Gibson Ferguson Language Planning and Education Edinburgh ...

New Englishes and teaching models 163
community, if not among teachers and students at large, the Kachruvian perspective
is in the ascendant over that of Quirk. Certainly, this is Seidlhofer and Jenkins’s
(2003: 142) confidently asserted belief:
In most outer circle contexts, of course, the long and vigorous struggle for the
acknowledgement of their very own sociopolitical identities has been largely
successful … The naive notion of a monolithic, uniform, unadaptable linguistic
medium owned by its original speakers and forever linked to their rule(s) has been
recognised as simply contrary to the facts, and has therefore given way to the
realization that indigenised varieties of English are legitimate Englishes in their
own right, accordingly emancipating themselves vis-à-vis British and American
Standard English … Outer circle linguistic independence has, on the whole, been
given the linguistic seal of approval.
The same authors go on to make the case for extending the legitimacy already
accorded to outer circle Englishes to the expanding circle, to emergent features of
English as a Lingua Franca (ELF). We will consider the merits of this case later, but
first we turn from an exposition of the history of the debate to an assessment of the
central arguments.
6.4.2 Models for teaching English: assessing the arguments
Central to the debate on whether New Englishes should be adopted as teaching
models are the recurring issues of intelligibility, identity, practicality, acceptability
and standardisation. Interwoven though these are, it may helpful to individuate
them, if only for convenience of discussion. Accordingly, we start with intelligibility.
6.4.2.1 The issue of intelligibility
Fears that English may dissolve into mutually unintelligible varieties have featured
prominently in the arguments of those opposed to the recognition of second
language varieties as teaching models (see above). In one respect, the concern is wellfounded:
English is only useful as an international language so long as mutual
intelligibility between speakers from different world regions can be maintained. On
the other hand, the conceptualisation of intelligibility proffered by Prator is not
altogether satisfactory.
The initial points one might make are empirical. Nearly forty years on from the
publication of Prator’s (1968) paper, there are few firm indications that the ‘English
language complex’ (McArthur 1998: xv) is fracturing, as prognosticated, into
mutually unintelligible varieties. One reason for this is that, while there are
undoubtedly centrifugal tendencies in play, there are also, as various scholars (e.g.
Quirk 1985, Crystal 1997, McArthur 1998) have pointed out, countervailing
centripetal forces at work – telecommunications, international media, travel and
increased individual mobility, for example.
Relevant here also, and important in fact for the entire debate on norms, is the