Sociolinguistic Perspectives on the Implications of the Homogenization of the Circles of World Englishes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The marginalization of English second (L2) and foreign language (EFL) users in the academic and practical pursuit of English language teaching (ELT) has fueled the hegemonic power of the inner circle of world Englishes (CWE). Because of the inequality among the circles of world Englishes, this paper pursues a dual purpose: firstly, it sets out to determine the sociolinguistic effects of globalization on the CWE; and secondly, it establishes how these sociolinguistic effects contribute to the homogenization of the circles and a seemingly more equitable notion of (world) English(es). Drawing on available qualitative descriptions and empirical data, three practical contexts of sociolinguistics were identified (viz. demographic shifts, economic motivations, and language education policy) to realize the dual research purpose. Based on a qualitative instrumental case study of a purposive sample of one country from each CWE, the study assesses the possibility to justify the proposition that the functions of English across the circles are becoming more similar as globalization homogenizes the global English sociolinguistic ecology. The findings support claims of major evolutionary processes that entail significant implications for the ELT community across the CWE.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".