Abstract
Edgar Schneider has presented a book-length version of his “Dynamic Model” of the development of the New Englishes that he first presented in an article published in Language in 2003 and that has been expanded and revised since. Most importantly, a large number of case studies have been added to illustrate the strength of the model.
In the introduction, Schneider discusses the development of English as a World Language, pointing out that, despite the individual social and historical circumstances, the processes of linguistic nativization are similar for each variety of English outside the British Isles. Stressing these historical parallels, Schneider prefers the term Postcolonial Englishes (PCE) over more common labels such as New Englishes.
In the second chapter, he charts the development of linguistic research into English as a World Language, presenting various models of accounting for the different varieties. These are divided into four categories, covering theoretical approaches, such as models of SLA or language contact and political models concentrating on macro-sociolinguistic issues, as opposed to descriptive approaches that concentrate on the micro-linguistic level of analysis and therefore should, according to Schneider, provide the basis for any further analysis. Finally, applied linguistics approaches, such as those concerned with the teaching of English in particular countries, are also discussed. In addition to these major approaches, Schneider also raises the points of “nativeness” with regard to language and the development of linguistic norms, as well as the issue of English as a “killer language.” He concedes that these questions are related to his topic but does not take sides in the arguments involved.
In the third chapter, Schneider presents his Dynamic Model for the development of PCEs, drawing on earlier work by Salikoko Mufwene (e.g., Mufwene 2001) as well as Sarah Thomason and Terence Kaufman (e.g., Thomason & Kaufman 1988; Thomason 2001), as conditions of language contact and the notion of a “feature pool” from which speakers can choose form the basis of his approach. He distinguishes between the English-speaking settlers or colonialists as the “STL strand” of the development and the indigenous population as the “IDG strand,” whose group identities and attitudes toward and uses of English are of importance in the course of the evolution of a new variety.
According to Schneider, PCEs develop in five phases, which are summarized briefly. In phase 1, “Foundation,” English-speaking settlers arrive in the area. The IDG and STL groups are characterized by a relationship of otherness, but within the STL group, dialect leveling or koinéization occurs, evening out differences between the different varieties spoken by the settlers. Phase 2, “Exonormative Stabilization,” involves political stabilization, usually in the form of an official colony, and the STL group begins to develop a “British-cum-local” identity that also leads to changes in the English spoken by them, mainly in the form of borrowed words. As more members of the IDG acquire English, structural “Nativization,” the hallmark feature of phase 3, is also under way. This phase is also characterized by political semiautonomy with regard to the colonial mother country, for example as members of the Commonwealth. In phase 4, political independence has been gained and “Endonormative Stabilization” sets in, as the STL and the IDG strands begin to view themselves as members of the newborn nation. This leads to the acceptance and codification of local norms. In phase 5, finally, the focus shifts from a larger national identity to smaller group identities, whether regional or social, leading to linguistic “Differentiation.” Schneider also presents variations of this basic pattern before he proceeds to discuss the linguistic aspects of nativization in greater detail in chapter 4.
Schneider provides an overview of previous research on the linguistic features of PCEs to identify those that are shared across regions or at least across several varieties, including phonology, lexis, and grammar. It becomes clear that especially with regard to phonology, there are typical features associated with first language (L1) varieties, second language (L2) varieties, and pidgins and creoles. For example, only L1 varieties exhibit /t/-flapping, while L2 varieties and pidgins and creoles allow a wider range of consonant cluster reductions. The section on grammatical features draws heavily on previous research by Platt, Weber, and Ho (1984), which is problematic considering that their pioneering study of the New Englishes is based on rather anecdotal data and, in turn, previous research. Schneider is absolutely right in concluding that for a better picture of the differences between British English and the PCEs, more systematic corpus-based analyses are needed, especially in the important area of phraseology and collocational profiles (see Mair 2007). In conclusion, Schneider argues that structural nativization always involves processes such as simplification, restructuring, and exaptation. The actual selection and spread of features are explained with reference to Mufwene’s (2001) notion of linguistic ecology.
Chapter 5 is devoted to a total of sixteen case studies, from Fiji, Australia, and New Zealand, via Asian varieties, such as Singapore English and Indian English, to African varieties, such as South African English and Nigerian English, to Caribbean varieties from Barbados and Jamaica to Canada. For reasons of space, I concentrate in my discussion on two varieties, namely Indian English and Jamaican English.
With regard to Indian English, Schneider dates the “Foundation” phase between 1600, when the East India Company was granted the trade monopoly for India, and 1757, when the East India Company also gained political control in India. “Exonormative Stabilization” took place between 1757 and circa 1905, when India became part of the British Empire and English-medium education was systematically introduced. As result, structural “Nativization” set in, resulting in a large number of loan words from indigenous languages, as well as innovative features in the areas of pronunciation and morphosyntax. Schneider claims that this process still continues today, with only very weak and tentative signs of the next stage, “Endonormative Stabilization.” His main arguments to support this claim are the lack of homogeneity of the variety and the fact that so far Indian English is not used as a marker of a local or national identity.
This position is challenged by others, such as Mukherjee (2007). Unlike Schneider, Mukherjee claims that Indian English has progressed to the stage of endonormative stabilization while retaining some features from the stage of nativization. While Schneider’s model entails that eventually all New Englishes progress to phase 5 (“Differentiation”), Mukherjee puts forward arguments in favor of a steady-state situation, in which conservative and progressive forces hold each other in check. He views Indian English thus as a semiautonomous variety, which includes the common core of international English, structures taken over from indigenous languages, but also structures that can be classified as specifically Indian English innovations neither found in international English nor attributable to the substrate languages. This view is supported by Sedlatschek’s (2008) larger-scale corpus-based study, which shows both innovative and conservative aspects in Indian English and a trend toward a national norm at least in writing.
Accounting for the spread of English in the Caribbean is a challenge to Schneider’s model, as he readily admits in the section “Creolization” in chapter 3. While it is absolutely plausible to regard linguistic creolization as an extreme case of structural nativization, the identification of the STL and the IDG strand of the population is more problematic. In the case of Jamaica, the assumption that the slaves and their descendants constitute the IDG strand, despite the fact that they were brought to the Caribbean against their will and after the arrival of the STL group, makes some sense, as the original inhabitants of the island had died out before the British colonizers arrived and the slaves formed the lowest stratum of society. The situation is more difficult with regard to other Caribbean territories, such as Suriname, where the population consists of Amerindians, descendants of former slaves, descendants of various European colonizers, and descendants of Asian immigrants. It is probably telling that Schneider does not treat cases like Suriname or Trinidad in his book.
In the case of Jamaica, Schneider posits the first phase of development between 1655, the defeat of the Spanish, and circa 1690, when the plantation colony was fully established and the black slaves outnumbered the British colonizers. Phases 2 and 3 coincide, with a stable colonial situation in the political sphere and the emergence of Jamaican Creole in the linguistic sphere. Phase 4 sets in after Jamaica gained political independence in 1962, characterized by more positive attitudes towards Jamaican Creole as an expression of national identity and the development of an endonormative standard variety of English. Both Jamaican Creole and Jamaican Standard English (which is not mentioned by Schneider) are—at least partially—codified.
Schneider also views the development of different varieties of Jamaican Creole, such as Dread Talk, the sociolect spoken by Rastafarians, as “foreshadowing phase 5,” that is, internal differentiation. In view of the linguistic continuum between broad Jamaican Creole on one end and a Jamaican variety of Standard English on the other end which is readily exploited by speakers for various stylistic and discourse functions (see Sand 1999), as well as the fact that Jamaican Creole has developed social, stylistic, and even regional varieties despite the small size of the island, I would in turn argue that phase 5 is already in full swing.
Chapter 6 presents a test case from hindsight, namely the case of American English, which Schneider argues is exemplary for the developmental cycle outlined in chapter 3. Schneider claims that the classification of American English as a PCE may appear surprising at first glance, but the label is certainly justified considering the historical development of the variety. What is more surprising to the reviewer is the fact that Schneider deems it necessary to discuss the suitability of the label PCE for American English, but not for Canadian English, which is closely related to American English. Schneider argues very convincingly that the role of the various adstrate (ADS) groups in the United States, that is, the different groups of immigrants and the descendants of the slaves in the South, take over the role of the IDG strand, which is indeed very weak in the development of American English. Because of the long settlement process from East to West, it is also clear that the individual phases may overlap to some extent. Leaving these caveats aside, the development of American English does indeed display the hallmark features of Schneider’s Dynamic Model.
The concluding chapter presents a summary of the main points, as well as a number of issues related to the applicability of the model, which is designed to account for pidgin and creole varieties as well as for standard or standardizing varieties.
Schneider’s model is certainly a very important step toward a unified yet comparative approach to accounting for the emergence of the New Englishes that attempts to reconcile various previous approaches. The most important achievement of Schneider’s model is without doubt the recognition of the inherent dynamics in the development of linguistic varieties and the similarities with regard to many structural properties. Thus, he makes a convincing case for his model, despite the fact that some of the individual analyses in the case studies are contestable. It is to be hoped that this publication triggers more comparative research on the New Englishes.