Abstract
English is spoken in all parts of the world and has acquired the status of a ‘global language’. However, it is not spoken the same way everywhere. Varieties of English across the world have been studied from different perspectives. In most of the studies, the varieties of English are looked upon as variants of the English, which is also known as standard English. In other words, American English or British English as a ‘native’ variety becomes the norm for the study of variant forms of English. This volume on Indian English: Towards a New Paradigm however takes this argument to a different level. In his position paper, Rajendra Singh argues that Indian English, a variety of English, is a language in its own right. He goes on to make the point that the English spoken in India is like any other language spoken in India. It is therefore part of the ‘language ecology of contemporary India’. He argues that all varieties of English, whether spoken outside or within India, vary at the spoken level; most of them also have words that are unique to them. There is nothing unique about the levels of sounds and some variety-specific words. However, at the level of structure, that is, syntax, the nomenclature ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ is at best an oxymoron. There is structurally no difference between fluent Indian English on the one hand and British or American or Canadian English on the other hand.
The design of this edited volume appears to be innovative in its approach to the topic and methodology as it puts a target paper in the centre and presents responses to the principal ideas in the target paper from a wide variety of perspectives. The paper and the responses are then discussed in the form of a dialogue among scholars such as R. Amritavalli, Rajesh Bhatt, Rakesh Bhatt, Rajend Mesthrie, Colin Masica, Claudia Lange and H.K. Dewan among others, including Singh. The use of a target paper that the contributors can respond to is an experiment by the editors. Agnihotri and Singh have made an effort in bringing together diverse voices ranging from generative grammar to language education as well as linguistic variation. As far as I understand the domain of Indian English, the use of multiple perspectives to address the question of English in India and the use of English in several domains have not been attempted before. This underlies the basic requirement for the study of language from a holistic perspective, that is, both the form (linguistic competence) and function (linguistic performance) of language must be looked at together.
There are three broad sections in this book. The first section comprises the target paper; the second section contains 15 responses to the target paper along with grammatical, sociolinguistic, diachronic, cultural, political, philosophical and pedagogical perspectives; and finally, miscellaneous comments and discussions are presented in the third section. For the book, scholars were invited by the editors to submit their responses and once these were in place, a dialogue was organised in 2007 at the Central Institute of Indian Languages (Mysore) in which many of these scholars participated. The last chapter of the volume is in the form of a dialogue and contains excerpts from the Mysore meeting on the target paper. Singh’s responses to the questions are helpful in locating the discourse on Indian English.
In the target paper, Singh dismisses the idea of a ‘standard’ variety in a provocative fashion. In fact, the arguments presented in this article are fairly convincing in shaping our perspective on Indian English as a variety in its own right, and as good as any so-called native variety of English. Most studies on varieties of English begin by focusing on the phonological and syntactic differences between native and non-native varieties of English; however, they end up comparing fluent ‘standard’ native varieties with non-fluent ‘non-native’ varieties.
This volume in general and the target/position paper in particular present evidence in support of the required change in our understanding of English in India. The subtitle of this volume indicates the underlying reasons for a change in our perspective by which we evaluate Indian English as one of the most widely spoken languages among the educated of this country. However, a careful reading reveals that this book sets up a benchmark for the study of Indian English. Thus, this volume presents Indian English in a new avatar with special reference to the concept of a native speaker. In fact, the question of a native speaker raised by Singh (1998) is redefined in this book with different approaches to the study of language. The target paper outlines its approach to the treatment of Indian English, the question of native speaker and native variety.
As English is one of the most widely spoken languages, it naturally generates research interest (Agnihotri & Khanna, 1997; Bhatt, 2001; Bhatt & Mesthrie, 2008; Dasgupta, 1993; B. Kachru, 1992a, 1992b; Y. Kachru, 2006; Singh, 2003). Indian English, being a variety of English with perhaps the largest number of speakers, also therefore draws a lot of interest. This appears to be the theme of the main argument of the target paper. Singh, in this paper, argues that Indian English is part of the languages spoken in India and therefore questions the concept of ‘native speaker’ and ‘non-native variety’. He uses terms such as ‘in-interpretations’ and ‘of-interpretations’. He concludes that English has to be looked at from the point of view of ‘English of India’, in other words, as one of the languages of India and not as ‘English in India’. For him, speakers of English in India are not non-native speakers of English; rather they are the native speakers of the English of India. The study of English in terms of ‘English in India’ therefore subsumes the application of the concept of a native speaker in the sense that English in India is a ‘deviant’ and ‘substratum’ English of non-native speakers, thereby implying that Indian English means non-standard English. Singh’s position generated a major controversy.
Responses too to the target paper ‘Reflections on English in India and Indian English’ by Singh are really intense. They come from both theoretical and applied perspectives of the study of language. We will discuss a few of them. R. Amritavalli, Rajesh Bhatt, Rakesh Bhatt and Colin Masica respond to the questions raised by Rajendra Singh from a grammatical perspective. Amritavalli examines the idea of English with reference to universal grammar and first language learning. She contrasts English with multilingualism as well. Explaining the process of language acquisition in generative linguistics, she underlines the significance of I-language and not the non-native speaker or variety as the object of study in theoretical linguistics. This line of argument justifies the claims made by Singh in the target paper about the speakers of English in India being the native speakers of Indian English. Bhatt, however, substantiates Singh’s argument that the study of English with reference to native versus non-native distinction is not tenable. He locates his argument in the syntax of Indian English. The presence of distinct and underlying patterns in the structure of Indian English helps Rajesh Bhatt conclude that the native and non-native distinction between languages appears to be ‘arbitrary’ and ‘provincial’. Masica adds historical significance as a new dimension in the study of English. He agrees with Singh’s position on English and the questions of nativity. In the context of Received Pronunciation (RP) as standard (for Southern British English) and the existence of other functional varieties in other parts of England, he appears to endorse the idea of Indian English as a distinct variety in its own right. However, he does not appear to approve the idea of Indian English as a language, as part of the ‘language ecology of contemporary India’.
Rakesh Bhatt points out that the typical features of Indian English are peculiar only in the sense that such peculiarities exist in all varieties of English. For him, the native versus non-native distinction has no theoretical foundations in the study of post-colonial English. He takes an Optimality Theoretic approach to establish the existence of Indian English as a language of India. Bhatt indicates the significance of Chomsky (1965) and Labov (1972) in developing an understanding of language continuum without the use of the term ‘non-native’. For Langue, the native and non-native distinction is worthy of a full-length debate in itself, independent of the legitimacy of Indian English as a variety. Agnihotri reiterates and substantiates the point that classification of language varieties with native and non-native labels does not add much to the study and our understanding of language in the sense that in both the contexts, there does not seem to be much difference as far as the structure of the language is concerned. On the question of native speaker, Agnihotri takes a slightly different position. He asserts that the notion of ‘native’ comes from the idea of ‘a language’. For him, multilinguality defines language and multiculturality defines the way we live. He further adds that people do not speak a language; the human mind does not have a grammar; and we do not belong to a culture. This conviction results from the idea that the existence of porous language boundaries will lead to shared fuzziness in grammatical judgement. The rest of the definitions of native speakers that follow from competence in linguistic structure largely find their basis in the issues of language power.
Shreesh Chaudhary finds the discussion on the English of India useful. He underlines three major points in his reflections on Singh’s target paper. While acknowledging linguistic variations, Chaudhary finds the deviations in the structure and use of two different varieties of language trivial. Chaudhary examines the phonology of different varieties of English (mainly British and American) and brushes aside the concept of a native speaker of a language. He finds the distinctions between the two speakers of two different varieties of English theoretically unfounded and socially insignificant. Finally, he underlines the noticeable rise in the number of speakers acquiring/learning English from a very early stage as a meaningful contribution towards linguistic variations as a multilingual continuum of language.
For Backus, native and non-native distinction is part of a continuum, which is aligned with Singh’s position on the matter. Backus finds the extent of variation in the different varieties of a language hard to investigate because of its spiral nature. He points out that the comparative study of syntactic variants in two deviations of language is a small part when compared with the corpus of data from the perspective of the use of language. He finally concludes that the native and non-native distinction is ‘unnecessary’. Mesthrie does not sound convinced with the idea of a continuum. He argues that the ‘caught’ and ‘taught’ are the two obvious approaches to learning a language. He states that he does not wish to get into the debate of native and non-native varieties of English.
Ritt finds the distinction between native and non-native significant enough to be a good question for empirical research on the subject. In his opinion, native intuition is directly correlated with the speaker’s judgement on grammaticality. In his predictions, Singh’s proposal may be problematic for this empirically sustainable position. Lele finds Singh’s position on English in India comparable to a discussion on power and hegemony. He examines Dasgupta (1993) at some length and suggests that the relationship between language and society is far more complex than linguists assume. Rajgopalan’s response to Singh’s standpoint on the English of India and the question of a native speaker is in total contrast with that of Langue. Martina Ghosh-Schellhorn holds a position similar to that of Chaudhary that some of these questions must be examined in the context of multilinguality and speech community. However, it seems unlikely that Singh’s position would yield different conclusions even if such areas are taken into consideration as Singh does not appear to have left the contexts of multilinguality and speech community out. Dickinson does not agree with Singh’s claim that the speakers of English of India are competent speakers of that variety. Gupta-Basu and Moran agree with the position on Indian English and the idea of dismissing native and non-native distinction. Rahman, on the other hand, questions the very reasons behind Singh’s ‘not [recognising] “non-native” varieties of a language’, in this case English. He is of the opinion that this is largely because people are in ‘awe of “native”’ varieties. He contends that although it might be impossible to have a neat categorisation of languages, the distinction native and non-native does serve any purpose. Mesthrie brings in variation and creolisation to assess Singh’s claims. He argues that it might be more useful to look for consistent differences among varieties of languages in terms of ‘a cluster of features’ rather than differences in terms of just one or two features. Mesthrie argues that the distinction between L1 and L2 universals is important for a further understanding of the ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ phenomenon. He is of the opinion that there is indeed some difference in the way languages are learnt by communities. The distinction for him lies in the ‘caught’ and ‘taught’ approaches to language learning. Whereas in the former, ‘the child learner enters in the historical evolution of the language, with the speech signal being subject to the vagaries of variation and change’, the latter approach is marked largely by the segmentation of the speech signals and the learning of analytic units. Mesthrie concludes by saying that a good way of testing the native speaker construct would be to observe what happens when L2 becomes L1.
Dickinson, sharing his insights largely from a pedagogical angle, shows willingness to include fluent speakers of English within the ambit of the ‘native’ speakers but has reservations about including the not so fluent speakers. He contends that there are indeed semantic differences which must be explained before making way for the inclusion of IE in the ‘native’. He also does not see learners at par with the speakers and remains unconvinced about the argument of the use of a language by learners for different purposes. So despite his agreement with Singh on many of the issues, one finds him arguing in favour of the relevance of the ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ distinction.
Dewan and Saxena raise pedagogical concerns. Contrasting English with the use of other languages spoken in various parts of India, they present a series of questions based on their experience in the field of language pedagogy.
The last chapter in the section ‘Miscellaneous Comments and Discussions’ is very helpful for the readers. It comprises of an excerpt from the Mysore Dialogue which presents a summary of questions asked by the audience to Rajendra Singh, as well as his responses to the questions. The use of English in a wide range of domains in our lives is also seen as a matter of political intent. In all the responses to Singh’s position paper ‘Reflections on English in India and Indian English’, this volume shows that the question of legitimacy in the context of language requires further study. In short, this is a critical contribution to a serious social inquiry of the question of Indian English which has been argued as English of India. Indeed, it sets the directions for new research questions in many related domains of the study of language.