Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of
Anthropology
This content downloaded from 103.204.244.6 on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:50:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2001. 30:527-50
Copyright () 2001 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
WORLD ENGLISHES
Rakesh M. Bhatt
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois 61801; e-mail: rbhatt@uiuc.edu
INTRODUCTION
This content downloaded from 103.204.244.6 on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:50:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
528 BHATT
This content downloaded from 103.204.244.6 on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:50:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WORLD ENGLISHES 529
This content downloaded from 103.204.244.6 on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:50:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
530 BHATT
Exponents of Stratification
The stratification of English, especially varieties in the outer circle, has been in-
terpreted in two ways: as a polylectal continuum (Platt 1975, Platt & Weber 1980,
Platt et al 1984, Mufwene 1994, 1997) and as a dine of English bilingualism
This content downloaded from 103.204.244.6 on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:50:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WORLD ENGLISHES 531
This content downloaded from 103.204.244.6 on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:50:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
532 BHATT
This content downloaded from 103.204.244.6 on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:50:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WORLD ENGLISHES 533
'It is in schools, argues Giroux (1981, p. 24), that the production of hegem
"hides" behind a number of legitimating forms. Some of the most obviou
claim by dominant classes that their interests represent the entire interests o
(2) the claim that conflict only occurs outside of the sphere of the politic
conflict is viewed as non-political; (3) the presentation of specific forms
beliefs, attitudes, values and practices as natural, universal, or even eterna
2Cultural capital here refers to the "system of meanings, abilities, language f
that are directly or indirectly defined by dominant groups as socially le
1978:496, Bourdieu 1991).
3The function of "the fellowships of discourse" is, according to Foucault (
"to preserve or to reproduce discourse, but in order that it should circulat
community, according to strict regulations, without those in possession b
by this very distribution. An archaic model of this would be those groups
possessing knowledge of poems to recite or, even, upon which to wor
transformations. But though the ultimate object of this knowledge was ri
was protected and preserved within a determinate group by the, often ext
exercises of memory implied by such a process. Apprenticeship gained
group and to a secret which recitation made manifest, but did not divu
speaking and listening were not interchangeable."
This content downloaded from 103.204.244.6 on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:50:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
534 BHATT
Linguistic Creativity
To understand the structural variation in English across cultures, two questio
to be answered (Bhatt 1995a): What is the structure of "nonnative" English
how did they come to be the way they are? With respect to these questions,
ning has already been made toward explorations into the structure of oute
varieties of English. Y. Kachru (1985) has provided valuable methodologi
well as theoretical insights into the structure of Indian English discourse. Me
(1992) work on South African Indian English and Bhatt's (1995a,b, 1997,
and Sridhar's (1992) work on Indian English provide a framework for sy
descriptions that has implications for cross-language transfer and bilingu
petence. Mohanan (1992), Chaudhary (1989), Hancin-Bhatt & Bhatt (1993)
Bhatt (1995a,b) have provided accounts of various aspects of the sound pat
of Indian English. The theoretical approaches adopted in all these studie
clear methodological agenda-to describe the structure of a "nonnative" v
in its own terms, not as descriptions of aborted "interlanguages."
Bilingual's creativity in world Englishes, especially in the outer circle,
captured using the methodological premise that a descriptively adequate gr
of English, in "nonnative" contexts, must address the relationship betw
forms that English manifests and its speakers' perception of reality and the
of their cultural institutions. This premise yields an interpretation of langua
constrained by the grammar of culture (cf. Bright 1968, Hymes 1974, D
1988). The theoretical insights in the works of Halliday (1973), Kachru (
Sridhar (1992), and Bhatt (1995a, 2000) provide a framework of linguisti
cription that not only allows the simplest interpretation of English lan
use across cultures, it also accommodates, in the most economical way, lin
cally significant generalizations of the grammatical structure of world En
This content downloaded from 103.204.244.6 on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:50:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WORLD ENGLISHES 535
Kachru (1983, p. 79) and Trudgill & Hannah (1985, p. 111) discuss the use of
what they call undifferentiated tag questions as one of the linguistic exponents of
Indian English: (a) "You are going home soon, isn't it?" (b) "You have taken my
book, isn't it?" Their description, however, leaves out the important pragmatic role
the undifferentiated tags play in the Indian English speech community. In most
cases, the meaning of the tag is not the one appended to the meaning of the main
proposition; it is usually the tag that signals important social meaning. In fact, tags
in Indian English are a fascinating example of how linguistic form (of the tag) is
constrained by cultural constraints of politeness. Bhatt (1995b) has in fact argued
that undifferentiated tags in Indian English are linguistic devices governed by the
politeness principle of nonimposition: They serve positive politeness functions
(a la Brown & Levinson 1987), signaling deference and acquiescence. Notice,
for example, the contrast between Indian English-(a) "You said you'll do the
job, isn't it?" and "They said they will be here, isn't it?"-and Standard British
English/American English-(b) "You said you'll do the job, didn't you? and "They
said they will be here, didn't they?" In contrast to the b examples above, Indian
English speakers find the a examples nonimpositional and mitigating. This intuition
is more clearly established when an adverb of intensification/assertion is used in
conjunction with the undifferentiated tag: (a) "Of course you said you'll do the
job, isn't it?" (b) "Of course they said they'll be here, isn't it?" The result is,
predictably, unacceptable.
In a culture where the verbal behavior is severely constrained, to a large extent,
by politeness regulations, where nonimposition is the essence of polite behavior,
it is not surprising that Indian English has replaced Standard British English tags
with undifferentiated tags. To understand why Indian English has chosen to use the
undifferentiated strategy, the notion of grammar of culture (Bright 1968, D'souza
1988) becomes relevant.
Undifferentiated tags are not exclusive instances of the interplay of grammat-
ical and cultural rules in Indian English, where one finds the linguistic form
constrained by the grammar of culture. The influence of the grammar of cul-
ture on linguistic expressions in Indian English can also be seen in the use of
the modal auxiliary "may." In Indian English, "may" is used to express obligation
politely-"This furniture may be removed tomorrow"; "These mistakes may please
This content downloaded from 103.204.244.6 on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:50:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
536 BHATT
Sociolinguistic Creativity
There is also a sociolinguistic dimension of bilingual creativity, viewed in terms
of acculturation and nativization of the use of English in the outer circle. The
study and analysis of English language use in outer-circle varieties resulted in
the following types of cross-cultural and cross-linguistic research: (a) discourse
analysis, discourse strategies, and stylistic innovations (Richards 1979, Smith
1981, 1987, Gumperz 1982, Magura 1984, Y. Kachru 1985, 1995, 1997, Valentine
1988, 1991); (b) speech acts (Y. Kachru 1991, 1993, D'souza 1988, 1991);
(c) code mixing and code switching (Bhatia & Ritchie 1989, Kamwangamalu
1989, Myers-Scotton 1993a,b, Bhatt 1997); (d) genre analysis (V. Bhatia 1997);
and (e) language planning (Kandiah & Kwan-Terry 1994).
An illustration of the sociolinguistic dimension of bilingual's creativity-the
manipulation of linguistic resources in language use to generate new meanings-is
best exemplified by code switching (style shifting) reported by Mesthrie (1992). A
young South African Indian English-speaking attendant at the security section of
the airport asked him, "You haven' got anything to declare?" Mesthrie argues that
in using the nonacrolectal variety, the security guard at the airport was defusing the
syntax of power ("Do you have anything to declare?") in favor of mesolectal soli-
darity (Mesthrie 1992, p. 219). Other sociolinguistic functions of code switching
and mixing in world Englishes, such as exclusion, politeness, identity, and elitism,
have been discussed by Kachru (1983) and Myers-Scotton (1993b).
The other face of nativization of sociolinguistic uses of world Englishes is
presented by code mixing in culture-specific interactions, in the news media, in
matrimonial advertisements, in obituaries, and so on. The matrimonial columns
reflect, as Kachru (1986) has convincingly argued, Asian and African sensitivity to
color, caste hierarchy, regional attitudes, and family structure. It is not uncommon,
for instance, to find matrimonial advertisements in South Asian English newspa-
pers using highly contextualized English lexical items with semantic nativization,
as shown in two Hindu examples from 1 July 1979 (Kachru 1986).
This content downloaded from 103.204.244.6 on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:50:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WORLD ENGLISHES 537
But, what about the attitude toward nativization by nonnative speakers? Here
the venerable Chinua Achebe (1966, p. 22) sums it up most eloquently: "I feel the
English language will be able to carry the weight of my African experience. But
it will have to be a new English, still in communion with its ancestral home but
altered to suit its new African surroundings."
Achebe's observation about the appropriateness of indiginized varieties of En-
glish for articulating linguistic voices in nonnative contexts is supported by the
results of empirical investigations on attitudes of nonnative speakers toward ex-
ocentric (native) and endocentric (nonnative) models (Llamzon 1969, Bamgbose
1971, Sey 1973, Kachru 1976).
This content downloaded from 103.204.244.6 on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:50:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
538 BHATT
This content downloaded from 103.204.244.6 on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:50:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WORLD ENGLISHES 539
The theoretical concerns relate to three vital concepts: the speech community,
the native speaker, and the ideal speaker-hearer. The conceptualization of speech
community varies from Bloomfield's definition ("a speech community is a group
of people who interact by means of speech") to the rather complex definitions of
John Gumperz and Robert Le Page (Hudson 1980, pp. 25-30; see also Silverstein
1996a).
The standard definition of a second language is one that is acquired in an envi-
ronment in which the language is spoken natively (Larsen-Freeman & Long 1991).
This definition completely marginalizes the empirical fact that more second lan-
guage acquisition takes place in "nonnative" contexts than in "native" contexts (cf.
Ferguson 1982, Sridhar 1994). The native/nonnative distinctions, Bhatt (2001a,b)
argues, get validated by the kind of intellectual imperialism whereby a particular
model of language, possessed by "an ideal native speaker-hearer in a completely
homogeneous speech community" (a la Chomsky 1986) assumes a paradigmatic
status in the linguistic sciences as a whole (see also Silverstein 1996b). This ideal-
ization produces "the illusion of linguistic communism" and ignores and trivializes
the sociohistorical and economic conditions that have established a particular set
This content downloaded from 103.204.244.6 on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:50:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
540 BHATT
This content downloaded from 103.204.244.6 on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:50:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WORLD ENGLISHES 541
Positive Negative
Liberalism Rootlessness
Universalism Ethnocentricism
Secularism Permissiveness
Technology Divisiveness
Science Alienation
Mobility Colonialism
Access code
This content downloaded from 103.204.244.6 on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:50:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
542 BHATT
This content downloaded from 103.204.244.6 on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:50:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WORLD ENGLISHES 543
CONCLUSIONS
This content downloaded from 103.204.244.6 on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:50:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
544 BHATT
LITERATURE CITED
Achebe C. 1966. Things Fall Apart. London: tion: analyzing cultural and eco
Heinemann duction. Harvard Educ. Rev. 48:495-503
Achebe C. 1969. Arrow of God. New York: Baile
Doubleday a World Language. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich.
Apple M. 1978. The new sociology of educa- Press
This content downloaded from 103.204.244.6 on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:50:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WORLD ENGLISHES 545
This content downloaded from 103.204.244.6 on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:50:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
546 BHATT
AM Sheridan
Chomsky N. 1986. Knowledge of Language.Smith. New York: Pantheon
Dissanayake W. 1985. Towards a decolonized Honey JRS. 1997. Language Is Power. London:
English: South Asian creativity in fiction. Faber & Faber
of Singapore. Singapore: Singapore Univ. Kachru BB. 1965. The Indianness in Indian En-
Press glish. Word 21:391-410
Foley J, Kandiah K, Zhiming B, Gupta AF, Kachru BB. 1976. Models of English for the
Alsagoff L, Lick HC. 1998. English in New third world: white man's linguistic burden or
Cultural Contexts. Reflections from Singa- language pragmatics? TESOL Q. 10:221-39
pore. Singapore: Oxford Univ. Press Kachru BB, ed. 1982. The Other Tongue:
Foucault M. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowl- English Across Cultures. Oxford, UK:
edge and the Discourse on Language. Transl. Pergamon
This content downloaded from 103.204.244.6 on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:50:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WORLD ENGLISHES 547
Kachru BB. 1983. The Indianization of En- Kahane H. 1986. A typology of the prestige lan-
glish: The English Language in India. Delhi: guage. Language 62:495-508
Oxford Univ. Press Kamwangamalu N. 1989. A selected bibliog-
Kachru BB. 1986. The Alchemy of English: The raphy of studies on code-mixing and code-
Spread, Functions and Models of Non-Native switching. World Engl. 8:433-40
Englishes. London: Pergamon Kandiah T, Kwan-Terry J, eds. 1994. English
Kachru BB. 1988. The spread of English and and Language Planning: A Southeast Asian
sacred linguistic cows. See Lowenberg 1988, Contribution. Singapore: Times Acad.
pp. 207-28 Kibbee DA. 1993. Perspective 2. In sympo-
Kachru BB. 1990. World Englishes and applied sium on linguistic imperialism. World Engl.
linguistics. World Engl. 9:3-20 12:342-47
Kachru BB. 1991. Liberation linguistics and the Knowles G. 1997. A Cultural History of the En-
Quirk concerns. Engl. Today 25:3-13 glish Language. London: Arnold
Kachru BB. 1992a. The second diaspora of En- Labov W. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns.
glish. See Machan & Scott 1992, pp. 230-52 Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press
Kachru BB, ed. 1992b. The Other Tongue. Ur- Larsen-Freeman D, Long M. 1991. An Intro-
bana: Univ. Illinois Press duction to Second Language Acquisition Re-
Kachru BB. 1994. Englishization and contact search. London: Longman
linguistics. World Engl. 13:135-54 Lippi-Green R. 1994. Accent, standard lan-
Kachru BB. 1996. The paradigms of marginal-guage ideology and discriminatory pretexts
ity. World Engl. 15:241-55 in the courts. Lang. Soc. 23:163-98
Kachru BB. 1997. World Englishes and Lippi-Green R. 1997. English with an Accent.
English-using communities. Annu. Rev. London: Routledge
Appl. Linguist. 17:66-87 Llamzon T. 1969. Standard Filipino English.
Kachru BB, Nelson CL. 1996. World Engli- Manila: Ateneo Univ. Press
shes. See McKay & Horberger 1996, pp. Lowenberg PH, 1984. English in the Malay
71-102 Archipelago: nativization and its functions
Kachru BB, Quirk R. 1981. Introduction. Seein a sociolinguistic area. PhD thesis. Univ.
Smith 1981, pp. xiii-xx Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. 216 pp.
Lowenberg PH. 1986. Sociolinguistic context
Kachru Y. 1985. Discourse analysis, non-native
Englishes and second language acquisition and second language acquisition: accultur-
research. World Engl. 4:223-32 ation and creativity in Malaysian English.
Kachru Y, ed. 1991. Symposium on speech actsWorld Engl. 5:71-83
in world Englishes. World Engl. 10(3):295-
Lowenberg PH, ed. 1988. Language Spread and
340 Language Policy. Washington, DC: George-
Kachru Y. 1993. Social meaning and creativ-town Univ. Press
ity in Indian English speech acts. In Lan-
Lowenberg PH. 1991. Variation in Malaysian
guage, Communication, and Social Mean- English: the pragmatics of language in
ing, ed. JE Alatis, pp. 378-87. Washington,contact. See Cheshire 1991, pp. 365-
DC: Georgetown Univ. Press 75
Kachru Y. 1994. Monolingual bias in SLA Lowenberg
re- PH. 1992. Testing English as a
search. TESOL Q. 28:795-800 world language: issues in assessing non-
Kachru Y. 1995. Contrastive rhetoric and world native proficiency. See Kachru 1992b, pp.
Englishes. Engl. Today 11:21-31 108-21
Kachru Y. 1997. Culture and argumentativeMachan T, Scott C, eds. 1992. English in
writing in world Englishes. In World its Social Contexts: Essays in Historical
Englishes 2000, ed. LE Smith, M Forman, Sociolinguistics. New York: Oxford Univ.
pp. 48-67. Manoa: Univ. Hawaii Press Press
This content downloaded from 103.204.244.6 on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:50:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
548 BHATT
to-Pidgin
Magura B. 1984. Style and meaning incontinua.
South- World Engl. 16(2):181-
279
ern African English. PhD thesis. Univ. Ill.,
Urbana-Champaign. 242 pp. Myers-Scotton C. 1993a. Duelling Languages.
Magura B. 1985. Southern AfricanOxford,Black
UK: Clarendon
En-
glish. World Engl. 4:251-56 Myers-Scotton C. 1993b. Social Motivations
Mazrui A, Mazrui A. 1998. The for
Power of Ba-
Code-Switching: Evidence from Africa.
bel: Language and Governance Oxford,
in the UK: Clarendon
Afri-
can Experience. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Nelson C. 1984. Intelligibility: the case of non-
Press native varieties of English. PhD thesis. Univ.
McArthur T. 1987. The English languages? Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. 164 pp.
Engl. Today, July/Sept:9-11 Nelson C. 1992. Bilingual writing for the mono-
McArthur T. 1992. The Oxford Companion to lingual reader: blowing up the canon. World
the English Language. Oxford, UK: Oxford Engl. 11:271-75
Univ. Press Nelson C. 1995. Intelligibility and world
McArthur T. 1993. The English language or Englishes in the classroom. World Engl.
the English languages? In The English Lan- 14:273-79
guage, ed. WF Bolton, D Crystal, pp. 323- Paikeday TM. 1985. The Native Speaker is
41. London: Penguin Dead! Toronto: Paikeday
McArthur T. 1998. The English Languages. Pakir A. 1991. The range and depth of English-
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press knowing bilinguals in Singapore. World
McCrum R, Cran W, MacNeil R. 1986. The Engl. 10:167-79
Story of English. London: Faber & Faber Parakrama A. 1990. Language and Rebellion:
McKay S, Hornberger N, eds. 1996. Sociolin- Discoursive Unities and the Possibility of
guistics in Language Teaching. Cambridge, Protest. London: Katha
This content downloaded from 103.204.244.6 on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:50:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WORLD ENGLISHES 549
ogy,in
Quirk R. 1988. The question of standards ed.the
D Brenneis, RKS Macaulay, pp.
284-306. Boulder, CO: Westview
international use of English. See Lowenberg
1988, pp. 229-41 Singh R, ed. 1995. On new/non-native En-
Quirk R. 1990. Language varieties andglishes.
standardJ. Pragmat. 24:283-333
language. Engl. Today 21:3-10 Singler J. 1997. The configuration of Liberia's
Quirk R. 1996. Grammatical and Lexical Vari-
Englishes. World Engl. 16:205-32
ance in English. London: LongmanSkutnabb-Kangas T. 2000. Linguistic Geno-
cide-or Worldwide
Quirk R, Greenbaum S, Leech G, Svartvik J. Diversity and Human
1972. A Grammar of ContemporaryRights. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
English.
London: Longman Smith LE, ed. 1981. Englishfor Cross-Cultural
Ramanathan V. 1999. "English is here Communication.
to stay": London: Macmillan
a critical look at institutional and educa-
Smith LE, ed. 1983. Readings in English as an
tional practices in India. TESOL Q. 33:211-
International Language. London: Pergamon
31 Smith LE, ed. 1987. Discourse Across Cultures.
Rampton MBH. 1990. Displacing the "native London: Prentice Hall
speaker": expertise, affiliation, and inheri- Smith LE. 1988. Language spread and issues
tance. ELT J. 44:97-101 of intelligibility. See Lowenberg 1988, pp.
Richards J. 1979. Rhetorical and communica- 265-82
This content downloaded from 103.204.244.6 on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:50:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
550 BHATT
This content downloaded from 103.204.244.6 on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 18:50:00 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms