Key words: Kachru's concentric circles model, competent users of English

Abstract
The Concentric Circles Model promoted by Kachru has had a tremendous impact on the teaching and research enterprise, as its underlying tenets have demanded a reappraisal of dominant concepts, models and practices in sociolinguistics, SLA and TESOL. However, this paper takes on a critical re-examination of the model, and discusses some of its intrinsic and perhaps unforeseen shortcomings, typified in its centre-periphery framework and its geo-historic bases. It also highlights certain drawbacks that have become salient in the face of globalization, and these are explored in terms of changing norms, contemporary patterns of language use and the rise of EIL. In response, it is suggested that for a model to be relevant, it must focus on individual speakers, their communicative competence and patterns of interaction. In particular, the paper draws attention to the 'glocal' nature of English: the need for speakers to be able to function effectively both in local and global contexts of use. The discussion concludes by considering how a reconstituted model can impact attitudes and inform classroom pedagogy.

1.0 A brief description of the Three Circle model
In a seminal article, Kachru (1985) drew attention to the global diffusion of English and resultant innovations around the world. Describing the sheer magnitude of the spread of the English language as unprecedented, he pointed to the changing demographic distribution of the language, as well as its new roles in terms of range of functions and depth of societal penetration. This, he went on to argue, had rendered the traditional dichotomy between native and non-native speaker uninsightful and linguistically questionable. Instead, he proposed the use of the term World Englishes to symbolize "the functional and formal variations, divergent sociolinguistic contexts, ranges and varieties of English in creativity, and various types of acculturation in parts of the Western and non-Western world" (Kachru, 1992, p.2).

Furthermore, Kachru (1985) described the spread of English in terms of three concentric circles: the Inner Circle, the Outer Circle and the Expanding Circle. These circles represent "the types of spread, the patterns of acquisition and the functional domains in which English is used across cultures and languages" (Kachru, 1985, p.12). The Inner Circle comprises the traditional bases of English, dominated by the mother-tongue varieties, that is, where English is the primary language of a substantial, often monolingual, majority. Countries in the Inner Circle include the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The Outer Circle is primarily made up of countries where English has a colonial history, and where the language has developed institutionalized functions. Although English may be accorded an important status by language policies, it is only one of two or more codes in the linguistic repertoire of the speakers, who are usually multilingual, or at least bilingual. Hence, English typically exhibits an extended functional range in the Outer Circle and is used in various social, educational, administrative and literary domains. In addition, the language displays a significant depth in terms of users at different levels of society, resulting in a cline of competence manifested in educated to bazaar sub-varieties of English. Most of the countries placed in the Outer Circle are former colonies of the UK or the USA, such as Malaysia, Singapore, India, Ghana, Kenya and others. Finally, the Expanding Circle includes the rest of the world, where performance varieties of the language are usually used, essentially in restricted contexts. In general, English plays a role here as a foreign language for international communication and for specific purposes as in the reading of scientific and technical materials. Countries in the Expanding Circle include China, Egypt, Indonesia, South Korea, Saudi Arabia and others.

Kachru (1985) also distinguished speech fellowships with reference to the circles and described them as norm-providing, norm-developing and norm-dependent. The Inner Circle was seen as norm-providing, but within these Inner Circle Englishes, the British variety, and more recently, the American model seem to form an elite, preferred group. In the norm-developing speech fellowships of the Outer Circle, a tension may be observed between linguistic norm and linguistic behaviour, resulting in divided attitudes towards endocentric norms. Finally, norm-dependent varieties were said to be used in the Expanding Circle countries, and these norms are essentially external (usually American or British).

2.0 The value of the model
When it was first proposed, the concentric circles paradigm proved to be extremely useful as it raised awareness of and appreciation for the contexts and varieties of English worldwide, and also provided a framework for the study of World Englishes. According to Kachru (1985), using the concept of speakers of English from the Inner, Outer and Expanding Circles is preferable to the traditional native, ESL, EFL labels because the latter maintains the native-nonnative dichotomy between us and them, whereas the former emphasizes WE-ness. Moreover, the idea that English is someone's second language, implies that it is someone else's first language, and this, it is argued, creates problems. It gives the impression that English belongs to the native speaker who owns it as his first language; as for the rest, "it is almost unavoidable that anyone would take 'second' as less worthy" (Kachru and Nelson, 1996, p.79). In contrast, the Three Circle model helps promote varieties of English by drawing attention to their systematicity, robustness, creativity, communicative potential and relative prestige. In this way the model has provided the impetus for processes of codification and legitimization, resulting in, for instance, the recognition of literary works and pedagogical models and materials beyond the traditional norm-providing varieties. In short, the strength and impact of the model reside in its ethos that emphasizes pluralism, linguistic diversity and inclusivity.

It has to be said, however, that Kachru (1985) himself noted that the concentric circles may be an oversimplification and that fuzzy areas exist, the difficulty with the status and placement of countries like South Africa and Jamaica within the circles being a case in point. The fact is that the categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as Kachru himself has acknowledged, and grey areas exist between the circles. Moreover, he has pointed out that languages have life cycles, particularly in multilingual communities, and the status of a language may shift overall, or even within a given locality. Bolton (2005, p.75), for instance, expresses the view that "the Kachruvian model of the three circles was never intended to be monolithic and unchanging, but was formulated in the 1980s as a potent rewrite of centrist orthodoxies of that time". There is thus an implicit acknowledgement that because the situation is dynamic, changes are only to be expected. These caveats and sentiments taken together bolster the plausibility of the construct.

However, I feel that as revolutionary and valuable as the model has been, the pace with which English has spread, the power and politics associated with it, and the sweeping consequences of globalization have made a review of the Kachruvian circles timely.

3.0 Centring of the Inner Circle
The first unfortunate product of the model is that it locates native speakers and native-speaking countries of the Inner Circle right in the privileged position at the centre. The very term 'inner circle' conjures up a host of connotations, and a quick cross-reference to the Wordnet dictionary 2.0 reveals the following descriptions: "confined to an exclusive group", "privy to inner knowledge", "inside information", "privileged information", "exclusive to a center; especially a center of influence". Undoubtedly, this representation played a part in ushering in Phillipson's (1992) influential and critical conceptualization of the unequal relations between the 'core English-speaking countries' (situated at the centre of the model) and the 'periphery-English countries' (the Outer and Expanding Circles).

Graddol (1997, p.10) points to the positioning of native-speaking countries as a drawback of the model as it seems to imply that the Inner Circle should be viewed as "the source of models of correctness, the best teachers and English-speaking goods and services consumed by those in the periphery". Modiano (1999, p.24) too criticizes Kachru's Inner Circle as presenting a Eurocentric frame, and points out that it "re-establishes the notion that the language is the property of specific groups, and that correct usage is determined by experts who speak a prestige variety". It is ironic then that the tri-circle model inadvertently reinforces the concept of the native speaker as the centre of reference, thus promoting a form of linguistic imperialism and language hegemony that Kachru was determined to avoid.

All this has contributed to other drawbacks, such as the emergence of conflicting attitudes. This may be exemplified in the bipolar views expressed among scholars about the spread of English. Some have taken a less politically-charged stance, treating the spread of English as a function of aspirations to modernity, social mobility and economic opportunities. Such views are, of course, paralleled by the emphatic calls for English language competence and increasing support for English language education in both countries of the Outer and Expanding Circles, where a very high premium is placed on the language. On the other hand, there are scholars who have vigorously criticized the relentless propagation of English and its gate-keeping roles which create and perpetuate socioeconomic factions in societies, such that competence in English becomes a crucial divider. Pennycook (2003, p. 519-521), for instance, denounces the "descriptive inadequacy" of the Three Circle model, and its "exclusionary tendency", as its principal focus appears to be on national, "codified varieties … spoken by a small elite". The paradigm as a whole is soundly criticized for its political naiveté that ultimately serves to promote global capitalism.

A second area that illustrates the adverse effects of the positioning of traditional varieties in the centre of the model is the growing ambivalence between linguistic norms and actual behaviour of users of English in both the Outer and Expanding Circles. Despite ongoing efforts to recognize the new varieties and elevate their statuses, there remains widespread perception among non-native users that Inner Circle norms are somehow superior, and their own varieties somewhat defective. Such schizophrenic attitudes are captured in a number of studies in which speakers express pride in their own accents and varieties, and yet at the same time, espouse a preference and yearning for the native-speaker accent and for traditional old variety norms (see Dalton, et al, 1997; Timmis, 2002; Jenkins, 2005). One may point out, of course, that the Circles model merely captures and describes such discordant and paradoxical views among speakers. But, equally, it may be argued that by locating speakers in specific circles, the model is divisive, creating linguistic conflict and insecurity as marginalized groups of speakers continue to wrestle with issues of legitimacy and ownership of the language.

4.0 Norms of English use
Another change that has gradually taken place involves the role of the three speech fellowships. From an initial three - norm-providing, norm-developing and norm-dependent, Kachru (1996) himself later re-conceptualized the speech fellowships, making only a dual distinction between norm-providing users which include L1 and L2 norms (e.g. USA, US, Australia and others, together with Singapore, Nigeria, India, etc.), and norm-dependent users (e.g. China, Egypt, Iran, South Korea, Taiwan, etc.). Kachru claimed that as a result of the development and establishing of local norms and models for the acquisition, teaching and creativity in Englishes, the countries of the Outer Circle may well be considered norm-providing as well. However, this modification brings about an undesirable divide between norm-providing and norm-dependent varieties and creates an us and them dichotomy, which the Kachruvian model sought to abolish in the first place. Furthermore, it reinforces the idea that the centre, in particular, provides the standards and norms of English to which others, especially Expanding Circle countries, need to conform.

While the grouping of L1 and L2 norms into one norm-providing speech fellowship draws into question the need to maintain the rigid distinction between the Inner and Outer Circles, it also moves the spotlight onto the excluded Expanding Circle. Clearly, several countries of the Expanding Circle are increasingly moving away from dependency on traditional varieties, and scholars like Seidlhofer and Jenkins (2003) have argued for the legitimization of Expanding Circle Englishes. A number of countries of the Outer and Expanding Circles have developed their own standards that not only provide norms for internal consumption, but are also 'exported' to other countries via textbooks, training programmes, ESL/EFL teachers and literatures in English. Strevens (1992, pp. 43-44) observes that "India has supplied teachers of English to China, Belgian teachers teach English in Morocco; while in the Arabian Gulf States, many teachers of English are from Pakistan …". Similarly, Honey (1989) describes India as the third biggest publisher of books in the English language and a major exporter of graduates of various disciplines, from medicine to education, to Western Europe, Africa, the Gulf States, and North America. Graddol (1997) notes that Malaysia has become a regional exporter of educational goods and services, including an early learning kit designed to help pre-school children in Thailand, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Indonesia learn English. Furthermore, in line with aspirations of becoming a regional hub of educational excellence, Malaysia and Singapore continue to attract students from all over the world desiring to gain proficiency in English and thereafter embark on courses conducted in English. Ironically, even the countries of the Inner Circle have sought to employ teachers from the other circles in schools and in universities, as attested to by the growing presence of international staff in many English departments across the world. As Braine (1999, p. xvii) observes "a fairly recent phenomenon in Western academia is the increasing presence of foreigners as teachers, researchers and scholars in almost every discipline including ELT."

Nevertheless, some may argue that no matter how we conceptualize the spread of English and its consequences, it is still founded on Inner Circle norms. This may still be true with respect to formal varieties of English, best captured in the written form, but the existence and growth of distinct yet internationally intelligible spoken varieties of English attest to the viability of alternative patterns of use in certain linguistic areas without communication being adversely affected. Although still under-researched, this would point towards a core English essential to maintaining mutual intelligibility, but one that is not necessarily and exclusively tied to Inner Circle norms. The move away from dependence on traditional Inner Circle norms will continue as English spreads and acquires more first and second language speakers from diverse countries, and as globalization paves the way for increased interactions in English between speakers of the other circles. In fact, Jenkins (2000) goes a step further, suggesting that because most interaction in English today takes place between non-native speakers, any attempt to establish new models and norms must take these speakers and their varieties of English into account.

5.0 Changing patterns of language use
Changes, both gradual and dramatic, in the use and users of English around the world call attention to what may be regarded as a critical shortcoming in the Kachruvian model: its historical and geographical bases. Not only does the Three Circle model draw heavily on colonial pasts, it is also constituted on specific geographical locations. Modiano (1999) takes exception to the fact that the model represents the spread of English as being the consequence of the historic exploits of certain groups of people, thus establishing their superiority, whilst further marginalizing the peoples of the Outer and Expanding Circles. Bruthiaux (2003, p.161) declares that Kachru's Three Circle model is severely limited because it is "a primarily nation-based model which draws on specific historical events and which correlates poorly with current sociolinguistic data". Bruthiaux's claim that the model encourages broad-brush descriptions and leads to a tendency to gloss over variations in the Expanding, Outer and Inner Circles is now examined in the discussion below.

Clearly, as Kachru himself highlighted, there is tremendous variation in proficiency levels among speakers within the Outer and Expanding Circles, ranging from little or no competency to full 'native-like' competency. Firstly, there are people in the Expanding Circle who have acquired proficiency and a range of use in English, and are more appropriately placed in one of the other circles. Graddol (1997) presents a list of nations in transition from EFL to L2 status, which includes countries as diverse as Argentina, Norway and United Arab Emirates. Additionally, there are countries in the Expanding Circle like Denmark and Germany which have been using English domestically, intensively and extensively, for quite some time. Does Germany belong to the Expanding or to the Outer Circle? Berns (1995) argues that the use of English in Germany displays qualities that make it more similar to Outer Circle countries than to those of the Expanding Circle. Although English does not have institutionalized status, it is difficult to keep Germany in the Expanding Circle given its central position within the European Union, and "the functions it [English] serves in various social, cultural, commercial and educational settings" (Berns, 1995, p.9).

By the same token, it is obvious that there are Outer Circle speakers with minimal command of the language, and who rarely use English outside the classroom. Furthermore, it is also important to consider the phenomenon of nativization of English (Kachru, 1992). While the process of nativization has enabled English to adapt to new contexts in which it was transplanted and to take on localized identities, it has also resulted in varieties distinctly different from each other and from the traditional varieties from which they were derived. While these developments have been lauded in many quarters, they have also raised serious concerns about the communicative value of these new Englishes outside their local communities. Research has uncovered the fact that there are vast segments of the population in Outer Circle countries who are familiar only with a highly localized form of English. Should a person who is fluent only in colloquial, basilectal or pidginized English count as a proficient speaker of English?

Then, of course, there are people in the Outer and Expanding Circles who may use an internationally intelligible form of English, claim English as their first or preferred language, and thus 'deserve' to be placed in the Inner Circle. In many of the countries of the Outer Circle, it is not uncommon to find English adopted as the language of the home, particularly among the professional and middle class members of society. This led Richards and Tay way back in 1981 to declare that the native speaker of English need not be identified only by virtue of his birthright, nor does he have to be from one of the traditionally native-speaking countries. Instead they redefined the native speaker of English as "one who learns English in childhood and continues to use it as his dominant language and has reached a certain level of fluency in terms of grammatical well-formedness, speech-act rules, functional elaboration and code diversity. All three conditions are important" (p. 53, italics in original). Such a characterization makes it possible for native speakers of English to be found anywhere in the world, making the demarcation between Circles less significant. As Graddoll (1997, p.11) puts it, "English is thus acquiring new first-language speakers outside the traditional 'native-speaking' countries". Crystal (2003a) calculates that there are over 329 million speakers of English as a first language, including Creole, in over 50 territories around the world, ranging from Antigua and Barbuda, to Malaysia and Singapore. All this only makes it increasingly difficult to sustain the strict geographical distinction between the circles.

Another area that is being challenged is the traditional description of Inner Circle speakers as possessing a model that is largely endonormative, displaying the norms of correctness. This depiction ignores huge dialectal variation that is evident throughout Inner Circle communities. As Bruthiaux (2003, p.162) points out, "the model reinforces the perceptions of Inner Circle varieties of English as largely monolithic and standardized because it offers no account of dialectal variation within each of the varieties that it lists". In Inner Circle Britain, for instance, Trudgill (1999) records that only about 9 -12 percent of the population speak Standard English, and even then with some form of regional accent, whilst Crystal (2003b) notes that Received Pronunciation (RP) in its pure form is spoken by less than 3 percent of the British population. Today, it is not uncommon to hear anecdotes of English-speaking visitors to the UK baffled and bewildered by the near incomprehensible speech of many of its speakers, thought to be paragons of correct English.

Furthermore, the countries in the Inner Circle are not spared from changes in the use and users of English, due to increasing diversity primarily as a result of immigration. Referring to countries of the Inner Circle, McArthur (2001, p. 8) points out that in the past they were presented as if they were language monoliths. The reality is quite different: "in such territories, one can find intricate language mosaics, including hybridization, as for example in the US, New Zealand, South Africa, and Wales, and in such 'world cities' as London, New York, Sydney and Montreal". According to the US Census Bureau, the percentage of foreign-born people in the United States doubled between 1970 and 1995 from 4.8 percent to 8.7 percent, and the 2000 Census indicates that more than 17% of US residents speak a language other than English at home (Source: US English Foundation). Yano (2000, p. 122) quotes a newspaper report indicating that the number of non-native English speakers in the US will soon exceed that of native speakers in certain areas like California, Hawaii and Texas. The prevalence of speakers not typically considered native speakers in the Inner Circle countries is further attested to in the problems faced by researchers on the International Corpus of English (ICE) project who had to grapple with the issue of defining who should count as a native speaker, and thus be allowed to contribute towards the corpus. Working in New Zealand, Holmes (1996, p. 164) asks, "At what point does an immigrant become a New Zealander?" The researchers in New Zealand, for instance, finally decided that New Zealanders who had spent extensive periods of time overseas were ineligible, as were people who had lived in New Zealand only after the age of ten. This dilemma and the resulting criteria only underscore the difficulty of claiming that Inner Circle countries represent native speakers of English. Similar changes on demographics are occurring elsewhere as well, prompting Yano (2000, p. 122) to declare that "such internationalization of community components in Britain, the US, and other countries in the inner circle may make it necessary to redefine what the inner circle is".

6.0 The rise of EIL
Another contentious issue that should be taken into consideration is the fact that the speakers of the Inner Circle for whom English is the first or dominant language may not always be the models of correctness when it comes to English as an international language (EIL). Informal varieties of the Inner Circle rarely perform well on the global stage, and, moreover, Modiano (1999, p. 24) points to the fact that many speakers of regional varieties in the US and UK are not intelligible to other speakers of English. Burgess (2004) writing in the Guardian says, "I've observed Australian kids in Japan having huge problems communicating in English because they have no notion of how much their own speech works only in an Australian context". Similarly, global fans of the English Premier League are often subjected to doses of unintelligible dialectal speech from some British footballers, whilst ironically, some of their European and African counterparts in the EPL come across as speaking very clear, highly comprehensible English. I shall return to the notion of EIL again, but for now, the point is that it is difficult to justify the central position occupied by speakers of the Inner Circle whilst many proficient speakers of the language are strictly assigned to function outside this privileged circle.

7.0 Alternative approaches
What then is an alternative model that better reflects present day sociolinguistic realities? Rampton (1990) moots the idea of replacing the concept of nativeness with one of competence, and argues for the notion of expert speaker to be used, rather than native speaker to denote accomplished users of the language. This, I would concur, is probably the best way forward. Thinking along similar lines, Modiano (1999) proposes a centripetal circles model in which the inner circle is not formed by native speakers of English, but by excellent communicators of English as an International Language (EIL). Modiano (1999, p. 25) excludes from the inner circle native speakers of English who have "excessive regional accents and dialects" and who are incapable of switching to EIL when the context demands it, as he feels that they are not efficient communicators in an international context. He places such native speakers of regional dialects into the second circle, alongside non-native speakers who speak internationally incomprehensible indigenized varieties, and speakers of Creole, whose language is not intelligible to speakers of EIL. The third circle then comprises those who are not yet proficient in any variety of English, be it a native variety, a regional variety or an indigenized one. While, Modiano's proposal is not without its weaknesses (the discussion of which is outside the scope of this paper, but see English Today, 58), his model gets rid of the notion of native speakers being in a privileged group and responsible for defining the language; instead the responsibility is shared. A similar principle is used by Melchers and Shaw (2003). Using speakers' scope of proficiency as a criterion, they distinguish four levels: those who are internationally effective, nationally effective, locally proficient and ineffective. In this way, categories defined in terms of nativeness, history and geography are discarded in favour of individual competence.

At this juncture, it is perhaps prudent to confess that I have used the term international English or EIL as if it were an unambiguous and unproblematic concept. In reality, it is still a subject of some controversy and despite a steadily growing number of advocates, the notion remains rather nebulous. For starters, English as an international language (EIL) has been variously defined, and it is often used interchangeably with English as a lingua franca (ELF), English as a global language, and English as a world language, and Burt (2005) points out that it is often unclear exactly which groups of speakers are included and which excluded in these terms. In particular, ELF has been the focus of considerable research, and appears to be associated especially with non-native speakers' use of the language for international communication (Seidlhofer, 2004; Llurda, 2004). Yet another thorny issue is the temptation to continue to use L1 norms to describe and regulate EIL. As Phan Le Ha (2005, p. 33) notes, current practices suggest that "the centre Englishes and their related pedagogies are generally used as international standards, while other Englishes are for local uses only". Other scholars, too, have opposed this stance, and have argued for a relinquishing of native-speaker competence as the yardstick, and for EIL to develop without reference to Inner Circle Englishes (Brutt-Griffler, 1998; Seidlhofer, 2001). A third area of contention is the nature of EIL. With preliminary findings characterizing it in terms of a simplified lexicon and grammatical structure (Seidlhofer, 2001), concerns have been raised about neglecting linguistic competence in attempts to promote EIL. Nunn (2005, p. 63) provocatively asks if "there is a danger of "international" becoming a byword for reduced linguistic competence". On a more critical note, Hadley (2004) argues that by not emphasizing linguistic competence, learners of EIL are "returned to a system of dependence and conformity… creating the need for experts to come in to assist in the process of clear communication" (p. 47).

It is not the intention of this paper to resolve these burning issues. Allow me, however, to reiterate my working conceptualization of the term EIL. I use this term broadly to refer to English used across national boundaries, and as such it may be used by both native and non-native speakers. Furthermore, EIL is not equivalent to Inner Circle varieties, and so native speakers cannot assume the role of custodians of it. In fact, as Widdowson (1998, p. 399) argues, EIL must be allowed to develop without reference to any of the circles: "notions of the Inner and Outer Circles are irrelevant". There is no role for or allegiance to the specific varieties of English used within regions in any of the circles. I also concur with Widdowson's (1998, pp. 399-400) argument that English "cannot be national and international at the same time", for Englishes adapted to "local communal requirements are not qualified as a global means of communication". This is exactly the point, and it paves the way for bidialectalism, an idea also promoted by Crystal (2003b, p.185) who describes the practice of switching between an informal variety, spoken at home or in the local community, and another dialect used in situations removed from the familiar. The former may be "full of casual pronunciation, colloquial grammar, and local turns of phrase" and the latter "full of careful pronunciation, conventional grammar and standard vocabulary", signalling the development of World Standard Spoken English. This view of bidialectalism accommodates the idea of speakers actively using a regional sub-variety that provides access to a local community and another sub-variety which provides access to the world community, and it can be applied to all speakers of English, regardless of the circle with which they are associated.

Briefly then, a more sociolinguistically-sound perspective to variation in varieties of English needs to preserve a division between learners who have not acquired competence in English and proficient users of the language, be they monolinguals or bilinguals. The language of the former may be characterized by inaccuracies and learner errors, whilst that of the latter is best described as a stable regional form wielded by proficient speakers. A second fundamental dichotomy is that of intranational and international ways of speaking. As a reflection of intranational and international imperatives, to be communicatively competent in today's increasingly borderless world, a speaker must be able to switch, when necessary, from a private voice to a public voice (Kramsch, 1999), and thus embrace both "local appropriation" and "global appropriacy" (Alptekin, 2002, p. 63). I would suggest that such accomplished users of the language may be monolingual or bilingual, and that terms like 'multicompetent language user' (Cook, 1999) and 'successful user of English' (Prodromou, 2003), which were hitherto restricted to L2 or non-native speakers, may be reconstituted to aptly describe these speakers.

Such a conceptualization would give rise to a different Three Circle model. While acknowledging the fuzzy distinctions between circles, in principle, the inner circle could comprise all users who are proficient in English and able to instinctively code-switch between international and national or regional varieties to communicate in the most appropriate way. The case has already been made earlier that this need for proficiency in EIL and for skills in code switching concerns equally both native and non-native speakers, thereby establishing a democratic basis for language development and reinforcing the notion that English belongs to all its users. The second circle could consist of speakers who are proficient only in regional varieties, i.e. native and non-native speakers with restricted intranational proficiency, while the outer circle could be made up of learners of the language. This reconfigured three-circle model also allows for those who have mastered EIL to move into the inner circle, and so the first circle expands. However, in preserving the outer circle for speakers who are content with competence of a restricted or regional kind, and have no need for communication on a more global scale, it creates space for localized identities. In that sense, the model is able to accommodate notions of social mobility, economic ambition and individual identity, and so presents a view that is more in keeping with a democratic ideology of linguistic diversity.

I grant there is some oversimplification here and the proposed model probably raises more questions than it answers. For example, what characterizes the proficient speaker of English, or what level of proficiency should one have to qualify as a competent user of English? Is it possible to lack linguistic competence, and yet be an internationally successful user of English, drawing perhaps on intercultural competence? Can linguistic competence actually impede international communication on occasion? The questions and complexities derive partly because, as Nunn (2005, p. 66) suggests, "EIL competence cannot be reduced to a single, limited, monolingual or mono-cultural concept. It is composed of a set of interlocking and interdependent competences that sometimes compensate for each other, sometimes counteract each other and sometimes reinforce each other". Clearly, there are no easy answers, but the fact that communicative competence in EIL has yet to be unambiguously defined should not warrant a dogged insistence on norms being exclusively and often unreasonably linked to monoglot native-speaker competence and thereby to matters of residence, inheritance or affiliation. Instead, it is hoped that the issues raised in this paper will contribute to the debate and spur further investigations on the question of competence and norms with respect to EIL.

8.0 Pedagogical considerations
The arguments and tentative model presented in this paper offer several pedagogical points for reflection. First, it would mean that there is little need to continually look to certain countries that play host to the traditional native speaker for standards, reference points and approval. Instead, the focus shifts to the proficient speaker, and clearly, expert users of English may be found anywhere in the world. It potentially allows for a Malaysian and an Australian, for example, to be placed on equal footing, and encourages the dismantling of paradigms and hierarchies built on superiority, imperialism, exclusivity and bias. It also helps draw attention to the fact that the competent non-native speaker is in many ways the more appropriate role model for most learners of English.

Second, the proposed model acknowledges the impact of globalization, the reality of the interdependent world and seeks to respond to the growth of EIL by privileging internationally articulate, intelligible English. It also recognizes and even celebrates the fact that this variety of English will necessarily be characterized by diversity and vibrancy. This in turn should act to promote less judgemental attitudes towards emerging World English varieties, as classrooms seek to raise awareness of language attitudes and cross-cultural communication, and students learn to adjust their expectations to accommodate to diversity and different interlocutors. Such a stand would have important implications for the development of the curriculum, instructional materials and classroom practice. To illustrate, McKay (2003, p. 19) points out that "the de-linking of English from the culture of Inner Circle countries also suggests that teaching methodology has to proceed in a manner that respects the local culture of learning". Although it must be admitted that the whole area of EIL is still in its infancy, progress has been noted (Jenkins, 2000; McKay, 2002) and should inspire further research.

Third, the model recognizes the fact that English is increasingly used as a global language, even while it is rooted in local contexts. Therein lies the challenge: English serves both global and local communicative needs, a fact that led Pakir (1999) to refer to it as the "glocal" language. Rajadurai (2004) for instance, analyses this dual role of English in her description of the different faces of English in Malaysia. It may be likened to the two faces of the Roman god, Janus, facing in opposite directions. When engaging in global interaction, English points us outwards as a language of wider communication, but when used within the community, it points us inwards into our very being, our sense of individual and social identity. These two faces of English establish a tension that learners and users must come to terms with. As for educators, they must grapple with the uses of English for global communication, without losing sight of how it is embedded in local contexts.

9.0 Conclusion
I would like to conclude by first acknowledging the invaluable contribution Kachru's Concentric Circle model has made to our appreciation of the spread and development of English worldwide. However, the thrust of this paper has been to critically re-examine the fundamental features of the model in the light of current sociolinguistic realities, and here it is found to be wanting. Moreover, by being grounded in historical and geographical factors, it tends to reproduce, perhaps unwittingly, some of the unequal relationships it purports to critique. Instead, it is proposed that a model of variation in English be founded on the concept of proficiency and communicative competence of individual users; after all, it is not countries but people who speak languages. It prioritizes competence as a critical criterion, recognizes the growth of EIL as a consequence of globalization, and acknowledges the 'glocal' nature of the language. It is hoped that the issues raised in this paper will challenge current thinking and pedagogical practices, and provide an impetus for continuing research.

References
Alptekin, C. (2002). Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT. ELT Journal, 56(1), 57-64.

Berns, M. (1995). English in the European Union. English Today, 11(3), 3-11

Bolton, K. (2005). Symposium on World Englishes today (part II). Where WE stands: Approaches, issues, and debate in World Englishes. World Englishes, 24(1), 69- 83.

Braine, G., (Ed.). (1999). Non-native educators in English language teaching. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bruthiaux, P. (2003). Squaring the circles: Issues in modelling English worldwide. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 159-178.

Brutt-Griffler, J. (1998). Conceptual questions in English as a world language: Taking up an issue. World Englishes, 17(3), 381-392.

Burgess, R. (2004, April 15). Australia must attune to Asia's voice. Manchester Guardian Weekly: Learning English, p.17.

Burt, C. (2005). What is International English? Teachers College, Columbia University, Working papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics, 5(1). Retrieved July 20, 2005 from www.tc.columbia.edu/academic/tesol/Webjournal/pdf/Burt.pdf.

Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 185-210.

Crystal, D. (2003a). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language (2nd ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crystal, D. (2003b). English as a global language (2nd ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dalton-Puffer, C., Kaltonboeck, G. and Smit, U. (1997). Learner attitudes and L2 pronunciation in Austria. World Englishes, 16(1), 115-128.

Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English. The British Council.

Hadley, G. (2004). International English and the Anglo-American hegemony: Quandary in the Asian Pacific region. Explorations in Teacher Education, 12(2), 44-50.
Retrieved on July 25, 2005 from
http://www.nuis.ac.jp/~hadley/publication/ete/ete-hadley.htm

Holmes , J. (1996). New Zealand spoken corpus of ICE. In S. Greenbaum, (Ed.) Comparing English worldwide: The international corpus of English (pp. 163-181). Clarendon: Oxford University Press.

Honey, J. (1989). Does accent matter? London: Faber and Faber.

Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jenkins, J. (2005). English as a lingua franca: Past empirical, present controversial, future uncertain. Paper presented at RELC International Seminar, Singapore.

Kachru, B.B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk and H. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11-36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kachru, B.B. (1992). World Englishes: Approaches, issues and resources. Language Teaching, 25, 1-14.

Kachru, B.B. (1996). Norms, models and identities. The Language Teacher Online, 20(10). Retrieved 25 October, 2001 from http://langue.hyper.chubu.ac.jp/jalt/pub/tlt/96/oct/englishes.html

Kachru, B.B. and Nelson, C. (1996). World Englishes. In S. McKay and N. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 71-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kramsch, C. (1999). Global and local identities in the contact zone. In C. Gnutzmann (Ed.), Teaching and learning English as a global language: Native and non-native perspectives (pp. 131-143). Tubingen: Stauffenburg-Verl.

Llurda, E. (2004). Non-native-speaker teachers and English as an International Language. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(3), 314-323.

McArthur, T. (2001). World English and World Englishes: Trends, tensions, varieties, and standards. Language Teaching, 34, 1-20.

McKay, S.L. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals and approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McKay, S.L. (2003). Toward an appropriate EIL pedagogy: Re-examining common ELT assumptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 1-22.

Melchers, G. and Shaw, P. (2003). World Englishes. London: Arnold.

Modiano, M. (1999). International English in the global village. English Today, 15(2), 22-27.

Nunn, R. (2005). Competence and teaching English as an international language. Asian EFL Journal, 7(3), 62-76.

Pakir, A. (1999). Connecting with English in the context of internationalisation. TESOL Quarterly, 33(1), 103-113.

Pennycook, A. (2003). Global Englishes, Rip Slyme, and performativity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 513-533.

Phan Le Ha (2005). Toward a critical notion of appropriation of English as an international language. Asian EFL Journal, 7(3), 30-42.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Prodromou, L. (2003). In search of SUE: The successful user of English. Modern English Teacher, 12(2), 5-14.

Rajadurai, J. (2004). The faces and facets of English in Malaysia. English Today, 20(4), 54-58.

Rampton, M.B.H. (1990). Displacing the 'native speaker': Expertise, affiliation, and inheritance. ELT Journal, 44(2), 97-101.

Richards, J.C. and Tay, M.W.J. (1981). Norm and variability in language use and language learning. In Smith, L.E. (Ed.), English for cross-cultural communication (pp. 40-56). The Center for Cultural and Technical Interchange Between East and West: The Macmillan Press.

Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 133-158.

Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209-239.

Seidlhofer, B. and Jenkins, J. (2003). English as a lingua franca and the politics of property. In C. Mair (Ed.) The politics of English as a world language. Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi

Strevens, P. (1992). English as an international language: directions in the 1990s. In B. B. Kachru, (Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures (2nd ed.). (pp.7-47). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Timmis, I. (2002). Native-speaker norms and international English: A classroom view. ELT Journal, 56(3), 240-249.

Trudgill, P. (1999). Standard English: What it isn't. In T. Bex. and R. J. Watts (Eds.), Standard English: The widening debate.(pp. 117-128). London: Routledge.

US English Foundation (2005). Available at http://www.us-english.org/foundation/ research/amimmigr

Widdowson, H.G. (1998). EIL: Squaring the circles. A reply. World Englishes, 17(3), 397-401.

WordNet 2.0 (2003). Princeton University. Available at http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inner

Yano, Y. (2000). World Englishes in 2000 and beyond. World Englishes, 20(2), 119-131.