PRE-PROCESAMIENTO

With an aim to integrate PCEs and non-PCEs in the same framework and to address the development of English in today’s globalized world, Buschfeld and Kautzsch (2017) propose the Model of Extra- and Intra-territorial Forces as a further development of Schneider’s Dynamic Model.

The central idea of Buschfeld and Kautzsch’s model is that the development of English is the joint result of extra- and intra-territorial forces. These forces impact how English is used in both PCEs and non-PCEs, irrespective of differences in how English was installed in these countries. The model assumes that these two strands of forces interact with each other and together steer the development of English throughout the whole process. However, this does not imply that all the forces come into play. There are different situations in the various countries and the forces do no have a uniform impact. Instead, the presence and impact of these forces hinge upon the specific socio-linguistic context and the specific phase of development that English finds itself in.

According to Buschfeld and Kautzsch (2017), five major categories of extra-territorial forces can be distinguished. These are “colonization”, “language policies”, “globalization”, “foreign policies”, and “socio-demographic background”. The five corresponding categories of intra- territorial forces include “attitudes towards the colonizing power”, “language policies/language attitudes”, “the ‘acceptance’ of globalization”, “foreign policies”, and “the sociodemographic

background” (Buschfeld and Kautzsch: 113−114). When the model is applied to non-PCEs, the first pair of forces is removed, because non-PCEs clearly do not have a colonial history. This leaves the remaining four pairs of forces applicable to English in non-PCEs. It should be noted that Buschfeld and Kautzsch (2017) do not claim that the suggested categories of extra- and intra- territorial forces offer a complete account of the forces that drive the development of English around the world. They rather see their proposal as a rough guideline.

When the interplay of the two strands of forces are considered in this manner, it can be argued that PCEs and non-PCEs share a similar developmental route. As a further development of Schneider’s Dynamic Model, it is asked if both PCEs and non-PCEs are subject to the same five stages: foundation, exonormative stabilization, nativization, endonormative stabilization, and differentiation. However, Buschfeld and Kautzsch (2017) recognize situational differences between PCEs and non-PCEs and thus they challenge Schneider’s (2014) reconceptualization of the four parameters for the Expanding Circle. Buschfeld and Kautzsch (2017) argue that major differences in the development of non-PCEs are to be found at the foundation and stabilization stages. The EIF model they propose then accepts that the foundation stage for non-PCEs is not necessarily brought about by “language policy and English in education”, but can be set off by “political decisions” or “trade relationships” (Buschfeld and Kautzsch, 2017: 116), as seen with the foundation of English in the Netherlands (Edwards, 2016: 160−163). Furthermore, the EIF model posits that stabilization in non-PCEs is not necessarily caused by the same external forces that are typical in the case of PCEs. Buschfeld and Kautzsch (2017) show that intra-territorial forces like internal language policy decisions, access to English and attitudes on the side of the local population may also play an important part in the development of non-PCEs. These intra- territorial forces are identified at phase 2 of English in both the Netherlands (Edwards, 2016) and Namibia (Buschfeld and Kautzsch, 2017). Buschfeld and Kautzsch (2017: 118) suggest that phase 2 “exonormative stabilization” should be relabelled as “stabilization” to accommodate the different situations faced by PCEs and non-PCEs.

The EIF model also engages with the ENL-ESL-EFL distinction and its understanding of how English has developed into a world language. In essence, Buschfeld and Kautzsch argue that the developmental pattern of PCEs and non-PCEs follows a similar course to the developmental line from EFL to ESL and potentially to ENL. In reaction to the ENL-ESL-EFL distinction, the new EIF proposes that the development of English is not necessarily monodirectional. English may

experience a reverse development from ESL to EFL. However, it remains an open question as to whether non-PCEs can reach the status of ENL.

The EIF model holds several advantages over the three older models. One advantage is that it successfully explains the development of PCEs and non-PCEs in the same model from diachronic and synchronic perspectives. This model avoids the “colonial trappings” (cf. Edwards, 2016: 187) that are characteristic of the Dynamic Model without blurring the distinction between PCEs and non-PCEs.

Apart from engaging with established models, the EIF model incorporates valid principles from the secondary literature. For example, Buschfeld and Kautzsch (2017: 121) replace or rather expand on Edwards’ (2016) notion of the foundation of English taking place through the process of globalization by including it as an extra-territorial force. In this way they are able to counter Schneider’s suggestion to abandon the foundation phase, because globalization substitutes one dimension of the missing settler-strand in non-PCEs. Globalization is identified as an important factor in the expansion of English in both the Expanding Circle and the Outer Circle (Schneider, 2014; Edwards, 2016; Bushfeld and Kautzsch, 2017). The advantage is thus that the EIF model is able to retain a foundation phase without compromising the distinctions between PCEs and non- PCEs.

Another advantage of the EIF model is that it recognizes the role that intra-territorial forces may play in the development of non-PCEs at the stages of foundation and stabilization. For instance, the foundation stage for non-PCEs might be initiated by “political decisions” and “trade relationships”, which are identified as intra-territorial forces (Buschfeld and Kautzsch, 2017: 116). The identification of such forces behind the development of non-PCEs makes it possible to explain different manifestations of the development of PCEs and non-PCEs.

Despite its improvements over the previous models, the EIF model is not without its limitations. One limitation concerns the model’s categorization of extra- and intra-territorial forces in PCEs and non-PCEs. The suggested five sets of forces for PCEs in the model are not clearly distinguished in themselves. For example, there is some overlapping between colonization and foreign policy. Expansion of modern colonization (1763−1945)4 is a consequence of foreign policy mainly adopted by European powers to expand their territories and exploit resources in

4 _{The classification is based on Encyclopedia Britannica (European expansion since 1763). Retrieved from}

other countries. Listing colonization and foreign policy as two separate forces in the set of extra- territorial forces neglects the connection between colonization and foreign policy.

Another limitation of the EIF model lies in its categorization of extra- and intra-territorial forces, which derives from the categorization of forces and their influences across the separate phases. The way that these forces are arranged in the table leaves the impression that they have a lasting and consistent influence throughout the whole process of English developing as a world language. However, Buschfeld and Kautzch (2017: 116−117) are aware of this issue and indeed point out that “this does not suggest that all forces are equally at work in all countries at all times”. This important distinction is not explicitly reflected in the table. The misunderstanding might be avoided if the forces were categorized in another way. Forces like colonization, globalization and foreign policies are major factors that influence the formulation of language policies. Of the three forces, colonization is more of a historical factor in bringing English to a country and has a lingering effect. Globalization is mainly an economic factor as well as a historical and political fact that contributes to the spread of English in a world of increased trade relations. Foreign policy is mainly a socio-political factor that influences any particular government’s attitude towards a certain language. These forces are neither exclusive nor do they act in isolation. It may rightly be argued that globalization is a historical reality, just as foreign policy and economic interests contributed to colonization. Considering their roles in affecting the implementation of language policy, it might be more reasonable to arrange these three forces under the same parameter. The advantage of such as arrangement is that if another force that has an influence on language were to be identified, it would be much easier to incorporate the new force into the model. Another advantage of this arrangement is that the unilateral relationship embodied in the Dynamic Model can be kept in the EIF model. The importance of the unilateral relationship is self-evident, because the emergence of an English variety would not be systematically investigated without the cause- and-effect relationship between the four parameters in the Dynamic Model. However, it is hard to explore a uniform relationship between extra- and intra-territorial forces that work through different stages, because their presence hinges on specific contexts and conditions. But keeping or modifying the parameters from the Dynamic Model evades the task.

A second limitation of the EIF model is found in its exploration of possible extra- and intra- territorial forces that promote the development of non-PCEs. While this exploration of possible forces is certainly a strong feature of the model, how these potential forces are manifested at the

different phases is not illustrated. Take the force of language policy for example. The EIF model does not illustrate that how different language policy is when it is implemented at the foundation stage from when it is adopted at the stabilization stage. To better illustrate this point, the manifestations of the first parameter “sociopolitical background of a country” that are placed at the first two stages in Schneider’s Dynamic Model need to be considered. At the foundation stage, the parameter manifests itself in the introduction of English to a colonial territory by the STL strand and in the use of English in a non-English speaking country. At the exonormative stabilization stage, the STL communities stabilize and English is regularly spoken and formally established as language of administration, education and legislation. The lack of illustration on the concrete manifestations of extra- and intra-territorial forces poses problems for the delineation of different stages of an English variety. This is because it is difficult to categorize stages if there are not enough references on the manifestations of each stage. The fact that this aspect is untouched in the model might be due to its focus of the model. As the model’s name indicates, it aims at unearthing extra- and intra-territorial forces that drive the development of English around the world. This emphasis on concrete forces rather than on the common manifestations of these forces at each stage might lead it to brush over the different manifestations of some forces at the different phases. But the description of typical manifestations of these forces would certainly benefit if the model were applied to more countries and the similarities between the forces in these countries were established.

A third weakness of the EIF model is that it has only been properly tested on Namibia, which is not a typical expanding-circle country. Most of its territory was colonized by the German Empire in 1884. After World War I, the League of Nations mandated it to the United Kingdom, who left its administration to South Africa. South Africa treated it as an extra province until it was granted independence in 1990. Prior to independence the official languages were English, German, and Afrikaans. Post-independence, the official language is English. It is evident from the country’s history that extra-territorial forces have played a significant role and even though Namibia, except for Walvis Bay and the Penguin Islands (annexed by the British colony, Cape of Good Hope, in 1887) itself never fell under direct British rule, it shares more similarities with former British colonies than with non-postcolonial countries. Further, English assumes a special role: it is the only official language, though there ae 8 recognized national languages (Afrikaans, German, Otjihereo, Khoekhoe, Oshiwambo, Kwangali, Setswana, Silozi). The role of English in Namibia

provides further proof for the country as a non-prototypical expanding-circle country. Indeed, as ascribed non-PCEs, there are significant differences between English in China and English in Namibia. English in China does not function as an official language, though it is the most important foreign language and the importance use of English continues to grow. The case study of Namibia demonstrates the complexity of distinguishing between PCEs and non-PCEs, which points to the necessity of being tested further. This is certainly the case when it is compared to the test cases performed by the Dynamic Model to test its accountability. Schneider (2003) looks at seven cases: Fiji, Hong Kong, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand. Furthermore, these typical cases represent different stages of English (e.g. English is moving from phase 4 to phase 5 in Singapore; English is at phase 5 in Australia and New Zealand). This comparison leads us to the critical observation that compared to Schneider’s (2003, 2007, 2014) Dynamic Model, the EIF model of Buschfeld and Kautzsch (2017) is based fundamentally stronger on theoretical reflection than on empirical research.