Decentering language: displacing Englishes from the study of Englishes

English language choices in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan

“…Finally, reflecting on Tupas's (2019) six factors characterising Philippine English, considering language change through a longue durée lens, one particularly salient factor that should be considered when thinking about unequal Englishes in the Central Asian context. Or perhaps maybe more appropriately, a factor that should be considered when seeing how English reveals and contributes to greater inequality – is whether the country chose a more globalised or regionalised political economy and the ramifications of seeing those choices through a path dependency lens.…”

“…This article builds on WE scholarship and the acknowledgement of linguistic agency and creativity as evidenced in the emergence of different varieties of English in colonial/post‐colonial contexts (Tupas & Rubdy, 2015). However, the article also adopts the argument set out by Tupas (2019) and Tupas and Rubdy (2015) who have argued that there is a need to study English in the contexts in which it is emplaced and also posit a shift from world Englishes to unequal Englishes. This is similar to what Shohamy (2010, p. 183) argued, that language ‘[P]olicies cannot be limited to certain agents and stakeholders but must be contextualised within a broader sociopolitical and economic ecology.’ Looking at the ‘Philippine English’ context, Tupas (2019, p. 4) outlined six factors that characterise the ‘Philippine’ in Philippine English.…”

“…However, the article also adopts the argument set out by Tupas (2019) and Tupas and Rubdy (2015) who have argued that there is a need to study English in the contexts in which it is emplaced and also posit a shift from world Englishes to unequal Englishes. This is similar to what Shohamy (2010, p. 183) argued, that language ‘[P]olicies cannot be limited to certain agents and stakeholders but must be contextualised within a broader sociopolitical and economic ecology.’ Looking at the ‘Philippine English’ context, Tupas (2019, p. 4) outlined six factors that characterise the ‘Philippine’ in Philippine English. This includes: inequalities of multilingualism; robust regional ethnolinguistic loyalties; the enduring legacy of colonialism; a globalised political economy; cultural dispositions; and the country's class‐based social structure.…”

“…This includes: inequalities of multilingualism; robust regional ethnolinguistic loyalties; the enduring legacy of colonialism; a globalised political economy; cultural dispositions; and the country's class‐based social structure. The driving argument behind moving from WE to unequal Englishes is then to widen the aperture of the study of English beyond the linguistic and the speaker to the broader context in which both the speaker and the language are located and the material implications of that reality (Tupas, 2019). Of particular interest in this article is examining how access to English, as well as language ideologies, reveals socio‐economic inequalities which are emerging in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.…”

Introduction

“…Consequently, looking at the role of English in this region through a world Englishes lens provides insight into the contours of the dynamic internal political context of the Central Asian republics, the structural residues of the Soviet legacy in various policy and intellectual domains, the comprehensive project of nation‐state building, and increasing pressures to navigate the global economy. More broadly, the emergent ways in which English language policy, planning, and practices are being realised in this region also point to the limitations of utilising a WE lens as noted by scholars arguing for new or augmented paradigms (Bolton et al., 2011; Dovchin et al., 2016; Tupas, 2020; Tupas & Rubdy, 2015).…”