English as a Lingua Franca in the Middle East

This assignment delves into the multifaceted role of English as a lingua franca within the contemporary Middle Eastern context. It analyzes how English is utilized for communication, education, and business across diverse cultural landscapes. The assignment considers the sociolinguistic implications of English's widespread adoption, including its impact on local languages and identities. Drawing upon scholarly literature and relevant examples, students are expected to critically evaluate the challenges and opportunities associated with English as an international language in the Middle East.

Running head: ENGLISHES 1
Different Englishes and Interpretations of Language, Culture and Identity
Name
Institution

ENGLISHES 2
Different Englishes and Interpretations of Language, Culture and Identity
Englishes is a term that is used in describing different local varieties of English that
people speak across the globe. Different Englishes are often referred to as world or global
English and is commonly used as lingua franca among people who do not necessarily speak
similar first English. According to Kachru’s model, Englishes are used in three different ways
which include inner, outer and expanding Englishes (Kachru, 1986). The countries that are
categorized and use inner circle English are those which English is their first language such as
the United Kingdom and New Zealand. The countries in the outer ring are those that use English
as their official language for purposes of education such as Kenya and South Africa. The
countries that are categorized in the expanding circle use English as a lingua franca such as
China (Bolton, 2002).
The states with most people speaking in English are not from the first two categories but
the expanding circle category such as Slovenia. This is because these countries have a policy for
compulsory English lessons right from childhood. The people who speak different Englishes do
not have the same capacity of reasoning and therefore the likelihood of having a fruitful
conversation is always a challenge (Bruthiaux, 2003). This problem can also be experienced
among speakers from the same circle as a result of verbal and non-verbal elements of
communication. Verbal aspects in English is dependent on hearing, vision, word choice and
jargon while non-verbal factors include eye contact, facial expression, gestures and distance from
where an individual is speaking (Byram, 1997).
Another aspect of different Englishes is the accent used in communication. An accent
plays a significant role in determining if a speaker form inner, outer or expanding language can

ENGLISHES 3
be understood. Accent has the potential to result to miscommunication even amongst speakers of
similar English. Accents are not universal and people from a given country can have more than
one. In Australia, the English spoken has four unique accents while there are numerous different
accents in America (Bolton, Graddol & Meierkord, 2011). More so, the British English has a
huge variety of accents such as cockney which is spoken in London, Scouse is spoken among
those in Liverpool, Geordie in Newcastle and scots in Scottish. For those whose first language is
not English, their mother tongue accent influences the way they speak world Englishes
(Canagarajah, 2013). The most common difference among these non-native speakers of English
is reproducing certain sounds as they should.
There are also different dialects in different Englishes which play a role in influencing
mutual intelligence among different speakers across the world. Dialects are of different nature
just as accents have a wide range. Different dialects are often found in the same locality such as
modern cities across the world (Boyle, 2012). The size of a country does not determine the
numbers of dialects as there are big countries such as Australia which has a small number of
dialects as compared to America and Britain. Common dialects in Englishes include the use of
distinct terms such as Outback and fair dinkum. Also, they use words that are derived from the
aboriginal language such as Kangaroo and Billabong. Other dialects include the use of words
such as Bazza, Shazza, and Septic tank (Eades, 2004).
Another aspect in different Englishes includes the miscommunication where people it
occurs quite frequently among those learning English as their second language. The
miscommunication influences not only the learners but also native speakers. The
miscommunication occurs as a result of mixing verbal, non-verbal and Para-verbal components
of communication (Byram, Gribkova & Starkey, 2002).

ENGLISHES 4
However, these elements can be significant in overcoming miscommunication. The issues
of standard, non-standard and substandard arise in different Englishes where speakers who have
had a long tradition of both written and literature speak of a codified standard (Jenkins, Baker &
Dewey, 2018). Further, this can be used in explaining other varieties of Englishes. English
speaking language that falls under inner, outer and expanding have a term that is standard in a
particular country. Such terms are often used by people in different circumstances and although
they might not necessarily be aware of the correct meaning, they have the ability to recognize
certain words on communication. There is also the case of vernacular that found in English and
determines the language that is spoken naturally amongst individual of a specific geographical
area (Chin-Chuan Cheng, 1992).
The Polylectal grammars suggest that speakers of various dialects can understand each
other. This is because the nature of their communication does not differ which essentially implies
that for one to understand different dialects, they must have a general understanding of the
language. The underlying forms that equate to a general understanding of a language imply that
they are not necessarily present among speakers of different Englishes (Crystal, 2015).
Categorically, it is eluded that speakers can understand more than one dialect but use a different
one when speaking. An individual with different dialects can communicate as a result of
receptive competence that is found in native speakers. Various places across the world are faced
with the challenge of a geographical dialect continuum. This gives rise to linguistic differences
as there is more than one dialect in a specific locality (Byram & Feng, 2004).
However, all the dialects that are spoken in a particular setting determine the chain of
mutual intelligibility. In such a scenario, the speakers of different dialect can understand each
other as a result of living adjacent to them within a locality. This implies that dialect of different

ENGLISHES 5
circles may not have the aspect of mutual intelligibility. The social dialect continua develop as a
result of geographical setting such as in Jamaica. In Jamaica, the social dialect continua resulted
because the top social class spoke English while the bottom social level spoke Jamaican Creole.
These two languages are not mutually intelligible although the Jamaican Creole is similar to
English. The Jamaican Creole has recognized an inferior language as a result of the social status
of the African slaves. The social situation in Jamaica led to authentic creole becoming closer to
spoken English and the gap between English and Creole was reduced by the social dialect
continuum. However, there is no clear boundary between these two languages and the Jamaicans
are said to speak in English although there are different varieties of English spoken in Jamaica
(Canagarajah & Silberstein, 2012).
Different Englishes are connected with culture, language and identity and continues to
draw mixed reactions among researchers (Agar, 2006). A person’s identity can be determined
through investigating their interaction and contribution in a particular language or culture. These
aspects can be examined by globalization and diplomatic relationship. This process gives one a
complete understanding of how language, culture and identity work hand in hand with people as
well as communities.
The interaction social linguistic is the basis used in studying the use of language and
identity. According to John Gumperz, verbal signs that are processed in a series of symbolic
communication serve as a basis for which interpretation can be deduced and influences the way a
message is understood (Gumperz, 1982). These aspects of communication often comprise of
forms of spoken language that included syntactic, lexical and paralinguistic. It also involves the
patters that people take turns during communication and the nature of the language being spoken.
This aspect of communication contains signals that can be interpreted and become significant in

ENGLISHES 6
adjusting the context of views during a conversation. The relationship between language and
identity is strengthened by the fact that when an individual is peaking is because they are in
contract with another cooperative agent (Morita, 2004). The signals can be identified by
examining the cues that individuals use to relate to the context of a particular conversation. The
challenges that are bound to occur and result in miscommunication is as a result of lack of a
common cue that gives meaning to the two people in a conversation. Participants in a
conversation are often interested in the success of their communication where the success of the
communication is directly related to sharing information that creates meaning when conversing
(Ellis & Shintani, 2014).
As a result, the miscommunication that arises in any conversation is pegged on the
difference of information among the participants. However, Kandiah argues that there is
something other than shared information that might have influence miscommunication. Kandiah
bases his arguments from an interview for purposes of explaining the challenges in cross-cultural
communication (Phillipson, 1992). In the interview conversation between an immigrant from
India and the English interviewer, the use of prosodic cues provides the basis for Kandiah’s
argument. In his arguments, he suggests that the lack of information between the two participants
disregards vital elements such as the length taken to communicate as well as the experience of
the interviewee. Kandiah suggests that there are other explanations which provide the basis for
misunderstanding such as where one of the participants knowingly use different cues and
disregards those by other parties to create lack of shared information that then creates a boundary
between the two participants (Byram & Grundy, 2003). Language and social identity can be
traced from the history of people as a result of different social groups such as gender, religion

ENGLISHES 7
and race. This analogy can be borrowed from the fact that human beings are born as male or
female but the social status groups them in poor or rich (Mirhosseini, 2008).
Language and culture is a contentious issue as a result of the challenge brought about
when participants are communicating (Kachru, 1982). According to Wardhaugh, language is a
framework that provides rules and manner in which people say and produce different sounds as
opposed to distinct words or sounds in a sentence. On the other hand, Thanasoulas defines
language basis for practices and believes which determines the nature of our lives (Byram &
Grundy, 2003). Further, to understand how language and culture are intertwined, one has to
consider the interpretation of culture which refers to the way of life of people that forms the basis
of shared responsibilities. Culture is said to be an interactive design that is centered on different
needs such as basic needs, instrumental needs as well as symbolic needs of individuals and the
community (Pennycook, 2004). This assumption states that culture has to be kept in a balance of
all the three needs. Since culture is the basis of how members within a given locality relate. It is
significant that members belonging to a particular community understand the power of their own
words during an interaction. More so, Thanasoulous is of the view that language is a key to the
cultural past and present since it influences the thoughts, beliefs and brings understanding to
members of a given society. There is a close relationship between language and culture and it is
easier to understand and interpret one without information about the other (Thanasoulas, 2001).
However, according to Wardhaugh, there are three different bases of defining the
relationship between language and culture. The first perspective suggests that the characteristics
of a particular language play a significant role in which speakers perceive the world. Another
perspective implies that the culture of a particular community is reflected through their language
as a result of valuing and doing things in a specific manner. The third perspective suggests that

ENGLISHES 8
there is no relationship between language and culture (Wardhaugh, 2002). The first perspective
forms the basis for many researchers studying the relationship between language and culture.
The claim that suggests there is no relationship between culture and language suggests that is
possible to examine language or culture without necessarily factoring them together.
In this scenario, it is evident that language is used to convey and facilitate understanding
of different concepts which imply that the participants in a conversation assume more than one
role. In the second perspective, it is insinuated that language facilitates culture which provides a
basis for certain values in a community. The Whorfian hypothesis is borrowed from the first
claim that suggests a relationship between culture and language that determines the way people
view the world. Further, linguistic determinism arises and comprises of strong determinism
which suggests that language determines thought while weak determinism suggests that thoughts
are predicted by our language. Here, strong determinism along with the idea difference in
language gives rise to what is referred to as linguistic relativity. Various researchers are of the
view that language predisposes people into the way they view the world (Elyas & Picard, 2010).
The understanding of the relationship between language and culture forms the basis of
learning another language. Researchers argue that it is not the language that forms the basis of
communication but the language in the context of a culture that provides meaning. The very
groups to which we belong along with values and attitudes are important in the development of
our social identities. Therefore it implies that our social identities are not just gaps that we fill out
a collection of our histories that have been redefined over some period (Gee, 2014). The social
identity is often related to a particular set of linguistic rules that determine certain activities,
beliefs an attitude. The relationship between social and cultural roles influences the opportunities
that a person is likely to have in a situation where two individuals come from different

ENGLISHES 9
geographical area and families are involved with different activities. This implies that the
identity of a middle-class group of ladies in America is different from that of a similar group in
Africa. Therefore, the historical background, social setting, beliefs, skills and attitudes play a
significant role in determining our overall social identity. This knowledge suggests that we
approach our day to day activities by associating the knowledge of our background and those of
our surroundings to bring an understanding of the situations we encounter (Phillipson, Rannut &
Skutnabb-Kangas, 2010). This analogy implies that participants in a conversation perceive each
other from based on the way they have been brought up within their social settings. Concerning
this analogy, it is safe to conclude that develop an expectation about what others are capable of
doing and not capable as a result of earlier interaction with them in a specific society and
surroundings. The linguistic tools are available for us to communicate and interpret
communication are held with the shared knowledge and perception we have about others.
The relationship between culture and social perspective that determines our identity and
language is based on various aspects. These aspects are important and alter the conventional
understanding of language as well as motivate individuals through the day to day experiences
(Nunan, 2013). By being associated with sociocultural aspects, many individuals take a specific
social identity which forms the basis of examining the context of communication and bring
meaning to certain practices. Sociocultural identities are not constant among different groups but
arise in a specific locality that shares a common history. Therefore, when people are conversing,
the use of language is not isolated to an individual motive but rather it takes the position of a
neutral social arena where all the position are said to be constantly changing and relative to every
participant. The social role becomes the basis for communication and understanding where
individuals can manipulate various linguistic with certain motives. This implies that language is

ENGLISHES 10
indeed part and parcel of our culture and does not exist outside the circles of culture. As a result,
there is no language or user of a particular language that can be considered not to be associated
with a particular culture (Canagarajah, 2006).

ENGLISHES 11
References
Agar, M. (2006). Culture: Can you take it anywhere? International Journal of Qualitative
Methods. Vol.5, No.2, pp.1-12.
Bolton, K. (2002), Chinese Englishes: from Canton Jargon to Global English. World Englishes,
21: 181–199.
Bolton, K., Graddol, D. & Meierkord, C. (2011). Towards Developmental World Englishes,
World Englishes, Vol.30, N0.4, pp.459-480.
Boyle, R. (2012), Language Contact in the United Arab Emirates. World Englishes, 31: 312–330.
Bruthiaux, P. (2003). Squaring the Circles: Issues in Modeling English Worldwide. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics. Vol.13, 2, pp159-177.
Byram, M. & Feng, A. (2004). Culture and Language Learning: Teaching, Research and
Scholarship. Language Teaching, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp.149-168. DOI:
10.1017/S0261444804002289, Published online: 05 April 2005
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon
[u.a.: Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M., & Grundy, P. (2003). Context and Culture in Language Teaching and Learning.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M., Gribkova, B. & Starkey, H. (2002). Developing the Intercultural Dimension in
Language Teaching. www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Guide_dimintercult_En.pdf

ENGLISHES 12
Canagarajah, A. S. (2013). Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan relations.
Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Canagarajah, S. & Silberstein, S. (2012). Diaspora Identities and Language, Journal of
Language, Identity & Education, Vol.11, No.2, pp.81-84,
Canagarajah, S. (2006). Interview. R.Rubdy & M. Saraceni (Eds). English in the World: Global
Rules, Global Roles. London: Continuum. 200-212.
Chin-Chuan Cheng, (1992). Chinese Varieties of English. In B.Kachru. (Ed.). The other tongue:
English across cultures. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Crystal, D. (2015). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Eades, D. (2004). Understanding Aboriginal English in the Legal System: A critical
sociolinguistics approach. Applied Linguistics, 25/4, pp.491-512.
Ellis, R. & Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through Second Language
Acquisition Research. Oxford: Routledge.
Elyas, T. & Picard, M. (2010). Saudi Arabian Educational History: Impacts on English language
teaching. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, Vol.3,
No 2, 136-145. DOI: 10.1108/17537981011047961
Gee, J. P. (2014). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London ; New
York : Routledge, 2014

ENGLISHES 13
Gumperz, John J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Interactional Sociolinguistics 1.Cambridge:
Cambridge UP.
Jenkins, J., Baker, W., & Dewey, M. (2018). The Routledge handbook of English as a lingua
franca. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis
Group.
Kachru, B. B. (1982). The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. Urbana: University of Illinois
Press.
Kachru, Braj B. (1986). The Alchemy of English: The Spread, Functions and Models of Oxford:
Pergamon,
Mirhosseini, S. (2008). English and a World of Diversities: Confrontation, Appropriatyiopn,
Awareness. Applied Linguistics. 29/2: 312-317, DOI: 10.1093/applin/amn013
Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating Participation and Identity in Second Language Academic
Communities. TESOL Quarterly, Vol.38, No.4, pp.573-603.
Nunan, D. (2013). What is this thing called language? China: Palgrave MacMillan.
Pennycook, A. (2004). Performativity and Language Studies. Critical Inquiry in Language
Studies, Vol.1, No.1, pp.1-19, DOI: 10.1207/s15427595cils0101_1
Pennycook, A. (2008). English as a Language always in Translation. European Journal of
English Studies, Vol.12, No.1, pp.33-47. DOI:10.1080/13825570801900521

ENGLISHES 14
Pennycook, A. (2017). The Cultural Politics of English as an International language. Milton
Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge
Phillipson, R. (1992). ELT: The native speaker’s burden? ELT Journal Volume 46/1 pp.12-18.
Phillipson, R. (1998). Globalizing English: Are linguistic Human Rights an Alternative to
linguistic imperialism? Language Sciences, Vol.20, No.1, pp.101-112.
Phillipson, R., Rannut, M., & Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2010). Linguistic Human Rights:
Overcoming Linguistic Discrimination. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Thanasoulas, D. (2001). Radical Pedagogy: The importance of teaching culture in the foreign
language classroom. Retrieved October 3, 2005 from the International Consortium for the
Advancement of Academic Publication Web site:
http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/ issue3_3/7-thanasoulas.html
Wardhaugh, R. (2002). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (Fourth Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers.