Abstract

In English language education, the choice of an appropriate English language variety to be used in the classroom for second language learners becomes a controversial issue due to the global spread of the English language. This study aims to solve this puzzle of selecting which English language variety be used in universities of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Most of the work focuses on learners and teachers’ attitudes towards varieties of the English language. The proposed study uses a mixed-method research design to obtain data. A structured questionnaire and a semi-structured interview have been selected for 78 lecturers. 46 EL instructors from KUST and 32 EL teachers from KKKUK completed the questionnaire. The study identify that English language teachers  belief in  British and Pakistani English's as the best varieties, while they have some positive attitude towards American English variety. The study finds out the clear differences among teachers attitude between two different groups.

Key Words

Kachru Model, Teachers Attitude, Varieties of English Language, World Englishes

Introduction

The gap between English speakers who interact in it as a second language and those who converse in it as a foreign language has risen as a result of globalisation, highlighting the differences in how English functions. Because English is the dominant language in the world, two distinct and challenging identities arise within the fraternity of English language teachers. Either the teachers who speak English as a second language (NESTs) or non-native English speakers (NNESTs) (Elyas & Alghofaili, 2019); (Prabjandee, 2020). 

What kind of English should be used as a model, whose culture should be taught, and how to operationalize and apply English as an international language (EIL) are all questions that English language instructors have (Sharifian, 2014). In Pakistan, where 94 million people know English, it is widely utilised in daily life, the legal system, the military, and regional and municipal governmental organisations (Lyons, 2018). The English language is the most used language, with official or nonofficial status in more than 42 countries. Besides this, it is spoken in societies where it does not have any official status (Graddol, 1997). Kachru in 1992 classifies the English language into varieties, which shows that there are three circles among three classes. According to Kachru's (1992) classification, English is taught as a foreign language (EFL), English as a second language (ESL) and English as a native language (ENL). There are three groups of English speakers: the inner circle which include the United Kingdom, United States, and out circle that include India, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan, etc. The third one is the expanding circle which includes countries like China, Indonesia, Japan, and Bhutan, etc. These are the three-circle of English users, in which Pakistani English users fall into the second or outer circle, and the innermost group referring to the ‘traditional cultural-linguistic bases of English,' such as nativism.

Similar to the Kachru model, Graddol (1997) divided English speakers into three groups. People who speak English as their first language are called first language speakers (L1) and often use only this one language; L1 speakers usually belong to dominant English cultures like the USA and Australia. The second group is the L2 speakers who speak English as their second language. The group of people uses their local varieties of English language which represents local cultures. The third group of people consists of people that study as EFL.




The Attitude of English Language Teachers

In educational settings, a teacher's attitude greatly influences whether or not students are motivated (Abrar, Mukminin, Habibi, Asyrafi, & Marzulina, 2018). The teaching of English language and the educational process are impacted by English's status as an international language.As (McKay 2002:1) reports, “teaching and learning of an international language's must be based on, a very different set of assumptions than any other second or foreign language's teaching and learning.”. In a situation like this teacher faces many challenging questions. Such as;

? In what way English should be taught according to their status?

? Which specific variety of English should we teach in classrooms?

? Who are the best English teachers i.e. native or nonnative English speakers? 

Language proficiency is significantly impacted by attitude, which is a crucial aspect (Ganschow et al., 1994; Visser, 2008). Ryan, Giles, and Sebastian (1982) describe language attitudes as "any affective, cognitive, or behavioural index of evaluative reactions toward different language varieties or their speakers" (p.7). The definition of attitude given by Baker (1992) says that it a notion employed to explain the way of human action. Gardner (2000) claims that attitude refers to how students feel about specific aspects of the environment, including the teachers or the subject matter. According to Friedrich (2000), instructors and educators must be mindful of their students' linguistic attitudes toward diverse forms of English in order to properly fulfil their goals and handle the conflicting emotions connected to the English language as an international language.

Research on attitudes toward languages is a relatively recent topic of study. The first study on language attitudes was Gardner and Lambert's (1972) investigation of adult and child attitudes toward English and French in Canadian bilinguals. They created a paradigm for measuring attitudes that is still employed in research today.Gardner asserts that attitude has, “Cognitive, affective and cognitive components and consists, in broad terms, of an underlying psychological predisposition to act or to influence behavior in a certain way. Attitude is thus linked to a person’s values and beliefs and promotes or discourages the choices made in all realms of activity, whether academic or informal.”Baker's 1992 work on language attitudes is the most comprehensive. Baker discusses attitude theory, research practice, and models for language assessment, as well as the relevance and the significance of attitude research in language policy and language  prepping “In the life of a language, attitudes to that language appear to be important in language restoration, preservation, decay or death. If a community is grossly unfavorable to bilingual education or the imposition of a ‘common’ national language is attempted, language policy implementation is likely to be unsuccessful.” (Baker, 1992, 9)Language attitudes were never measured against more than one variable, such as age, as in Baker's earlier studies. He argues that a variety of factors, such as gender, age, and language history, combine to form attitudes about language (Baker, 1992). The Likert scale is used in Baker's study to gauge attitudes. This attitude scale, created in 1932 and still in use today, assesses agreement with several statements using a predetermined scale of levels (Payne, 2004). 17 Bilingual speakers' attitudes toward various languages have been examined by the majority of scholars in the topic of attitudes and language. But as Thomas (2004) points out, opinions on language and language use can also be narrowed down to certain dialects of a single language. She places a focus on negative responses to the use of non-standard English in the United Kingdom or African American vernacular in the United States (Thomas, 2004). It frequently happens between speakers of standard languages and speakers of non-standard languages, and there are many examples where one variation is labeled and considered inferior to another.




Research Questions

1. How do university English teachers feel about different English dialects?

2. Are there any differences in the perspectives on English language variants between two distinct university teachers?

Literature Review

Many English lecturers around the world are non-native English speakers. Despite this, no investigation has been done on these lecturers to date. When Henry Martyn, Robert Phillipson, and Peter Medgyes published their groundbreaking work in 1992 and 1994, it opened the door for new researchers to conduct extensive research into the issues confronting English teachers who are non-native. Numerous students and researchers were motivated to study and explore this topic after St. George Braine's book Nonnative Educators in English Teaching was published in 1999. Topics discussed included trainers' personal observations, student opinions about their identity, and aspects of teacher education. Medgyes published a significant article in 1992 in which he investigated native and nonnative English speaking instructors and clearly stated:

? “The perfect native speaker teachers are the ones who have attained a very high degree of proficiency within the learners’ mother tongue”;

? The perfect nonnative speaker educators are the ones who ‘have achieved near-native proficiency in the English language’ (Medgyes, 1992: 348f.)

According to Alptekin and his colleague, teachers who have favourable opinions regarding a language, its speakers, and their culture are more successful in their instruction than those who have negative sentiments (1984). Canagarajah (1999) argues that native speakers will be superior instructors in EFL settings owing to their unique cultural knowledge, but nonnative speakers will be superior instructors in ESL settings due to their experiences with a variety of cultures.

Kamhi-Stein, Aagard, Ching, Paik, and Sasser (2004) conducted interviews with fifty-five primary and secondary school teachers who were native English speakers and thirty-two nonnative English speakers to determine how confident they felt speaking and teaching in English. Although nonnative speakers' responses were slightly less enthusiastic than those of native speakers, both native and nonnative speakers appeared to be confident in their linguistic abilities. According to the report's findings, non-native speakers did not assess their phonetics and communication skills as poorly as they might have. They also did not regard grammar as their strongest talent. Jenkins (2007) found that although second language English teachers in many states reported a want and need for their own native identities to project their English verity, they also expressed a desire and need to acquire like-native speaker accents due to their popularity and high value.

Investigations conducted in the past by other nations have produced diverse results. Jenkins (2007) claims that L2 English instructors from many different nations sought to develop a near-NS accent since it is regarded as a sign of good English speaking and has a high value, but they also voiced their desire and need for their own native identity to project their English variation as well. Jenkins' study used a questionnaire survey with a sample size of 326 participants and interviews with 17 participants to examine the attitudes and identities of English teachers. Li in 2009 reported that the majority of Hong Kong university personnel, students, and lecturers desired to "sound like native English speakers," but they were worried about the "potential understandability issues" brought on by L2 English accents. (p.99)

American and British English are the variations of the language that are most generally accepted and regarded as "legitimate" around the world for educational purposes. There are still problems with acceptance of English in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand (Bell and Kuiper, 1999; Collins and Blair, 1989; Turner, 1997; Hundt, 1998). There are consequently a number of commonly used dialects of English.

Widely used postcolonial World English is called Pakistani English (PE). An English dialect that has its roots in the UK is Pakistani English. American English, which has been spread through the media, as well as Pakistani languages and indigenous cultures have a significant influence on this English. It now distinguishes itself from Standard British and American English in terms of grammatical and lexical features. Pakistani English, which is distinct from English spoken elsewhere in the globe, is used in Pakistan (PE). Rehman (1990) identified four sub-variations of Pakistani English: varieties A (Anglicized English), B (Acrolect), C (Mesolect), and D (Basilect).

It is crucial that English is taught and learned at Pakistani academic institutions. Jabeen et al (2011). According to the poll, the majority (69%) of participants in Pakistan preferred to speak English. Additionally, the study found that 24% of respondents favoured a British accent, while 20% preferred an American accent. However, 56% of respondents said the Pakistani accent was very positive. One hundred kids from a town in Pakistan's central Punjab were a part of the questionnaire-based study. The survey gives little information regarding the social backgrounds of the individuals, which is important because socio demographic factors may influence attitudes and preferences for different English accents. The Standard British English accent was chosen by Pakistani English learners, according to Parveen and Mehmood (2013). 25 males and females completed a questionnaire to get information about their attitudes. The study says nothing about the social backgrounds of the subjects. The results showed that 80% of people loved speaking English. Additionally, 76% of participants wished to sound like native English speakers, and 60% of participants believed that the British accent is respectable. The results also showed that most participants thought Pakistani English was a unique dialect of English. American English is not included in this study's focus, which is only on British and Pakistani English standards.

Another survey on students' attitudes on learning English as a second language revealed that students had favourable opinions of the subject because it gave them access to international marketplaces (Khalid, 2016). The survey also discovered that because Urdu represents national integration, students appreciate Urdu as a national language. Interviews and questionnaires were administered to the 16-year-old high school participants in this study.

Ali, M. (2016) identify various teacher-related factors that demonstrate how teachers' attitudes influence English learners, such as teachers' behaviour and teaching method, as well as teachers' attitudes toward native and non-native speakers. 

A very recent study by Ali at al (2020) reveals that Pakistani English language learners do in fact respond to British and American English somewhat differently. The attitudes they express toward the two Standard Varieties of English are greatly influenced by their experiences with each of them, whether those experiences were good or bad, as is the case with most of their comments. Learners can develop more or less favourable attitudes toward a variety of language depending on how much they know about it or have experience with it. This illustrates how learners get more interested in a variety as they become more accustomed to it or mindful of it. The data collection involved 66 participants from two Pakistani universities: National University of Modern Languages (NUML) Islamabad, located in the Federal Capital of Islamabad, and Kohat University of Science and Technology (KUST), located in the provincial city of Kohat in the KP Province. The participants' methods, attitudes, and feelings toward the form of English they preferred were elicited through a questionnaire containing seven closed-ended questions and three open-ended questions. Participants were then asked to explain why they chose one or both of the two varieties of English.

Methodology

In this study, both qualitative and quantitative methods are used. The study uses Kachru, three concentric modals of English language varieties. The conducted study examined the teachers’ attitudes towards varieties of the English language.




Context of the Present Research 

The proposed study uses a mixed-method research design to obtain data (i.e., questionnaires and interviews). The Mix method is described as "a third methodological movement" having both qualitative and quantitative methods (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009, p. 5)

The current study was conducted at the public universities of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Khushal Khan Khattak University (KKKU) in Karak and Kohat University of Science and Technology (KUST) in Kohat.

For the quantitative approach, a closed-ended survey and a semi-structured interview were utilised. English language instructors from Kohat University of Science and Technology and Khushal Khan Khattak University performed a semi-structured interview. Only English department instructors from both universities who had taken Sociolinguistics and Phonology modules were chosen for the study. 78 respondents from each university were used in the current study. All of the lecturers that took part in this study for the purpose of gathering data did so voluntarily.







Participant

For 78 teachers, 32 from Khushal Khan Khattak University Karak's English department and 46 from Kohat University of Science and Technology, a structured questionnaire and a semi-structured interview were chosen. The title of the study, along with its goals and objectives, were written there. Before collecting data from respondents, the researcher acquired their agreement and told them of the research's aims and objectives. Following respondents' signatures on the consent form, quantitative data was collected from them. The same procedures were used for semi-structured interviews. Participants were made aware that participation was completely voluntary and that the demographic data they provided would remain confidential.




Data Collection

This study uses a 5 Likert scale for the questionnaire, ranging from "Strongly Agree", to "Strongly Disagree", having random sampling, to get very random and spontaneous data. For a semi-structured interview, convenience sampling is to be used. The collected data from the questionnaire would be examined descriptively and the conducted interviews for the proposed study would be analyzed properly through thematic analysis because the data collected in this study is large and complex, which may only be possible to properly be analyzed through this method.

The 78-person sample size for this study was collected quantitatively using a closed-ended questionnaire. Because the data for analysis must be accurate and have a logical link, the questionnaire's goal is to gather the data in an ordered and regular manner. Respondents fill out a questionnaire with 25 items to express their opinions. The questions covered a wide range of subjects to determine the possible influences on instructors' attitudes about the many kinds of English, including British, American, Pakistani, Indian, and Chinese.

A convenience sampling approach was used to select ten individuals from the overall sample size of 78. For the purpose of gathering qualitative data, a semi-structured interview was undertaken. The actual text of the participants was recorded in the data analysis portion, along with the data's three phases of themes, categories, and codes.

The data material was observed in two segments. In the same way, descriptive statistics and data normality was performed in the first phase. All measurements were calculated, and the mean, median, mode, and number of items in each scale were determined using descriptive statistics as well as Cronbach's alphas to assess the internal consistency of the scales. Similarly, at the universities and colleges level, an "independent sample t-test" was used to assess the differences between academic institutions and attitudes toward varieties of English Language variables. Furthermore, qualitative data analysis was used to determine the in-depth perspective of English language varieties among university teachers.

Data Analysis and Results

Table 1

Gender	“f”	%
Male	51	65.4
Female	27	34.6
Total	78	100.0
Institute	“f”	%
KUST	46	59.0
KKKUK	32	41.0
Total	78	100.0
Respondents Age	“f”	%
26-35 Age	14	17.9
36-45 Age	16	20.5
46-55 Age	23	29.5
56-65 Age	22	28.2
Above-66	3	3.8
Total	78	100.0

 

Measuring Gender, Age and Higher Education Institutes

Note: f= Frequency, % = Percent

Graph 1



Graph 2



Graph 3



The study results revealed that the male percentage was higher than the female teachers, and they were using different English language varieties speaking in the higher education institutions.  Similarly, age was one of the significant demographic variables in which 46-55 age categories have more percentage of English language varieties (29%).




 

Table 2. American English Variety

Q1	“f”	%
Strongly Disagree	10	12.8
Disagree	12	15.4
Neutral	24	30.8
Agree	21	26.9
Strongly Agree	11	14.1
Total	78	100.0
Q2	“f”	%
Strongly Disagree	8	10.3
Disagree	11	14.1
Neutral	14	17.9
Agree	31	39.7
Strongly Agree	14	17.9
Total	78	100.0
Q3	“f”	%
Strongly Disagree	6	7.7
Disagree	25	32.1
Neutral	17	21.8
Agree	27	34.6
Strongly Agree	3	3.8
Total	78	100.0
Q4	“f”	%
Strongly Disagree	4	5.1
Disagree	6	7.7
Neutral	35	44.9
Agree	25	32.1
Strongly Agree	8	10.3
Total	78	100.0

Note: f= Frequency, % = Percent

Graph 4



The study measured the American English variety construct, and most teachers were neutral while using the American English variety in the institutions (35%). Furthermore, (25%) of respondents agreed that they liken the American English variety.     




 

Table 3. British English Variety

Note: f= Frequency, % = Percent

Q5	“f”	%
Strongly Disagree	7	9.0
Disagree	13	16.7
Neutral	12	15.4
Agree	30	38.5
Strongly Agree	16	20.5
Total	78	100.0
Q6	“f”	%
Strongly Disagree	5	6.4
Disagree	10	12.8
Neutral	11	14.1
Agree	33	42.3
Strongly Agree	19	24.4
Total	78	100.0
Q7	“f”	%
Strongly Disagree	8	10.3
Disagree	17	21.8
Neutral	21	26.9
Agree	25	32.1
Strongly Agree	7	9.0
Total	78	100.0
Q8	“f”	%
Strongly Disagree	10	12.8
Disagree	9	11.5
Neutral	15	19.2
Agree	31	39.7
Strongly Agree	13	16.7
Total	78	100.0

Graph 5



The study measured British English variety and teacher attitude. Mostly, teachers claimed that we used British English variety in the classroom with 30(38.5) per cent. Nevertheless, 16(20.5%) respondents were also likening the variety of British English language variety in the academic institute. In this regard, 13(16.7%) respondents were not using the British English variety in educational institutions.




 

 

Table 4. Indian English Variety

Q9	“f”	%
Strongly Disagree	11	14.1
Disagree	10	12.8
Neutral	14	17.9
Agree	32	41.0
Strongly Agree	11	14.1
Total	78	100.0
Q10	“f”	%
Strongly Disagree	15	19.2
Disagree	11	14.1
Neutral	6	7.7
Agree	32	41.0
Strongly Agree	14	17.9
Total	78	100.0
Q11	“f”	%
Strongly Disagree	15	19.2
Disagree	6	7.7
Neutral	18	23.1
Agree	24	30.8
Strongly Agree	15	19.2
Total	78	100.0
Q12	“f”	%
Strongly Disagree	28	35.9
Disagree	16	20.5
Neutral	16	20.5
Agree	13	16.7
Strongly Agree	5	6.4
Total	78	100.0

Note: f= Frequency, % = Percent

Graph 6



The study further measured the Indian English variety, which is also used as a language in academic institutions. Similarly, respondents strongly agreed that we are using Indian English variety language in the classroom as well as out of the classroom. The participants' response regarding the Indian English language variety was positive, and they were using it in educational institutions.




 

Table 5. Pakistani English Variety              

Q13	“f”	%
Strongly Disagree	7	9.0
Disagree	13	16.7
Neutral	17	21.8
Agree	26	33.3
Strongly Agree	15	19.2
Total	78	100.0
Q14	“f”	%
Strongly Disagree	7	9.0
Disagree	15	19.2
Neutral	15	19.2
Agree	20	25.6
Strongly Agree	21	26.9
Total	78	100.0
Q15	“f”	%
Strongly Disagree	10	12.8
Disagree	12	15.4
Neutral	24	30.8
Agree	21	26.9
Strongly Agree	11	14.1
Total	78	100.0
Q16	“f”	%
Strongly Disagree	8	10.3
Disagree	11	14.1
Neutral	14	17.9
Agree	31	39.7
Strongly Agree	14	17.9
Total	78	100.0
Q17	“f”	%
Strongly Disagree	6	7.7
Disagree	9	11.5
Neutral	11	14.1
Agree	34	43.6
Strongly Agree	18	23.1
Total	78	100.0

Note: f= Frequency, % = Percent

Graph 7



This research measured the Pakistani English variety factor and its attitude statistically. Almost 26(33.3%) of respondents thought that we are using Pakistani English variety in the academic institutions, although 15(19.2%) strongly agreed with the factor of Pakistani English variety. Almost 17(21.8%) respondents were neutral about the Pakistani English variety.




 

Table 6. Chinese English Variety

Q18 Chinese English Variety	“f”	%
Strongly Disagree	26	33.8
Disagree	24	30.2
Neutral	18	23.1
Agree	5	7.7
Strongly Agree	4	5.2
Total	78	100.0
Q19	“f”	%
Strongly Disagree	28	35.9
Disagree	16	20.5
Neutral	16	20.5
Agree	13	16.7
Strongly Agree	5	6.4
Total	78	100.0
Q20	“f”	%
Strongly Disagree	28	35.9
Disagree	12	15.4
Neutral	17	21.8
Agree	15	19.2
Strongly Agree	6	7.7
Total	78	100.0
Q21	“f”	%
Strongly Disagree	24	30.8
Disagree	22	28.2
Neutral	16	20.5
Agree	8	10.3
Strongly Agree	8	10.3
Total	78	100.0

Note: f= Frequency, % = Percent

Graph 8



The study measured Chinese English variety which is another influential factor in the domain of English language variety. Basically, (34%) of respondents strongly disagreed with this particular factor. The attitude toward the Chinese English language was not present among the English language teachers.




 

Table 7. Attitude toward Varieties of English Language

Q22	“f”	%
Strongly Disagree	6	7.7
Disagree	25	32.1
Neutral	17	21.8
Agree	27	34.6
Strongly Agree	3	3.8
Total	78	100.0
Q23	“f”	%
Strongly Disagree	4	5.1
Disagree	6	7.7
Neutral	35	44.9
Agree	25	32.1
Strongly Agree	8	10.3
Total	78	100.0
Q24	“f”	%
Strongly Disagree	7	9.0
Disagree	13	16.7
Neutral	12	15.4
Agree	30	38.5
Strongly Agree	16	20.5
Total	78	100.0
Q25	“f”	%
Strongly Disagree	19	24.4
Disagree	27	34.6
Neutral	18	23.1
Agree	12	15.4
Strongly Agree	2	2.6
Total	78	100.0

Note: f = Frequency, % = Percent

Graph 9



The research objective was to learn about teachers’ attitudes toward different English language varieties. In a similar vein, the participants replied that we are using different varieties of languages in educational institutions. The above (Table 4.7) explains the percentage and frequency for each item or question.

The importance and significance of the study are to measure the reliability and validity of the data for accurate results. Each construct's descriptive and reliability studies were measured, and each variable is listed in Table 8 The difference between institutions’ lecturers and attitudes toward English language varieties was determined using an independent sample t-test and table 4.9 depicting differences.




 

Table 8. Cronbach’s Alpha and Descriptive Statistics of Attitude toward English Language Varieties (N=78)

Scales	K	M(SD)	Actual Range	“?”
American English Variety	4	24.131(5.21)	3.18 – 4.30	0.692
British English Variety	4	23.143(4.13)	3.53 – 4.90	0.682
Indian English Variety	4	21.206(3.22)	3.40 – 4.75	0.731
Pakistani English Variety	5	25.621(5.23)	3.93 – 4.83	0.668
Chinese English Variety	4	20.202(3.21)	3.92 – 4.84	0.702
Teachers Attitude	4	22.203(4.34)	3.82 – 4.58	0.732

Note: k = Number of Items, ? = Cronbach Alpha Coefficient, M = Mean, SD = Standard Deviation

 

Table 9. Independent Samples T-test Comparing American English Variety and Institutions (N=78)

Variable	KKKUK (n=32)		KSUT (n=46)		t (76)	p	95%CI		Cohan’s d
	M	SD	M	SD			LL	UL
American English	3.17	0.711	3.23	0.790	0.385	0.033	-0.280	0.415	-0.056

Note: KKKUK= University 1, KUST = University 2, CI = Confidence Interval, LL = Lower Limit, UL = Upper Limit

 




The research calculated mean differences for the American English variable and its one sort of variety in the English language. Similarly, a significant difference was found between the two higher education academic institutions. Likewise, the first university teachers' mean was less than the second university, and it is found that American English was spoken a lot in this academic institution with a small effect size. An Independent sample test has revealed that p –value was significant as well as research found equal variance among two different higher educations instituted and affiliated collages. Below table 4.10 shows that the British English variety has also been found with equal variances among different institutions. 




 

Table 10. Independent Samples T-test for British English Variety (N=78)

Variable	KKKUK (n=32)		KSUT (n=46)		t (76)	p	95%CI		Cohan’s d
	M	SD	M	SD			LL	UL
British English	3.47	.7603	.32	.702	-.932	.031	-.489	.177	0.511

Note: KKKUK= University 1, KUST = University 2, CI = Confidence Interval, LL = Lower Limit, UL = Upper Limit

 




The research calculated mean differences for the British English variable and its one sort of variety in the English language. Similarly, a significant difference was found between the two higher education academic institutions. Likewise, the second university teachers' mean was less than the first university, and it is found that British English was spoken a lot in this academic institution with a small effect size. An Independent sample test has revealed that p –value was significant as well as research found equal variance among two different higher education’s institutions and affiliated collages. Below table 4.11 shows that the Pakistani English variety has also been found with equal variances among different institutions.




 

Table 11. Independent Samples t-test for Pakistani English Variety Variable (N=78)

Variable	KKKUK (n=32)		KSUT (n=46)		t (76)	p	95%CI		Cohan’s d
	M	SD	M	SD			LL	UL
Pakistani English	3.04	.692	2.95	.737	-.553	.013	-.421	.238	0.200

Note: KKKUK= University 1, KUST = University 2, CI = Confidence Interval, LL = Lower Limit, UL = Upper Limit

 




The research calculated mean differences for the Pakistani English variable and its one sort of variety in the English language. Similarly, a significant difference was found between the two higher education academic institutions. Likewise, the second university teachers' mean was less than the first university, and it is found that Pakistani English was spoken a lot in this academic institution with a small effect size. An Independent sample test has revealed that p –value was significant as well as research found equal variance among two different higher education’s institutions and affiliated collages. Below table 4.12 shows that the Indian English variety has also been found with equal variances among different institutions.




 

Table 12. Independent Samples t-test for Indian English Variety Variable (N=78)

Variable	KKKUK (n=32)		KSUT (n=46)		t (76)	p	95%CI		Cohan’s d
	M	SD	M	SD			LL	UL
India English	2.97	.917	3.07	.949	.425	.046	-.346	.534	0.170

Note: KKKUK= University 1, KUST = University 2, CI = Confidence Interval, LL = Lower Limit, UL = Upper Limit

 




The research calculated mean differences for the Indian English variable and its one sort of variety in the English language. Similarly, a significant difference was found between the two higher education academic institutions. Likewise, the second university teachers' mean was less than the first university, and it is found that Indian English was spoken a lot in this academic institution with a small effect size. An Independent sample test has revealed that p –value was significant as well as research found equal variance among two different higher education’s institutions and affiliated collages. Below table 4.13 shows that the Chinese English variety has also been found with equal variances among different institutions.




 

Table 13. Independent Samples t-test Chinese English Variety Variable (N=78)

Variable	KKKUK (n=32)		KSUT (n=46)		t (76)	p	95%CI		Cohan’s d
	M	SD	M	SD			LL	UL
Curriculum	2.65	.707	2.63	.702	.008.	034	-.340	.342	0.120

Note: KKKUK= University 1, KUST = University 2, CI = Confidence Interval, LL = Lower Limit, UL = Upper Limit

 




The research calculated mean differences for the Chinese English variable and its one sort of variety in the English language. Similarly, a significant difference was found between the two higher education academic institutions. Likewise, the first university teachers' mean was greater than the second university, and it is found that Chinese English was spoken a lot in this academic institution with a small effect size. An Independent sample test has revealed that p –value was significant as well as research found equal variance among two different higher educations instituted and affiliated collages. Below table 4.14 shows that the teacher’s attitude toward English language variety has also been found with equal variances among different institutions. 




 

Table 14. Independent Samples t-test Attitudes toward English Language Variety (N=78)

Variable	KKKUK (n=32)		KSUT (n=46)		t (76)	p	95%CI		Cohan’s d
	M	SD	M	SD			LL	UL
Workload	3.27	.724	3.17	.725	.599	.257	-.232	.432	0.097

Note: KKKUK= University 1, KUST = University 2, CI = Confidence Interval, LL = Lower Limit, UL = Upper Limit

 




The research calculated mean differences for the attitude toward English language varieties and its one sort of variety in the English language. Similarly, a significant difference was found between the two higher education academic institutions. Likewise, the first university teachers' mean was greater than the second university, and it is found that attitude toward English language varieties were spoken a lot in this academic institution with a small effect size. An Independent sample test has revealed that p –value was significant as well as research found equal variance among two different higher educations instituted and affiliated collages. Below table 4.15 shows that the qualitative interpretation of the English language variety in the different higher education institutions. 




 

Table 15. List of Themes, Categories and Codes

Themes	Categories	Major Codes
English Language Varieties	§ Varieties Spoken English language	§ American English § British English § Pakistani English § Indian English § Canadian English § Chinese English
		§ Not Attentively Listen
	§ Various Types of English Speaking	§ Different accents § Different Dialects
English Language Varieties Likeness	§ British English Language § Likeness of English Language	§ Teachers Speak Pakistani English Language
Reasons for Variety of English Language Speaking	§ British English Variety	§ Liking British English Variety § British Language § Variety
Local English Language Style	§ English Language Style	§ Incorrect Pronunciation § Local Style

Findings Theme Wise

English as a Global Language with Many Varieties

English is widely used in the spoken language, but the English language has a different status and official language. Similarly, the English language has uniformity and other variations in the spoken and pronunciation style. The standard practices of English have too broad spellings and spoken categories such as American English and British English. These two overall worldwide usages of English have different dialects and accents, which are usually called the different varieties that could be distinguished as various types of English speaking.

The English language is fundamental, but nowadays, it has vast varieties based on speaking, spelling, and pronunciation, so the most important way is that the English language usage is being spread into Pakistani, Indian, Canadian, and Chinese languages, as well as these, are also the part of the contemporary English language. The current modern world has varieties of English languages, and they have been used with different accents and dialects. Most university teachers follow American, British and Pakistani languages and Indian English to convey dear messages to their students in the classroom.

“I am a university teacher, and I like to communicate with students in Pakistani English, although I have a foreign PhD in the English linguistic”. (AELV-10) 




English Language Varieties Likeness

The English language has many varieties, and most teachers like the British English language accent and dialect whenever they deliver their lecture in the classroom. It is to be noted that most teachers in the class or able to speak American English language and Indian English language. The teachers replied that we like to speak in Pakistani English language, which is of great importance for us and students to understand the curriculum clearly.

“I like to deliver a lecture in the Pakistani English language, and it is easy for the students to understand”. (AELV-7)




Reasons for Variety of English Language Speaking

The participant replied that most of the teachers deliberately used the British English variety and identified them. They said that communication in English is related to linguistic features, and mainly students also understand British English in their class. But we live in the East Asian Pacific, which is impressed by the British colonial system, and that is why we are trying to deliver the lecture in the British accent or dialect.

On the other hand, the research highlighted how the dynamic of English and fragmentation of English motivated the teachers toward the British English variety. They responded that British English has influenced us due to BBC news and worldwide people liking to speak British English in the different academic institutions. Additionally, more teachers are aware of the different ways of the English language due to various social cultures' linguistic contexts.

“I like British English language because I have adopted this accent or dialect in the United Kingdom”. (AELV-1)




Local English Language Style

The teacher replied that a common goal in the English language is to teach the students their learning accent or dialect. English teaching profession is the best way to distinguish between British English language or Pakistani English language, especially in the pronunciations of our style. We do not prefer the local style of English language because it is inherently coming from the British school of thought and the convey the message that the British English language is their highest level of communication, which is full of rules in the form of grammars pronunciations and accent which is improving day by day their linguistic phonetics and phenology.

The variety of English is essential in linguistics, but again variation is possible due to the different characteristics of all languages. The teacher communicated that successful communication is one of the most repeated questions in understanding a variety of English languages, but in our university, mostly teachers engaged in the British and Pakistani English language. It is due to the question mark of native or non-native speakers, and usually, we are trying to follow the British English language accent or pronunciation or style in the classroom, which is necessary for the students according to the university rules and regulations.  

“I know that understanding a variety of English languages is a challenging task, but I will explain that native speakers have some sort of differentiation regarding a variety of English languages”. (AELV-5)

Conclusion

78 lecturers were used in this study's initial attempt to gather both qualitative and quantitative data in order to ascertain the attitudes of higher education lecturers toward different English dialects. On the basis of Kachru's three circles of English usage, five different varieties of English were used: Indian English was used outside the inner circle, and American and British English were used inside.

According to the findings of an independent test, the teachers believe that their pronunciation is more significant than different varieties of the English language. This is stark contrast between two different opinions on the significance of English language varieties for their accent. Teachers showed that different English language varieties are used in the teaching or classroom at the higher educational level. The findings show that Pakistani teachers often have Pakistani varieties of English language perspectives, which are reinforced the teachers to speak in the English language classroom. There was a contrast between two areas teachers regarding English language different varieties in the higher education institutions. Mostly teachers used British English language variety communication for teaching English. 

Despite being widely spoken, English has a distinct standing over other languages and is an official language. The spoken and pronunciation styles of the English language exhibit homogeneity as well as significant differences. English has too many wide spelling conventions and spoken dialects, such as American English and British English. The two main ways that English is spoken across the globe have diverse dialects and accents, which are referred to as different variations and may be recognized as different ways of speaking English. The most significant way that the English language is spreading is through the use of the Pakistani, Indian, Canadian, and Chinese languages, which are also a part of the modern English language. Although the English language is fundamental, there are many modern variations based on speaking, spelling, and pronunciation. English is a variety of languages that have been used in the contemporary globe with various accents and dialects. To communicate with their students in the classroom, most university professors use Indian English, American, British, and Pakistani languages.

References

• Alptekin, M. (1984). The question of culture: EFL teaching in non-English-speaking countries. ELT journal, 38(1), 14-20
• Ali, M. (2016). Motivations and attitudes towards learning English in Pakistan: A mixed-methods study of urban-rural postgraduate learners' motivations and attitudes towards studying English at a public university in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province (Doctoral dissertation, University of Portsmouth).
• Baker, C. (1992). Attitudes and language (Vol. 83).Multilingual Matters.
• Elyas, T., & Alghofaili, N. M. (2019). Native English speakers versus non-native English speakers: The impact of language teachers on EFL learner's English proficiency. English Review: Journal of English Education, 7(2), 27-38.
• Friedrich, P. (2000). English in Brazil: functions and attitudes. World Englishes, 19(2), 215-223.
• Ganschow, L., Sparks, R. L., Anderson, R., Javorshy, J., Skinner, S., & Patton, J. (1994).Differences in language performance among high-, average-, and low-anxious college foreign language learners. The modern language journal, 78(1), 41-55.
• Gardner, R. C. (2000). Correlation, causation, motivation, and second language acquisition. Canadian Psychology/PsychologieCanadienne, 41(1 ), 10.
• Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English?: A guide to forecasting the popularity of the English language in the 21st century. British Council.
• Hundt, M. (1998). New Zealand English Grammar: Fact or Fiction?. New Zealand English Grammar, 1-228.
• Jabeen, F., Mahmood, A., &Rasheed, S. (2011). An attitudinal study of Pakistani English. Interdisciplinary journal of contemporary research in business, 3(5), 25-36.
• Stoynoff, S. (2009b). Recent developments in language assessment and the case of four large-scale tests of ESOL ability. Language Teaching, 42(1), 1– 40.
• Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford University Press.
• Kachru, B. B. (1992). World Englishes: approaches, issues and resources. Language Teaching, 25(1), 1– 14.
• Kamhi-Stein, L., Aagard, A., Ching, A., Paik, M., &Sasser, L. (2001). Teaching in kindergarten through grade 12 programs: Perceptions of native and non-native English speaking practitioners. CATESOL Journal, 13(1), 68-88.
• Li, C. S. D. (2009). Towards' biliteracy and trilingualism'in Hong Kong (SAR): Problems, dilemmas and stakeholders' views. AILA Review, 22(1), 72-84.
• Lyons, D. (2017). How many people speak English, and where is it spoken. Babbel Magazine.
• McKay, S. L. (2018). English as an international language: What it is and what it means for pedagogy. RELC Journal, 49(1), 9-23.
• Medgyes, P., & Kiss, T. (2019). Quality assurance and the expatriate native speaker teacher. In Quality in TESOL and teacher education (pp. 94- 102).Routledge.
• Parveen, S., & Mehmood, A. (2013). A study on attitudes towards varieties of spoken English in Pakistani context. Language in India, 13(3), 652-668.
• Ryan, E. B., Giles, H., & Sebastian, R. J.(1982). An integrative perspective for the study of attitudes toward language variation. Attitudes towards language variation: Social and applied contexts, 1, 19.
• Thomas, L., & Wareing, S. (2004). Language, society and power: An introduction. Routledge.
• Visser, M. (2008). Learning under conditions of hierarchy and discipline: the case of the German Army, 1939– 1940. Learning Inquiry, 2(2), 127-137.