Collected Works of Braj B. Kachru

Volume 1

Braj Kachru, Jonathan J. Webster

• Publisher: Bloomsbury Academic
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781441189769
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Professor Braj Kachru (b. 1932) has pioneered, shaped and defined the scholarly field of world Englishes. He is the founder and co-editor of World Englishes, the associate editor of the Oxford Companion to the English Language and contributor to the Cambridge History of the English Language. His research on world Englishes, the Kashmiri language and literature, and theoretical and applied studies on language and society has resulted in more than 25 authored and edited volumes and more than 100 research papers, review articles, and reviews. The first volume of these Collected Works brings together a number of Kachru's key papers from 1976 to 1990, covering Kachru's early work in the development of World Englishes as a concept and his exploration of non-native varieties of English.

1

Models of English for the Third World: White Man’s Linguistic Burden or Language Pragmatics? (1976)

1.0 Introduction

In the past century a substantial body of linguistic literature has been written presenting language attitudes of those speakers of English who use English as their first language, for example, the speakers of American English, British English, and Australian English (for a discussion, see, e.g., Mencken 1919; Read 1933, 1935, 1936, 1938). These attitudes and reactions form a spectrum which varies from hilarious attitudinal epithets to a plea for linguistic tolerance (Quirk 1972b:14–31). In recent years the language war between cousins speaking the same language and living on different continents seems to have subsided. In America it has, however, taken the shape of a family feud in which the members of the same speech community, say, the speakers of American English, have started evaluating attitudes toward the various dialect speakers of their variety of the language. On this side of the Atlantic the past decade has produced a great deal of literature presenting conflictive points of view on the colored varieties of English, that is, Black and White (see, e.g., Burling 1973; Dillard 1972; Labov 1972a; Shuy 1967).

In this chapter I propose to discuss another linguistic feud, primarily one of language attitudes, between the native speakers of various varieties of English (and some non-native speakers too) and the speakers of the non-native varieties of English, such as Filipino English, Caribbean English, Indian English, etc. In the available literature on this topic only one side of the picture seems to have been presented, that of the native speakers of English. I shall first discuss these attitudes and then focus on certain pragmatic questions related to a particular non-native variety of English used in a Third World country. Since in these countries a large spectrum of colors is involved, it is not possible to categorize these varieties as Black English, White English, or Brown English. No one color category can include all these varieties.

It would be appropriate first to clear away a few attitudinal cobwebs which we find in some recent literature about non-native varieties of English. I do not want to give the impression that I am out to destroy an imaginary linguistic straw man; therefore, as an illustration of such linguistic attitudes, I shall use this chapter as a belated response to a paper of Clifford H. Prator, a distinguished and active scholar in the area of the Teaching of English as a Foreign Language. His paper “The British heresy in TESL” (Fishman et al. 1968:459–76) provides my starting point for several reasons. First, it demonstrates a typical language attitude which continues to be nurtured by several educated native speakers and educators of English. Second, it reflects the attitude of one important segment of our profession toward those varieties of English which are not used as first languages; this interdisciplinary profession has several acronyms depending on which aspect of it is under focus, but the ones generally used are TESL and TEFL. In the TESL operation, as is evident from Prator’s paper, an unrealistic and unpragmatic attitude toward the non-native varieties of English seems to have developed. The reasons for this are several, but one main reason is that, as yet, the role of English in the sociolinguistic context of each English-using Third World country is not properly understood or is conveniently ignored. The consequences of this attitude are that the Third World countries are slowly realizing that, given the present attitude of TESL specialists, it is difficult to expect from such specialists any theoretical insights and professional leadership in this field which would be contextually, attitudinally, and pragmatically useful to the Third World countries. Third, since Prator’s attitude is shared by other influential people in the profession, it is important that a user of a Third World (transplanted) variety of English, like myself, attempt to present the other side of the picture. My side of the picture is naturally based on my Indian experience and Indian data, but it seems to me that one can make several generalizations on the basis of this experience which may apply to most of the Third World (English-using) countries.

The paper under discussion was presented by Prator in 1966 and published in 1968. This paper provides a good example of linguistic purism and linguistic intolerance, in which Prator has naturally associated himself, as he says, with the French attitude to language and dissociated himself from what he terms “the British group.” He discusses a doctrine which is “unjustifiable intellectually and not conducive to the best possible results in practice.” The heresy which has provoked Prator’s puritanic wrath is summed up by him in the following words:

the heretical tenet I feel I must take exception to is the idea that it is best, in a country where English is not spoken natively but is widely used as the medium of instruction, to set up the local variety of English as the ultimate model to be imitated by those learning the language.

I shall, therefore, first discuss briefly some of the points raised by Prator in his paper and then turn to the question of the pragmatics of the English language in a Third World country, namely India. By the term “pragmatics” I mean the roles and uses of English in the overall societal network of India, in which Indian English is used as a language of interaction, for maintaining Indian patterns of administration, education, and legal system, and also for creating a pan-Indian (Indian English) literature which forms part of the world writing in English. I shall also present some results of a recent restricted survey of the uses of the English language in India and the Indian attitude toward its various models.

1.1 Seven attitudinal sins

Since Prator’s paper, both in its title and its tone, introduces us to the world of heresies in TESL, it might not be inappropriate to divide his attitude into seven parts and term these “the seven attitudinal sins.” His paper is a sociolinguistically important document, as it exhibits the language attitude of an educated speaker and his perception of how his language should be used by those who use it as a foreign or second language. It demonstrates much more than just that; it also establishes an identity with the speech community of another language based on the identical language attitudes (in his case, with the French). Prator then develops a set of fallacies to mark as separate those members of the English speech community who (he would like to believe) do not have language attitudes identical to his, namely the British.

It is easy to demonstrate that the linguistic tolerance attributed to my former colonial masters is undeserved. But I will not go into that digression here.¹ It is true that David Abercrombie, M. A. K. Halliday, and Peter Strevens, among others, have adopted the position condemned as “heretical” by Prator. But the position of these scholars has developed partly as a reaction to those British scholars or organizations who hold views identical to those of Prator. However, I will go along with Prator’s assumption about the British linguists working in the field of TESL and take the position that I am in good company with several British linguists in the stand which I adopt here. An analysis of Prator’s paper shows that he has committed the following “seven attitudinal sins”—that is, if we follow his own use of the terms.

1.1.1 The sin of ethnocentricism

Prator has adopted (rather perversely) an intellectually and empirically unjustified view concerning the homogeneity and speech uniformity of American society. Consider, for example, his statement that “Social classes are difficult to distinguish in the United States, and social dialects show relatively little variation.” This view is, of course, contrary to the empirical linguistic research undertaken in America for over two decades (see, e.g., Allen and Underwood 1971; Currie 1952; Labov 1966; Marckwardt 1958; Williamson and Burke 1971). Consider, for example, the following observation in Wolfram and Fasold (1974:27):

It is obvious that throughout the history of the English language in America, the layman has recognized that social differences were often reflected in language differences. Scholars of the English language in America have also been quite aware of these differences. Terms such as vulgar, uncultivated, common or illiterate speech all refer to what we now call non-standard English. For the most part, English scholars viewed these language varieties as deviations from acceptable usage, reflecting the same linguistic prejudice as the layman.

In earlier literature, too, the social parameter of language variation has been well documented and discussed (see, e.g., Babbitt 1896; McDavid 1948). It is obvious, therefore, that this unrealistic view has been adopted by Prator in spite of the empirical evidence contrary to it; in turn it is this view which makes him adopt an unrealistic attitude of homogeneity and linguistic conformity in non-native varieties of English.

1.1.2 The sin of wrong perception about the language attitudes on the two sides of the Atlantic

Prator has attempted to structure the language attitudes of the speakers of English on the two sides of the Atlantic in a neat dichotomy. The British attitude is presented as one of “deep-seated mistrust of the African who presumes to speak English too well.” This hypothesis has been built on the evidence of “at least one well-known British linguist.” The corollary of this “one British linguist’s” observation is:

A man who consciously regards language as a symbol of social status is naturally suspicious of one who appropriates the symbol but clearly does not belong to the social group that it typifies. If an Englishman is himself a proud speaker of RP, he may find each encounter with a person who obviously does not speak his language well a pleasantly reassuring reminder of the exclusiveness of his own social group.

On the other hand, the attitude of the French and Americans is presented thus:

The mistrust of French and Americans seems rather to be directed toward the outsider who does not speak French or English well.

The reason for this attitude of the American English speaker, says Prator, is:

the American’s greater experience with large numbers of immigrants, whose presence in his country he has felt as an economic threat and a social problem, undoubtedly helps to explain his greater antipathy toward foreign accents.

The sociological asides supposed to provide bases for the two types of language attitudes, unfortunately, are not only counterintuitive but without any empirical basis.

1.1.3 The sin of not recognizing the non-native varieties of English as culture-bound codes of communication

It is evident from Prator’s paper that he ignores the inevitable process of acculturation which the English language has undergone in Third World countries such as the Indian subcontinent, the West Indies, or Africa (see, e.g., Kachru 1969, 1975c; Ramchand 1970). In these countries the English language is not taught as a vehicle to introduce British or American culture. In these countries, English is used to teach and maintain the indigenous patterns of life and culture, to provide a link in culturally and linguistically pluralistic societies, and to maintain a continuity and uniformity in educational, administrative, and legal systems. Again, let us consider the case of India as an example. In their almost 200 years of not-so-peaceful stay on the Indian subcontinent, the Britishers left several legacies in India. One legacy which the Indians slowly accepted, and then in their typical Indian way acculturated, is the English language. The outcome of this long process of Indianization of the English language is what is now termed “Indian English.” In the linguistic history of India this phenomenon is consistent with the past linguistic assimilations of this country—for example, the Indianization of Persian, the Dravidization of Sanskrit, and the Indo-Aryanization of the Dravidian languages (see, e.g., Gumperz and Wilson 1971; Kachru 1979b). In this acculturation of languages, India is not unique, since this phenomenon is typical of a situation of language contact and language convergence.

1.1.4 The sin of ignoring the systemicness of the non-native varieties of English

The claim that there is a system to the non-native varieties of English, say, Indian English or West African English, is not taken seriously by Prator. Though he agrees that the “mother-tongue varieties of English also lack complete consistency, and idiolects vary with circumstances,” he is obviously concerned that among the non-native English speakers:

very few speakers limit their aberrances to the widely shared features: each individual typically adds to his own speech a large and idiosyncratic collection of features reflecting his particular native language, educational background, and personal temperament.

His concern develops into a serious worry when he proclaims no “scientific meaning” for a definition such as “Indian English is the English spoken by educated Indians.”

However, it turns out that in linguistic research or preparation of pedagogical materials it is not uncommon to use identical “impressionistic” or what Prator calls “scientifically meaningless” concepts. Consider, for example, the use of the term “educated English” by Randolph Quirk for his “The Survey of English Usage,” an outcome of which is the latest A Grammar of Contemporary English. When the project was initiated, Quirk presented the goal of the survey as follows:

The Survey is concerned with “educated” English: that is, no account is taken of dialect or substandard usage. But it is necessarily acknowledged that these terms are relative and that the varieties of English so labelled are by no means entirely contained within hard and fast boundaries. It is an important feature of a language’s “style-reservoir” that there should be a periphery of relatively dubious usage which the timid avoid, the defiant embrace and the provocative exploit; we may compare our mild fun with “he didn’t ought to have ate it” or “who done it” . . . A working definition like “Educa...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-Title
• Editor’s Introduction
• 1  Models of English for the Third World: White Man’s Linguistic Burden or Language Pragmatics? (1976)
• 2  The New Englishes and Old Dictionaries: Directions in Lexicographical Research on Non-Native Varieties of English (1980)
• 3  The Pragmatics of Non-Native Varieties of English (1981)
• 4  Meaning in Deviation: Toward Understanding Non-Native English Texts (1982)
• 5  Regional Norms for English (1983)
• 6  The Alchemy of English: Social and Functional Power of Non-Native Varieties (1984)
• 7  The Power and Politics of English (1986)
• 8  Non-Native Literatures in English as a Resource for Language Teaching (1986)
• 9  The Past and Prejudice: Toward Demythologizing the English Canon (1987)
• 10  ESP and Non-Native Varieties of English: Toward a Shift in Paradigm (1988)
• 11  The Spread of English and Sacred Linguistic Cows (1988)
• Bibliography
• Index
• Copyright