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) Submitted by: Annie Padwick 1802445 annie-[email protected]+44 (0) 77983335169 Supervised by: Dr. Monika S Schmid Prof. Zdzisŀaw Mach Newcastle, England Dec 2009
92
Embed
Attitudes towards English and varieties of English in globalising India
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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)
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
Table 12 presents the results of the attitude statements in the survey. Respondents
were asked to rate their agreement with the statement, on the scale of strongly agree,
agree, disagree and strongly disagree.
46
Table. 12 – Distribution of responses to attitude statements about English
n Strongly
agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
disagree
Statements n % n % n % n %
English is an Indian
language. 50 5 10 11 22 18 36 16 32
English threatens the
survival of Indian
languages.
50 4 8 19 38 17 34 10 20
I need English to be
able to get a good job. 50 31 62 12 24 2 4 5 10
Mother tongue
instruction should be
given more importance.
48 16 33 20 42 8 17 4 8
English should be the
language of instruction
of all education in
India.
50 13 26 23 46 12 24 2 4
People who speak
English are successful. 50 5 10 17 34 21 42 7 14
English is a constant
reminder of British
occupation.
49 14 28 17 35 15 31 3 6
English is important for
international
communication.
50 29 58 18 36 0 3 6
English should be the
communication
language between
Indian states.
50 4 8 18 36 20 40 8 16
English is necessary to
be accepted in the
community.
50 4 8 29 58 13 26 4 8
The scores for strongly agree and agree, and the scores for disagree and strongly
disagree have been added together to ascertain whether the respondents generally
tended to agree or disagree with a particular statement, see Table 13.
47
Table 13 ‒ Number of responses that agree and disagree with the attitude statements.
n Agree Disagree
Statements n % n %
English is an Indian
language. 50 16 32 34 68
English threatens the
survival of Indian languages 50 23 46 27 54
I need English to be able to
get a good job. 50 43 86 7 14
Mother tongue instruction
should be given more
importance. 48 36 75 12 25
English should be the
language of instruction of all
education in India. 50 36 72 14 28
People who speak English
are successful. 50 22 44 28 56
English is a constant
reminder of British
occupation. 49 31 63 18 37
English is important for
international communication 50 47 94 3 6
English should be the
communication language
between Indian states. 50 22 44 28 56
English is necessary to be
accepted in the community. 50 33 66 17 34
The results show that the majority of the respondents disagreed with the statement
‘English is an Indian Language’. The respondents had a mixed response to the
statement ‘English threatens the survival of Indian languages’. Respondents tended to
agree with the statement ‘I need English to get a good job’. Three quarters of the
respondents agreed that ‘Mother tongue instruction should be given more
importance’. The respondents also agreed with the statement ‘English should be the
language of instruction of all education in India’. ‘People who speak English are
successful’ attracted mixed reactions from the respondents. More respondents agreed
with the statement ‘English is a constant reminder of British occupation’ than
disagreed. Nearly all respondents agreed that ‘English is important for international
communication’, which is a particularly high response in this study. The statement
‘English should be the language of communication between Indian states’ again
48
attracted mixed responses. More respondents agreed with the statement ‘English is
necessary to be accepted by the community’ than disagreed.
Table 14 presents the distribution of results for the questions where respondents were
asked to select which languages they would use given a choice.
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?’
n Mother
Tongue
Hindi
(if not MT)
English Bilingual Other
Questions n % n % n % n % n %
Which language
would you choose
as your mother
tongue?
50 27 54 7 14 7 14 6 12 1 2
Which language
would you choose
to educate your
children in?
48 6 12.5 0 0 25 52.1 16 33.3 1 2.1
For the question ‘Which language would you choose as your mother tongue?’ 6
respondents indicated their preference for a bilingual mother tongue. Of these three
chose English and Hindi, one mother tongue and English, one mother tongue and
Hindi, and one respondent chose to be multilingual in their mother tongue, Hindi and
English. For the question ‘Which language would you educate your children in’? 16
respondents supported bilingual education, with eight favouring Hindi and English
education, five mother tongue and English education, one English and French
education, and two a multilingual education of mother tongue, Hindi and English.
Table. 15 – Table of results for ‘Do you think English can be used effectively to represent
Indian cultural values and traditions?’
Response (n=49) Number of People %
Yes 24 48.9
No 23 46.9
Don’t know 2 4.2
The distribution of results for Table 15 shows a mixed response to the question among
respondents.
49
Respondents’ answers to the open questions of this section of the survey have been
displayed in Appendix 2 pg. 89-92 and will be discussed in the following chapter.
Varieties of English
Respondents were asked whether they had heard of Indian English and the majority
answered that they had. Table 16 shows that some respondents were unsure whether
they had heard of the variety or not.
Table 16 – Distribution of responses for ‘Have you heard of Indian English?’
Response (n=50) Number of People %
Yes 30 60
No 8 16
Don’t Know 9 18
Respondents were asked to choose which variety they thought they spoke and which
variety they aspired to speak. The distributions of these results are presented in Table.
17.
Table 17 – Distribution of responses to questions about varieties of English.
n Indian
English
British
English
American
English
Don’t
know/
mind
Other
Questions n % n % n % n % n %
Which variety of
English do you
speak?
50 26 52 13 26 2 4 8 16 1 2
Which variety of
English do you
aspire to speak?
50 17 34 20 40 6 12 4 8 3 6
Which variety
should be spoken
generally in India?
48 26 55.4 9 19.1 2 4.3 10 21.3
Which variety
should be used for
international
communication?
47 6 12.8 15 31.9 7 14.9 5 10.6 14 29.8
50
The data was then re-examined in terms of non-native varieties (IE) and native
varieties (BrE + AE), to see whether the respondents had a general preference for
exonormative varieties or endonormative varieties, see Table 18 and Table 19.
Table 18 – Distribution of responses to ‘Which variety of English do you speak?’ (Native and
Non-native)
Variety of English Number of People %
Non-native variety (IE) 26 52
Native variety (BrE) (AE) 15 30
Misc 9 18
If we revise the scores for ‘Which variety do you speak?’, we can see that more than
half of the informants identify with a native variety of English.
Table. 19 ‒ Distribution of responses to ‘Which variety of English do you aspire to speak?’
(Native and Non-native)
Variety of English Number of People %
Non-native variety (IE) 17 34
Native variety (BrE) (AE) 26 52
Misc 7 14
If the scores for ‘Which variety do you aspire to speak?’ are revised into native and
non-native varieties, we can see that although 34% of respondents report they aspire
to speak Indian English, native varieties of English come out on top at 52%.
Respondents’ answers to the open questions of this section of the survey have been
presented in Appendix 2, pg. 89-92.
Statistical analysis
Table 20 shows Pearson’s correlations between the language use and the language
attitude factors.
51
Table 20 ‒ Pearson’s correlation
Statements N=50 Language of
environment
Language
of
education
Language
of parents
Language
of social
situations
Pearson corr. -0.194 -0.061 -0.368(**) -0.246
Sig. (2 tailed) 0.177 0.672 0.008 0.085
English is an
Indian language
Pearson corr. -0.161 -0.272 -0.201 0.057
Sig. (2 tailed) 0.264 -0.056 0.161 0.696
English is a
threat to Indian
languages.
Pearson corr. -0.054 -0.034 -0.005 0.085
Sig. (2 tailed) 0.710 0.814 0.972 0.556
I need English to
be able to get a
good job
Pearson corr. 0.002 0.004 0.435 (**) 0.193
Sig. (2 tailed) 0.990 0.976 0.002 0.189
Mother tongue
instru. should be
given more
importance
Pearson corr. -0.194 -0.295 (*) -0.183 -0.352 (*)
Sig. (2 tailed) 0.176 0.037 0.202 0.012
English should
be the language
of all
education...
Pearson corr. -0.061 -0.119 0.141 -0.068
Sig. (2 tailed) 0.674 0.412 0.330 0.673
People who
speak English
are successful
Pearson corr. -0.016 0.002 0.088 -0.007
Sig. (2 tailed) 0.913 0.988 0.549 0.962
English is a
constant
reminder of
British
occupation
Pearson corr. -0.256 -0.229 -0.114 -0.048
Sig. (2 tailed) 0.073 0.110 0.431 0.742
English is
important for
international
communication.
Pearson corr. -0.058 0.123 -0.117 -0.305(*)
Sig. (2 tailed) 0.690 0.394 0.420 0.031
English should
be the lang of
comm. between
all Indian states
Pearson corr. -0.008 0.127 0.077 -0.052
Sig. (2 tailed) 0.954 0.378 0.594 0.720
English is
necessary to be
accepted in the
community.
Pearson corr. -0.191 0.133 0.156 0.332(*)
Sig. (2 tailed) 0.185 0.357 0.278 0.018
Which language
would you
choose as your
mother tongue
Pearson corr. 0.061 0.099 0.099 0.263
Sig. (2 tailed) 0.676 0.492 0.496 0.065
Which language
would you
educate your
children in?
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
52
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
The relatively low correlation coefficients produced by the statistical analysis shows,
in the majority of cases that the amount of use people had made of English appears
unrelated to their responses in the attitude statements. However the following
correlations have been found to be interesting.
The analysis found a –368** correlation between the parent language and the
statement ‘English is an Indian language’, which suggests that people who use a lot of
English with their parents, are quite likely to disagree with this statement. A highly
significant 435** correlation was found for parent language and ‘mother tongue
instruction should be given more importance’, implying that people who use a lot of
English with their parents, are likely to agree with this statement. Language of
education and ‘English should be the language of instruction of all education in India’
showed highly significant negative correlation at –295**, making it likely that people
who had a lot of English in their education would disagree with the statement. A
medium strong negative correlation –352* was found between social language and
‘English should be the language of instruction of all education in India’, generalising
that people who used a lot of English in their social lives, would be more likely to
disagree that English should be the sole language of the education system. The
analysis also found that people who use a lot of English in their social life, were more
likely to disagree that ‘English should be the language of communication between
Indian states’, as the Pearson correlation was -305 at 0.05 significance. It can also be
generalised that the more likely you are to use English in your social life, the more
likely you are to choose English as a mother tongue, as the analysis shows a medium
effect positive correlation at .332*, this is significant at p< .05.
53
Discussion
The previous chapter presented the descriptive and statistical findings of this research,
whilst this chapter discusses and analyses these results with reference to the key aims
and interests of the research. The discussion is divided into two sections, the first uses
the descriptive data to make comparisons with previous studies, to see whether
attitudes towards English varieties are changing over time, whilst the second looks at
the statistical findings of the data and analyses whether language background and use
affects attitudes towards English.
Varieties of English
In this section the findings of this research are discussed in relation to the studies of
Kachru (1979) and Shaw (1981). As Shaw and Kachru did not employ statistical
analysis of their data in their research, the comparisons will take place with the
descriptive data. By comparing this research with previous studies it is possible to
identify whether there has been any change in acceptance of varieties over the period
of these studies. Discussion is formulated around the four questions about language
varieties in the survey: ‘What variety of English do you speak?’; ‘What variety of
English do you aspire to speak?’; ‘What variety of English should be used generally
in India?’; and ‘What variety of English should be used for international
communication?’.
The question which asked respondents to identify which variety of English they spoke
from the options Indian English, British English, American English, Don’t know/
don’t mind and other, received a full response. Fig. 3 shows that 52% of respondents
identified that they spoke Indian English, rather than any other English variety. 26%
of respondents thought themselves able to speak British English. 16% indicated their
uncertainty about which variety of English that they spoke. A very small number of
respondents (4%) answered that they spoke American English, and only one
respondent (2%) showed identifications with an ‘other’ variety. The majority response
for Indian English suggests that Indians know about the variety Indian English, are
aware that it is common for Indians to use this variety and accept that how they speak
has distinct differences from other varieties. We can see that a small proportion of the
respondents indicated that they were not sure how to answer the question. This could
54
mean that respondents had not thought about this question before, and therefore were
not equipped to make a decision about which variety they spoke. However, it is more
likely that the uncertainty shown to this question indicates an awareness of changing
language norms. Where many Indians believe the variety they are taught in school is
British English, there is increasing awareness that Indian English is actually the model
that is encountered. See Literature review pg. 21. This uncertainty therefore could
reflect the uncertainty present in the education system, and show that some Indians
are unsure which variety they have actually learnt.
When this question is compared with the corresponding questions from Kachru’s and
Shaw’s studies, interesting patterns are identified. When Kachru (1979) asked his
respondents to identify which variety they spoke, 56% answered that they spoke
Indian English, 29% British English, 3% American English and 9% indicated they
were uncertain which variety they spoke, see Fig. 4. By comparing Fig. 3 and Fig. 4,
pg. 55 we can see that respondents in this study and respondents in the Kachru study
have very similar answering patterns for this question. There have been no significant
changes in responses from 1979 to 2009, this implies that people self-identify with the
same varieties and to similar proportions as they did in 1979. The only significant
difference between the two studies is the number of respondents indicating that they
are unsure about which variety they spoke, which is higher in 2009 than in 1979. This
could imply that students are more uncertain about language varieties now, than they
were in 1979.
When the distribution of answers to this question are compared with the
corresponding question in Shaw’s study (1981), a very similar distribution of answers
can be seen. Shaw found that 51% of the respondents in the survey thought that they
spoke a ‘unique’ variety of English, 27% thought they spoke British English, 3%
thought they spoke American English and 19% answered that they spoke an ‘other’
variety of English, See Fig. 5. Shaw has used a different labelling system than Kachru
and for this study, instead of selecting the standard variety Indian English as one of
the options he has used ‘a unique variety of English’. In the other studies respondents
were able to choose between different standard varieties of English, but this study
introduces the non-standard and undefined term ‘unique’, which is a little ambiguous.
55
Fig. 3 - Distribution of answers 'Which variety of English do you
speak?' (Padwick, 2009)
52%
26%
4%
16%
2%
Indian English
British English
American English
Don’t know/mind
Other
Fig. 4 - Graduate students ‘self-labelling’ of the variety of their English
(Kachru, 1979)
56%29%
3%
9%3%
0%
Indian English
British English
American English
Don’t know
Mixture of all three
Good' English
Fig. 5 - Variety of English presently spoken by educated speakers
(Shaw, 1981)
51%
27%
3%
19%
0%
Unique variety
British English
American English
Other
Australian
56
Kachru (1994) maintains that the term Indian English has in the past generated
negative connotations, and in my opinion, in choosing a different term like ‘unique’
Shaw has ensured more positive reactions. Also, with no category for indicating
uncertainty to the question, respondents might opt for ‘other’ if they didn’t actually
know which variety they spoke. This might account for the high number selecting the
‘other’ variety. While comparisons with Shaw’s study are made more difficult due to
the differences in labelling, for the purposes of comparison ‘unique variety’ has been
equated with Indian English. Shaw’s study when analysed in this way shows similar
answering patterns as the other studies, with near equal proportions answering for
British English, American English and for ‘unique’. If ‘other’ is taken to include both
don’t know, and ‘other’ then again like responses between studies can be observed.
When these studies are examined together to observe changes over time, looking first
at Kachru 1979, then Shaw 1981, and then subsequently at this study in 2009, see Fig.
6, only very slight changes over the period of time can be observed. There is a slight
decrease in the number of respondents choosing British English (29%-27%-26%).
There is also a slight decrease in the number of respondents choosing Indian English
(56%-51%-52%). A very slight increase in the number of respondents choosing
American English can also be seen (3%-3%-4%). However the greatest change seems
to be in the level of uncertainty, with a steep rise from 9% in Kachru’s study (1979) to
16% in this study (2009). Overall self-identification with varieties of English has
remained fairly constant over a thirty-year period.
Fig. 6 - What variety do you currently speak? Timeline
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1979
1986
1993
2000
2007
Res
po
nse
in
per
cen
tag
e
British English
Indian English
American English
57
The question ‘Which variety of English do you aspire to speak?’ produced interesting
results, especially when analysed in relation to the results of ‘What variety of English
do you speak?’ , see Fig. 7 pg. 58. The percentage that answered that they aspired to
speak Indian English was 34%. This is significantly lower number than in the variety
that they currently speak question. This highlights a disparity between what people
think they speak and what they aspire to speak. Many Indian students would rather
speak a different variety than the one they currently use. British English received the
highest number of responses to this question at 40%, meaning that British English is
the favoured English model among this sample. The fact that more respondents
aspired to British English as opposed to Indian English implies a continuation of
traditional views of language varieties and their value. The number who aspire to
speak American English (12%) while not huge, is considerably larger than in the
previous question ‘What variety of English do you speak?’ at 4%. This shows us that
while not many respondents currently think they speak American English, many more
aspire to speak this variety. In a closer examination of endocentric and exocentric
varieties, the majority response was found to aspire to speak an exocentric variety, as
the scores for British English and American English accumulate 52%.
The corresponding question in Kachru’s study investigated graduate preferences for
various varieties of English. See Fig. 8. The results reveal that 71% of the graduates
selected British English, 24% Indian English and 5% American English as their
preferred variety. The aspirations for British English among Indian students in 1979
are particularly high, and aspirations for Indian English quite low in comparison. The
responses indicated a clear preference for Indian English, however Kachru concluded
that the acceptance of Indian English is increasing over time.
Shaw’s study (1981) questions the respondents ‘Which variety should we learn to
speak?’, see Fig. 9. The results show an inclination for speaking their ‘own way’ as
Shaw phrases it, which was selected by 47% of respondent answers. British English
was selected by considerably fewer with 29%. American English was selected by
12%, as was ‘other’ varieties. Shaw’s use of different terminology again creates
problems with comparisons, and in my view this has influenced the high level of
responses to speaking ‘our own way’. The response would not have been so high had
Shaw used the term ‘Indian English’ instead, see Literature review pg. 23.
58
Fig. 7 - Which variety of English do you aspire to speak?
(Padwick, 2009)
34%
40%
12%
8%
6%
Indian English
British English
American English
Don’t know/mind
Other
Fig. 8 - Graduate students first preferences for various language
varieties of English (Kachru, 1979)
24%
71%
0%
0%5%
Indian English
British English
American English
Don't know/mind
Other
Fig. 9 - The variety that we should learn to speak (Shaw, 1981)
47%
29%
12%
0%
12%
Own way'
British English
American English
Australian English
Others
59
Looking at the responses over a period of time (Fig. 10), firstly Kachru’s study then
Shaw’s study and then this study, some fluctuations are apparent. The preference for
Indian English moves from 24% to 47% in Shaw’s study but then reduces in this
study to 34%. However, as it can be argued that the especially high response for ‘own
way’ in Shaw’s study can be explained by the differences in terminology, the data
reveals that the acceptance of Indian English among Indian students over the last three
decades has largely increased. There is an overall decrease in the belief that British
English is a superior model over the timeframe of the studies (71%-29%-40%), which
shows a decrease in the reliance on traditional endonormative language varieties.
There is however small increase in the preference for American English as a variety
over the last thirty years (5%-12%-12%), see Fig. 10. American English does not
feature strongly in the ‘what variety of English do you speak?’ question, suggesting
that the influence of American English comes from outside India. Neither does
American English have a high level of positive responses in Kachru’s 1979 study and
this might suggest that American English has only begun to influence attitudes
towards varieties in the last twenty years. The small increase in aspiration to speak
American English, could be explained by the changes to India brought about by
globalisation, and the subsequent promotion of American English in certain
employment sectors. While American English cannot be shown to have drastic
influences, if these global trends continue then we might see an increasing aspiration
for American English in the Indian students of the future.
Fig. 10 - What variety do you aspire to speak? Timeline
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1979
1986
1993
2000
2007
Res
po
nse
in
per
cen
tag
e
British English
Indian English
American English
60
This study asked two questions not included in the previous two studies. These
questions inquired into what variety of English should be used for intra-national
functions, and which variety of English would be appropriate for international
functions. 48 respondents answered the question ‘Which variety of English should
generally be spoken in India?’ and out of these a high percentage (55%) agreed that
Indian English would be the best variety for India. 19% of respondents thought that
British English and 4% thought that American English should be spoken generally in
India. 21% answered that they were unsure what the best variety for India would be.
The addition of these questions provides greater insight into the understanding of
attitudes towards varieties. The majority of respondents answered in favour of Indian
English as the language that should be spoken generally in India, which demonstrates
a high acceptance of Indian English as the best model for India. However the previous
question about English variety aspirations reveals that personal preferences are
predominantly in favour of endocentric varieties. This exposes a discrepancy between
public and personal aspirations. While respondents indicate that Indian English is
acceptable as the commonly used variety in India, they find different varieties
preferable for their own personal communication.
The question ‘Which variety of English should be used for international
communication?’ provides a varied response. Out of the 48 respondents who
answered the question, 13% thought Indian English, 32% British English, and 15%
American English should be used for international communication. 10% answered
that they were unsure which variety would be best, while 30% indicated that they
thought an alternative variety should be used for international communication. These
results reflect the topical academic debate in this area and show that there is no
consensus about what variety should be used internationally. Some respondents who
indicated ‘other’, suggested the varieties “worldly accepted English” and “global
English” as alternative varieties for international communication. The inclusion of
these varieties highlights the attitude that it is not necessary to use only one variety, as
long as all the varieties are intelligible to each other in international settings.
In an attempt to gain a deeper understanding of the opinions and aspirations for
language varieties, respondents were asked to give reasons for choosing the variety
they did, for the question ‘Which variety do you aspire to speak?’. The written
61
responses have highlighted different functions for each variety, with the aspirations
towards a particular variety dependent on the planned use of English. Extracts from
the written responses can be seen in Appendix 2, pg. 88-91. These indicated an
aspiration for British English that tended to be conformist and traditional. Their
comments highlight the historical background of British English, the belief that
British English is the contemporary model in India; and the view that British English
is the most correct model. Some emphasised the traditional nature of British English
as a model, “British English is simple and old” and “from the early stages we have
learnt British English only”, suggesting that British English should be aspired to
because it is the model that has traditionally been aspired to. Other respondents in
favour of British English indicated that British English is the model of current usage;
British English should be aspired for “ because it is widely spoken in India” and “is
the standard variety of English.” Interestingly, one respondent addressed the problem
of English models in the education system, commenting that they aspired to speak
British English “because Indian English is still not part of our school system.” The
respondent aspired to speak the standard defined by the school system, so if the
educational standard changed to Indian English then the respondent would aspire to
speak Indian English. Comments from other respondents highlight the view that
British English is a more superior variety than Indian English, with respondents
having aspirations for British English because “I want to be perfect” and “I believe
Queen’s English is the purest form of English,” and because they believe British
English “is grammatically correct”. These comments hint at derogatory attitudes
towards Indian English: if British English is ‘grammatically correct’, then the
respondent must consider other varieties to be ‘grammatically incorrect’.
When respondents have aspirations towards Indian English it is because of national
pride and practical reasons. A number of respondents emphasised their pride in being
Indian by statements such, “I am Indian and I love my country” and “We are Indians
and we must aspire to speak Indian English”. Other respondents highlighted more
practical reasons for wanting to speak Indian English, they stressed that Indian
English was the easiest variety for Indians because, “the pronunciation is familiar”
and “because I can’t change my voice and accent”. Using the same line of argument,
others indicated that Indian English was the most sensible variety to be used for
someone using English within India, with respondents rationalising with comments
62
such as “I live in India so Indian English is more useful variety than any other for
me”, and I aspire to speak Indian English “ because I will live in India, not abroad or
in a foreign country.” We can see that respondents are aware that English can be used
for different functions, and that those with aspirations to speak Indian English intend
to speak English for intra-national purposes.
Respondents who chose American English again highlighted alternative reasons for
their aspirations. A number of respondents mention the international nature of
American English, “it is acceptable all over the world”, and “I think it is spoken
universally.” Clearly these respondents aspire to speak American English because
they seek to communicate with the rest of the world. Another respondent finds
American English preferable because “it is simple and useful English.” This again
highlights the role of English as a tool in international communication, where the
language should be simple and easy to understand.
These explanations have highlighted that respondents’ desire to speak different
varieties is dependent on the role that they think English will play in their lives. This
corresponds with the view of Krishnaswamy expressed in the literature view
(Krishnaswamay, 2006), that English occupies a number of different functions in
Indian society. English can be seen for its ‘market-driven social function’, or its
‘ideology-driven identity project function’, see Literature review, pg. 19-20. Those
who think that they will use English for their mobility, for their social and economic
opportunities, and in international communication see English for its ‘market-driven
social function’ and would be likely to aspire to an international model of English.
British English is seen as the traditional international model, and American English as
a contemporary international model. This research has shown a decline in the
traditional international model and an increase in the contemporary international
model. Those who believe that English is part of Indian society and feel that they can
express Indian traditions, values, culture and national pride through English, see
English for its ‘ideology driven identity project function’ and are likely to aspire to
use the Indian English variety.
However, English adopts more than one function in Indian society, and so speakers of
English may also use English in its different functions. Someone might normally use
63
English with other Indians to express their Indian cultural identity employing the rules
of Indian English; but might use English for its ‘market-driven social function’ in an
international situation and decide to adopt American English. The speaker is
bidilectal, has two varieties of English available for use and which variety to chosen is
dependent on the appropriateness of a variety to a context. Crystal sees this as the
most suitable approach for a globalising country like India, where speakers of English
could use their own variety to express their own identity and another variety can be
used for international intelligibility. For more on this see Literature review pg. 22.
Whilst this research has not been able to assess how respondents use different
varieties for the different functions of English, the argument could be made for further
research in this respect.
Attitudes towards English
This section of the discussion looks at the correlations between the amount of use of
English and attitudes towards statements about English as produced by statistical
analysis. The independent variable, how much someone uses English, is determined
by the answers to language background and language use and domains in the survey;
and the attitude scales in the survey determine the dependent variable, how much
someone agrees with the statement about English. This process can determine how
much someone is likely to agree with a statement depending on how much English he
or she uses. While this process can demonstrate correlations between variables, it
cannot provide explanations for the relationships, and so this discussion will suggest a
theory by which to make sense of these correlations.
The analysis deduces that, the amount of use people had made of English appears
largely unrelated to their responses in the attitude statements. While this means that
there are few correlations to analyse in this research, it is, a very interesting finding. It
suggests that how much English people use in school, how early they started to learn
English, and how often they used English in their social, family, or academic life has
had little influence on how people related to the statements regarding attitudes to
English; and means it is likely that attitudes towards English are more determined by
other factors than what languages people use in which situations. As the selected
variable does not explain the majority of attitudes and approaches to English, the need
for further research is highlighted. Alternative variables will need to be tested to fully
64
explain how attitudes towards English are established. Alternative independent
variables to research could be the attitudes of parents and family towards English, the
social status of the respondent and their family, or how many generations English had
been used in the family, or how English is used in educational settings, how the roles
of English are defined, how English is taught and to what purposes. If language
attitudes are not determined by personal background and use of English, perhaps
language attitudes are influenced by the family attitudes, and/or by educational values.
The analysis of the data did however produce a few interesting correlations between
language background and use, and language attitudes. The analysis found someone
who had often used English with their parents was likely to disagree that English is an
Indian language. Disagreement with this statement highlights the belief that English
does not belong to Indian society, and is not Indian. Rather than joining the body of
Indian languages, English remains an outside language. This correlation would agree
with Dasgupta’s (1993) and Fishman’s (1992) views, that English is certainly present
in Indian society, but it remains an alien and formal language, and is excluded from
personal spheres. See Literature review pg. 18-19. It is interesting that someone who
uses a lot of English with their parents, i.e. in the family domain, is more likely to
disagree that English is an Indian language. Perhaps English does not act as a
language of personal or family communication, but rather has been introduced by the
parents at an early stage as an ‘other’ or ‘foreign’ language to ensure the child’s
proficiency in later life. This could be the same process as a European parent
introducing French to their young child, to ensure good knowledge of this language in
the future. English is not a personal language whispered to a child to get it off to
sleep, but a tactical language introduced by parents for their child’s future gain.
Disagreement that English is an Indian language, highlights the otherness of English
and therefore reasserts the importance of ‘Indian’ languages in Indian society.
The analysis also found a correlation between the parent language and the statement
that mother tongue instruction should be given more importance. A conclusion
therefore might be that: if someone uses English a lot with their parents, they are
likely to agree that mother tongue instruction should be given more importance. An
agreement with this statement might highlight the belief that English is becoming too
dominant and that there is the need for reassertion of mother tongue instruction in the
65
Indian education system. This assertion seems to agree with the first correlation:
people who have used more English in India are less likely to agree that English is
Indian, and therefore believe in the importance of the traditional Indian languages and
mother tongues. Perhaps increased knowledge and use of English highlights the areas
where English is not suitable in Indian society, marking English as not completely
Indian. The knowledge that English is not suitable in all domains, emphasises the
need for other Indian languages to fill these domains and therefore acknowledges the
need for Indian languages as the medium of instruction.
The analysis of the results in this study has led to the development of a theory that
provides an explanation for the previous assertions. The descriptive analysis of
attitudes and opinions demonstrates that there are a variety of attitudes and opinions to
English present among Indian students. The majority of questions provide no clear
consensus among students, but show mixed responses. As the language backgrounds
of the respondents are as varied as their answers, and the occasions when English is
used is different for all respondents, these differences can help to explain the variation
of attitudes towards English. The more someone has made use of English, the more
likely they are to support the need for bilingual or multilingual futures, and the less
exposure someone has had to English the less likely they are to believe that
bilingualism is the way forward. Those with a bilingual background, i.e. with good
access to both English and Indian languages, are more likely to support the need for
bilingualism. Therefore, whilst they believe in the necessity of English, they also
recognise the need for other Indian languages within the future of India. The more that
someone has been exposed to English, the more likely they are to promote the
continuation of many Indian languages, with English as just one of the important
languages.
This theory is again supported by another correlation in the analysis. The analysis
showed that people who had used a lot of English in their education are more likely to
disagree with the statement ‘English should be the language of instruction of all
education in India’. While the descriptive analysis showed a general agreement with
this statement (72%), statistical analysis showed that those with a greater exposure to
English were more likely to disagree with this statement. This can again be interpreted
in favour of bilingualism, those that disagreed would think that English should not be
66
the language of instruction of all education in India; they think it should be one
important element. More preferable to those with considerable experienced of English
would be a bilingual or multilingual education, with support for both English and
mother tongue instruction. By default those with less exposure to English would be
more likely to agree that English should be the language of instruction of all education
in India. The less someone has used English in their education the more likely they
are to support an education where English is the sole language of instruction.
If a person has had a low exposure to English, then they may be more likely to put
their faith in English as the key to a better future. If you don’t have access to
something you are likely to feel deprived of it and believe that gaining access to the
thing you are deprived will solve all your problems. For example, people with not
much money often play the lottery with the faith that having money will provide them
happiness and success. Those who already have English however, are by now looking
for something else, something more, to help them secure their futures. As
globalisation is supplying well-paid jobs for those proficient in English, those with
low exposure to English might believe that English is essential for access to these
opportunities and want English to be the sole language of education in order to
improve English proficiency. They would place less emphasis on the need for mother
tongue instruction, and not acknowledge mother tongue languages as essential for
these futures. Those with a greater exposure to English however, do not share this
view. While they also believe that English is an important language for Indians to
know, they don’t believe that English alone is the key to a successful future. Other
languages are also seen to be of value, with the result that those who have had greater
exposure to English are dismissive of an all-English education system and are in
support of mother tongue instruction in schools.
Previous research has highlighted an increased demand for English in all social
sectors (Annamalai, 2004) and while the results of this research supports the view that
all groups value English as a language of education, it does find that an important
distinction can be made between the attitudes of different social groups towards
English. There is a divergence of opinion between those who have had considerable
exposure to English, most often the higher classes of society, and those with less
exposure to English. These can be called ‘the haves and the have nots’. People with
67
less experience of English are more likely to rely on English as a fix-all solution, and
would favour English as the sole language of education, perceiving English to be the
key to future success. Whereas people with more experience of English, are more
likely to put their faith in bilingual education systems and bilingual futures. They also
view English as an important language in the education system, but not the only
important language. A bilingual or multilingual education that incorporates the best
from all the available languages is considered preferential. Descriptive analysis has
shown that respondents who started learning English earlier on in life, have also gone
on to learn other languages such as French, German and Sanskrit. People with high
exposure to English are also keen to access the advantages of other languages that
they come into contact with and do not rely so heavily on the presumed upward
mobility brought by English.
The descriptive analysis shows that 56% of respondents disagreed with the statement
‘English should be the language of communication between Indian states’. Statistical
analysis revealed that people who use a lot of English in their social life were also
likely to disagree with this statement. This does not necessarily demonstrate a
negative attitude towards English itself. Rather it could be that people with a high
exposure to English in their social life are more likely to think that English should be
one of the languages of communication between Indian states, not the only language.
It is also possible that the respondents support Hindi as the intrastate language and
English as the international language. Someone who supports the need for
bilingualism is likely to acknowledge the different active roles of languages and feel
that one language is preferable for one function and another language best for another
function. They might feel that Hindi as the national language is best suited to the
function of intrastate language, and for this reason disagree that ‘English should be
the language of communication between Indian states’.
The statistical analysis uncovered a medium correlation, in that the more likely you
are to use English in your social life the more likely you are to choose English as a
mother tongue. This seems to show that the more English you use with your friends
and classmates the more likely you are to think that English would be the best
language for your mother tongue. While other correlations have given support to the
theory the more someone has been exposed to English, the more likely they are to
68
support bilingualism, this correlation, does not seem to fit this patterning. What is also
interesting is that in the results there has often been strong correlations for people who
spoke a lot of English with their parents; and yet with this statement there is an
absence of a strong correlation with this group. This suggests that people who spoke a
lot of English with their parents are not very likely to choose English as a mother
tongue. In the absence of further evidence to support this, only suggestions can be
made as to why the difference in this patterning is apparent. However, this correlation
might suggest that there is a difference in attitudes between people who learnt English
early on in life, i.e. spoke English with their parents, and those who have used English
only later on in life i.e. in their social life. An explanation could be that those with a
high exposure to English from an early age, i.e. with their family and in their primary
education, are more likely to support the need for bilingualism than people who have
had a high exposure to English only later on in their life i.e. in their social life and in
their secondary education. This explanation however requires further investigation.
The respondents’ commentary explanations behind their answers have been examined
to find further support for this theory. Respondents were not asked to explain their
reactions to the attitude scales, but were asked to explain the reasoning behind the
following two questions, ‘what language would you choose as a mother tongue?’ and
‘what language would you choose to educate your children in?’. The majority of
respondents (54%) indicated that they would retain their mother tongue if they were
given a choice, but 14% said they would choose Hindi and 14% said they would
choose English as their mother tongue given the choice. 12% of respondents answered
that they would choose to have two or more languages as mother tongue: three
respondents had a preference for English and Hindi; one mother tongue and English;
one mother tongue and Hindi; and one opted for a multilingual mother tongue with
their mother tongue, Hindi and English. As English does not feature highly in this
question, the responses indicate that the majority of Indians would prefer to have a
traditional Indian language as mother tongue. This suggests that while English is an
increasingly important language in India, the Indian mother tongue still remains
significant for the cultural identity of many Indians.
The reasons given highlight ease, comfort and the need to speak to local people as an
explanation for choosing mother tongue. Respondents justified their answers,
69
“Marathi, it is easy to adjust to the surrounding environment” and “Bengali because I
am used to it”. Another respondent indicated a different reason for preserving the
mother tongue, seeing western influence as a threat to local languages, “Marathi,
because due to the influence of western culture coming in India or Maharashtra,
Marathi language is not spoken widely.” This remark indicates how the mother tongue
language is integral to someone’s cultural identity and sense of belonging, and also
how the mother tongue may be used to combat the homogenising influences of
globalisation. Respondents largely would not change their local or family languages
to anything else, and this highlights the need for a language that fulfils cultural needs
in the bilingual repertoire, a role that English might not be capable of filling.
Descriptive analysis showed that respondents were unsure whether English was
capable of representing Indian cultural values and traditions.
The responses to ‘what language would you educate your children in?’ however show
much higher support for English. The descriptive analysis shows that 52% of
respondents indicated that they would choose to educate their children in English. The
explanations behind the answers to this question prove that many respondents have
faith that knowledge of English can ensure a better future. Some respondents have
written that they would choose to educate their children in English because “it is
necessary to access good education and better jobs, and better training” and “English,
for a good job and international jobs.” English is seen as the important language for
education because it allows access to the best training and jobs and thus ensures
successful career prospects. It is assumed that people who answered in this way have
had less exposure to English and therefore are relying more heavily on the assumed
potential of English. 33% of the respondents, however, indicated a preference for a
bilingual education for their children. The reasoning behind the decision to educate
children bilingually indicates belief in the individual value of different languages, and
that a bilingual education will bring out the best of a child’s potential. Some
respondents have indicated that a bilingual education would best serve their children,
because “[with] English you can study in other countries. Hindi because it is
necessary to communicate with other Indians who do not speak English” and “Hindi
and English, both are necessary for communication in today’s world in India”, “Hindi
and English, so they can be successful inside and outside their country”.
70
Out of the sixteen respondents who supported bilingual education, eight favoured a
Hindi and English education, five a mother tongue and English education, one an
English and French education, and two a multilingual education of mother tongue,
Hindi and English. English appears in every one of these bilingual combinations,
implying that all respondents felt English should be included in the education of their
child. The importance of English in the education system is shown by the descriptive
analysis, which tells us that English was the main language of all respondents
university education, that most respondents read academic books in English, and that
most respondents talked to their teachers in English. This again highlights that English
will be beneficial for the future of Indian children.
The assumption could be drawn that respondents who support bilingual education
have had a bilingual background, and therefore recognise the need for the
development of two or more languages. This reasoning demonstrates the
understanding that different languages perform different functions and thus it is
necessary for Indians to be equipped with more than one language. There is need for a
personal language, which reflects cultural identities and can be used to relate to
friends, family and to the local people and in parallel there is the need for English as a
public or working language, a language that increases educational and training
opportunities and career prospects. While English is useful as one of the languages of
India, knowledge of it alone is not enough to be successful inside India. Those with
more experience of English have realised that English will not be enough and look to
bilingual development, yet those without English feel deprived of this skill and look
to English to provide the bright futures they desire.
This theory suggests that globalisation is not threatening local Indian languages but
rather is reasserting them. As globalisation influences India ever more deeply and
demands that people know English to be successful, we see a backlash from those
with access to English who are reasserting the need for local languages and
bilingualism. Globalisation has not inflicted a take-over but has created proficient
bilinguals and caused a split in the functions and users of English. Those with
aspirations to use their English internationally will use a simplified English with the
aim of reducing obstructions to communication. For example, Cowie (2007) has
shown that the main objectives of call centre training centres, where staff would be
71
working with international customers, was ‘neutralisation’, removing the differences
in the Indian accent and thus improving intelligability, see Literature review pg. 30-
31. However those who plan to use English intra-nationally can use Indian English,
with all the differences from British English with the knowledge that the accent,
vocabulary and idioms etc. will not cause problems to other Indian listeners. As
English is used more in the international sphere there is a move towards the type of
English that is spoken in the EU for example, but this move is not dominating and
does not seem to affect the type of English spoken for intra-national purposes.
72
Conclusions
This thesis has been an investigation into the effects of globalisation on attitudes
towards English and attitudes towards varieties of English in India. It has been argued
that globalisation could be exerting a negative influence on the acceptance of the
identity-based variety Indian English by promoting more dominant varieties already
present in international business, such as British and American English within Indian
firms. This could have the effect of increasing the acceptance of British and American
English generally in India while reducing the acceptance of Indian English.
A review of relevant literature revealed a void of contemporary research into the
effects that English is having as part of the globalising process, and calls for further
research in this area were voiced by Phillipson (2001) and Sonntag (2003). While
previous studies into attitudes towards English and attitudes towards English varieties
had been carried out, there had been a lack of follow up studies, and few studies into
language attitudes had directly addressed the influence of globalisation. This thesis
attempted to highlight the void of research in this area, and with the help of qualitative
research has endeavoured to provide insights into current attitudes towards English,
and to show how these attitudes have changed over time.
A major difficulty experienced in the research process was how to effectively measure
the effects of globalisation. Globalisation is seen as a rather theoretical concept, and
while its effects can be seen locally at a number of levels the thrust of this research
has been to explore in particular how the globalisation of India was affecting language
attitudes more generally. As reducing globalisation to a number of variables that could
be systematically tested proved too difficult, it was decided to measure the effects of
globalisation by reproducing previous studies, which would allow for comparison of
attitudes across a certain time period. If it is accepted that India became more global
as a result of the economic liberalisation of the 1990s, then attitudinal change after
this period can be measured and used to suggest the effects of globalisation. As
English is the language that accompanies the spread of globalisation, it would be
expected that someone who has been affected by globalisation would therefore have a
73
greater exposure to English. Statistical analysis has allowed us to relate the attitudes
towards English with the amount of English that someone has used.
The statistical analysis showed that the tested variables – that is language use and
domains, and language background – which equated to the amount of use someone
had made of English, had very little influence on their responses to the various
attitude statements. This implies that other variables need to be tested to explain what
other factors influence the attitudes towards English. Family background and status,
or educational values are examples of further areas where research would be
beneficial.
The correlations that were found between language use and attitudes, however, were
used to draw a theory about someone’s exposure to English and their inclination
towards bilingualism. Respondents with a high exposure to English expressed both
the importance of English and the need for mother tongue instruction. They disagreed
with statements that provided the view that English should function as the only
language of a certain sector. This thesis has argued that someone who has come into
contact with a considerable amount English is less likely to rely on the assumed
potential of English and is more likely to support the need for bilingualism.
Conversely someone with a lower exposure to English is more likely to believe that
knowledge of English is the key to success and therefore a fix-all solution. However,
the questioned remains as to whether there might also be an attitudinal difference
between those who adopt English use early on and those who make considerable use
of English at a later stage.
This theory was backed up by the knowledge that most respondents would not change
their mother tongue for a different language. Mother tongue is shown to be key in
engaging with the local communities, reflecting cultural differences and identities and
in preserving the language’s use against other influences. The mother tongue is also
an important element in the bilingual repertoire. English was shown to be an
extremely important language within the education system, with the majority of the
respondents choosing to educate their children in English, and those opting for a
bilingual with English as a constituent part. Globalisation has increased access to
English in certain sectors of Indian society, developing a divide between the ‘haves’
74
and the ‘have nots’. Those without English are now demanding their rights for
English proficiency and seeking to enrol their children in English medium schools
(Annamalai, 2004). But those with higher exposure to English who favour bilingual
communication have realised that English alone is insufficient, and are learning
additional languages with the view that bilingual or multilingual capability will best
serve their futures.
The studies of Kachru (1979) and Shaw (1981) were used as models to build the area
of the survey that measured opinions about English varieties. As all three studies
measured responses to equivalent questions, this allowed for comparisons and the
ability to see how opinions have changed over time. The results reveal that
respondents spoke the same varieties and with near equal distributions across the three
studies. This suggests that the recognition of varieties and the proportion of their use
have remained fairly constant over a thirty-year period. However, analysis has shown
that aspirations towards English varieties have not remained constant over this
timeframe. There has been an increase in the acceptance of Indian English over the
period of the last thirty years. This finding agrees with the studies of Kachru (1979)
and Shaw (1981) who also concluded that attitudes were moving away from
exonormative varieties and increasingly favoured endonormative English varieties.
The research also found there to be a decrease in the aspirations towards British
English, and a slight increase in the acceptance of American English.
The presumption that globalisation is negatively effecting the acceptance of Indian
English is therefore disproved. The trend towards increasing acceptance of Indian
English, as noted by Kachru and Shaw, continues despite the influences of
globalisation. However the presumption that globalisation will increase the
acceptance of internationally-used varieties such as British English and American
English – currently used as foreign language models ‒ is more difficult to disprove.
While a decline is apparent in the acceptance of British English, there is a slight
increase in the acceptance of American English. The decline in the aspirations for
British English is directly related to the increase in the aspirations for Indian English,
showing that the more people look towards endonormative models for intra-national
usage, the less relevance traditional exonormative models will have in Indian society.
Indian English is gradually replacing British English as desired model for intra-
75
national usage. This is confirmed by the switch to Indian English as the preferred
variety of education in the school curriculum body’s policy (NCERT, 2007). However
the study also exposes a discrepancy between personal and public aspirations, while
respondents find Indian English acceptable for general use among Indians, their
personal aspirations are likely to be more endonormative.
While Kachru (1994), and Sahgal (2000) found no notable increase of the influence of
American English in their studies, this study does find that American English is on the
increase. The fact that American English did not feature highly in Kachru’s study of
the 1970’s, and few respondents indicated they currently spoke this variety, suggests
that the influence of American English comes from outside India and has only taken
hold in the last twenty years. The increase of American English could be explained by
more exposure to Americans and American culture (T.V., film etc.) in a globalised
India, and by the more frequent use of English in an international context, for example
with call centres where customers are often American. This proposition however
requires further testing. American English currently has only a small affect on variety
aspirations, however if the growth in aspiration for American English continues, then
we could see more American English spoken among Indian students in the future. It
would be interesting to conduct further research into the aspirations for American
English of those working in an international setting, especially within call centres. It
could be that in these environments the influence of globalisation has a more direct
effect on attitudes towards English. Cowie (2007) has noted an increase in the
aspirations towards American English among younger call centre staff, see Literature
review pg. 31. An interesting research area would also be a comparative study
between those who use English internationally and those who use English intra-
nationally in their professional lives, to see whether their planned use of the English
made a difference to individual preferences for English varieties.
Despite the initial assumptions, this research how shown that globalisation is not
having a homogenising effect on the Indian linguistic landscape at this stage. This
research demonstrates the understanding that different languages perform different
functions and that being bilingual or multilingual in India is beneficial, as it enables
access to these different functions. While globalisation is increasing the amount of
English in India, it is not as yet overwhelming other languages, as resistance to
76
globalisation serves to reassert other Indian languages and bilingual movements. In a
multilingual country a monolingual speaker is not able to operate in all spheres but
with English and another language, a speaker can retain the cultural identity and sense
of belonging that is associated with the mother tongue, whilst benefiting from the
education and career opportunities associated with English. While the benefits of
bilingualism are clear, this research also highlights the benefits of bidilectism. While
globalisation can be seen to have increased the numbers of English speakers in India,
it has not had an overpowering impact on the type of English spoken in India. Rather,
globalisation has developed two divergent uses for English that co-exist in
contemporary Indian society. India uses English in a second language function and
also in a foreign language function. The second language function is English as used
with other Indian speakers of English to assert cultural identities; and the foreign
language function is English used with non-Indians for the purpose of intelligible
international communication. A bidilectal person has access to both functions of
English and employs different English varieties for different functions, switching
between Indian English for intra-national and another variety of English for
international purposes. Although it was predicted that these two stands of English
would not be able to share the same linguistic space, and one would over power the
other, this does not seem to be the case. Kandiah agrees with this, saying that English
has,
“…caused significant reallocations or roles and status in the verbal repertoire of
its users, not necessarily in a ‘replacive’ or, even, merely ‘duplicative’ way, but
by equipping speakers with ‘multiple codes’ in certain domains.” (Kandiah,
1999)
Bilingual and bidilectal speakers in India have a wealth of different codes at their
disposal and can choose which is the most appropriate for each context and function.
With hindsight, the research topic selected proved to be too broad and not clearly
enough defined. If this project were to be repeated, it would be preferable to focus on
one of the issues and explore it in greater detail. However, as the research did not
directly intend to measure the effects of globalisation but had set more realistic
measurable goals, it was largely able to meet the study’s aims and objectives. It was
able to: reproduce previous studies on attitudes towards English; to investigate the
acceptance of different varieties of English (Indian English, British English and
77
American English) by comparing previous studies with this study’s findings; to
explore current attitudes to the role and use of English in India, and where possible to
statistically analyse the collected data to provide generalisations about attitudes to
English in India. However, these aims did not enable the most reliable generalisations
to be made, which created problems in theory creation. Explanations as to why
something was the way it was, had to be estimated and could not be proved
conclusively. This study could be improved by accessing a more representative
sample or by including a larger number of respondents in the survey. This would
allow for better generalisations about a larger population, which would in turn lead to
more advanced theory generation.
78
List of References
Annamalai, E (2005) Nation-building in a Globalised World: Language Choice and
Education in India in Lin A and Martin P Decolonisation, Globalisation –
Language-in-Education Policy and Practice, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters,
20-37.
--- (2004) Medium of Power: The Question of English in Education in India in Tsui
and Tollefson Medium of Instruction Policies: Which agenda? Whose agenda?,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Baker, Colin (1992) Attitudes and Language, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Bhowmik, Sharit (2004) Work in a globalizing Economy: Reflections on Outsourcing
in India, Labour, Capital and Society 37, 76-96.
Block,D. and Cameron, D (Eds) (2002) Globalization and Language Teaching,
London: Routledge.
Castells, M. (2000) The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Chew, Phyllis Ghim-Lian, (2007) Remaking Singapore: Language, Culture, and
Identity in a Globalized World in Tsui, Amy and Tollefson, James (Eds)
Language Policy, Culture and Identity in Asian Contexts, New York: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Cowie, Claire (2007) The accents of outsourcing: the meaning of ‘neutral’ in the
Indian call centre industry, World Englishes 26 (3), 316-330.
Crystal, David (2003) English as a Global Language, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
79
Dasgupta, Probal (1993) The Otherness of English – India’s Auntie Tongue
Syndrome, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Della Porta, Donatella. and Keating, Michael (Eds) (2008) Approaches and
Methodologies in the Social Sciences : A Pluralist Perspective, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
De Swaan, Abram (2001) Words of the World, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Dor, Daniel (2004) From Englishization to imposed Multilingualism: Globalization,
the Internet and the political Economy of the Linguistic Code, Public Culture
16(1), 97-118.
D’Souza, Jean (2001) Conceptualizing range and depth in Indian English, World
Englishes 20(2), 145-159.
Fishman, Joshua (1992) Sociology of English as an Additional Language in Kachru,
Braj. (Ed) The Other Tongue: English across Cultures, Chicago: University of
Illinois Press.
Gardner, Robert (1985) Social psychology and second language acquisition: the role
of attitudes and motivation, London: Erward Arwold.
--- and Lambert, Wallace (1972) Attitudes and Motivation in second-language
learning, Newbury House Publishers.
Giddens, Anthony (2003) Runaway world: how Globalisation is reshaping our lives,
New York: Routledge.
Gokhale, Shridhar (1988) The Grammatical Standardization of Indian English,
Strathclyde Working Papers, 1(1), 22-35.
--- (2009) Class lecture, Indian English. University of Pune, Pune, India. 18th
September, 2009.
80
Graddol, David (1997) The Future of English? – A Guide to forecasting the
popularity of the English language in the 21st century, The British Council.
Heller, Monica (2003) Globalization, the new economy and commodification of
language and identity, Journal of Sociolingustics, 7(4), 473-492.
Kachru, Braj (1979) Models of English for the third world: white man’s linguistic
burden or language pragmatics, TESOL Quarterly 10(2).
--- (1983) The Indianization of English: The English Language in India, Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
--- (1986) The Alchemy of English: The spread, functions and models of non-native
Englishes, Oxford: Pergamon Press.
--- (1994) English in South Asia, in Burchfield, Robert (Ed) The Cambridge History
of the English Language Vol 5, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
--- (1998) English as an Asian Language, Links & Letters (5), 84-108.
--- (2005) Asian Englishes ‒Beyond the Canon, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University
Press.
Kandiah, Thiru (1991) South Asia in Cheshire, Jenny (Ed) English around the world:
sociolinguistic perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kayman, Martin (2004) The state of English as a global language: Communicating
culture, Textual Practice 18(1), 1-22.
Krishnaswamy, N and Krishnaswamy, L (2006) The Story of English in India, New
Delhi: Foundation Books.
81
--- and Burde, A (1998) The politics of Indians’ English ‒ Linguistic colonialism and
the expanding English empire. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
McGroarty, Mary (1996) Language Attitudes, Motivations and Standards in McKay
and Hornberger (Eds) Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Payne, Judy (2004) Key concepts in Social Research, California: Sage publications.
Phillipson, Robert (2001) English for globalisation or for the world’s people?
International Review of Education. 47 (3-4), 185-200.
Sahgal, Anju (2000) Patterns of language use in a bilingual setting in India, in
Cheshire, Jenny (Ed) English around the World ‒ Sociolinguistic perspectives,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 299-307.
Schneider, Edgar (2007) Postcolonial English ‒ Varieties around the World,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scrase, Timothy (2002) Globalisation and the cultural politics of educational change:
the controversy over the teaching of English in West Bengal, India,
International Review of Education 48(5), 361-375.
Shaw, Willard () Asian Student Attitudes towards English, in Smith, Larry (Ed)
English for Cross Cultural Communication, Wiltshire: Macmillan Press Ltd.
Shome, Raka (2006) Thinking through the Diaspora – Call centres, India, and the
politics of hybridity, International Journal of Cultural Studies, 9, 105-124.
Sonntag, Selma (2004) The Local Politics of Global English: Case studies in
Linguistic Globalisation, Oxford: Lexington.
82
Thomas, Singh, and Peccei (Edts) (2004) Language, Society and Power: an
Introduction, London: Routledge.
Taylor, Phil and Bain, Peter (2005) India calling to the far away towns: the call centre
labour processes and globalization, Work, Employment and Society, 19(2),
261-282.
Tsui, Amy and Tollefson, James (Eds) (2007) Introduction Language Policy, Culture,
and Identity in Asian Contexts, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Vaish, Vinti (2008) Biliteracy and Globalisation – English Language Education in
India, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Warschauer, Mark, Ghada R. El Said, and Ayman Zohry (2002) Language choice
online: Globalization and identity in Egypt. Journal of Computer Mediated
Communication 7(4) (Web publication at www.ascusc.org/jcmc).
National Curriculum Framework 2005, (2007), NCERT.
Language and Identity Conference, (2009) Vlasta, Sandra ‘Neither here nor there.
Issues of language and identity in texts by multilingual writers’, 16th
September, The University of Pune, Pune.
83
Appendices
84
Appendix 1
85
Attitudes towards English
I am an MA student at the University of Groningen, the Netherlands, currently undertaking a research programme here at the University of Pune. I am conducting a survey about current attitudes towards English in India, which will constitute an important body of research for my MA Thesis. I would be very grateful if you could help me with my research by completing this questionnaire. This will take less than 20 minutes of your time.
The contents of this questionnaire are completely confidential. Details of the respondent will not be disclosed under any circumstances, you don’t even have to fill in your name. This is not a test and there are no right or wrong answers, I am interested in your genuine opinions.
1. Personal details
Male Female
Age:
Which state do you come from?
Which city/town?
Which degree programme are you enrolled in?
What profession do you aspire to?
2. Language Abilities
a. What is your mother tongue?
b. What language was spoken at home when you were growing up?
c. Which other languages can you speak? (please list and indicate fluency: fluently– quite well – conversationally - basic)
d. What were the main language/s of instruction in your primary education?
e. What were the main language/s of instruction in your secondary education?
f. What is the main language of your university education?
g. At what age did you begin learning English?
h. Where did you first begin learning English? (Please select one answer only)
at home at school in your locality other ………
86
i. Would you consider taking/ have you taken any courses outside of university to improve your English skills? (Please select one answer only) Yes No Maybe
j. If you answered yes or maybe, which course did you take/ would you consider taking?
3. Language Use
Please indicate which languages you use plus how often you use them, using the scale: ‘all the time’, ‘frequently’, ‘sometimes’, ‘rarely’, ‘never’. (e.g Hindi, sometimes; English, rarely.)
a. In which language/s do you communicate with the following people?
b. English threatens the survival of Indian languages.
SA A D SD
c. I need English to be able to get a good job.
SA A D SD
d. Mother tongue instruction should be given more importance.
SA A D SD e. English should be the language of instruction of all education in India. SA A D SD f. People who speak English are successful. SA A D SD g. English is a constant reminder of British occupation. SA A D SD h. English is important for international communication. SA A D SD i. English should be the language of communication between Indian states. SA A D SD j. English is necessary to be accepted in the community. SA A D SD k. If you were able to choose, what language would you choose for your mother tongue? Please give reason for your choice. l. Given a choice, what language do you/ would you educate your children in? Please give reason for your choice. m. Do you think that English can be used effectively to represent Indian cultural values and traditions? Yes No Please give reasons: 5. Varieties of English a. Have you heard of the variety of English called Indian English? (Please select one answer only) Yes No Don’t know
88
b. If you answered yes, please give a definition for this term? c. Which variety of English do you think you speak? (Please select one answer only) Indian English British English American English Don’t know Other ……… d1. Which variety of English do you aspire to speak? (Please select one answer only) Indian English British English American English Don’t know Other ……… d2. Please give reasons for this choice? e. What variety of English do you think should be spoken generally in India? (Please select one answer only)
British English American English General Indian English/ Educated Indian English Other ………… Don’t know/ don’t mind
f. Which variety of English do you think should be used for global communication? (Please select one answer only)
British English American English General Indian English/ Educated Indian English Other ………… Don’t know/ don’t mind
Thank you very much for completing this survey. I am very grateful that you have taken the time. It would be very nice if you could you return this questionnaire by email to [email protected] by the 23rd October 2009.
If you would be willing to share more of your opinions on this subject with me please write your email address or phone number here: