Attitudes towards English and varieties of English in globalising India

(1)

Master of Arts Thesis ‒ Euroculture

Attitudes towards English and varieties of English in globalising

India

Has globalisation affected Indian identifications with ‘Indian English’ and

generated new interest in British or American varieties of English?

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (Home) Jagiellonian University (Host)

(2)

MA Programme Euroculture Declaration

I, Annie Padwick hereby declare that this thesis entitled, ‘Attitudes towards English and varieties of English in globalising India ‒ Has globalisation affected Indian identifications with ‘Indian English’ and generated new interest in British or American varieties of English?’ submitted as partial requirement for the MA Programme Euroculture, is my own original work and expressed in my own words. Any uses made within it of works of other authors in any form (i.e. ideas, figures, texts, table etc.) are properly acknowledged in the text as well as in the List of References.

I hereby acknowledge that I was informed about the regulations pertaining to the assessment of the MA Thesis Euroculture and about the general completion rules for the Master of Arts Programme Euroculture.

Signed:

(3)

Table of Figures

Fig. 1 Distribution of responses to the question ‘What other languages can you speak?’

42

Fig. 2 Distribution of responses for ‘What age did you first start learning English?’

43

Fig. 3 Distribution of answers for ‘Which variety do you speak?’ (Padwick, 2009)

55

Fig. 4 Graduate students ‘self-labelling’ of the variety of their English (Kachru, 1979)

55

Fig. 5 Variety of English presently spoken by educated speakers (Shaw, 1981)

55

Fig. 6 What variety do you currently speak? Timeline. 56 Fig. 7 What variety of English do you aspire to speak?

(Padwick, 2009)

58

Fig. 8 Graduate students first preferences for various varieties of English (Kachru, 1979)

58

Fig. 9 The variety that we should learn to speak (Shaw, 1981)

58

Fig. 10 What variety do you aspire to speak? Timeline. 59

List of Tables

Table. 1 Graduate students ‘self-labelling’ of the variety of their English (Kachru, 1979)

23

Table. 2 Graduate students’ attitude towards various models of English and ranking of models according to preference (Kachru, 1979)

24

Table. 3 Faculty preference for models of English for instruction (Kachru, 1979)

24

Table. 4 Variety of English presently spoken by educated speakers (Shaw, 1981)

26

(6)

Table. 6 Preferred models of English (N=45) (Sahgal, 2000) 27

Table. 7 Rotated Component Matrix (a) 41

Table. 8 Table of Results ‘What is you mother tongue?’ and ‘What languages did you speak at home growing up?’

42

Table. 9 Distribution of responses for questions about the languages of education

43

Table. 10 ‘Which language/s do you use to communicate with the following people?’

44

Table. 11 Table of results for ‘In which languages do you do the following?’

45

Table. 12 Distribution of responses to attitude statements about English 46 Table. 13 Number of responses that agree and disagree with the

attitude statements.

47

Table. 14 Distribution of results for ‘Which language would you choose as your mother tongue?’ and ‘Which language would you choose to educate your children in?’

48

Table. 15 Table of results for ‘Do you think English can be used effectively to represent Indian cultural values and traditions?’

48

Table. 16 Distribution of responses for ‘Have you heard of Indian English?’

49

Table. 17 Distribution of responses to questions about varieties of English.

49

Table. 18 Distribution of responses to ‘Which variety of English do you speak?’ (Native and Non-native)

50

Table. 19 Distribution of responses to ‘Which variety of English do you aspire to speak?’ (Native and Non-native)

50

(7)

Preface

I would like to thank my two supervisors for their support and guidance throughout the process of this thesis. To Prof. Zdzisŀaw Mach for his initial suggestions and idea development, and for meeting me for a personal thesis supervision held whilst I was studying in Pune. To Dr. Monika Schmid for working closely with me across countries and continents on all areas of the research project, but especially for the much needed advice in methodologies and statistical analysis.

(8)

Introduction

The consequences of globalisation are being felt worldwide and on a number of levels. Along with its widely discussed impact on economic and political spheres, globalisation has been the catalyst for substantial change within individuals and societies and the way that people relate to and interact with each other (Giddens, 2003; Castells, 2000). Because English is the language of new technology, of computers, software and the Internet (Crystal, 2003) its use has become synonymous with globalisation. Through these media, English is permeating through all professional and academic sectors worldwide, making it vital for all countries who want to operate in these fields to be fully immersed in English.

The significance of this has been great, English is now commonly considered to be ‘the’ global language, and ‘the’ language of international communication (De Swaan, 2001). Adoption of English in this way marks a major point of departure, both in identifying who the users of English are, and in the way that they use English. However, the changes that globalisation causes to the English language and its users are in need of further investigation (Phillipson, 2001; Sonntag, 2004). This thesis is a response to this demand, offering a socio-linguistic study into the effects of globalisation on English in India.

Effects of globalisation on English

(9)

English-using speech community equal to the population of native English-speaking countries, (Kachru, 1985).

Globalisation has produced a distinction between second language and foreign language users of English, highlighting the variances in the functions of English. In countries where English is a second language, the range and depth of its function is more than a foreign language, as English becomes integral to the workings of a country (Kachru, 1985, D’Souza, 2001). Graddol (1997) predicts that if trends continue, the number of speakers of English as a second language will soon exceed the number of native speakers. Clearly, the functions of English when used as a foreign language are distinct from the functions of English when used as a second language.

Foreign language users tend to see English as an international language, as it has limited usage between two nationals. English is used as a language of communication between two people who don’t share the same mother tongue. For example, a Swedish businessman and a Japanese counterpart who do not speak the mother tongue of the other might conduct business in English, using it as a common language. The English used in this role needs to be clear, straightforward and easily intelligible as its primary purpose is to convey and receive meaning (Crystal, 2003). English working in this way can be seen in the European institutions. English acts in Europe as the major lingua franca, it is used as a foreign language and has minimal threat to the survival of other national European languages (De Swaan, 2001). Officials working in EU institutions largely adopt English as the language of their informal meetings. They use what is known as ‘Euro-English’, a simplified English, which avoids idioms and colloquial vocabulary and uses slower speech rates and clearer articulation, with the aim of reducing the obstacles to communication (Crystal, 2003). While English is the working language of these Europeans their cultural identities are expressed in their own national languages.

(10)

judicial systems, for the smooth working of government, for public administration and across the press and broadcast media (Krishnaswamy, 2006). Thus while the English language has remained, it is not now the English of the British. Through being spoken by their own communities and amongst each other, the English language has been moulded, adapted and embellished in order to address their own needs of it, and to express their own cultures, values, and traditions (Schneider, 2007). As a result we can see the blossoming of a wide spectrum of non-native varieties of English in these countries, which have given name to the varieties, African English, Indian English, Singlish etc. In these contexts, English functions as a language of communication inside the country, meaning the language contains culture specific words and references that only someone from that country may understand (Krishnaswamy and Burde, 2001). English in this situation can employ local accents, grammar and syntax, that are key functions in the assertion of local and cultural identities.

While a speaker of a foreign language draws their language standards from outside their country, the users of a second language help to create that language and set the norms for its use. Globalisation has created three functions of English and groups of English users (Kachru, 1985): native speakers using English as their main or only language, second language speakers using English as an important language alongside their main language within their country and foreign language speakers using English to communicate with non-nationals and people outside their country.

English in India

(11)

Kachru 1998), almost one in three Indians claims to speak English although less than twenty percent are confident speaking it.

Since independence, English has undergone great transformation, and in the process of ‘nativisation’, English has been adapted to meet the linguistic needs of Indian speakers (Schneider, 2007). English has become an Indian language, because it has been 'indianized' through its use by Indians (Kachru, 1985). Krishnaswamy and Burde (2001) call this ‘using English with a touch of India’. Indian English is a term created to mark a new variety of English, and to distinguish differences in speech, grammar and syntax as used by Indian speakers from those of British speakers (Kachru, 1985). Since independence, Indian English has been used as a marker of identity, a code that removes the sole claim to English from the British and reclaims English as India’s own (Schneider, 2007).

Effects of globalisation on English in India

(12)

Globalisation has resulted in the development of two distinct uses for English in contemporary Indian society. The first development can be called a nativised variety of English. Language in this strand functions at intra-national level and is called Indian English. Simultaneously, however, a divergent use for English is developing. This use is heavily influenced by globalisation as India taps into the economic potential of using its English as a language of international business (Krishnaswamy, 2005). English in this role functions at international level and its purpose is to ensure globally intelligible communication.

Who is in control of globalisation?

Globalisation has caused a number of changes, but who is responsible for these changes? Is globalisation an autonomous force or are the forces of globalisation controlled by the powerful? Does English spread across the globe independently or is it promoted? Some scholars (Phillipson, 2001; Shome, 2006) do not see globalisation as an independent worldwide phenomenon but a capitalist cause in the hands of a number of rich and powerful conglomerates. However Crystal (2003) points out that, for English to develop such a powerful global status countries have had to accept English and afford it a special place within their communities. English has to be allowed to burgeon in a country and to become integrated in the national language policy. But language policy works in a spiral, as more countries re-plan their language policy to accommodate English, even more countries seek to follow this trend. Such countries know it is important that their children become proficient in English as no one wants to be excluded from the global market where English is a key commodity (Krishnaswamy, 2005). While countries themselves are setting their own language policies in regard to English, are they totally free in the decision-making process? Tsui and Tollefson (2007) maintain that language policy responses to globalisation have been greatly influenced by the preferences of Western multinational and transnational corporations, and thus the promotion of English in India is somewhat determined by the desire of global industries to situate their companies within India.

(13)

English speaker in a European degree programme this writer has been able to see first-hand how English can be employed as a common language with very few difficulties in all European countries studied in, whether for academic purposes or in daily life. English occupies the role of foreign language in Europe, and in the writer’s opinion, it is a language of transactions, a language with a goal, not a language to be used in personal or intimate situations. The opportunity to study for a semester at the University of Pune offered an ideal occasion to study the use and role of English in a country where it is used as a second language. The writer was interested to see how the function of English as a second language, differed from that of a foreign language. The aim was to explore these areas by conducting research into the language use and domains of English in India, as well as into Indian attitudes towards English. Having identified that previous research into attitudes towards English in India had been conducted in Indian universities the writer concluded that The University of Pune would provide the ideal setting for this study. Furthermore, the research population, ‘English speaking Indian students at the University of Pune’, would be easy to target during a semester there.

(14)

varieties with a decrease in the reliance on British English and an increasing acceptance of Indian English.

A heavy reliance will be made on these two studies in this research. By comparing the results of this study with these earlier ones, the plan was to explore and assess if and how these attitudes have changed. If the assumptions are proved, a reduction of acceptance towards Indian English and increasing acceptance of American English and British English varieties will be seen. The principle aims of this study are: to reproduce previous studies on attitudes to English; to explore current attitudes to the role and use of English in India; to investigate the acceptance of different varieties of English (Indian English, British English and American English); to compare previous studies with the findings of this research; and where possible to analyse statistically the collected data to provide generalisations about attitudes to English in India. The objective was set to select a sample of 50-80 students within the research population who would be willing to take part in the study. The research aims are achievable by conducting a survey within this sample, posing questions about the respondents’ language backgrounds, language use and domains, and their attitudes to English in general and more specifically their opinions on language varieties.

(15)

(16)

Literature Review

Attitudes towards language

Research into attitudes towards languages has been a relatively new area of interest. The earliest work concerning language attitudes begun with Gardner and Lambert’s (1972) research into Canadian bilinguals, where they explored adult’s and children’s attitudes towards English and French. They devised a model by which to measure attitude, which still influences research today. According to Gardner attitude has,

“Cognitive, affective and conative components and consists, in broad terms, of an underlying psychological predisposition to act or to influence behaviour in a certain way. Attitude is thus linked to a person’s values and beliefs and promotes or discourages the choices made in all realms of activity, whether academic or informal.” (Gardner, 1985)

Gardner and Lambert who researched into motivations for language learning, differentiated between integrative motivation and instrumental motivation. An integrative motivation is the desire to learn a language to be like and interact with speakers of the target language, whereas an instrumental motivation is the desire to learn a language to further academic or career success (Gardner, 1985).

The most comprehensive work on language attitudes is by Baker in 1992. Baker provides attitude theory and research practice and models to be used when assessing language, explaining the relevance and importance of attitudinal research for language policy and language planning,

“In the life of a language, attitudes to that language appear to be important in language restoration, preservation, decay or death. If a community is grossly unfavourable to bilingual education or the imposition of a ‘common’ national language is attempted, language policy implementation is likely to be unsuccessful.” (Baker, 1992, 9)

(17)

Most scholars working in the area of attitudes and language have looked at attitudes towards different languages among bilingual speakers. However, Thomas (2004) points out that attitudes towards language and language use can also focus on attitudes towards particular varieties of the same language. She highlights the negative reactions towards non-standard varieties of English in Britain or towards African American vernacular usage in the United States (Thomas, 2004). There are many instances when a particular variety is stigmatised and thought to be inferior to another variety, this usually happens in the direction of standard language speakers towards speakers of non-standard languages.

Attitudes towards English in India

The attitudes towards English in India are far from straightforward, as the relationship with English must deal with the colonial history of English in India. There have been and still are strong reactions to the continued use of English on colonial grounds (Phillipson, 2001; Dasgupta, 1993). Crystal (2003) argues,

“It is inevitable that, in a post-colonial era, there should be a strong reaction against continuing to use the language of the former colonial power in favour of indigenous languages.” (Crystal, 2003, 124)

However, support has also been strong for the retention of English as a functional necessity. While Gandhi considered English to be an alien language and thought that keeping it would mark India’s continued slavery (Crystal, 2003), President Nehru considered English necessary for India’s industrialisation and further development in science and technology (Sonntag, 2004). Annamalai (2005) highlights the dilemma with English where the nation’s self-interest falls in two conflicting strands. Firstly, the need to build national pride and national identity means renouncing associations with colonial rule and within this, the replacement of English. But the second strand recognises the need to secure skills and knowledge in the economic sectors, and requires the retention of English. The split of opinion has been long lasting and how this has affected the attitudes of general public is worthy of research.

(18)

a “love-hate relationship between the citizens of the former British colonies and the English language” (Shaw, 1981, 117). He maintains English is rebuffed as the language of colonial domination, but is at the same time valued for its usefulness in a modern world. Shaw’s study shows that 68.1% of Indian students disagreed with the statement ‘I don’t really like English, but I speak it because it is useful’ and 59.8 % of Indian students disagreed with the statement ‘If English was NOT taught in our schools, I would not try and learn it’. The results indicate that students’ attitudes towards English are now much more positive than negative and English is valued for something more than its usefulness. English is not seen as an imposed language but one that students seem willing to learn. Shaw concludes that students have different attitudes towards English than their forefathers and that,

“English has lost much of its colouring as a colonial legacy” (Shaw, 1981, 118).

Shaw also questioned students on the future of English and found that a high majority of students thought English would continue to be a major world language even if the US and the UK lost economic power and that 89% of respondents would make sure their children learnt English well. These statistics indicate the belief in English as a world language and its significance in the future.

This attitudinal change in favour of English has been supported by Annamalai (2005) and Krishnaswamy (2006), who maintain that in the globalisation era objections to the imposition of English has been set aside as India realises the economic value of its English speakers. Annamalai believes Indians now view English in a considerably more positive light,

“The image of English as the language of oppression in the colonial era has come to be projected as the language for freedom from poverty in the postcolonial world.” (Annamalai, 2005, 32).

To what range and depth English has been able to infiltrate Indian society has been a matter of great debate among scholars. Many think English is only capable of practical rather than personal functions. Fishman (1992) writes,

(19)

international diplomacy, industry/commerce, high oratory, and pop songs.” (Fishman, 1992, 23)

Krishnaswamy and Burde (1998), view English as a ‘module’, saying that English has penetrated into many areas, science, technology, judiciary, mass media, commerce and administration, however it has not affected ‘the finer realms of life’. That English has not had any significant impact on social functions in India, in religious and social customs and ceremonies, festivals, or intimate relationships with family or friends. Dasgupta sees English as occupying the role of ‘Auntie’ in Indian society, one of formality and awkwardness and devoid of creativity and emotion (Dasgupta, 1993). Attendants at the ‘Language and Identity’ conference in Pune (2009) argued that English is often used to discuss taboo subjects, they noted that the Marathi word for toilet is actually the English word ‘toilet’ and that students often felt a lot freer to discuss issues of sexuality in English than their mother tongues. This implies that English is used as a distancing mechanism.

On the other hand, D’Souza (2001) believes that English has a much deeper influence on society,

“English in India is used for a wide range of purposes: political, bureaucratic, educational, media-related, commercial, intellectual, literary, social, intimate, religious and so on. It has penetrated all layers of society and though it may be used with ease and fluency only by the so called elite, it is not alien and unfamiliar to the masses.” (D’Souza, 2001, 146)

Gokhale (2009) also observes the use of English in personal functions, arguing that many Indians choose to quarrel in English because the social prestige associated with English means that someone who argues in English must be right.

(20)

function’, where English is seen as a window to the world and valued because it enables access to knowledge outside India. By retaining English as a library language, (reading English to access knowledge but not practising spoken English to the same extent), India can keep up-to-date with recent findings in science and technology, thus assisting India’s development and modernization (Krishnaswamy, 2006). In the welfare-driven social function, English plays a reduced role in the lives of the users, than with the market-driven social function. The third function is the ‘ideology driven identity project function’, where English becomes a ‘window on India’ and is used to talk about Indian identities, cultures, heritage and values so the rest of the world can understand what India is and what it stands for (Krishnaswamy, 2006). We must understand the function of English for the users, before we can understand their attitudes towards it.

Varieties of English in India

Scholars have begun the process of discovery of Indian English over the last fifty years. While some scholars deny that Indian English is not a real variety of English, most argue that Indian English is a ‘nativised’ (Schneider, 2007) or ‘indianized’ (Kachru, 1983) variety of English that is spoken in India. They accept Indian English as new variety, having its own distinct rules of grammar, phonology, syntax and vocabulary. The most prolific and advanced researcher to date on the theme of Indian English is Braj Kachru. Much of his work concerns the definition and detailing of the variety ‘Indian English’, its sociolinguistic profiling and the wider social, political and pedagogical implications of recognising these new varieties (Kachru, 1979, 1983, 1994, 2005).

While scholars report that Indian English is a variety spoken in India, they also report that British English has remained the common teaching model for many years after independence. Kachru (1986) writes that Received Pronunciation (RP) has been the traditional model of English presented to learners overseas and has,

(21)

“Traditionally for historical reasons, southern British English has been the norm presented to the South Asians through the BBC, a small percentage of the English administrators and some teachers. In the written mode the exocentric norm came in the form of British literature and newspapers.” (Kachru, 2005, 55)

However Kachru (1986) explains, that although British English became the preferred educational norm in the country, it was frequently not this norm that Indians came into contact with. In many cases, teachers of English came from outside of Britain and were not native English speakers or came from Britain but spoke with British regional dialects. British English and RP set the norm for English speakers in India, but many learners did not come into contact with RP and more commonly spoke English with other influences. Kachru explains,

“A frequent usage is not always the usage that is attitudinally or socially accepted.” (Kachru, 1986, 87)

After independence India has had to answer fundamental questions about which variety of English should be used in contemporary English teaching. Should British English remain as the teaching norm or should Indian English be accepted as a suitable model? Scholars have argued that the British English variety has retained its grip on the education system despite the removal of the British (Krishnaswamy, 2006; Hasmi, 1989). Kachru also backed up this point,

“Teaching materials and teacher training programmes do not generally present a ‘linguistically tolerant’ attitude towards non-native localized varieties, or towards the speakers of varieties considered different from ‘standard’ ones.” (Kachru, 1986, 87)

Do Indians then speak British English, or Indian English? Gokhale (1988) makes an interesting observation. He points out that because the teaching norm is set as British English, teachers might think that they are teaching British English and students might think they are learning British English but the reality is that the teaching of British English to Indian students by Indian teachers is an impossible task. He writes,

(22)

While there are certainly some people in India who speak English like native speakers, it is an illusion to think that the majority of Indians can be taught to speak English like the British. Indians do not have frequent contact with British English, as there are few people around them speaking British English. Indian English however is much more prevalent and so Indian English is the model that is naturally inherited.

It has also been discussed whether it is possible for Indian speakers to be both proficient in both Indian English and British English and/or other varieties of English (Kachru, 1989; Crystal, 2003). Kachru (1989) highlights that language patterns are subject to change, and that the English language speaker might adapt his/her variety dependent on to whom they are speaking and in what context,

“An educated Indian English speaker may attempt to approximate a native-English model while speaking to an native-Englishman or an American, but switch to the localized educated variety when talking to a fellow Indian colleague, and further indianite his English when communicating with a shopkeeper, a bus conductor, or an office clerk.” (Kachru, 1989, 89-90)

This view corresponds well with Krishnaswamy’s opinion quoted above, that attitudes towards English are largely dependent on the function that English has for the speaker (Krishnaswamy, 2006). For example an American or British variety of English may be preferential for someone who will work in international communication, or who will communicate with many people from outside India. Alternatively, a native variety of English might be preferential in an intrastate situation where communication occurs in local multilinguistic situations. Kachru (1989) points out that switch from one variety to another, depending on the function of the communication, however, is only possible for someone with a good competence of English, who is able to distinguish between varieties. With proficiency of two varieties however the speaker need not choose only one variety to speak.

(23)

language again, avoiding culture specific metaphors and phrases that might not be known to someone outside of Britain. Those who are able to use more than one dialect/variety have the advantage over people who can only use one. They have a dialect/variety that can express their own identity and a dialect/variety that can be used for intelligibility on the international level. Crystal (2003) makes comparisons with the English language situation in Singapore,

“A bidialectical (or bilingual) policy allows a people to look both ways at once, and would be the most effective way of the country achieving its aims.” (Crystal, 2003, 176)

Attitudes towards varieties of English in India

How those who come in to contact with a variety perceive it has important implications for the success of that variety. While many scholars have welcomed the variety Indian English, traditionally among the general public the view has been that Indian English is inferior and is in effect speaking English wrong (Kachru, 1983; Gokhale, 1988). Kachru (1983) remarks that Indian English was often regarded in a derogatory light,

“Indians normally would not identify themselves as members of the Indian English speech community, preferring instead to consider themselves speakers of British English”. (Kachru, 1983, 73)

Kachru (1979) conducted a large survey of attitudes among the teaching faculty and graduate students of English in Indian universities. The varieties of English chosen for examination in the survey were American English, British English, and Indian English. Kachru asked graduates to identify which variety of English they spoke, see Table 1.

Table 1 ‒ Graduate students ‘self-labelling’ of the variety of their English (Kachru, 1979)

Identity-marker %

American English 2.58

British English 29.11

Indian English 55.64

‘Mixture’ of all three 2.99

I don’t know 8.97

(24)

Many of the respondents have identified with Indian English, much more than with British English, however from the next question we can see their aspirations differ from their current usage. Kachru also asked respondents to rank the varieties in order of preference. See Table 2 for graduate students’ responses and Table 3 for faculty member responses.

Table 2 ‒ Graduate students’ attitude towards various models of English and ranking of models according to preference (Kachru, 1979)

Model Preference 1 Preference 2 Preference 3

American English 5.17 13.19 21.08

British English 67.6 9.65 1.08

Indian English 22.72 17.85 10.74

I don’t care 5.03

‘Good’ English 1.08

Table 3 ‒ Faculty preference for models of English for instruction (Kachru, 1979)

Model Preference 1 Preference 2 Preference 3

American English 3.07 14.35 25.64

British English 66.66 13.33 1.53

Indian English 26.66 25.64 11.79

I don’t know 5.12

Kachru concludes from his data analysis that “Indians still consider the British model to be the preferred model” (Kachru, 1979, 8), as 66.66% of faculty, and 67.6% of graduate students had indicated this as their first choice. In both groups Indian English was chosen as second choice and American English forms a clear third choice. This study shows that in 1979 the majority of staff and students considered British English to be the best model for Indian education.

(25)

“...attitudinally it is a post-1960s phenomenon that identificational modifiers such as ‘Indian’, ‘Sri Lankan’ and Pakistani’ are used with a localised variety without necessarily implying a derogatory connotation.” (Kachru, 1994, 526)

Disparity between the spoken standard and the aspired variety, Kachru describes as ‘a difference between linguistic behaviour and an idealized linguistic norm’ (2005). He claims this has existed in India for a long time, but maintains that the differences between behaviour and ideal are narrowing and that people’s linguistic behaviour is more closely matching their ideal. Ideals are moving in the direction of Indian English. Krishnaswamy and Burde when reporting on Kachru’s 1979 study remark that attitudes towards Indian English are far from clear, saying,

“There seems to be an attitudinal minefield, which should be turned into a research area.” (Krishnaswamy and Burde, 1998, 14)

Other studies into attitudes towards varieties have also noted an attitudinal swing towards Indian English. Shaw (1981) conducts a similar study to Kachru, yet this time covering the countries of Singapore, India and Thailand. Shaw conducted a closed format questionnaire among final-year Bachelor degree students in the three countries, selecting students from the fields of English literature and teaching, engineering and business commerce. It was found that Indian students often answered similarly to the Singaporean students, both treating English as an intrastate language. Respondents were asked which variety is spoken by educated speakers in their country and they were asked to choose from British, American, Australian, Unique, or like educated non-native speakers from other countries. Their results shown in Table 4, indicate that Indians more than any other group believe they speak a unique variety of English, however the numbers answering British English confirms for the historical relationship of these countries.

(26)

Table 4 ‒ Variety of English presently spoken by educated speakers (Shaw, 1981) Model Singaporeans % Indians % Thai % British 40.5 27.4 6.5 American 6.0 3.2 28.1 Australian 0.6 0.0 0.0 Unique 42.3 50.6 40.3 Other 10.6 18.8 25.1

Table 5 ‒ The variety that we should learn to speak (Shaw, 1981)

Models Singaporeans % Indians % Thais % British 38.3 28.5 49.1 American 14.4 12.0 31.6 Australian 0.6 0.3 0.3 Own way 38.9 47.4 3.5 Others 7.8 11.8 15.5

Shaw’s study suggests that Indians welcome their non-native variety and concludes that, “There is an increasing acceptance of these educated forms as varieties to be supported as much if not more than native varieties.” (Shaw, 1981, 121-122)

(27)

other English varieties. The results for AIR/TV English is the next highest. Sahgal states that,

“The discrepancy between the two scores suggest that Indian English has become more respectable and that the prestige associated with native varieties of English (especially British English) is beginning to fade in a multilingual country like India.” (Sahgal, 2000, 304)

Table 6 ‒ Preferred models of English (N=45) (Sahgal, 2000)

Models of English Number of respondents %

BBC English 11 24

American English 1 2

AIR/TV English 12 27

Ordinary Indian English 21 47

It is worth noting here that Sahgal questioned a different research population than the other studies, the latter have questioned only students and academics whereas Sahgal questions the general public. Scholars have often referred to a drag of acceptance of new varieties within the academic profession (Krishnaswamy, 2006), this is highlighted by Hashmi in reference to Pakistan but remains relevant for India when he says, “RP and the British Standard have increasingly gone out of use while remaining in academic reference” (Hasmi in Kachru, 2005, 55). If the academic world suffers from a need to retain British English that the rest of the population does not share, then you would expect Sahgal’s study to be more in favour of Indian English than the other studies.

The fact that attitudes are changing can be confirmed by the change of policy by NCERT (The National Council of Education Research and Training) in India, who recently revised the curriculum framework to show greater acceptance of the Indian English variety. They write,

(28)

considered a distinct variety with an identity and status of its own, and should serve as a model in teaching – learning situations.” (NCF 2005, NCERT)

Globalisation and English

While there is a huge body of work on globalisation and the influences and changes it is making to society (Castells, 2000; Giddens, 2003), some scholars have noted that there is insufficient research into the effects of globalisation on languages. Sonntag notes that the study of language is the most undeveloped in the study of global politics (Sonntag, 2003) and Phillipson (2001) agrees, commenting that postcolonial Englishes receive much scholarly attention but there is a lack of research into ‘global Englishes’ and the power and influence the English language has as part of the globalising process.

The language that is most often associated with globalisation is English (Crystal, 2003; Fishman, 1992), and so an investigation into globalisation and language is bound to examine what is happening to English globally. Kayman (2004) explains how English is seen and used in a globalising world,

“English is, clearly the dominant language of technology. Hence, by the token, English seems to receive the qualities attributed to the communications technology; the language itself becomes a technology, a tool, a simple instrument. In other words, the intimate association of English with the

technological means of communication reinforces its claims as the pre-eminent medium of globalization: branded, in fact as the language of communication par excellence.” (Kayman, 2004)

(29)

Taylor and Bain (2005) argue that offshore call centres in the developing world embody the ideal of Castells’ informationalism (2000), where the networked globalised economy marks the ‘death of distance’ removing the ‘space of place’ and replacing it with ‘the space of flows’. The English proficiency of Indian speakers has been key to the development of the call centre industry in India. Bhomik argues,

“Call centres have flourished because the operators know English and are available at much cheaper rates than their counterparts in the USA and UK.” (Bhomik, 2004, 89)

The development of new industries in India has had social consequences, one of which is the growing demand for trained and highly-skilled workers in these industries. Scholars have found that the education system in India is changing as a result of globalisation, and is increasingly adapting to provide the skills necessary for these workplaces (Vaish, 2008; Block and Cameron, 2002; Scrase, 2000). Since employers in these industries require proficiency in English and good communication skills, there has been a mushrooming of new English-medium schools in India, more schools offering bilingual classrooms with English as the second language and a strengthening of the role of communicative skills in the English classroom (Annamalai, 2004, 184).

A number of scholars have investigated the linguistic training and practice in Indian call centres and found it to be unjust (Shome, 2006; Taylor and Bain, 2005). In interviews with employees of call centre staff Taylor and Bain (2005) note that employees are under particular stress by having to adopt a different persona, name and accent (usually British or American) in their work,

“Indian agents as they negotiate the contradictions between their culture, identity and aspirations, and the requirements of service provision for western customers. The widespread adoption of anglicized pseudonyms, of having to conceal their Indian locations, and the obligation to speak in ‘neutral’ accents, or even emulate their customers’ dialects, contribute greatly to a pressurized working experience.” (Taylor and Bain, 2005, 273)

(30)

‘racist’ (Taylor and Bain, 2005, 278). The language of the call centre, and representations of a ‘global English’, can be linked to the calls of global hegemony and linguistic imperialism. Call centre operators are not allowed to use their own varieties of English; they have to imitate the language and culture of an economically more powerful country in order for Indian firms to secure contracts. Shome (2006) claims call centres are training staff in ‘global English’, they are dissuaded from using Indian English varieties, and encouraged to speak what they consider ‘global English’ ‒ English as spoken by a Westerner especially an American or British one. (Shome, 2006). Shome too sees this process as exploitative, where the English language,

“functions as an apparatus of transnational governmentality through which the voice of the third world subject is literally erased and reconstructed in the servicing of the global economy.” (Shome, 2006, 110)

Tsui and Tollefson (2007) argue that countries like India have little choice but to set their language policies in-line with the wishes of these western corporations, arguing

“ … their language policy responses to globalization have been shaped, even determined, by the linguistic practices of multinational corporations, transnational organizations and international aid agencies. Asian countries have had little choice but to legitimize the homogeny of English.” (Tsui and Tollefson, 2007, 18)

It seems the linguistic practices of call centres is also helping to determine Indian language policies in regards to English.

(31)

variety (Cowie, 2007). Cowie questions however, whether “neutral is simply a euphemism, and clients still in essence want agents to use an American accent.” (Cowie, 2007, 322). When asked to define a ‘neutral’ accent Cowie’s respondents frequently cited BBC Asia newsreaders – representative of a RP – but others pointed to readers from Indian channels that are likely to represent educated Indian English. It seems that respondents view ‘neutral English’ as either British English, or educated Indian English.

Cowie (2007) finds a generational difference in attitudes to English, older trainers negatively evaluated American accents and positively evaluated British accents where as younger employees were more favourable towards the American accent. Cowie writes the older trainers,

“Reluctance to use or teach an American accent is not simply a rejection of a business model, but a wider resistance to a wider orientation in Indian society towards American English. The younger colleagues on the other hand arrive at Excellence (the agency) with a positive orientation to an American accent, encouraged by a high-profile, high-status, American-sounding NRI (non-resident Indian) population.” (Cowie, 2007, 328)

This study seems to refute the claims made by Taylor and Bain, Shome and Phillipson of linguistic imperialism, as staff are able to consciously and purposefully avoid American English. However, Cowie claims younger Indians are more positive towards American accents and this might suggest the younger staff are more susceptible to American English, which would predict a more positive attitude towards American influence in the future.

(32)

variety they aspired to speak, and so the study concluded that there is no marked increase in the acceptance of American English.

There are two distinct views on the nature of globalisation. Firstly that globalisation is the homogenisation of the world (Shome, 2006; Taylor and Bain, 2005; Phillipson 2001). In this view English is seen as the linguistic counterpart to economic globalisation, and ‘global English’ is the domination of Western varieties of English and devaluation of other varieties in the global sphere. The second view argues that globalisation also causes the acquisition of difference. Daniel Dor reasons that the forces of globalisation are not only working in favour of ‘global English’ but also “work to strengthen a significant set of other languages – at the expense of English (Dor, 2004, 98).” Dor maintains that globalisation works to foster new and varied forms of language, including varieties of English. He explains his reasoning quoting Warschauer, El Said and Zhory (2002) who write,

“Economic and social globalization, pushed along by the rapid diffusion of the Internet, creates a strong demand for an international lingua franca, thus furthering English’s presence as a global language. On the other hand, the same dynamics that gave rise to globalization, and global English, also give rise to a backlash against both, and that gets expressed, in one form, through a strengthened attachment to local dialects and languages.” (in Dor, 2004, 100-101)

(33)

“There is no intrinsic conflict between Standard English and Singlish in Singapore, as the reasons for the existence of the former, to permit Singaporeans of different linguistic backgrounds to communicate with each other and people abroad, are different from the reasons for the emergence of the latter, to provide a sense of local identity.” (Crystal, 2003, 176)

Chew (2007) and Crystal (2003) comment that there are two flows to globalisation, both moving in opposite directions yet existing in a certain equilibrium. Thus, they do not see the forces of globalisation as threatening the unique varieties of New Englishes. Crystal writes,

“The pull imposed by the need for identity, which has been making New Englishes increasingly dissimilar from British English, could be balanced by a pull imposed by the need for intelligibility, on a world scale, which will make them increasingly similar through the continued use of Standard English.” (Crystal, 2003, 178)

Krishnaswamy and Burde (1998) again deny the destructive impact of the force of globalisation on identity-based forms like Indian English, they write,

“The vast majority (of Indians) seem to know how to handle the cultural osmosis, how to contain alien languages, how to control invading influences, and how to absorb and manipulate them to its advantage without any clash.” (Krishnaswamy and Burde, 1998, 153)

(34)

Research Methodology

This chapter explains the methods used to collect and analyse data, with a view to discover whether globalisation is negatively affecting the acceptance of the Indian English variety in India. The theoretical background will be examined, explaining the choice of qualitative methods, selection of participants and the decision to model a survey to seek answers. This approach enables the exploration of language attitudes and approaches towards English, and employs statistical analysis to make generalisations about a whole population and provide deeper insights based on empirical data.

Theoretical framework

This research is situated within a positivist epistemology, believing that knowledge of the humanly created world can be obtained, as it is systematic, empirical, replicable, falsifiable and is in many ways objective (Della Porter and Keating, 2008). However the positivist approach has been somewhat relaxed, borrowing many ideas from the neo-positivist thinking,

“Neo-positivist approaches have relaxed the assumptions that knowledge is context free and that the same relationships among variables will hold everywhere and at all times. Instead there is more emphasis on the particular and local and on the way in which factors may combine in different circumstances. To capture the contextual effect, researchers have increasingly resorted to the idea of institutions as bearers of distinct patterns of incentives and sanctions, and on the way that decisions taken at one time constrain what can be done later.” (Della Porter and Keating, 2008)

This allows for the education system of India to be a major player in setting language norms, and encouraging attitudes and opinions about English. Positivist theory borrows research methods and analysis from the natural sciences, and so this theory generally calls for quantitative methods.

Aims and objectives

(35)

variables. The approach is deductive as the hypothesis is derived from previous knowledge and research.

The previous chapter outlines the arguments in support of the hypothesis, but the main arguments are recapped here. Kachru (1979; 1985; 1994) and Shaw (1981) have highlighted that attitudes to English are not fixed, they are determined by external factors particularly the education system. For example, the norm of English first projected was British English, as a result of the outside influences of colonialism. Shaw (1981) and Kachru (1994) have shown the attitudes towards English in India have changed over the past 30 years, moving away from exonormative models in favour of endonormative models.

Many scholars have suggested that globalisation is now effecting many unique social changes (Castells, 2000; Annamalai, 2005; Chew, 2007) and it is highly likely that globalisation is also effecting change upon language attitudes. Other scholars (Phillipson, 2001; Shome, 2006) see the forces of globalisation as reproducing the models of more powerful countries and imposing them on developing countries. In this way America and Britain are influencing language norms in India by promoting their own varieties. Kachru (1994) has predicted a rise in the influences of American English, which coincides with the global influence of America in India. Cowie (2007) has examined one of the most global industries in India, the call centre, and found that older staff prefer to use Indian English and that younger staff are more open to American English standard.

(36)

attitudes and approaches to English, there is the understanding that with the addition of more variables eventually all variation can be explained.

Methods

The research for the main part utilizes quantitative methods, but where qualitative methods are used they follow the same logic as the quantitative methods. To some extent the study replicates the methods used by previous studies in this area and allows for some points of comparison.

Survey

A survey was modelled with both open and closed questions (see Appendix 1, pg. 83-87). Closed questions are used for eliciting information and measuring the responses and open questions are used to offer greater insight into opinions and attitudes and to back up the arguments generated from the qualitative analysis. The survey attempted to uncover information in a number of areas; to determine the language backgrounds of the participants; the language use and domains of the participants (i.e. which languages they spoke to whom, and in what contexts); language attitudes elicited by a number of statements regarding English; and opinions about the use of different varieties of English.

(37)

To determine language attitudes towards English in general, attitude scales have been used as this is the most frequently used method for tapping meaning (Payne, 2004). While it is not as common to investigate meaning using quantitative methods as it is with qualitative methods, attitude scales explore meanings in an objective framework, capable of statistical manipulation and provide good reliability. An ‘attitude scale’ asks the respondent to react to a statement in terms of a fixed range of levels (Payne, 2004). The most commonly used scale is the Likert Scale, which measures opinions of five levels of agreement and disagreement; strongly agree, agree, neither agree or disagree, disagree and strongly disagree (Likert, 1932 in Baker, 1992). The Likert Scale calls for 100 statements, although as previous studies have proven that a smaller number of statements work just as effectively (Payne, 2004). This model has been adapted using 10 statements, and using only four levels of agreement and disagreement. The levels in this study are: Strongly agree, agree, disagree and strongly disagree. Four measurements have been chosen so that generalisations about agreement or disagreement to a particular statement can be made more easily. Each statement used in the survey is tied to an issue, e.g. ‘English is a constant reminder of British occupation’ is linked to the issue of English and colonialism. There is the claim that attitude scales fail to capture the complexity of meanings as achieved by qualitative methods (Payne, 2004), which is why the addition of open questions benefit the investigation.

Questions about attitudes to varieties of English were modelled on previous research, particularly the studies by (Kachru, 1979 and Shaw, 1981). These studies asked respondents to self-identify with which variety they spoke, and with which variety they would like to speak. These studies were chosen as they allow for comparisons between students in a university setting. The study into attitudes by Sahgal has been rejected as a model because of the differences in sample group, see Literature review, pg. 27. Expanding on these surveys, questions have also been introduced that ask the respondents which variety should be used generally in India and which variety should be used for international communication.

(38)

overlap somewhat with the previous question. This reduced the survey completion time. The pilot group also queried a number of statements, thought to be slightly ambiguous and offered suggestions for alternatives. The survey was amended accordingly. From the pilot it was able to estimate the time it took to complete the survey, enabling the respondents to be advised of this time correctly.

Sample

The positivist approach to quantitative methods calls for a large number of cases to maximise generalisability and capture most sources of variation (Della Porter and Keating, 2008). The more cases that are included in the sample, the better the researcher can identify the nature of the causal effects, and specify the conditions under which causal effects are felt. As more cases offer a higher reliability of results the aim was to investigate as many cases as possible. However there were a number of constraints upon achieving the desired sample.

(39)

The finished sample was 50 students, 29 men and 21 women. As predicted, 26% of the respondents originated from states other than Maharashtra. The sample comprised students from a range of degree programmes, 20 from arts degrees, 14 from business degrees and 13 from science degrees, (3 students did not declare their programme of study). The sampling method was not ideal for this type of research. Probability sampling would have achieved a statistically representative sample, which would gain the best results from statistical analysis and allow for very reliable generalisations beyond the sample. As the chance to conduct probability sample was not possible, the current sample therefore is not as statistically representative. As a result, it is more difficult to make reliable generalisations across a whole population. The selected sample however, can be used to give a good impression of the attitudes and approaches to English in the University of Pune.

Data collection

It is usual for researchers working in the positivist philosophy to set up complete separation between the researcher and the participants as the view is that the researcher may contaminate the research by being a part of it, therefore quantitative methods, standardised questionnaires, anonymous surveys are used to maintain this separation. Whilst trying to stay true to this methodology, there have been a number of practical limitations to this research and it was not always possible to maintain the separation between researcher and observer. Standardised surveys were produced to be completed by the respondents, and the respondents do not have to include their names. However because the surveys could not be sent out by post or email and had to be given out in person, naturally this separation was not always possible. Leaving the respondent to fill in the survey alone, and returning to them after about 15mins to collect it reduced the contact between researcher and participant. During the initial stages of data collection it was discovered that staying with the person whilst the survey was completed meant that the respondent often discussed all answers before writing them down, which was not desirable.

(40)

looked like students, as opposed to staff, cleaners and workers around the campus were selected. The criteria for selection were people that appeared to have some spare time. The many couples that met in the parks were avoided, as were people who were eating as interrupting might appear rude. The majority of people asked were willing to spend the time to complete the survey, in fact many respondents wrote their email addresses and telephone numbers on the bottom of the survey for use in case of further questions. Of all the people asked, no one declined the survey because it was in English.

Ethical considerations

Throughout the study it has been ensured that potential respondents, and selected respondents have been treated with care, sensitivity and respect. As respondents were approached to complete a survey, they were given information about the study; about the researcher; what type of research was being conducted; why the research would be conducted; and the approximate time it might take to complete. Respondents were given an opportunity to decline the survey, by saying that they did not have time to complete it. Information about the nature of the study, and about completing the survey was also given at the beginning of the survey itself. It was important respondents were clear about what to do as the researcher would not be with them to ask questions. The survey stated that the information provided would be treated in the strictest confidence, and individual respondent details would not be disclosed. Respondent details were only seen by the data collector, thus ensuring anonymity and confidentiality.

Methods of data analysis

(41)

or sister, language spoken with friends, and language spoken to classmates). See Table 7.

Table 7 ‒ Rotated Component Matrix (a)

Component Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 langhome -0.009 0.155 -0.087 0.698 0.409 0.015 othlang 0.250 0.199 -0.279 -0.627 0.057 0.144 langprim 0.669 0.279 0.210 -0.025 0.107 -0.417 langsec 0.785 -0.023 0.063 -0.117 -0.157 -0.153 langfath 0.096 -0.178 0.192 -0.105 0.838 0.150 langmoth 0.175 0.150 0.030 0.212 0.766 -0.253 langpart -0.110 0.195 0.549 0.043 0.464 -0.137 langbros 0.057 -0.119 0.817 -0.042 0.198 -0.064 langfie 0.056 0.216 0.745 0.310 -0.065 0.092 langclas 0.140 0.433 0.622 0.370 -0.006 0.185 langteac 0.436 0.018 0.133 0.352 0.100 -0.185 langadmi 0.353 -0.013 0.034 0.415 0.024 0.225 langnews 0.648 0.357 -0.166 0.193 0.138 0.124 langnov 0.717 0.236 -0.026 0.086 0.198 0.318 langacbo 0.711 -0.339 0.013 0.073 0.160 0.310 langtv 0.041 0.846 0.148 -0.042 -0.018 0.006 langfilm 0.102 0.835 0.052 -0.094 -0.128 0.058 langnet 0.274 -0.147 0.210 0.546 -0.128 0.058 langtext 0.056 0.081 0.039 0.003 -0.074 0.871

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. A Rotation converged in 11 iterations.

(42)

Results

Chapter 3 explained the methods employed to analyse the data produced by the survey. The purpose of this chapter is to present the results of the survey and to give a description of these findings. Firstly a descriptive account of the findings will be provided. This will be followed by a statistical analysis of the data. The analysis and discussion of the results will constitute the following chapter.

Results of descriptive analysis Language background

Table 8 ‒ Table of Results ‘What is you mother tongue?’ and ‘What languages did you speak at home growing up?’

n Marathi Hindi Other

Indian lang. English

Questions n % n % n % n % What is your mother tongue? 50 29 58 13 26 8 16 What languages did you speak at home growing up? 50 27 54 16 32 10 20 7 14

Table 8 shows that mother tongue has little variance from languages spoken at home and therefore the results from mother tongue have been left out of the further statistical analysis.

Fig. 1 - What other languages can you speak?

(43)

Respondents were also asked to name which other languages they were able to speak, and the results are shown in graph Fig. 1.

The distribution of results for which language has been the main medium of instruction at different stage of the respondents’ education are displayed in Table 9.

Table 9 ‒ Distribution of responses for questions about the languages of education

n English Hindi Marathi Bilingual

Questions n % n % n % n %

What was the main

language of your primary education?

49 15 30.6 5 10.2 23 47.9 6 12.3

What was the main language of your secondary education? 49 26 53.1 2 4.1 13 26.5 8 16.3

What was the main language of your university education? 50 49 98 1 2

Since there was virtually no variance with respect to university education (only one respondent indicated that the language had not been English) this question was omitted from further analysis.

Fig. 2 - What age did you first start learning English?

(44)

The survey asked respondents at what age they began learning English; the distribution of results have been produced in Fig. 2. This graph shows that there were two significant periods for starting to learn English, the beginning of primary and the beginning of secondary school.

'Where did you first start learning English?’

In response to the question ‘Where did you first start learning English?’ 47 respondents (94%) indicated that they first started learning English at school, 2 respondents (4%) indicated that they began learning English at home, and 1 (2%) told us they started learning English at University. Since there was low variance this question was omitted from further analysis.

‘Would you consider taking/have you taken any courses outside of University to help you improve your English skills?’

Out of the 50 respondents who answered the question, 37 said they would not consider taking any other courses, 6 said that they would maybe consider taking a course, and 7 said they would consider taking a course. Of those who answered yes, five said which course they were interested in, three indicated an interest in a spoken language course, 1 a public speaking course, and 1 an accent training course.

Language use and domains

Respondents were asked to answer which languages they used to communicate with different people. The relevant questions taken from the survey are given in Table 10.

Table. 10 ‒ ‘Which language/s do you use to communicate with the following people?’

English Hindi Marathi Other

(45)

English was used in all cases as a language of communication with teachers, and was also a frequently cited language for talking to administrative staff.

Respondents were then asked which languages they used for certain tasks, such as, reading the newspaper, reading academic books, reading novels, watching television, watching films, surfing the internet and sending text messages. The distribution of results is shown in Table 11.

Table 11 ‒ Table of results for ‘In which languages do you do the following?’

English Hindi Marathi Other

Activity

n

n % n % n % n %

Read newspapers 50 45 90 4 8 24 48

Read academic books 49 46 93.9 2 4.1 8 16.3

Read novels 45 37 82.2 5 11.1 21 46.7 3 6.7

Watch television 49 31 63.3 45 91.8 21 42.9 8 16.3

Watch films 50 41 82 49 98 22 44 7 14

Surf the Internet 48 47 97.9 4 8.3 2 4.2

Send text messages 49 49 100 3 6.1 4 8.2 3 6.1

As there was an overwhelming preference for English in response to the question about which language was used for sending text messages, there was insufficient variability on this item to include it in any further analysis.

Attitudes towards English

Attitudes towards English and varieties of English in globalising India

Master of Arts Thesis ‒ Euroculture