Introduction

Pronunciation has frequently received a lot of attention in observation, analysis, and pedagogy, perhaps because it is an immediately noticeable and salient language feature (see, for example, Levis 2005: 369). As B. Kachru (1986: 140) put it, “It is … the pronunciation of a speaker which provides an index to the variety of his speech, or to a variety within a variety .… [O]ne does not have to be initiated in phonetics or linguistics to identify, for example, a speaker of American, British, or Indian varieties of English.” In face-to-face speech interactions, we get a good deal of information about who we are dealing with from the opening exchanges, and we recognize that the flow of this information is in both directions, alternating as the speaker–hearer roles do (Nelson 2011: 33–34). At its most fundamental levels of utility, pronunciation serves to convey words and phrases that are recognizable as such and that make sense in the context of the situation.

The school of thought referred to here, world Englishes, may be seen to have had its early public exposures in volumes edited by B. Kachru (1982) and by L.E. Smith (1981). Its most fundamental tenet is that the many varieties of the English language “belong” to their users. For example, Smith (1983a: 7) wrote:

When any language becomes international in character, it cannot be bound to any one culture. A Thai doesn’t need to sound like an American in order to use English well with a Filipino at an ASEAN meeting. A Japanese doesn’t need an appreciation of a British lifestyle in order to use English in his business dealings with a Malaysian.

A cogent expression of the world Englishes position on pronunciation may be found in Strevens, who wrote this definition of Standard English just as “world Englishes” was becoming an established phrase and point of view on varieties of the language around the world. He wrote (1983: 88) that Standard English is:

… a particular dialect of English, being the only non-localized dialect … which may be spoken with an unrestricted choice of accent.

Streven’s presentation invites attentive reading. The phrase “a particular dialect” might be thought at first to be at odds with the immediately following characterization of Standard English (as Strevens is using the term here) as a “non-localized dialect”. However, this is the essence of the world Englishes approach to variety. There are many dialects – varieties – of English, but all of them share enough grammatical, lexical, and phonological features to be recognized under that cover term. Strevens went on to explicate this position in some detail. Importantly for the present purpose, he noted that it is natural to observe and to think of grammar and lexicon (subsumed under his term “dialect”) and accent (pronunciation) as occurring in normal pairings: “Thus, in Dorset, Dorset dialect and Dorset accent are used.” And just to be thoroughly clear about it, Strevens noted that mixings of the two aspects of language do not naturally occur: “Kentucky dialect is never spoken with a Dorset accent” (1983: 89). Thus, anyone’s English of recognizably international utility can be spoken with any accent.

This is a concise presentation of the world Englishes position. As soon as anyone admits that there are British, US, and Australian varieties of English, inter alia, there would seem to be no rational, defensible way to draw a line based on such distinctions between “good” and “bad”, “right” and “wrong” pronunciation. There is no cogent basis for deciding who gets to make the division or who can put such a declaration into effect in English teaching and learning, not to mention acquisition, around the world (see, for example, Levis 2005).

Historically, those who felt they could, or even needed to, set up such a yes/no dichotomy appealed to the tattered but still lively “native/non-native” partitioning. This was, one supposes, a step away from an even older point of view to the effect that only English English was “proper” and that everyone else’s – while it might have been regarded as “native” had the term been current – was not.

To regard another’s English as “foreign” immediately calls sociolinguistic attention to participants and setting, Firth’s context of situation (1964: 66). It requires a certain mindset to be able to travel to another country, look around, and remark inwardly or to a fellow traveler, “Look at all the foreigners!”

In any case, there was and remains an (at least) implicit stance that categorizes US and Australian Englishes as “native” but Singaporean and Indian as “non-native”. If the definitions are cast in terms of world-demographical provenance, they can be made to work; in terms of what Strevens called primary language (1992: 36) they work much less well, if at all. The “non-native” notion must a priori make more sense to a functionally monolingual person than to a multilingual one – and we cannot allow ourselves to pass too lightly over the well-worn observation that it is strikingly the case that “native” English users tend to fall in the mono- group.

Ferguson’s often-quoted, less often followed, admonition that “the whole mystique of native speaker and mother tongue should probably be quietly dropped from the linguists’ set of professional myths about language” (1982: vii) has not been universally or consistently adopted. One can hope, at least, that in the minds of world Englishes adherents, the distinction conveys less stigma than in the past. It would have to be acknowledged, for instance, that people who were born and raised in Bangalore, who carry on their adult lives there, and who have been using English for a wide variety of personal and livelihood functions for most of that time, should be regarded as native speakers of Indian English.

One of the co-founders of the organization International Association for World Englishes and of the journal World Englishes is Larry E. Smith, who insightfully and clearly developed the partitioning of language functioning and analysis (with close reference to English, but not necessarily limited to discussions of just this language) into Intelligibility, Comprehensibility, and Interpretability (e.g., Nelson 2011: 32–34; Smith 1992: 76; Kachru and Smith 2008: 61–64). Intelligibility in this narrowed, technical sense is concerned with phonetics and phonology – pronunciation. Smith brought to the conscious awareness of the applied linguistics fields the necessity of recognizing that the question “Is this word or stretch of speech intelligible?” is not reasonable or answerable. A user of English is found to be intelligible by another user in a given context, perhaps taking into account mutual familiarity with topic, certainly involving each participant’s degree of familiarity with the pronunciations of others in the immediate situation. Smith (1992) and Smith and Rafiqzad (1983) wrote these two telling summative statements:

Our speech … in English needs to be intelligible only to those with whom we wish to communicate in English.

(Smith 1992: 75)

Since native speaker phonology doesn’t appear to be more intelligible than non-native phonology, there seems to be no reason to insist that the performance target in the English classroom be a native speaker.

(Smith and Rafiqzad 1983: 57)

Those two assertions capture the basic stance of world Englishes regarding pronunciation. The English-using world, which perhaps constitutes as much as a quarter of the Earth’s population, according to Kachru and Smith (2008), is variety, not sameness, not conformity to external models (with some caution as to that last in EFL regions, where the distinction from ESL may still be found applicable and informative). Like the traditional EFL/ESL distinction, no part of the definitions of the Circles have ever appealed to alleged individuals’ or groups’ degrees of proficiency in the language.

One can look almost anywhere in the current world Englishes literature and find an expression of this view. For example, Sharbawi (2012: 179) writes:

The current acoustic investigation of vowel contrasts in [Brunei English] is motivated by a few factors. First, the results of earlier studies have compared the findings to those of [British English]. It has since been realized that the practice of comparing the vowels of a particular English variety to those of an Inner Circle variety, for example, [Singaporean English] with [British English] … can be problematic because there is sometimes a tendency to view the phonological system of the new English variety as deficit [sic] and its features as erroneous. An alternative approach [i.e., the one adopted in this study] is to see a descriptive account of a vowel system independently without resorting to comparison with an Inner Circle English.

The world Englishes replacement for the constructs native and non-native has been, since 1985, the Three Circles model first presented by Kachru (1985). While some scholars have challenged this conceptualization on various grounds (Yano 2009), the historical bases of the global spread of English are difficult to deny. (See Kachru 2005: 211–220, a section entitled “On getting the Three Circles Model backwards”, for a general rebuttal of such objections.)

The Inner-Circle English-using countries are those in which English, chronologically speaking, was first the primary language of majority populations of users for virtually all private and public functions: England, the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The Outer Circle comprises “transplanted English in new linguistic, cultural and social contexts”, including countries in Africa, Asia, and South Asia, such as Nigeria, Singapore, and India. Expanding Circle varieties are those in, for example, Russia, Taiwan, and Korea, where English was neither transported as a primary language, as in the Inner Circle, nor as a colonial-era language, as in the Outer Circle. In the Expanding Circle, exhaustive listing of countries becomes problematic if not all but impossible. (See Kachru, Kachru, and Nelson 2006: 2–3; see also, for example, Kachru 1985and Bautista and Gonzalez 2006: 130 and passim.)

These groupings are related to the concepts norm-providing and norm-accepting varieties (Kachru 1986: 84, 86–88). That is, American English speech communities provide their own norms of use, while to the extent that some other population of users, e.g., Koreans, rely on US English for their notions of correctness, they may be said to be norm-accepting. Based on their respective pronunciations, one of the present authors would be easily identifiable by any other English user as an American; the other, as Korean, or anyway as not-American. Even in a norm-accepting situation (likely more de jure than de facto), practicalities of transmission and learning/acquisition will keep pronunciations more or less distinct across populations of speakers.

This issue touches on the topic of identity, and it may be said that using a given variety of English can affect one’s own self-image and the perceptions of others about a person or a group of users in two ways. First of all, the use of English in the Outer and Expanding Circles probably “sends signals” of modernity, higher education, and social and professional mobility (see, for example, Bautista and Gonzalez 2006: 131; Bolton 2006: 292; Kachru 1992a: 6). At the same time, the choice of English over another available language may be problematic in ways that would not readily occur to an Inner Circle speaker. That is, English may convey solidarity with or separateness from conversation participants, depending on their uses of English and their evaluations of such use. These parameters are not, of course, always transparent, so making the linguistic choice may involve a degree of risk (see, for example, Kachru 1992b: 60–61 and 66–68, and Bamgboṣe 1992).

A second consideration involves the choice of model or norm for one’s (or a group’s) English. Speakers may feel the push toward and the pull away from a particular variety of English, or find (perhaps have it pointed out to them) that they are accommodating their speech styles unconsciously (see, for example, Kachru 1992b: 57, and Shaw 1983). “Do I want to sound like a Korean or like an American?” is not a question that is likely to occur to an Inner Circle speaker, but it may be a vexed question for people in some parts of the English-using world.

An approach put forward by adherents of the English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) school of thought (e.g., Jenkins 2007) seeks another sort of solution to the cross-variety intelligibility issue. While Jenkins (2007: 2) writes that ELF is “an emerging English that exists in its own right and which is being described in its own terms” (emphases in original), there are no descriptions that would indicate that the pronunciations of all the varieties of English that would constitute ELF are trending toward similarity, let alone identity. In fact, it is the function of Jenkins’ Lingua Franca Core (LFC) of pronunciation features to have ELF users acquire or learn a devised, recommended system of those elements (Jenkins 2007: 24 and elsewhere; Jenkins 2000: ch. 6 “Pedagogic priorities I: identifying the phonological core”, 123–163; Jenkins 2009, 147–148). This hands-on, prescriptive adoption of a particular set of pronunciation recommendations for a subset of the world’s English users is at odds with the descriptive view of self-normative English varieties that is presented in the world Englishes literature (see, for example, Nelson 2012; Kachru and Smith 2008: 2, 10 (f.n.), 84).

For clarification of these and other issues of pronunciation, we may turn to a frequently cited but perhaps less studied Asian variety of English, that of South Korea (officially, the Republic of Korea, hereafter Korea). Korea made a strenuous effort to keep ethnolinguistic homogeneity to build up national power and to keep its society stabilized in spite of serious contacts with other foreign languages such as Chinese and Japanese (Coulmas 1999), and its language played an important role in resistance against Chinese dominance and influence and Japanese imperialism under diplomatic, political, economic, or academic pressures (Coulmas 1999; Kaplan and Baldauf 2003). Surprisingly, however, Korea, an Expanding Circle English-using country, made an exception to English that has taken deep root in society and has affected the language used in all aspects of leisure, advertising, entertainment, business, education, mass media, and government over the past six decades (Chang 2008), where English is considered a language of opportunity for social and economic upward mobility and a representation of high social status and economic power, as it is in other Outer and Expanding Circle countries (Choi 2008; Ross 2008).

A revolutionary transition from grammar-translation instruction to communicative language teaching was brought about by Korea’s hosting the 1986 Asian Games and the 1988 Summer Olympic Games (Baik 1992; Shim 1994); these two international athletic events acted as a catalyst for a necessity of fluency-oriented English education. A national globalization project, Segyehwa, for national competitiveness in the worldwide economy, accelerated the need for a high level of oral communication skills and native-like, accent-free, pronunciation (Kaplan and Baldauf 2003; Shim and Baik 2000; Kim 2007), and accordingly, a plethora of language policies and proposals have been planned, discussed, and implemented, such as recruiting a large number of native English instructors (Chang 2009), building English-only zones and residential villages (Park 2009), learning English as a mandatory subject in elementary school (Park 2004; Shim and Baik 2000), shifting from grammar-translation instruction to a communicative English curriculum through the national curriculum reforms (Shin 2007), and discussing the possibility of enacting English as an official language in Korea (Yoo 2005).

Korean speakers of English are easily recognized as not Inner Circle speakers by their pronunciation, whether in their practised or unrehearsed speech, due to the influences of Korean phonological structure and process and speech styles, particularly in stress and intonation. Different from English, a stress-timed language, Korean is a syllable-timed language and so has a narrower pitch range, which makes Koreans’ English sound – to users of other Englishes – flat, monotonous, lacking in rhythm, or exhibiting misplaced lexical and phrase stresses (Lee 2001). Above all, the Korean articulatory system makes Korean speakers of English conspicuous among speakers of other varieties. For example, English vowels have more fine-grained distinctions between front and back, between high and low, and between tense and lax than those of Korean, let alone English having more vowels than Korean (Cho and Park 2006). Therefore, Korean speakers of English have difficulty in apprehending and producing English vowels because of the phonological interference of the Korean sound system. For example, Koreans are apt to pronounce /æ/ (hat, apple) as /ɛ/ or /e/ since there is no /æ/ in Korean. Koreans do not distinguish short (lax) /ɪ/ (sit, it) from long (tense) /i/ (seat, eat) and typically do not distinguish between /ɜ:/ (work) and /ɔ:/ (walk) since there is no Korean equivalent for /ɜ:/ (Lee 2001). These are a few of the more salient vocalic features of a “Korean accent”.

Even more distinctive characteristics of Koreans’ English can be found in their pronunciation of consonants. For instance, some English consonants that do not exist in Korean, such as /f/, /v/, /ð/, /θ/ (few, very, they, think), are substituted and often pronounced as /p/, /b/, /d/, /s/ (pew, berry, day, sink), respectively. In particular, English /r/, a sound that does not exist in Korean, is considered by Korean speakers of English to be the most difficult, confusing, and noticeable to users of other English varieties (Lee 2001; Sung 2007); therefore, English /r/ (rice, read, road) is often pronounced (or perceived by hearers) as /l/ (lice, lead, load). Similarly, aspirated /p^h, t^h, k^h/ (pill, till, kill) may sound a little stiffer or stronger, similar to Korean tense unaspirated /p’, t’, k’/ under the influence of pronouncing Korean lax, tense unaspirated, and heavily aspirated consonants (Goddard 2005).

Almost all Korean learners and teachers of English aim at speaking English like Americans, consciously and unconsciously accepting norms of American English as the absolute canon, although these days there are other competing varieties of Inner Circle models, say, British or Australian English (Gibb 1999; Jung 2005; Shim 2002; Yook 2006). Accordingly, American-like pronunciation has become a criterion of advanced proficiency because of the perceived need for a means of worldwide communication and country-external interactions, just as reading comprehension used to be the yardstick for successful foreign language learning in the past, when English was taught mainly for reading and writing through the grammar-translation method. Furthermore, due to the international dominance and socioeconomic power of the United States, pronunciation of beoteo-balrin (“buttered”) American English is considered refined, is highly preferred over other varieties (Gibb 1999), and should be taught and learned in Korean English education (Yook 2005). Even an extreme misguided surgical operation, which is called ‘linguistic surgery,’ was developed to help Koreans pronounce native-like English sounds (J. Park 2009; Shin 2004). On the other hand, nativized English pronunciation (so-called Konglish) or Korean-accented English is widespread in people’s daily speech and words are sometimes, on purpose, pronounced like Korean words. In particular, nativized, koreanish pronunciation of English is widespread in Korean television shows, including situation comedies, sketch comedies, and standup comedy routines (Park 2004), and is still valued, especially among the older generation, who learned English only as an academic subject or written language, with little exposure to spoken English, or Inner Circle English users. However, this is less so for younger people, who have had more opportunities to directly interact with American English and who want to sound like Americans. Especially because of the socioeconomic and diplomatic power of the United States, let alone English being a language of wider communication for education, economy, and diplomacy across the world, American-like pronunciation will likely become more and more preferred and highly evaluated in Korean society despite the exposure to other varieties of English.

Thus, Korea is an example of a controversial English-expansion context. Korean English speakers are identifiable by their accents, so in that sense may be regarded as users of “Korean English”. Adherence or aspiration to in-country or to external norms will be one of the major criteria in determining whether English in Korea is to be recognized (by Koreans and by outsiders) as nativized and acculturated, moving at least toward becoming an additional language, or whether it will continue to be regarded as a norm-accepting, learned language.

The worlds’ Englishes have evolved their distinctive pronunciations under sociolinguistic conditions which may affect any language’s development. Speakers seek to make their speech appropriate and effective to as wide a variety of other users as they may find desirable, while maintaining their own ethnic, national, regional, and personal identities.

REFERENCES

1. Baik, M.J. 1992. Language shift and identity in Korea. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 3: 15–31.
2. Bamgboṣe, A. 1992. Standard Nigerian English: issues of identification. In: The Other Tongue: English across Cultures, 2nd edition, B.B. Kachru (ed.), 148–161, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
3. Bautista, M.L.S. and Gonzalez, A.B. 2006. Southeast Asian Englishes. In: The Handbook of World Englishes, B.B. Kachru, Y. Kachru, and C.L. Nelson (eds.), 130–144. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
4. Bolton, K. 2006. Varieties of World Englishes. In: The Handbook of World Englishes, B.B. Kachru, Y. Kachru, and C.L. Nelson (eds.), 289–312, Malden, MA: Blackwell.
5. Chang, K.-S. 2008. Status and function of English as a language of international/intercultural communication in Korea. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/41506521.pdf.
6. Chang, B.-M. 2009. Korea’s English Education Policy innovations to lead the nation into the globalized world. Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics 13: 83–97.
7. Cho, J. and Park, H.-K. 2006. A comparative analysis of Korean-English phonological structures and processes for pronunciation pedagogy in interpretation training. Meta: Translators’ Journal 51: 229–246. doi: 10.7202/013253ar.
8. Choi, I.-C. 2008. The impact of EFL testing on EFL education in Korea. Language Testing 25: 39–62. doi: 10.1177/0265532207083744.
9. Coulmas, F. 1999. The Far East. In: Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity, J.A. Fishman, 399–413, New York: Oxford University Press.
10. Ferguson, C.A. 1982. Foreword. In: The Other Tongue: English across Cultures, B.B. Kachru (ed.), vii–xi, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
11. Firth, J.R. 1964. On sociological linguistics. In: Language in Culture and Society: A Reader in Linguistics and Anthropology, D. Hymes (ed.), 66–70, New York: Harper & Row. (Reprinted from The technique of semantics. Transactions of the Philological Society 1935, 36–72.)
12. Gibb, M. 1999. A comparative study of attitudes towards varieties of English held by professionals and tertiary level students in Korea. The Korea TESOL Journal 2: 31–42.
13. Goddard, C. 2005. The Languages of East and Southeast Asia: An Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14. Jenkins, J. 2000. The Phonology of English as an International Language, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Jenkins, J. 2007. English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16. Jenkins, J. 2009. World Englishes: A Resource Book for Students, 2nd edition, New York: Routledge.
17. Jung, W.-H. 2005. Attitudes of Korean EFL learners towards varieties of English. English Teaching 60: 239–260.
18. Kachru, B.B. (ed.). 1982. The Other Tongue: English across Cultures, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
19. Kachru, B.B. 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the Outer Circle. In: English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures, R. Quirk and H.G. Widdowson (eds.), 11–30, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Kachru, B.B. 1986. The Alchemy of English: The Spread, Functions and Models of Non-native Englishes, New York: Pergamon Press.
21. Kachru, B.B. 1992a. Introduction: the other side of English and the 1990s. In: The Other Tongue: English across Cultures, 2nd edition, B.B. Kachru (ed.), 1–15, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
22. Kachru, B.B. 1992b. Models for non-native Englishes. In: The Other Tongue: English across Cultures, 2nd edition, B.B. Kachru, 48–74. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
23. Kachru, B.B. 2005. Asian Englishes: Beyond the Canon, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
24. Kachru, B.B., Kachru, Y., and Nelson, C.L. 2006. Introduction: the world of World Englishes. In: The Handbook of World Englishes, B.B. Kachru, Y. Kachru, and C.L. Nelson (eds.), 1–16, Malden, MA: Blackwell.
25. Kachru, Y. and Smith, L.E. 2008. Cultures, Contexts, and World Englishes, New York: Routledge.
26. Kaplan, R.B. and Baldauf, R.B. 2003. Language Planning from Practice to Theory, Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
27. Kim, Y.S. 2007. Korean adults’ attitudes towards varieties of English. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Edinburgh. Retrieved from: https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/1903/6/Kim%20YS%20diss%2007.pdf.
28. Lee, J.-A. 2001. Korean speakers. In: Learner English: A Teacher’s Guide to Interference and Other Problems, 2nd edition, M. Swan and B. Smith (eds.), 325–342, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. Levis, J. 2005. Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL Quarterly 39: 369–377. doi: 10.2307/3588485.
30. Nelson, C.L. 2011. Intelligibility in World Englishes, New York: Routledge.
31. Nelson, C.L. 2012. Review of English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity by Jennifer Jenkins. World Englishes 31(1): 139–141.
32. Park, J.S.-Y. 2004. “Baby, Darling, Honey!” Constructing a competence of English in South Korean TV Shows. Texas Linguistic Forum 47: 143–154.
33. Park, J.-K. 2009. English fever in South Korea: its history and symptoms. English Today 97(25), 50–57. doi: 10.1017/S026607840900008X.
34. Ross, S.J. 2008. Language testing in Asia: evolution, innovation, and policy challenges. Language Testing 25: 5–13. doi: 10.1177/0265532207083741.
35. Sharbawi, S. 2012. Revisiting the vowels of Brunei English. World Englishes 31: 177–197. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-971X.2011.01725.x.
36. Shaw, W.D. 1983. Asian student attitudes towards English. In: Readings in English as an International Language, L.E. Smith (ed.), 21–34, Oxford: Pergamon. (Originally published in English for Cross-Cultural Communication, L.E. Smith (ed.), 1981.)
37. Shim, R.J. 1994. Englishized Korean: structure, status, and attitudes. World Englishes 13: 225–244. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-971X.1994.tb00309.x.
38. Shim, R.J. 2002. Changing attitudes towards TEWOL in Korea. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 12(1): 143–158. doi: 10.1075/japc.12.1.09shi.
39. Shim, R.J. and Baik, M.J. 2000. Korea (South and North). In: Language Policies and Language Education: The Impact in East Asian Countries in the Next Decade, W.K. Ho and R.Y.L. Wong (eds.), 173–196, Singapore: Times Media.
40. Shin, H. 2007. English language teaching in Korea: toward globalization or localization. In: The Handbook of English Language Teaching, J. Cummins and C. Davison (eds.), 75–86, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
41. Smith, L.E. (ed.). 1981. English for Cross-Cultural Communication, New York: St. Martin’s Press.
42. Smith, L.E. 1983a. English as an international language: no room for linguistic chauvinism. In: Readings in English as an International Language, L.E. Smith (ed.), 7–11, Oxford: Pergamon.
43. Smith, L.E. (ed.). 1983b. Readings in English as an International Language, Oxford: Pergamon.
44. Smith, L.E. 1992. Spread of English and issues of intelligibility. In: The Other Tongue: English across Cultures, 2nd edition, B.B. Kachru (ed.), 75–90, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
45. Smith, L.E. and Rafiqzad, K. 1983. English for cross-Cultural communication: the question of intelligibility. In: Readings in English as an International Language, L.E. Smith (ed.), 49–58, Oxford: Pergamon. (Originally published in TESOL Quarterly 13: 371–380. doi: 10.2307/3585884.)
46. Strevens, P. 1983. What is “Standard English”? In: Readings in English as an International Language, L.E. Smith (ed.), 87–93. (Originally published in RELC Journal 1982. doi: 10.1177/003368828101200201.)
47. Strevens, P. 1992. English as an international language: directions in the 1990s. In: The Other Tongue: English across Cultures, 2nd edition, B.B. Kachru (ed.), 27–47, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
48. Sung, E.-K. 2007. The relationship between phonetics and phonology: problematic cases for a unified model. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 13: 295–313.
49. Yano, Y. 2009. The future of English: beyond the Kachruvian Three Circle Model? In: Global Englishes in Asian Contexts: Current and Future Debates, K. Murata and J. Jenkins (eds.), 208–225, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
50. Yoo, O.K. 2005. Discourse of English as an official language in a monolingual society: the case of South Korea. Second Language Studies 23: 1–44.
51. Yook, C. 2006. Korean University students’ attitudes toward varieties of English. In: Proceedings of the Joint Conference of AAAL and ACLA/CAAL 2006, Montreal, Canada.