THE EMERGENCE OF AN “INTERSECTING CIRCLE” IN KACHRU’S
THREE CONCENTRIC CIRCLES OF WORLD ENGLISHES: A CASE OF

ETHNO-LINGUISTIC NEUTRALITY IN CENTRAL NIGERIA

Peter Ochefu Okpeh, James Iorliam Udaa
Department of English and Literary Studies, Federal University Lokoja

peter.okpeh@fulokoja.edu.ng, jimudaah@yahoo.com 

Abstract

There is evidence that contemporary Nigeria is drifting towards a society of monolingual English users, a component of
which could be defined as lacking in ethno-linguistic identity. This trend is found among a generation of young Nigerian
urban dwellers (between the age bracket of (12 and 25) who can neither communicate in their parents’ native language(s)
nor in any other Nigerian indigenous language; their only medium of communication is English. Although based on their
childhood  exposure  to  the  English  language  and  their  relative  competence  in  it,  English  can  be  described  as  their
‘‘mother tongue’’ but the fact that they are not native speakers given the socio-geographical circumstances of their birth
excludes them from Kachru’s (1988) Inner Circle classification of native speakers. Consequently, these Nigerians are left
without a clearly defined ethno-linguistic affiliation. This paper interrogates this emerging sociolinguistic phenomenon
in especially Central Nigeria, with the aim of stimulating scholarly consciousness on the ethno-linguistic identity of this
category of Nigerians, and its implications for English usage among them. The submission of the paper is that another
circle, “the intersecting circle”, be created for them since they bestride both the inner circle in having English as their
“mother tongue” and yet they are not native speakers of the language.

Keywords: Mother Tongue, Ethno-linguistics, Ethno-linguistic Identity, Nigerian English

I INTRODUCTION

The  connection  between  language,  culture,  and  identity  is  a  widely  researched  theme  in
sociolinguistic  scholarship  (John,  1956;  Trudgil,  1971;  Kramsc,  1993;  Uderhill,  2015).  Most  of  the
scholarly postulations on these variables situate language in between the two, and consider it as only
the verbal expression of culture, but also a vital component of it as well as an index of identification
among ethno-linguistic groups.  Adegbite and Akindele (1999) explain this connection in three ways:
first, language, according to them is an aspect of culture, one of its very many objects and institutions.
Second, language is an instrument of thought, helping to concretise thought and to explore and record
the experiences of culture. Finally, language expresses culture, and serves as the only means by which
the social experiences and values of a group of people are perceived and understood.

The  significance  of  language  to  its  owners  is  further  underscored  by  the  Sapir-Whorfian
hypothesis of linguistic relativity which describes the connection between the structure of a language
and  a  people’s  worldview.  A  people’s  language,  according  to  the  hypothesis,  conditions  their
conceptualisation of the world and influences their cognitive processes and behaviour. Language in this
connection is critical to both how the individual members of an ethnic group define their identity vis- a -
vis their role within the group, and how the group in turn is able to project their cultural worldview and
heritage among other ethnic groups and on the global stage. It is in the light of such a pivotal role of
language to the ethno-linguistic uniqueness of the people that, in spite of the increasing linkages among
the nations of the world being facilitated by globalisation, a cross section of sociolinguists has continued
to advocate the need for linguists and governments of nations to do something drastic in order to reverse
the threat of endangerment and death faced by most languages in Africa (Mufwene, 1995; Kraus, 1992,
Stiglitz, 2002). The general thinking among such linguists is that whenever a language goes extinct an
entire way of thinking is lost.

The  current  enquiry  springs  from  the  above  orientation  and  is  rooted  in  the  hypothesis  that  a
generation of Nigerians is currently emerging whose language behaviour makes it difficult for them to
be  classified  under  any existing  ethno-linguistic group in Nigeria.  This category  of  Nigerians whose
existence in Central Nigeria also suggests the possibility of their existence in other parts of the country
is within the age bracket of 12 and 25 years. Apart from their inability to speak their mother tongue, the
only language they speak is English. However, the fact that they are not  native speakers of English,
based on Kachru’s concentric circle theory of world Englishes, coupled with the Nigerian content of the
variety of English they speak makes it difficult to consider English as their mother tongue, even though

Lingual: Journal of Language & Culture (Volume 12, No.2, November 2021)

English Department, Faculty of Humanities, Udayana University 1

mailto:jimudaah@yahoo.com
mailto:peter.okpeh@fulokoja.edu.ng


English is their first language. The complexity of their ethno-linguistic identity is further deepened by
their inability to speak any other indigenous Nigerian language. The goal of this study is to interrogate
this  emerging  linguistic  phenomenon  by  stimulating  scholarly  conversations  on  the  ethno-linguistic
identity of the category of Nigerians that  manifests this language behaviour,  and its implications for
English  language  usage  among  them,  the  Nigerian  society  and  the  global  community  of  English
language users.

I MATERIALS AND METHODS

I.1 Review of Related Concepts

One of such concepts is ethno-linguistics which is the scientific study of the relationship between
language and culture. Uderhill (2015) describes it as cultural linguistics, a subfield of linguistics that
studies the way perception and conceptualisation of people influences their language. Uderhill (2015)
further  considers  it  to  be  how  language  relates  to  culture  especially  in  relation  to  how  meaning  is
politically and culturally influenced; how language shapes the thoughts of ethnic groups and how their
thoughts in turn shape their language. In ethno-linguistics, language is considered as an integral part of
culture. In relation to identity, Gile et al. (1977) define ethno-linguistic identity as what makes an ethnic
group  ‘‘likely  to  behave  as  a  distinctive  and  active  collective  entity  in  intergroup  situations.  It  is  a
sociolinguistic necessity borne out of ethno-linguistic diversity. This perhaps is why Tafel (1978) views
it  as an aspect  of social  identity  which informs an individual’s  self  concept  and  is  derived from  his
knowledge  of  his  membership  of  an  ethnic  group.   The  three  aspects  of  social  identity-  cognitive,
evaluative  and  emotional-  outlined  in  Ellermers  (1999)  are,  according  to  Ehala  (2009)  significant
components  of  ethno-linguistic  identity  in  that  they  enable  the  members  of  an  ethnic  group  to  act
collectively as one. The pervasive impact of globalisation on the world’s languages which manifests as
‘‘cultural  imperialism’’  makes  the  question  of  ethno-linguistic  identity  not  only  a  necessary  way  of
ensuring the survival and perpetration of the diverse but rich cultural heritage contained in the over 7000
languages of the world, but also significant for individual ethno-linguistic groups as a means of defining
and projecting their distinctiveness amidst other language groups.

Another of such concepts is mother tongue/ first language. The terms mother tongue (MT) and
first language (L1) are often used interchangeably. Akindele and Adegbite (1999) support such usage
and consider the two terms not just to have the same? meaning technically, but to also both have shades
of other meanings and applications.  First,  the two terms according to Akindele and Adegbite (1999)
refer  to  the  only  language  of  a  monolingual  person  which  is  acquired  naturally  in  his  native
environment, and is able to meet all his linguistic needs. Hebrew Language to a child born and bred in
Israel will be the child’s mother tongue/ first language because that is the only language he has in his
speech repertoire and the only means of communication available to him. Akindele and Adegbite (1999)
also consider a mother tongue/ first language to be the sequentially first language of a bi/multilingual
person. Such a language usually fully identifies with the personal or native culture of such a person. A
Nigerian, for instance, who is competent in Idoma, Hausa and English will be said to have Idoma as his
mother tongue/L1  if Idoma is the language  he acquires first  among the  three.  Finally,  Akindele and
Adegbite (1999) consider a mother tongue/ first language to be the language in which a bi/multilingual
conducts his everyday activity and which he has the greatest facility or intuitive knowledge. He uses
such a language at both formal and informal settings and does not have to resort to texts in order to
understand the phonology or syntax of the language. This is certainly what the English language is to an
educated English man.

Language Acquisition is an unconscious process,  very much a part of the entire developmental
process of humans, by which a child internalises the linguistic behaviour of his environment (Chomsky,
1965; Shatz, 2007). Through language acquisition the young human acquires the capacity to perceive
and  comprehend  language,  as  well  produce  and  use  words  and  sentences  to  communicate.  Unlike
language learning,  language acquisition is usually informal  and a product  of social interaction in the
linguistic environment of the child. Chomsky’s Acquisition Theory explains how infants are born with a
language acquisition device (LAD), an area in their brain which makes language acquisition a natural
event. Based on the theory, a normal child naturally acquires the language of his environment by the
time  he  is  six.  Language  learning  on  the  other  hand  is  a  conscious  exposure  of  humans  (who  have
assumedly acquired a first language) to the rules of a language. Unlike language acquisition which is
motivated by the need to communicate and which occurs informally, language learning is borne out of
official necessity and usually occurs within a formal institution such as a school where the learner is



Immigration in the Postcolonial Era: Mimicry and Ambivalence in Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s the Arrangers of Marriage 3

instructed on the rules of correct usage in the target language, which is usually a second language to the
learner.

Another related concept is Nigerian English, which Jowitt (1991: x) metaphorically describes as
“an English that  has England as its first  mother and Nigeria as its second,  and has defied nature by
undergoing a gynaecological reprocessing”. Adeniyi (2006: 25) considers it to be the variety of English
spoken and used by Nigerians. Jowitt (1991) considers it as being different from Nigerian Pidgin on the
one hand and Standard British English on the other. One of the earliest postulations in favour of the
existence of a variety of English known as Nigerian English is captured by Walsh (1967, p. 88) ‘‘the
varieties of English spoken by educated Nigerians,  no matter what  their first  language,  have enough
features in common to mark off a general TYPE, which may be called Nigerian English’’. Because of
the varying sociolinguistic and educational backgrounds of Nigerian users of English, scholars on the
subject  have  devised  a  couple  of  descriptive  terms  to  qualify  it.  Banjo  (1981)  proposes  “Standard
Nigerian Spoken English”, Bamgbose (1982) speaks of “Educated Nigerian English” and Jowitt (1991)
contains these descriptive terms, and also has another descriptive label, “Popular Nigerian English”. The
foregoing are efforts by scholars interested in the phenomenon to conceptualise a “prestigious” variety
of Nigerian English that will serve as its Standard form, and whose canonical parameters in the areas of
syntax, phonology, semantics and lexis will form the basis for determining the non-Standard form of
Nigerian English. Although the above does not seem to exist in a formal/ official sense, evidences of its
consciousness  abound  in  practice,  in  that  the  variety  of  English  spoken  by  children  of  educated
Nigerians is likely to be more “prestigious” (tending more towards Standard British English) than the
variety spoken by their counterparts from illiterate backgrounds.

I.2 Kachru’s Concentric Circles of World Englishes

Kachru’s  (1988)  Concentric  Circles  of  World  Englishes  proposed  one  of  the  most  significant
frameworks  for  classifying  the  varieties  of  English  in  the  world.  In  the  framework,  Kachru
conceptualised the spread of English in terms of three concentric circles, which are representative of
‘‘the type of spread, pattern of acquisition and the functional domains in which English is used across
cultures and languages’’ (p.  12).  The Inner Circle,  according to the model,  represents the traditional
roots of English occupied by mother tongue varieties, where English has the status of a first language.
Members of the Inner Circle are the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. The varieties used
among the members of this Circle are said to be the ‘‘norm- producing’’ varieties. The Outer Circle,
according to Kachru, comprises earlier phases of the spread of English in non-native settings where the
language has become part of the country’s chief institutions, and plays an important second language
role in a multilingual setting. Most of the members of the Outer Circle are former colonies of the USA
and  the  UK,  and  include  Malaysia,  India,  Singapore,  Ghana,  Kenya,  and  Nigeria.  The  varieties  of
English used by the members of this Circle,  according to the theory, are “norm- developing”.  In the
Expanding Circle are found countries where English occupied the status of a foreign language in terms
of teaching and learning. They have no history of colonisation by members of the Inner Circle. Members
of this Circle include China, Japan, Greece, Poland, among others. The varieties of English they speak
are ‘‘norm-dependent’’. These three circles are represented in the figure below:



Fig. 1: Kachru’s Concentric Circles of World Englishes

I.3 Methodology of the Study

This study is a pilot study and so the methodology adopted for it is a tentative reflection of the
bigger study which is still  ongoing. Although the target area for the bigger study is Central Nigeria,
comprising Kogi, Kwara, Niger, Nasarawa, Plateau, and Benue, attention is currently being focused only
on Kogi and Benue States. Kogi is chosen because of not only its strategic placement in the country’s
geo-sociopolitical history, but also because the researchers currently reside and work in Lokoja, the state
capital. Benue’s selection is informed by the fact of being the researchers’ state of origin where they
have  had  considerable  contact  with  members  of  the  target  group  in  question.  A  total  of  150  people
between the age bracket of 12 and 25 years old from these states are being engaged with regards to their
spoken English. The mother tongues of the parents/ guardians of these people are Igala, Ebira, Okun,
Idoma and Tiv. The instruments of data collection are observation, informal interaction in the form of
participant observation where the subjects are unaware of the purpose of the interaction. The interactions
bothered essentially on some of the social and political issues that were prevalent   in Nigeria at the time
of the research. The purpose of such informal interactions was to elicit a plethora of linguistic forms
from  the  subjects  which  provided  a  sociolinguistic  framework  to  classify  them.  The  semi-structured
interviews  were  administered  to  both  the  subjects  and  their  parents/guardians.  The  interviews  were
designed to obtained information on their biodata and sociological / sociolinguistic issues bothering on
the  language  of  their  highest  proficiency,  the  mother  tongues  of  their  parents  (if  parents  are  from
different ethnic groups), etc. From the outcome of these dimensions of engagement with the subjects,
they can be tentatively classified into three sociolinguistic groups.

GROUP A: Those whose parents/guardians are from the same ethnic group, yet their indigenous 
languages are hardly ever used in communication between the parents, nor by such parents to their 
children. Consequently, English is the only medium of communication in such homes.

GROUP B: Those whose parents /guardians are from the same ethnic group (like in Group A above) and 
use their indigenous language to communicate between each other and to their visiting relatives, but resort
to English when they want to interact or communicate with their children/wards. The children in turn use 
English in communicating with their parents and interact with their siblings.

GROUP C:  Those whose parents /guardians are offspring of mixed marriages (e.g. one of the partners is 
from Kogi State and the other, the indigene of another state). This group, like the first two, is hardly ever 
communicated to in either of their parents’ languages; thus they are left with only English as the medium 
of communication especially as the parents themselves necessarily have to rely on English for 
interpersonal communication between each other.



Immigration in the Postcolonial Era: Mimicry and Ambivalence in Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s the Arrangers of Marriage 5

For  a  better  understanding  of  the  above  classification,  none  of  the  youths  in  the  three  groups
above, during the period the researchers interacted with them and based on the authority of their parents’
statements, produced code switching or code mixing during their conversations in English.

I.4 Theoretical Orientation

The  theoretical  framework  underpinning  this  study  is  the  Languages  in  Contact  Theory  which
provides a basis for a comprehensive investigation of the changes experienced by languages when they
interact  in  multilingual  contexts.  According  to  Moumine  (2020),  there  has  been  an  unprecedented
growth in the study of languages in contact. Thus, given the influence of multilingualism as a result of
globalisation, Clyne (2003 as cited in Moumine, 2020, p.1) LIC is “a multidimensional multidisciplinary
field  in  which  interrelationships  hold  the  key  to  the  understanding  of  how  and  why  people  use
language(s)  the  way  they  do.  This  includes  interrelations  between  the  structural  linguistic,
sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic;  between typology and language use;  between macro- and micro
dimensions;  between  variation and  change;  …  between  the  linguistic,  sociological,  demographic  and
political”.  Clyne  posits  further  that  a  direct  consequence  of  LIC  is  bi/multilingualism  in  which  the
implication of any analysis of contact situations may stand in support of the sociolinguists’ assumption
which argues for the existence of a patterned interaction between language and its users. Consequently,
the study of LIC has become a fresh frontier for research where the synchronic and diachronic analyses
of languages converge and offer further evidence for the dynamic nature of language (Martinet, 1955;
cf. Thomason, 2001; Winford, 2003, as cited in Moumine, 2020). This theory is therefore suitable in
undertaking this study because of the new insight being investigated by the phenomenon of non-native
mother-tongue English monolingual speakers in Central Nigeria.

II RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

II.1 Indicators of Subjects’ Ethno- linguistic Neutrality

The first and most prominent indicator of the neutrality of the ethno -linguistic identity of these
Nigerians is their inability to communicate neither in their parents’ indigenous languages nor in any
other  Nigerian  indigenous  language.  Ethno-linguistic  identity  is  a  consciousness  rooted  in  ethno-
linguistic  group  membership,  and  since  a  cardinal  feature  of  this  membership  is  the  ability  to
communicate in the language of the group, subjects in this category are without a clearly defined ethno-
linguistic membership, as they are unable to lay claim to any Nigerian language as their mother tongue.
The potentiality of language as the vehicle of culture and marker of identity gives these Nigerians out as
being  short  of  the  Nigerian  culture  sociolinguistically.  Consequently,  although  their  parents  may  be
affiliated  to  certain  Nigerian  ethno-linguistic  groups,  they  themselves  cannot  be  said  to  share  their
parents’ linguistic identity, especially as language is not genetically transmitted.

Another  indicator  of  the  ethno-linguistic  neutrality  of  the  subjects  in  all  three  groups  is  the
circumstance  of  their  nationality  and  their  consequent  placement  within  the  framework  of  Kachru’s
three concentric circles. Granted that English is their first language, and could in a technical sense be
regarded  as  their  ‘‘mother  tongue’’  especially  as  it  was,  like  every  other  mother  tongue,  naturally
‘‘acquired’’ by them, the fact that they are nationals of   Nigeria excludes them from the Inner Circle of
native speakers where nationals of countries such as the USA,  the UK,  Canada,  Australia,  and New
Zealand belong. Consequently, they cannot be given the Inner Circle status (because they are not native
speakers),  neither  can  they  be  accurately  described  as  belonging  to  the  Outer  Circle  (because  they
‘‘acquired’’ and did not learn’ ’the English language).

The ethno-linguistic neutrality of the subjects in Groups A, B and C, is further revealed by the
variety of English they speak. The varying nature of their sociolinguistic and educational background
when situated against the efforts of some Nigerian linguists to conceptualise a “standard” or “educated”
or “popular” variety of Nigerian English further deepens the difficulty of associating them as a group
with one singular variety of Nigerian English. There are varying degrees of perfection/ imperfection in
their spoken English which can only be reflective of their sociolinguistic and educational backgrounds.
Thus, their variety of English has a ‘‘fluid’’ and an emerging nomenclature, neither clearly collectively
defined as “Standard Nigerian English’’, nor anything close to the variety spoken by Kachru’s Inner
Circle  members.   Recorded  samples  of  their  oral  communication,  for  example,  reflect  phonological
patterns of the language of the dominant ethnic group in the area where they are domiciled as well as
syntactic and lexico-semantic manifestations.



From the methodology adopted for the study, it was observed that at the phonological level, the
subjects display some mastery and a degree of proficiency beyond the various ethnic Englishes across
Nigeria  such  as  Hausa  English,  Yoruba  English,  Igbo  English,  Ebira  English,  Igala  English,  Idoma
English,  Tiv  English,  and  so  on.  Their  accent  is  relatively  unmarked  at  both  segmental  and
suprasegmental  levels,  cutting  across  a  large  spectrum  of  the  Nigeria  speech  community.  It  is  quite
difficult  from  their  articulation  to  pin  them  to  a  particular  ethnic  identity.  The  general  features  at
segmental  level  manifest  in  vowel  reduction  where  tense  (long)  vowels  are  made  lax  (shortened),
systematic  substitution  of  certain  consonants,  reduction  of  consonant  clusters  while  at  the
suprasegmental level observable patterns include bisyllabification of monosyllabic words, a tendency to
overgeneralise the rules of stress patterns, and general realisation of only the falling and rising tone in
intonation pattern. Features predominant at the syntactic level include noun subject copy, pluralisation
of non-count nouns, omission of obligatory articles, morphological processes such as reduplicatives, etc.
Lexico-semantic  features  of  English  include  their  use  neologisms,  semantic  extension,  semantic
restriction, etc.

II.2 The  “Intersecting  Circle”  as  the  Fourth  Circle  in  Kachru’s  Three  Centric  Circle:  A
Proposed Modification

The analysis made so far already demonstrates the complexity of the ethno-linguistic identity of
the  category  of  Nigerians  in  question  and  the  difficulty  to  situate  them  in  any  of  Kachru’s  three
concentric circles of World Englishes. Clearly, the foregoing hinges on the dynamic interplay between
language contact and language change. And so nearly three decades now after Kachru propounded his
three concentric circles of classifying World Englishes, the English Language has interfaced with more
climes across the world and undergone radical transformations as a result of these contacts, such that
new varieties are constantly emerging, some with ethno-linguistic roots which Kachru did not envisage
when he conceived his model. In what follows we attempted a modification of Kachru’s three concentric
circles  in  order  to  create  a  space  for  the  group  we  have  described  in  this  study  as  being  ethno-
linguistically neutral.  In our proposed framework, there is a fourth circle which bestrides both the Inner
Circle  and  the  Outer  Circle.  We  name  this  new  circle  “the  Intersecting  Circle”.  It  is  “intersecting”
because it overlaps and bestrides both the “Inner and Outer circles”, and by so doing it appropriately
captures and accommodates the multiple ethno linguistic- characteristics of its members such as:

i English is their “mother tongue” (a characteristic of Inner Circle members), yet they are not native 
speakers of the language. 

ii. They (as Nigerians) are nationals of a former colony of Britain (a requirement for belonging in the 
Outer Circle), yet English is their first language.

Against the backdrop of their sociolinguistic characteristics above, a way to define the paradox of
their  ethno-linguistic  identity  and  characterise  their  placement  in  Kachru’s  three  Concentric  Circles
framework will be to conceptualise an overlapping space for them among the first two circles of world
Englishes, which is what has been proposed in this paper. This is diagrammatically represented below:



Immigration in the Postcolonial Era: Mimicry and Ambivalence in Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s the Arrangers of Marriage 7

Fig. 2: A Modified Version of Kachru’s Concentric Circles of World Englishes

(X in the Intersecting Circle represents other countries in West Africa and elsewhere, which might be
experiencing similar sociolinguistic developments)

III CONCLUSION

Language and language contact is critical to ethno-linguistic identity and also constitutes the lens
by which ethno-linguistic groups conceptualise the world. The study   examined emerging indices of
ethno-linguistic neutrality  among  a group of English  users  in  Central  Nigeria,  with  Kogi  and  Benue
State as pilot study which constitutes a microcosm of the wider group of similar Nigerian English users
across other parts of the country. Findings revealed the complexity of their ethno-linguistic identity and
the  difficulty  of  locating  them  in  Kachru’s  (1988)  concentric  framework  of  World  Englishes.
Consequently,  the  study  proposed  a  modification  of  Kachru’s  framework  to  include  a  fourth  circle
which bestrides the first two circles in the original framework, and consequently defines a space for this
group of Nigerians in the global community of English users.

REFERENCES

Akindele, F. and Adegbite, W. (1999). The Sociology and Politics of English. Ile-Ife: Obafemi Owolowo
University Press.

Banjo, A. (1981). “Towards a Definition of Standard Nigerian Spoken English” in Actes du Congres de
Societe Linguitique. Abijan: University De Abijan

Bamgbose, A. (1982). Standard Nigerian English: Issues of Identification. In B. B. Kachru (Ed.),  The
Other Tongue: English across Cultures (pp. 95-111). Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press.
John, B. (1956). Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. New York:

Technology Press of MIT.
Jowitt, D. (1991).  Nigerian English Usage: An Introduction. Lagos: Longman.
Kramsc, C. (1993). Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kraus, M. (1992).  The World’s Languages in Crises. Languages.
Kachru, B.   (1988). ‘‘Standard, Codification and Sociolinguistic Realism: The Language in the Outer

Circle.  In  R.  Quirk  &  H.  Widdowson  (eds.)  English  in  the  World.  Cambridge:  Cambridge
University Press.

Mufwene,  S.  (1995).  “Language Shift  &  Language Death:  Perspectives from  new Worlds”.  A  Paper
Presented at the Language South of Rio Bravo. Conference: 9-10 January, 1995

Moumine, M.E.A.(2020). “ The  Theoretical Approaches to the Study of Language in Contact” In Basa
Mat.(P.1-28)



Shatz, M. (2007). On the Development of the Field of Language Development. In Holf and Shatz (Eds.).
Blackwell Handbook of Language Development. Wiley. pp. 1 – 15. 

Stiglitz, J. (2012). Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: Norton.
Tajfel,  H.  (1978).  ‘”Social  Categorizations,  Social  Identity  and  Social  Comparison”  In  Tajfel  (ed)

Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of inter group
relations. London: Academic Press.

Trudgil, P. (1971) Sociolinguistics. Hamondsworth: Penguin.
Uderhill, J. (2015). Ethno-linguistics and Cultural Concepts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 



Lingual: Journal of Language & Culture (Volume 12, No.2, November 2021)

English Department, Faculty of Humanities, Udayana University 9