114, 152, 161, 187,
248, 250
bilingual education, 248
call center(s), 130–140
center, 47, 50, 51, 68, 113, 114, 116,
147, 256
Chinglish, 95–108
class, 25, 29, 33, 43, 45, 46, 60, 62–4,
68, 88, 101, 131, 137–8, 146–7,
181, 207, 215
middle, 25, 46, 47, 137
upper, 47, 62, 177
colonial power(s), 204–5 see also
power relations
colonization, 35, 43
colonized, 30, 44, 48, 51,
204, 206
colonizer/s, 44, 50, 51, 204, 224
correctness, 45, 47
cosmopolitanism, 25, 160
decolonization, 42, 50, 56
decolonize, 5
decolonized, 206
diversity, 5, 22, 24, 26–31, 33–5, 99,
107, 190, 225
diverse, 21–5, 28, 31, 35–6, 167,
186, 188, 190, 195, 206, 248
Dongbei English, 96, 107
Dongbeihua, 96
265
Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6
EIL see English as an International
Language
ELF see English as Lingua Franca
English as a Lingua Franca, 14–5, 21,
23, 24, 29, 30–3, 36, 253,
English as an International Language,
37, 42, 44, 49, 179, 244–62
English–medium, 22, 187, 189, 205,
208, 216, 219, 223, 225, 226, 227,
232, 233, 240,
equality, 1–3, 7, 42, 75–89
ethnicity, 6, 25, 26, 32, 33, 43, 45, 52,
85, 91, 112, 195, 203, 233
expanding circle, 15, 23, 54, 55, 70,
113, 114, 118, 163, 245, 250
femininity, 131, 133–6, 136–7, 139
feminization, 130–1
feminized, 130, 138
gay(s), 84, 130–140
gender, 25, 29, 33, 43, 45, 73, 101, 130–7
gendered, 89, 101, 108, 131
global English, 34, 35, 74, 83,
113, 182
global Englishes, 31, 113
globalization, 34–5, 42–3, 56, 59,
68, 90, 160, 164–5, 217–8, 224,
247, 260
glocalization, 163–6, 171, 174, 177,
179, 182
hegemony, 4, 13, 26, 32, 59, 74, 78,
83, 88–9, 112, 247
homogenization, 164–5
homogeneity, 79
homogeneous, 25, 30
hybrid, 4, 5, 21, 24, 33, 88, 127, 160,
205, 207
hybridity, 34, 85, 124, 126,
127, 193
hybridization, 117, 164, 165, 193
 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6
266 Index
ideology, 5, 31–3, 43, 47–8, 69, 70,
97, 105, 108, 112, 178, 247, 258
see also neoliberal ideology
of correctness, 45
of native-speakerism, 70
of normatism, 31
of racial liberalism, 26
of racism, 43
of survival, 188
imperialism, 14, 16, 42, 43, 53, 54,
78, 86, 116 see also linguistic
imperialism
neo-imperialism, 8
indigenization, 2, 4, 115, 116
inequalities of Englishes, 3–4, 7,
9–10, 21
inner circle, 1, 5, 6, 23, 32, 43–5, 122,
225–6, 245, 255
inner circle Englishes, 30, 116,
insecurity, 61, 63, 68, 70–1 see also
junuk
intelligibility, 23, 30–2, 34, 36, 49, 153
intercultural, 27, 223–40, 244
Japanese English, 112–26
junuk, 63–4, 68 see also insecurity
Korean English, 62, 64, 68
linguistic equality, 1–3, 86
inequality, 95–6, 107, 247
linguistic imperialism, 13–4, 78, 244
linguistic landscape, 148, 150–3,
159–61, 167, 186, 197
localization, 4, 118,
relocalization, 111, 116–8, 126,
marginalization, 32, 50
self-marginalization, 50
migration, 186, 195, 196
modernity, 65, 67, 97, 101, 165,
177, 179
modern, 9, 14, 65–7, 70, 82, 106,
164, 177
modernization, 47, 65, 99, 189, 225
post-modernity, 85
post-modernism, 23, 83
monolingualism, 79, 120
multiculturalism, 22, 24, 26, 29–30
Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6
critical, 28–9, 31, 37, 39
liberal, 24–8, 30,
neoliberal, 26–35
multilingualism, 35, 99, 187, 197
multilingual, 1, 3, 145, 161, 163,
164, 175, 193, 194, 198, 207,
native speaker, 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 23,
31–2, 36, 42–3, 50–51, 53, 54–5,
62–3, 68, 69, 115, 125, 223–40,
247, 253, 262
native/non-native, 79, 115, 232, 253,
255
native speakerism, 6, 51, 70, 125,
255, 262
nativization, 4, 7, 50
neoliberalism, 26–7, 34, 69
neoliberal, 22, 24–36, 62, 64,
65, 69, 244 see also neoliberal
multiculturalism
neoliberal ideology, 36
nihonjinron, 112, 120–2, 124–5, 127
non-native speaker, 43, 49, 54–5, 70,
115, 116, 253, 254–6
nonstandard, 31, 55, 96, 102, 107
oppression, 2, 51, 74, 78, 220
outer circle, 4, 23, 43, 45
ownership, 4, 13, 15, 50, 52
ownership of English, 4, 224, 225,
255, 262
performativity, 7, 21, 23–4, 112,
116–19, 123–26
performative, 117, 119, 126
postcolonial see also postcolonial
performativity
periphery, 43, 50, 51, 52, 53, 116
Philippine English, 30,
pluralization, 2, 6, 12, 33, 113
plural, 7, 35, 127, 193, 206
pluralist, 21–37
pluricentricity, 6, 44
pluricentric, 5, 113
pluricentrism, 5
postcolonial, 2, 14, 23, 24, 29, 30,
203–7, 214, 215, 221, 244, 247
performativity, 23–4, 30, 33–4
postcolonialism, 14, 204
 Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6
Index 267

power of English, 2, 8 see also symbolic subjectivity, 59–61, 64–6, 70–2,

power 112
power relations, 28, 34, 53, 74, 77, 87, super–diversity, 37, 195, 200
89, 112, 124 see also colonial power symbolic power, 30, 34, 35 see also
unequal, 29, 33, 35, 43, power of English

relocalization see under localization Teaching English as an International

resistance, 14, 23, 24, 30, 44, 60, 100, Language see English as an
119, 160, 219, 221 International Language
TESOL, 43, 47, 51, 56, 119, 120, 124,
Singlish, 185–98 206, 208, 212–220
Standard English, 23, 43, 46, 47–50, translingual, 49, 56, 80, 86, 89,
55–6, 60, 62, 77, 108, 164, 186, 117–9, 126
190, 192, 193, 194, 226, 229
Standard Englishes, 58, 77
vernacular(s), 61, 145, 163, 166, 187,
stigmatization, 107, 166, 181
203, 204, 205, 207–12, 217, 219,
stigmatized, 63, 96, 100, 106, 145,
221, 222
161, 195, 200
vernacularization, 207–12
structure(s), 15, 61, 79, 80, 83, 85–9,
vernacular–medium, 204, 205, 208,
105, 107, 125–6, 135, 168,
215, 218, 222
economic, 54
World Englishes, 1–6, 21, 23, 50,
grammatical, 49
88, 113, 116, 122, 127, 204,
internalized,
253, 255
macro, 60
mental, 47
social, 26, 44, 59, 61, 71, 137–9, 186 yeongeo yeolpung, 8, 62

Copyrighted material – 978–1–137–46121–6