World Englishes, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 50–59, 2014. 0883-2919 Philippine English revisited ISABEL PEFIANCO MARTIN ∗ ABSTRACT: In this paper, I argue that the Three Circles Model of Kachru, a profoundly influential and instructive model for approaching the varieties of Englishes across the world, might be re-examined in the context of the Philippines, in order to better capture the sociolinguistic realities of Outer Circle speakers of English. Using the Philippines as an example, I hope to demonstrate that within the Outer Circle that is the Philippines, there are circles of English as well. While some educated Filipino scholars have rejected the dominance of American English in the Philippines, others remain ambivalent about the place of Philippine English in such domains such as English language teaching. And for a majority of the Filipinos, to whom English of whatever variety remains elusive and inaccessible, English is irrelevant. Thus, the situation for the Philippines is that there is an Inner Circle, an Outer Circle, and an Expanding circle of English. By presenting the Philippine experience of English through this framework of ‘circles within circles,’ I hope to offer a more nuanced position on the acceptability of Philippine English among Filipino users of the language. INTRODUCTION Kachru’s Three Circles model is believed to be the most influential model on the spread of English in the world. The value of the Three Circles model lies in its outright rejection of the mindset that the English-speaking world may be neatly divided into two groups, which Kachru (2005:213) describes as the ‘distance-marking concepts’ of ‘native speakers’ and ‘non-native speakers’ of English. In contrast, the Three Circles model, by taking a geographical and historical approach to describing the spread of English, presents the language as diverse, its ownership shared, having a plurality of centers residing in each of the circles, and not exclusively among the Inner Circle countries. The Three Circles model enjoys an authoritative position in world Englishes research and scholarship today. However, there have been questions about its capacity to capture the unique sociolinguistic realities of the nations in each of the circles. Jenkins (2003), for example, argues that the model, by focusing more on geographical and historical issues, fails to account for the way speakers identify with and use the language. In addition, she finds the demarcations between the circles to be ‘increasingly grey’ (2003: 20), an observation shared by Bruthiaux (2003:172) who argues that the model ‘draws on historical events which only partially correlate with current sociolinguistic data.’ For Bruthiaux (2003:161), Kachru’s Three Circles model is ‘a 20th century construct that has outlived its usefulness.’ Canagarajah (2006:199) observes that Kachru’s Three Circles ‘have now started leaking outside their borders.’ Canagarajah was specifically referring to Outer Circle varieties, which Inner Circle speakers have begun to negotiate with in everyday communication. That the circles do not have clear-cut demarcations and distinguishing features may also be ∗ Ateneo de Manila University – English; Katipunan Ave, Loyola Heights Quezon City, Quezon City, 1108, Philippines. E-mail: mmartin@ateneo.edu C  2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd