by Hiroaki Teraoka
January 6th 2023
(This a reproduction of my term paper for a sociolinguistic course. The original version is submitted on January 6th in 2023. )
1. Introduction
As Crystal (2003) notes, the number of people who use English is increasing. To classify the speakers of English, Crystal introduces Kachru’s three circle model. In Kachru’s model, the countries where English has been used over hundreds of years occupy the inner circle. The U.K., the U.S. etc. belong to this inner circle. According to Crystal (2003), countries which accepted English mainly through colonization belong to the outer circle. In these countries, English plays an important role as a language of administration and other areas. Crystal states that India, Singapore etc. belong to the outer circle and many citizens in these countries acquire English as a second language. The outermost circle is called the expanding circle and countries where the importance of English is recognized and English is taught as a main foreign language belong to this circle (Crystal 2003).
Forms of English spoken in the inner circle are recognized as dialects of English. British English, American English and Australian English are good examples of these varieties. Forms of English spoken in the outer circle are also recognized as dialects of English such as Indian English and Kenyan English (Cheshire 1991). A reasonable question arises here whether we should consider forms of English spoken in the expanding circle to be dialects of English.
Since English is taught as a foreign language in the expanding circle, this essay claims that the forms of English spoken in the expanding circle are not to be categorized as dialects of the English Language. In other words, the forms of English used in the expanding circle are not par with other dialects used in the inner and outer circle. To validate this claim, we consider the definition of dialects in section 2. To understand the definition of dialects, we need to take into account the difference between mother tongues and foreign languages. Section 3 shows that the mechanisms under which we acquire our mother tongues and foreign languages are completely different. This means that we need to treat our mother tongue and a foreign language separately.
2. What are dialects?
According to Chambers and Trudgill (1998) and Davis (1983), there is no clear definition of dialects. Chambers and Trudgill (1988) vaguely define dialects as varieties of a particular language which can be mutually interpreted by speakers of other varieties of the same language. If we follow their definition, forms of English spoken in the expanding circle can be classified as dialects of English. This is because Japanese English, Chinese English, and so on are interpreted by the speakers of British English and American English. Thus, the definition based on mutual interpretability states that the varieties of English spoken in the expanding circle should be considered to be dialects of English.
Another definition of dialects we need to take into account was proposed by Davis (1983). Davis claims that identity plays an important role in distinguishing between dialects and languages. For instance, Davis states that Danish speakers and Norwayan speakers understand each other. Nevertheless, Danish and Norwayan are considered to be different languages because Danish speakers and Norwayan speakers have different national identities. Davis (1983) claims that if people believe that they speak a particular language, it follows that they speak that language, not a dialect of another language. If Davis’s claim is on the right track, Japanese English, Chinese English, and so on can be categorized as dialects of the English language. Based on this identity theory by Davis (1983), one can claim that the varieties of English spoken in the expanding circle are dialects when the speakers of these varieties have their identities as “English speakers.”
Although the above definitions of dialects suggest that the varieties of English used in the expanding circle should be categorizes as dialects of English, we dismiss this notion. An important point we should take into account is the fact that in expanding circle, most people learn English as a foreign language (Crystal 2003). This means that most citizens in the expanding circle study English through school curriculums and make conscious efforts to learn English. A reasonable question arises here: does a foreign language count as a dialect?
The definition of dialects proposed by Chambers and Trudgill (1998) does not say anything about foreign languages. Furthermore, the identity argument made by Davis (1983) does not consider foreign languages at all. Indeed, Davis (1983) states that since “the English speakers from Kentucky, London, and Maine all feel that they speak English” (p.2), they speak dialects of English, not different languages. However, Kentucky, London, and Maine all belong to Kachru’s inner circle. This means that the majority of the citizens who live there acquire English as their mother tongue. Therefore, the two definitions of dialects we have considered do not deal with foreign languages.
Hints to address the issue whether dialects include foreign languages come from several dialect surveys mentioned by Chambers and Trudgill (1998) and Davis (1983). According to Davis (1983), Georg Wenker’s investigation on German dialects started modern dialect surveys. To research phonological variations among German dialects spoken in Rhine Valley, Wekner sent questionnaires to schoolmasters of that area (Davis 1983). Neither Davis (1982) nor Chambers and Trudgill (1998) specifically state whether these questionnaires were intended only for those who learned Germany as their mother tongue. However, several following surveys intentionally chose native speakers of particular languages as the informants (Chambers and Trudgill 1988). For instance, a survey on Scottish dialect conducted by Angus Mcintosh restricted the informant to those who lived in that area whose parents had also lived in the same area (Ibid.). Eugen Dieth and Harold Orton started a project to survey English dialects in Britain (Ibid.). This project is called the Survey of the English Dialect (SED) and this survey targeted those who and whose parents were native to the specific area (Ibid.). These measures ensured that the informants of these surveys were native speakers of the target languages. This means that those who learned the target languages as foreign languages were excluded from some dialect surveys. This is because there are big differences between mother tongues and foreign languages which dialectologists cannot ignore. Therefore, we should treat mother tongues and foreign languages separately.
Summarizing thus far, although the definitions of dialects we have considered do not make a clear statement whether dialects include foreign languages, the fact that some actual dialect surveys excluded those who learned the target languages as foreign languages shows that there is a significant difference between mother tongues and foreign languages. Thus, we should not count foreign languages as dialects. In the next section, we consider why foreign languages are so different from mother tongues.
3 Differences between a mother tongue and foreign language.
In this section, we consider why mother tongues and foreign languages are so different. First, there is empirical evidence that we acquire mother tongues and foreign languages by different processes. Granena (2019) reports the case of Hungarian immigrants to the U.S. According to Granena (2019), a survey on Hungarian immigrants to the U.S. reveals that in most cases those who moved to the U.S. below 13 reached native like proficiencies. On the other hand, those who immigrated to the U.S. above 14 never reached native like proficiencies even 20 years after they had come to the U.S. This means that children under 13 acquire languages in completely different mechanism from those who are above 14. Early starters are usually successful in mastering languages but late starters never reach native like proficiencies. Therefore, we can draw a line between mother tongues and foreign languages by the age one starts learning a language.
If this line of reasoning is on the right track, most English speakers in the inner and outer circles acquire English as their mother tongue. The majority of children in the inner circle start learning English since their births. Many children in the outer circle start learning English in their very early ages. Indeed, many children in the outer circle may not start learning English from their births. However, many of them receive education in English or they need English in official circumstances. This guarantees that many children in the outer circle start learning English from the early childhoods. Therefore, the majority of children in the inner and outer circle acquire English as their mother tongue.
On the other hand, most children in the expanding circle do not learn English as their mother tongue. For instance, children in Japan start learning English when they are about 10 years old. They learn English through 2-3 lectures in a week (“Shougakkou no eigo kyouiku ga hisshuuka: naiyou ya merit wo kaisetu”). If the above distinction between a mother tongue and a foreign language is correct, it follows that one can claim that Japanese children learn English as their mother tongue. However, Muñoz (2019) claims that children need immersion to acquire a language as their mother tongue. Since 2-3 lectures in a week is far from immersion, we can conclude that most Japanese children do not acquire English as their mother tongue. Although I have not investigated on other countries in the expanding circle, it is likely that in many of the countries, the current situations are not so different from Japan. Therefore, in most countries in the expanding circle, the majority of children learn English as a foreign language.
A reasonable question arises here as to why one’s age plays so important a role in acquiring languages. A theoretical answer to this question comes from a branch of linguistics called generative grammar. Generativists such as Chomsky (2006) and Roberts (2021) believe that the acquisitions of a mother tongue and a foreign language are completely different. Chomsky (2006) claims that we have the source of language and he calls this source Universal Grammar (UG). Biologically, all of us have this Universal Grammar (Chomsky 2006). Chomsky (2006) and Roberts (2021) claim that UG has parameters and one’s first language acquisition is just setting values of these parameters. For instance, we all know transitive verbs and objects. For we cannot pronounce two or more words at the same time, we must decide on the word order between a transitive verb and its object. Chomsky (2006) and Roberts (2021) suppose that the value of one of the parameters of UG solves this problem. Let us call this parameter a head-initial parameter. Since a transitive verb and its object combines to form a verb phrase, the transitive verb is the head of the resulting verb phrase. The value of this head-initial parameter states whether the transitive verb (the head of the verb phrase) precedes its object or follows the object. This means that the head-initial parameter has just two values. Roberts (2001) claims that this head -initial parameter has either [+] (positive) or [-] (negative) as its value. If a child set the value of this parameter as [+], the transitive verb precedes its object in the resulting language. If a child set the value of this parameter as [-], the resulting language places the transitive verb after its object, like in Japanese. This model correctly predicts that children acquire their mother tongue in a rapid pace since what children do is just setting values of their parameters.
An interesting upshot of the language acquisition model of generative grammar is that every mother tongue comes from UG in our brains. All mother tongues are just materialization of UGs with their parameters set. Since we are biologically endowed with UGs, our mother tongues are not skills but biological products (Chomsky 2006). (Strictly speaking, Chomsky (2006) notes in passing that some skills are involved in our first language acquisitions. Therefore, one’s mother tongue is the result of a biological endowment and some skills. However, we put aside this remark here to simplify things.)
In contrast to fist language acquisitions, Roberts (2021) argues that we learn foreign languages as skills. As we have seen, we acquire the syntax of our mother tongue by setting parameters of our UGs. Since US is a biological endowment, it is no wonder that our abilities to set parameter gradually fade as we mature (Roberts 2021). Roberts cites research which shows that the age of 14 is the critical period for the first language acquisitions. When we pass this age, we have completely lost the parameter setting abilities. This means that we need to rely on other cognitive abilities such as our analytical abilities to learn a foreign language.
Granena (2019) provides a piece of supporting evidence for this theory. Granena (2019) states that those under 13 usually succeed in learning languages irrespective of their IQ. Granena (2019) observes that the language learnings of those who are over 14 years old are highly influenced by their IQ. This means that after we reach certain ages (i.e., the critical period), we rely on our cognitive abilities, not UG. Furthermore, researchers repeatedly observe that those who have already passed their critical periods never reach native like proficiency in a foreign language. Therefore, we can claim that a foreign language is learned as a skill.
Summarizing thus far, the acquisition mechanisms of a mother tongue and foreign language are totally different. Those who are 13 or under 13 acquire the syntax of their mother tongue by setting parameters of UGs. On the other hand, those who are 14 or older than 14 learn foreign languages as skills. Therefore, a mother tongue and foreign language are completely different.
4. Conclusion.
In this essay, we have considered the issue as to whether we should consider varieties of English spoken in the expanding circle to be dialects of English. We conclude that the forms of English used in the expanding circle are not to be categorized as dialects of English for two reasons. First, several dialect surveys exclude from informants those who learned the targets languages as foreign languages. This means that there is a big difference between a mother tongue and a foreign language which we cannot ignore. Second, the acquisition processes of a mother tongues and a foreign language are completely different. Generative grammarians such as Chomsky (2006) and Roberts (2021) believe that we acquire the syntax of our mother tongue by setting parameters of UG. If UG and its parameters are a biological endowment, it is no wonder that we lose parameter setting abilities as we mature. Indeed, empirical data support this prediction. Thus, we learn a foreign language as a skill, not a product of UG. Therefore, a mother tongue and a foreign language are completely different and we should not consider foreign languages as dialect varieties of a particular language. Therefore, the forms of English spoken in the expanding circle are not to be considered as dialects of English.
References)
Chambers, J. K. and Trudgill, P. (1998) Dialectology. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cheshire, J. (ed.) (1991) English around the world: Sociolinguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. (2006) Language and Mind. 3rd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (2003) English as a Global Language. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davis, L. M. (1983) English Dialectology: An Introduction. Alabama: The University of Alabama Press.
Granena, G. (2019) “Language Aptitude in L2 Acquisition.” In Schwieter, J. W. and Benati, A. (eds.) pp. 390-408.
Muñoz, C. (2019) “A New Look at “Age”: Young and Old L2 Learners.” In Schwieter, J. W. and Benati, A. (eds.) pp. 430-450.
Petyt, K. M. (1980) The Study of Dialect: An introduction to dialectology. London: Andre Deutsch.
Roberts, I. (2021) Diachronic Syntax. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
“Shougakkou no eigo kyouiku ga hisshuuka naiyou ya merit wo kaisetu” [“English education is elementary schools becomes compulsive: we explain the curriculum and the merits”] https://emps.jp/content/aboutjob/teacher-sp/special-19/ last accessed January 2nd 2023.
Schwieter, J. W. and Benati, A. (eds.) (2019) The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
