Of New Englishes and and New Literacies

2.1 Frameworks, Paradigms and Models of New Englishes
The variability of language and the fact that language is dynamic and changes continuously lie at the heart of the emergence of new Englishes. Any discussion of new Englishes has to take into account, the historical, economic, political and linguistic impulses which define the plurality of English languages in the world. The ‘new’ in ‘New Englishes’ simply states the obvious which is that newer and newer versions and varieties will emerge and keep emerging developing even in the future so long as English remains a living language in the world. It also means there are ‘old Englishes’ or ‘older Englishes’ with a small ‘o’. This perhaps explains why Gupta (1997) identifies five different patterns to account for English-speaking countries in the world as follows:

1. 
   Monolingual Ancestral English which include countries like Britain, USA, Australia, New Zealand (older, old or ‘original’ English)
   
2. 
   Monolingual Contact Variety which include countries like Jamaica (New English)
   
3. 
   Monolingual Scholastic English as found in a country like India (New English)
   
4. 
   Multilingual Contact Variety as found in countries like Nigeria and Singapore (New English)
   
5. 
   Multilingual Ancestral English as found in a country like South Africa (old/new English)
   

Gupta’s classification considers the patterns and types of the transmission of English through settler migration, informal acquisition, and formal teaching.
In spite of many frameworks canvassed to account for ‘New Englishes’, the seminal work of Scheider (2003) which used the Identity, Contact, and Accommodation theories appears the most illuminating.

2.1.1 Identity Theory
Identity identifies who one is whether as an individual or as a community, whether that identity is marked by a sign or symbol. As Jenkins (1996) reasons, identity is “…the systematic establishment and signification between individuals, between collectives, and between individuals and collectives’ (p.4). Put differently, identity means “one’s ‘meaning in the world’” (Eckert, 2000, p.41). In other words, defining one’s identity means deciding who one is and who one wishes to be. Through our identities, we create polarities such as the perception of ‘Usness’ (those who share our essential oneness whether in history and culture and so will wish to socialize and be identified with) and the ‘Otherness’ (those who do not share in our common orientations or qualities). The attitude of ‘Usness’ and ‘Otherness’, finds ‘symbolic expression…by means of linguistic variability’ (Scheider, 2003, p.239). In fact, in the summation of Wolfram and Schilling-Estes (1996), Eckert (2000), Schneider (2000b) and Hazen (2002), identity is a major factor in the choice of linguistic varieties. It is important, as we noted earlier in language and humanity, to bear in mind that these identities are not stable because human attitudes and bahaviour are relatively unpredictable and therefore constantly changing. Thus, the process of identity construction is dynamic and it requires continuous rethinking and repositioning in the light of changing parameters in one’s environment. Since individuals are members of different social groups, they “assume different social roles and thus overlapping, hybrid, and at times even conflicting identities” (Schneider, 2003, p.240). The point therefore is that within the linguistic ecology which we find New Englishes, hybridity and the variability of identity construction are given variables propelling linguistic evolution necessitated by shared colonial experiences and social contexts. Herein lies the historical, economic and political undertones of New Englishes. Indeed, as Hoving (2001) will admit though painfully, “I discern in this endeavour the painful acceptance of hybridity, a hybridity that can become the signifier of identity only if it passes through the structures of desire…” (p.283).