This chapter traces the expansion of English from its beginnings to its present-day global role. Viewed from a geographical perspective, settlement moves and colonization have re-rooted the English language to different continents and countries, producing distinct contact types. We outline these developments from their historical and demographic perspectives as well as with respect to linguistic contact conditions for North America (including African American English), Southern Hemisphere varieties (Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa), and second-language postcolonial Englishes in Africa and Asia. In addition, it is shown how recent, vibrant processes have established new forms of English in new contexts, including non-postcolonial countries, lingua franca uses, and in cyberspace, thus producing radically new contact ecologies. Contact scenarios in these processes have involved dialect contact between native speakers from different regions, the process of structural nativization based on local feature pools, various degrees of restructuring and creole formation, and the genesis of hybrid varieties and innovative multilingual settings. We outline theoretical approaches to grasp these processes, including the Dynamic Model of the evolution of postcolonial Englishes, the Extra- and Intra-territorial Forces Model, and the postulate of different types of “nativeness.”

THE MODEL OF EXTRA- AND INTRA-TERRITORIAL FORCES (EIF)

Powerful and innovative World Englishes theorizing should factor in ongoing developmental processes and aim at explanations for the blurring between major variety types such as ESL (English as a Second Language) and EFL (English as a Foreign Language), or ENL (English as a Native Language) and ESL. To capture current linguistic realities, we believe that it is necessary to jointly approach postcolonial and non-postcolonial settings in which varieties of English have been emerging.

A multitude of forces and factors operating on many varieties, to different extents and maybe also at different times, have been described and addressed for postcolonial Englishes (PCEs): for example, issues such as language policies, language in education, attitudes towards English, English and identity, and language in use, to name but a few. Structural linguistic properties and features of PCEs have been identified and interpreted as results of such forces.

In non-postcolonial territories, the spread and depth of entrenchment of the English language are often determined by the very same factors. Yet, they have traditionally been analyzed and located in a different framework, namely as learner or EFL varieties. Though Kachru’s (1985) Three Circles Model is an early acknowledgment of these Englishes, they have been largely neglected by World Englishes theorizing. Despite the fact that Sridhar and Sridhar (1986) issued an early call for an integrated approach to ESL and EFL varieties, it has long gone largely unheard. In recent times, however, this potential interface has experienced renewed research interest, especially by World Englishes researchers (e.g. Buschfeld 2011, 2013; Laporte 2012; Nesselhauf 2009 and the edited volume by Mukherjee and Hundt, eds. 2011) – and with good reason: against the backdrop of recent linguistic realities, such strict separation has turned out to be untimely, if not inadequate. Colonization is, of course, a strong predictor for second-language variety status; however, second-language varieties did not emerge to the same degree of entrenchment and local restructuring in all countries with a colonial past (e.g. Schneider's case study of Tanzania [2007: 197–199] and the cases of Tswana English [Gilquin and Granger 2011] and English in Cyprus [Buschfeld 2013]).

This book is dedicated to our colleague and my late husband Alexander Kautzsch, who died far too young, on March 2, 2018, after a severe heart attack. Back then, the book project was in its initial stages. We received acceptance for publication by Edinburgh University Press on February 23, the very day Alex suffered the heart attack; this is why I am so emotionally attached to the volume. It is based on the Extra- and Intra-territorial Forces (EIF) Model we developed in the summer of 2014. Since the original version of the model was presented in an article in World Englishes (John Wiley and Sons Ltd) in 2017, it has undergone further modification in a later article we wrote with Edgar Schneider (Buschfeld et al. 2018). I would therefore like to take the opportunity to thank Edgar for his generosity in helping us to rethink and modify some of the original ideas on his Dynamic Model. The EIF Model was not conceptualized as a counter-model but as a follow-up approach with a broader aim (viz. the integration of non-postcolonial varieties of English, something Edgar never had in mind). It thus has a wider and modified perspective, a reaction in essence to the most recent linguistic changes and scientific trends in the World Englishes paradigm.

The present volume constitutes the deliberate attempt to put the model to the test, a project we started working on in March 2017. The model and also the volume constitute a major achievement in both our academic careers, an achievement Alex will now not reap the fruits of. I have continued and finished this project as best as I could, but I would like to stress that the merit is not only mine. Those who I need to acknowledge and to whom I need to express my gratitude include the following:

First and foremost, of course, Alex needs to be acknowledged. Apart from having been an inspiring colleague, it was in Kautzsch (2014) that he generated the concept of extra- and intra-territorial forces that constitutes the scientific basis of the EIF Model.

My deep gratitude also goes to the authors of the individual chapters for their invaluable contributions, all of which have helped to assess, refine, and further the model in important ways.

ASSESSING THE EIF MODEL: PERSPECTIVES FROM AROUND THE WORLD

The sixteen contributions to the present volume all make a significant contribution to World Englishes theorizing and shed important light on the strengths and weaknesses of the EIF Model. The contributions are very different in nature and set-up, coming from different directions and with slightly different objectives and foci. Some are mainly critical in nature, many others “simply” apply their case studies to the EIF Model and thus show that indeed it works; some glean rather anecdotal evidence, others present empirical data; some focus on a broader set of forces, others concentrate on a single particular force. I welcome this heterogeneous composition of the volume since it highlights the flexible character of the model and its valuable contribution to World Englishes theorizing, as well as some of its weaknesses.

Most of the articles seem to agree on (1) how “important it is to reduce the long-standing conceptual gap between postcolonial and non-postcolonial Englishes” (Schreier: 317); (2) that “[t]he EIF Model indeed allows for more internal differentiation by positing a range of extra- and intra-territorial factors […] and by explicitly incorporating variety-internal heterogeneity as a third dimension […]” (Labade et al.: 90); (3) that “[t]he EIF Model is a greatly welcomed extension of the Dynamic Model as it suggests and calls for a more fine-grained analysis of the factors contributing to the evolution of a variety of English” (Brato: 390); and (4) that “[t]he EIF Model […] can make an important contribution by providing new ways of looking at varieties, while at the same time accounting for the complex use of English in the evershifting speech communities of the twenty-first century” (D’Angelo and Ike: 179). Cristina Suárez-Gómez explicitly states that “it is the EIF Model which makes it possible to fully capture the situation of Gibraltar English, since it incorporates the influence of both external forces as well as internal forces to the configuration of the local reality” (366) and Schröder and Zähres point out that

Language acquisition and World Englishes (WEs) research are two subdisciplines with their own theoretical approaches, classifications, terminologies, and methodologies for investigation. They also have distinct perspectives on otherwise similar phenomena, viz. manifestations of acquiring/learning a language. As early as 1986, Sridhar and Sridhar discerned “a lack of articulation between theories of SLA and research on the acquisition and use of IVEs [indigenized varieties of English]” (Sridhar and Sridhar 1986: 12) and prompted an integrated approach. However, this call remained largely unheard for about twenty years. Only quite recently have studies pointed to potential similarities and the connectedness of learner Englishes and WEs as well as the possibility, if not necessity, of an integrated approach to the two objects of inquiry. The current chapter provides a scholarly review of these developments. It starts out with a summary and discussion of the potential and need for an integration of the Second Language Acquisition and WEs research paradigms, ultimately expanding the focus to a joint treatment of WEs and First Language Acquisition research.

World Englishes (WEs) research has developed into one of the most flourishing and vibrant fields of linguistic inquiry. To capture the sociolinguistic diversification of English, researchers have investigated a multitude of Englishes spoken around the globe as native or second languages. Together with different labels and terms for the different varieties of English, scholars have developed, applied, discussed, and refined different models of and approaches to WEs to account for the spread, forms, and functions of the language worldwide. The chapter gives an overview of the most important research developments in the field and introduces the most prominent models, showing that models with a diachronic dimension, viz. Schneider (2003, 2007) and, most recently, Buschfeld and Kautzsch’s (2017) Extra- and Intra-territorial Forces (EIF) Model, can best account for the complex realities and developments of English worldwide. The latter approach is discussed in some detail as it constitutes the most recent addition to the WEs paradigm. It stands out due to its attempt to integrate postcolonial and non-postcolonial Englishes and thus bridges a prominent gap in the discipline.

The global spread of English has resulted in ever-growing multilingual repertoires, various scenarios of language contact, variation, and change, and in the development of many (new) varieties of English. In this context, Namibia and the English language spoken here constitute a particularly interesting and unprecedented case. As the result of German colonial rule (1884–1915), South African occupation (1915/1921–1990), and the introduction of English as the sole official language with independence in 1990, three West Germanic languages are spoken alongside the local languages of the country, i.e. German, Afrikaans, and English. Of these, German functioned as official language from 1884 to 1915; from 1920 onwards, it was replaced by English and Cape Dutch/Afrikaans as the official languages, to which, however, German was added again as semi-official language in 1984 (Pütz 1992: 306). But with independence, and thus since 1990, English became the only official language of the country. The present use, function, and status of these three languages very much depend on these historical as well as on sociolinguistic factors such as region, age, ethnic group, education, or occupation.