English in East and South Asia: Policy, Features and Language in Use 9781138359857, 9781032068244, 9780429433467

Citation preview

English in East and South Asia

This book provides the first systematic and comprehensive account of English in East and South Asia (EESA) based on current research by scholars in the field. It has several unique features. Firstly, it provides a rigorous theoretical overview that is necessary for the understanding of EESA in relation to the burgeoning works on World Englishes as a discipline. Secondly, in the section on linguistic features, a systematic template was made available to the contributors so that linguistic coverage of the variety/varieties is similar. Thirdly, the vibrancy of the sociolinguistic and pragmatic realities that govern actual English in use in a wide variety of domains such as social media, the Internet and popular culture/music are discussed. Finally, this volume includes an extensive bibliography of works on EESA, thus providing a useful and valuable resource for language researchers, linguists, classroom educators, policymakers and anyone interested in the topic of EESA or World Englishes. This volume hopes to advance understanding of the spread and development of the different sub-varieties reflecting both the political developments and cultural norms in the region. Ee Ling Low is Dean of Academic and Faculty Affairs and Professor of Education (Applied Linguistics and Teacher Education) at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Anne Pakir is an Honorary Fellow with the Department of English Language and Literature at the National University of Singapore (NUS) and was the Associate Vice President of Global Relations at the University before she retired in 2019.

Routledge Studies in World Englishes Series Editor: Ee Ling Low, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore and Advisor, Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics (SAAL)

This Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics book series will provide a starting point for those who wish to know more about the aspects of the spread of English in the current globalized world. Each volume can cover the following aspects of the study of World Englishes: issues and theoretical paradigms, feature-based studies (e.g. phonetics and phonology, syntax and lexis) and language in use (e.g. education, media, the law and other related disciplines). Children’s English in Singapore Acquisition, Properties, and Use Sarah Buschfeld Australian English Reimagined Structure, Features and Developments Edited by Louisa Willoughby and Howard Manns The Shetland Dialect Peter Sundkvist English in Southeast Asia and ASEAN Transformation of Language Habitats Azirah Hashim and Gerhard Leitner English in China Language, Identity and Culture Emily Tsz Yan Fong English in East and South Asia Policy, Features and Language in Use Edited by Ee Ling Low and Anne Pakir For a full list of titles in this series, visit https​:/​/ww​​w​.rou​​tledg​​e​.com​​/Rout​​ ledge​​-Stud​​ies​-i​​n​-Wor​​ld​-En​​glish​​es​/​bo​​ok​-se​​ries/​​RSWE

English in East and South Asia Policy, Features and Language in Use Edited by Ee Ling Low and Anne Pakir

First published 2022 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2022 selection and editorial matter, Ee Ling Low and Anne Pakir; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Ee Ling Low and Anne Pakir to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-1-138-35985-7 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-06824-4 (pbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-43346-7 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India

Contents

List of illustrations viii Acknowledgements x Notes on contributors xii   1 English in East and South Asia: Context and issues 1 EE LING LOW AND ANNE PAKIR

PART I

Policy 17   2 English language policy in Mainland China: History, issues and challenges 19 GUANGWEI HU

  3 English language policy in Japan: History, current realities and challenges ahead 33 KAYOKO HASHIMOTO AND GREGORY PAUL GLASGOW

  4 The place of English in Korean language policy: History, realities and issues 47 JAMIE SHINHEE LEE

  5 English language policy in multilingual India 61 TEJ K. BHATIA

  6 English in Pakistan: Past, present and future 75 AHMAR MAHBOOB

  7 English language education policy in Sri Lanka: Historical developments, current realities and future challenges 90 INDIKA LIYANAGE

vi Contents PART II

Features 105   8 Features of Chinese English 107 RONG YANG, RAN AO AND EE LING LOW

  9 Features of Japanese English 122 JAMES D’ANGELO, TOSHIKO YAMAGUCHI AND YASUHIRO FUJIWARA

10 Emerging patterns of Korean English 137 JIEUN KIAER AND HYEJEONG AHN

11 Indian English: Features and development 153 PINGALI SAILAJA

12 Features of Sri Lankan English 168 TOBIAS BERNAISCH

PART III

Language in use 183 13 Exploring the use of English in Chinese social media 185 ZHICHANG XU AND DANYA ZHANG

14 Using English as identity markers in Japanese popular music: J-pop and beyond 198 JAMES STANLAW

15 English and K-pop: The case of BTS 212 HYEJEONG AHN

16 English in India’s multilingual ecology: Present-day use, users and usage 226 S.N. SRIDHAR AND KAMAL K. SRIDHAR

17 English in Pakistan: Language policy, features and present-day use 242 SHAM HAIDAR AND SYED ABDUL MANAN

18 Language in use: The case of Sri Lankan English 256 MANEL HERAT

Contents  vii 19 English in East and South Asia in the post-Kachruvian era 271 EE LING LOW

20 Works on English in East and South Asia 292 EE LING LOW, ANNE PAKIR, RAN AO AND RONG YANG

Index

315

Illustrations

Figures 11.1 IE in the dynamic model 162 12.1  ratio i-you by variety and topic summarised in boxplots 177 12.2 lmertree of ratio i-you 178 12.3 Partial dependence plots for NONTRP 179 18.1 Internet user distribution in Sri Lanka. Source: Extracts from Table 8, Computer Literacy Statistics – 2015 (Annual bulletin), Department of Census and Statistics, Sri Lanka, adapted from Widyalankara (2015) 258 19.1 Pakir’s Quadrant Analysis of Three Paradigms (adapted from Pakir, 2010) with additions suggested by Pakir (personal communication) 281

Tables   5.1 First (L1), second (L2) and third (L3) languages by number of speakers in India (2011 Census)   8.1 Vowel inventory of CE, Yunnan English and Beijing English   8.2 Inventory for consonants in initial position of CE based on Chang (1987), Hung (2002), Ho (2003), Deterding (2006, 2017), Ao & Low (2012) and Ao (2015)   9.1 Vowels and their realisations in Japanese English   9.2 Consonants and their realisations in Japanese English 10.1 Consonant correspondence charts of English and Korean (adapted from Shin et al., 2012, pp. 219–220) 10.2 Vowel correspondence examples between English and Korean (adapted from Shin et al., 2012, pp. 219–220) 10.3 Simple vowels in Korean 10.4 Complex vowels in Korean 11.1 The vowel features of IE in Wells’ (1982) lexical set

64 108

111 123 126 143 144 144 144 156

Illustrations  ix 11.2 The consonants of IE (Sailaja, 2009, p. 24) 12.1 The criteria for endonormative stabilisation (cf. Schneider, 2007, p. 56) and SLE 12.2 The SLE sound system 12.3 Features of spoken and written SLE syntax according to Gunesekera (2005) 12.4 Features of SLE syntax according to Meyler (2007) 14.1 Artists discussed in this chapter 14.2 Songs discussed in this chapter 14.3 The identity matrix of the artists/song 14.4 English linguistic/rhetorical devices used in the songs 15.1  BTS Discography Statistics 15.2 Number of words in song titles 15.3 Comparison of rankings of the top five BTS songs on Melon and the Billboard Hot 100 15.4 Frequency of different types of English lyrics in BTS songs 17.1 Pakistan’s language-in-education policy (adapted from Coleman, 2010) 17.2 Phonological differences between Pakistani English and British English (adapted from Mahboob & Ahmar, 2004; Rahman, 2015) 18.1 Internet usage statistics in Sri Lanka 2017 (adapted from Colombo Digital Marketers, 2017) 18.2 Internet using household population in Sri Lanka (2017) 19.1 A comparison of vocalic features in six varieties of English in East and South Asia using Wells’ (1982) lexical set 19.2 Main vocalic and rhythmic patterning features in six varieties of English in East and South Asia

156 169 171 174 174 201 202 202 203 218 218 219 220 245

248 257 258 277 278

Acknowledgements

Editing a book is often likened to taking a long journey. On this journey, there are many people to whom we owe a debt of gratitude for being part of this journey towards completion. Firstly, we are deeply appreciative to the scholars who have contributed to this volume and sincerely hope that this co-edited monograph will provide a first systematic, comprehensive account of English in East and South Asia backed by current research in the field. We are grateful to each and every one of our contributors, named herewith in the order of the appearance of their chapters: Guangwei Hu, Kayoko Hashimoto, Gregory Paul Glasgow, Jamie Shinhee Lee, Tej Bhatia, Ahmar Mahboob, Indika Liyanage, Rong Yang, Ran Ao, Jim D’Angelo, Toshiko Yamaguchi, Yasuhiro Fujiwara, Jieun Kiaer, Pingali Sailaja, Tobias Bernaisch, Zhichang Xu, Danya Zhang, James Stanlaw, Hyejeong Ahn, S. N. Sridhar, Kamal K. (Meena) Sridhar, Sham Haidar, Syed Abdul Manan and Manel Herat. We thank the research support provided by Dr Ran Ao, our Research Fellow funded by the Research Support for Senior Academic Administrators (RS-SAA) for our project “RS 5/18 LEL: English in East and South Asia: Policy, Features and Language in Use” awarded by the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. We value his professional partnership and strong research and copy-editing skills. We would also like to thank others who helped out in various aspects of this project at different points on our journey. These include Mr Chun Peng Tam, Mrs Jocelyn Tan-Lim and Miss Rong Yang. Our heartfelt appreciation also goes to Ms Kamsidah Kamsin and Ms Geraldine Yoon, who helped to schedule project meetings juggling two impossible university administrators’ calendars. Thanks also are due to our commissioning editor Ms Katie Peace and the team from Routledge including Ms Samantha Phua and Ms Jacy Hui, who worked alongside us to ensure timeliness in our delivery of the final manuscript even whilst we were all working under pandemic constraints.

Acknowledgements  xi Our immediate families deserve our deepest appreciation as we had to dedicate many out-of-office hours in order to complete this manuscript. Your sacrifices have made this volume possible and we are eternally grateful to each of you. Any errors or omissions remain entirely our own responsibility. Ee Ling Low and Anne Pakir January 2021

Notes on contributors

Hyejeong Ahn works as a Senior Lecturer at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Her research interest includes the linguistic landscape of K-pop, the practice of using English-medium instruction in South Korean universities and intercultural communication. Ran Ao, currently a Research Fellow at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (NIE/NTU), has been working in the field of ELT, phonetics, World Englishes, and education since 2007. He has published on English in China and has been involved in projects related to English in Southeast Asia, English in East and South Asia, English pronunciation, EIL, ELF and World Englishes. Tobias Bernaisch is Senior Lecturer at Justus Liebig University Giessen, Germany. His research focuses on South Asian Englishes and pays particular attention to Sri Lankan English as well as potential epicentral constellations in the South Asian region. He also currently studies genderlectal variation in World Englishes and in the history of the English language. Tej Bhatia is Professor of Linguistics & Cognitive Sciences and Director of South Asian Languages at Syracuse University. He has also served as Director of Linguistic Studies Program and Acting Director of Cognitive Sciences at his university. He has published numerous books, articles and book chapters in the area of bilingualism and multiculturalism; sociolinguistics; forensic linguistics and security studies; and accents, pain and trauma studies. James D’Angelo, PhD, is Professor and Chair of the Global Liberal Studies Major at Chukyo University. He is editor-in-chief of the journal Asian Englishes, and on the Advisory Board of the RATEIL book series. He authored “The Status of ELF” in Japan in the Routledge Handbook of ELF. His areas of research include World Englishes, ELF, EMI in higher education and applying CEFR mediation scales in academic writing.

Notes on contributors  xiii Yasuhiro Fujiwara, PhD, is Professor at Meijo University. He has experience in teaching English in various settings at the secondary and tertiary levels and is now a teacher trainer. He is a co-author of the book, Teaching English as an International Language: From the Perspectives of World Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca (in Japanese, Taishukan Publishing). His main interest lies in EIL/ELF/WE, corpus linguistics, and second language acquisition. Gregory Paul Glasgow is Associate Professor in the Department of English, Kanda University of International Studies, Japan. His main research interests are language policy and second language teacher education in Global Englishes/English as a Lingua Franca. His recent publications include two co-edited books published in 2019 entitled Agency in Language Policy and Planning: Critical Inquiries and Researching Agency in Language Policy and Planning (Routledge, with J. Bouchard). Sham Haidar holds a PhD degree from the University of Rochester. He serves as an Assistant Professor in the Department of English, Air University Islamabad, Pakistan. His research on sociolinguistics, equity in education, language and power, language ideology, English and globalization, language instruction and technology has been published in impact factor (ISI-indexed) journals such as International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, English Today, Asia Pacific Journal of Education, and Interactive Learning Environments. Manel Herat is a Senior Lecturer in English Language and Linguistics at Liverpool Hope University, UK. Her research interests are in World Englishes, Psychology of Language and the Language of Death and Dying (world war epitaphs). Currently, she is working on constructions of linguistic identity in post–World War I correspondence. Her writings have been published in Language Variation and Change and the International Journal of Language Studies. Guangwei Hu is Professor of Language and Literacy Education in the Department of English and Communication, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. His research interests include academic literacy, language assessment, second language education, biliteracy acquisition and English as an international language. He has published widely on these and other areas. He is co-editor for Journal of English for Academic Purposes and serves on the editorial boards of several international journals. Kayoko Hashimoto is Senior Lecturer at School of Languages and Cultures, the University of Queensland, Australia. Her main research area is language policy. Her recent publications include a co-edited book Professional Development of English Language Teachers in Asia (2018, Routledge, with

xiv  Notes on contributors V. T. Nguyen) and a co-authored book Beyond Native-Speakerism (2018, Routledge, with S. Houghton & D. Rivers). She is a thematic editor (language and education) of Asian Studies Review. Jieun Kiaer is Young Bin Min-KF Associate Professor of Korean Language and Linguistics at the University of Oxford, UK. She publishes widely on lexical interaction between East Asian languages and Englishes. Her recent publications include The History of English Loanwords in Korean (Lincom 2014), Translingual Words: An East Asian Lexical Encounter with English (Routledge 2018) and Delicious Words (Routledge 2020). Jamie Shinhee Lee is Professor of Linguistics at the University of MichiganDearborn and editor of World Englishes in Pop Culture (with Yamuna Kachru) and English in Asian Popular Culture (with Andrew Moody). Her research interests include World Englishes, language and popular culture, globalization and education policy, bilingualism and Korean pragmatics/ discourse analysis. Indika Liyanage is Associate Professor in TESOL in the School of Education, Faculty of Arts and Education at Deakin University. Indika has been a doctoral (PhD) supervisor for many years. He has worked as an International Consultant on TESOL in the Pacific and is currently the Series Editor for Multilingual Education Yearbook by Springer International. Ee Ling Low is Professor of Applied Linguistics and Teacher Education and concurrently Dean of Academic and Faculty Affairs at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (NIE/NTU). She obtained her PhD in Linguistics (Acoustic Phonetics) from Cambridge University, UK, under the NIE/NTU Overseas Graduate Scholarship. She is a recipient of the Fulbright Advanced Research Scholarship and is currently an Executive Board Member of the International Association for Applied Linguistics (AILA). She is also a co-editor of the AILA Review and the Series Editor for the Routledge-SAAL Studies in World Englishes. Ahmar Mahboob teaches linguistics at the University of Sydney, Australia. Ahmar has a keen interest in critical language variation and its implications for education for a range of educational, social, professional and political issues. Syed Abdul Manan holds a PhD degree in Applied Linguistics. He serves as Associate Professor in the Graduate School of Education at Nazarbayev University, Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan. His research on sociolinguistics, language policy and planning, bi/multilingual education, World Englishes, and linguistic landscape has been published in several impact factor (ISIindexed) journals. Those include Language Policy, International Journal of

Notes on contributors xv Multilingualism, Language Problems & Language Planning, Multilingua, Language & Education and World Englishes. Anne Pakir is currently an Honorary Fellow with the Department of English Language and Literature at the National University of Singapore (NUS), where she held appointment as Associate Vice President of Global Relations. A Fulbright Scholar at UC Berkeley and later at Cornell, she is a recipient of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) award, the Chevalier dans l’Ordre des Palmes academiques award and an honorary lifelong member of the International Association for Applied Linguistics (AILA). She was a TOEFL Board Member (2004–2009) and IAWE President (1998–2000). Pingali Sailaja is a Professor in the Centre for English Language Studies, University of Hyderabad, India, of which she was the founding Director. Her research interests are in phonology, morphology, sociolinguistics, and historical, educational and linguistic aspects of English in India. Her publications include Indian English (EUP, 2009) and English Words: Structure, Formation and Literature (Pertinent, 2004), and articles in ELT Journal, OUP and EUP Handbooks and others. Kamal K. Sridhar is Professor Emerita of Linguistics and India Studies in the Department of Asian and Asian American Studies, Stony Brook University, New York. She is author of English in Indian Bilingualism and numerous papers and book chapters on sociolinguistics and pragmatics of English in India, World Englishes, Teaching English as a Second Language, language maintenance and shift in India and the U.S., and other aspects of applied linguistics. S.N. Sridhar is Professor of Linguistics and India Studies in the Department of Asian and Asian American Studies, Founding Director of the Mattoo Center of India Studies and SUNY Distinguished Service Professor at Stony Brook University. He has published extensively on Kannada grammar, syntax and morphology; Indian sociolinguistics and multilingualism; World Englishes and second language acquisition theories; psycholinguistics of sentence production and code-mixing; and translation of Kannada classics into English. James Stanlaw is Professor of Anthropology at Illinois State University, USA. He is the author of Japanese English Language and Culture Contact and is editor-in-chief of the just released four-volume International Encyclopedia of Linguistic Anthropology. Zhichang Xu (Marc) is Senior Lecturer in the School of Languages, Literatures, Cultures and Linguistics at Monash University, and Associate Editor for English Today. He has teaching experiences in Beijing, Perth,

xvi  Notes on contributors Hong Kong and Melbourne. He has a disciplinary background in Applied Linguistics and Intercultural Education, and his research areas include World Englishes, Applied Linguistics, Cultural Linguistics, English as a Lingua Franca, Intercultural Communication and Language Education. Toshiko Yamaguchi, PhD, is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. In her earlier academic career, her research centered on synchronic and diachronic aspects of the Japanese language and its linguistic structures. She is currently engaged in two book projects: one on Japanese English grammar and the other on Japanese linguistics for L2 learners of Japanese (a revised 2nd edition). Rong Yang is a PhD candidate in Linguistics at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (NIE/NTU). Her research interests lie primarily in phonetics and world Englishes. Specifically, her work examines the phonetic features of English spoken in different regions of China. She holds an MA in Applied Linguistics from Nanyang Technological University as well as an MA in Translation from Beijing Institute of Technology, China. Danya Zhang is Lecturer in the School of Foreign Languages and Literature at Yunnan Normal University, China. She is a PhD candidate in Linguistics and Applied Linguistics at Monash University, Australia. Her research interests include World Englishes and applied linguistics.

1

English in East and South Asia Context and issues Ee Ling Low and Anne Pakir

1.1 Background At the point of the conceptualisation of this volume, the co-authors of this chapter had just published another co-edited monograph titled World Englishes: Rethinking Paradigms (Low & Pakir, 2018a). That seminal volume came at a time when three founding figures of World Englishes (henceforth WE) left us: Braj Kachru in July 2016, his beloved wife Yamuna in April 2014 and his professional collaborator and co-founder of the World Englishes journal, Larry Smith, in December 2013. Contributors to that volume were themselves leading lights in the field, like Bolton, Jenkins, Nelson, Schneider and Thumboo, to name a few, who have offered “new thinking and paradigms that have emerged in response to the framework both as a construct and as a reality” (Low & Pakir, 2018b, p. 3). We concluded that volume by reaching the position that WE was and currently still is at a crucial inflexion point as the forces of globalisation and ultra-connectivity have given birth to new and multifaceted uses of English and spread worldwide. Furthermore, we predicted that it is the “we-ness” and inclusivity of the WE paradigm as espoused by its founders and followers that has allowed it to be an enduring and relevant paradigm that can be constantly re-imagined and re-asserted (Pakir & Low, 2018, p. 229). The point of departure of the current volume is the cusp of a new era in the study of WE, which we term the “post-Kachruvian” era. The Kachruvian era was marked by the Three Concentric Circles Model, conceptualised as a means to describe the types of spread, patterns of acquisition and the functional allocation of English in new and diverse cultural contexts. Kachru (1997a, p. 215) stated that WE as a concept “is not intended to indicate any divisiveness in the English-using communities but to recognize the functions of the language in diverse pluralistic contexts”. Bolton (2019) asserts that the Kachruvian paradigm (Kachru, 1992, 2015) is not merely confined to a description of regional or national varieties of English but includes the sociolinguistic realities such as standards and norms, issues of intelligibility, bi- and multilingualism, code-mixing, bilingual creativity, multi-canonity, language planning and policy, power and politics of the English language in DOI: 10.4324/9780429433467-1

2  Ee Ling Low and Anne Pakir relation to other indigenous languages, to name but a few. WE and the global spread of English worldwide are now well established and have attracted much research and scholarship. These include major internationally peerreviewed journals such as World Englishes, English Worldwide, English Today, Asian Englishes and several handbooks such as The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes, Wiley-Blackwell’s The Handbook of World Englishes and book series such as Routledge Studies in World Englishes, Bloomsbury Series in World Englishes and Asian Englishes Today, to present a non-exhaustive list. Within this sub-set of existing studies on WE and where Kachru’s own doctoral and subsequent studies on the status, functions and features of English in India lie is the study of Asian Englishes (see Kachru’s 2005 monograph of the same name), which owes its origins to Kachru’s own research and scholarship. In 1997, Kachru (1997b) wrote provocatively about “English as an Asian language”, where he highlights the number of users of the English language in Asia, the rise in the status of English in Asia where, in some Outer Circle countries like Singapore, English is used as the de facto national and co-official language and English is seen as a liberating language since it allows linguistic and literary creativity, and the burgeoning of multi-canons of English literature where English contains “vitality, innovation, linguistic mix and cultural identity” (Kachru, 1997b, p. 23). He later published a monograph on the topic in 2005 titled Asian Englishes: Beyond the Canon and interestingly focused on how English is a “killer language” in Asia and the pedagogies, identity issues and future prospects. The English language in Asia is woven into the “nativised webs of language structure and its functional appropriateness” (Kachru, 2005, pp. 255–256). Our present volume aims to continue Kachru’s research and scholarship on Asian Englishes in the post-Kachruvian era by focusing on two areas in Asia, namely East Asia and South Asia, where focal attention has been given to specific varieties in each region, such as English in China, Japan and Korea in East Asia, and India in South Asia (e.g. Bolton, 2003; Hadikin, 2014; Sailaja, 2009; Stanlaw, 2004) but where research gaps are still observable. First, asymmetry exists in the research on varieties of English used in East and in South Asia. Some of the Outer Circle varieties of English, especially Indian English, have received considerable attention and have been well documented (e.g. Kachru, 1983; Mehrotra, 1998; Sailaja, 2009; Sedlatschek, 2009) while English varieties in the Expanding Circle have experienced a relative paucity of research notice. Second, the publications that exist on English in East Asia (Ho & Wong, 2004) and in South Asia (Baumgardner, 1996) have tended to solely focus on individual varieties (e.g. Xu et al., 2017 on Chinese English; Seargeant, 2011 on Japanese English; Sedlatschek, 2009 on Indian English) or as chapters or sections within larger volumes (e.g. Kachru & Nelson, 2006; Mesthrie, 2004; Wee et al., 2013). None have as yet dedicated an entire volume combining both regions in Asia. Considering the fact that new economic

English in East and South Asia  3 powerhouses are emerging in East and South Asia, which will undoubtedly serve as a catalyst for increased efforts in English language education and use in the regions, and the fact that this region has the world’s largest number of both speakers of English as a second language (i.e. India) and as a foreign language (i.e. China), a volume such as this is timely and necessary as it bridges the gaps in the collective knowledge of English varieties that are emerging in the region. Collectively, these regions are characterised by high population density and vast ethnic, linguistic and cultural diversity. English plays a dynamic and significant role in both intra- and international communication, politics, education, science and economics in both East and South Asia. Kachru categorises the Englishes in East Asia as being part of the Expanding Circle varieties and English in South Asia as part of the Outer Circle varieties (Kachru, 1985, 1992). The Outer Circle countries were former colonies or protectorates of an English-speaking power (e.g. India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka) while in the Expanding Circle countries, English is used mainly as a foreign language (e.g. in China, Japan and Korea). In the Outer Circle countries like India, English has been the main medium of education in schools, and there are now native speakers of Indian English, whereas in the Expanding Circle varieties, students learn English as a foreign language in schools and English is being used in relatively limited domains such as education, foreign trade and tourism, among others. The range and depth of penetration of English in the Outer Circle countries have been observed in Singapore, also a former colony, which embraced its legacy of English instead of discarding it as most other Outer Circle countries did upon gaining their independence from a powerful colonial power. Singapore, where the editors are from, is really tiny compared to India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. China, Japan and Korea, which are major East Asian entities, are also huge, and it is of interest to understand whether and how deeply English, the global language, has penetrated into the layers of their societies. Our volume intends to push the boundaries of our understanding of the sociolinguistic realities of English in both regions of Asia by commissioning contributions focusing on history, language planning and policy features of East and South Asian Englishes and in so doing hopes to unearth the richness in linguistic features brought about by bi- and multilingual, and multicultural backgrounds of its speakers and to also devote a final section on present-day language in use in order to make sense of the multi-modalities of expression and the multi-canonity of the evolving varieties in these regions.

1.2 Context setting: English in East and South Asia 1.2.1 Terminological clarifications While the title of the present volume, English in East and South Asia (henceforth EESA) seems to suggest that English in these two Asian regions is one

4  Ee Ling Low and Anne Pakir entity, it is not our intention to collapse them as one. Further, a point of terminological clarification that needs to be made is that the term “English in East and South Asia” is a cover term to refer to both East Asian Englishes and South Asian Englishes, in full recognition of the pluricentricity of norms and multi-cultural, multi-lingual background of its users. The geographical composition of East and South Asia requires further elucidation in order for us to understand what constitutes East and South Asian Englishes respectively. “East Asian English” covers the English varieties that have emerged in China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Mongolia, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan. China, Japan and South Korea (henceforth referred to as “Korea”) are selected for coverage of East Asian Englishes for several reasons. First, there is a sizeable population of over 200 million speakers of English in China, forming about 20% of the total population (Zhao & Campbell, 1995). These learners of English in China view English as offering them upward educational and social mobility in the international arena. Japan and Korea have 12.5 and 5.1 million speakers of English, forming about 10% of their respective populations. These two polities present interesting case studies as the global spread of Japanese and Korean popular culture (henceforth J-pop and K-pop) and in particular the international Korean drama fever have led to interesting linguistic hybridity in the use of English in Japan and Korea and warrant our research attention, as this is a distinct emerging use of English in the post-Kachruvian era. English in South Asia is a cover term we use to refer to South Asian Englishes. South Asia is a region, as Gargesh (2020, p. 107) notes, spanning Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. A comprehensive summary of the situation of English in all of these countries is provided by Gargesh (2020), but the scope of our present volume necessitates that we delineate our focus to a few key countries in the region. India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka are selected as the focus of our study and they are part of a larger entity known as the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. According to statistics provided by Bolton (2019), the population of Indian speakers of English is approximately 20% of its total population, comprising about 260 million speakers. Pakistan has about 50.9 million speakers, comprising 25% of its total population, and Sri Lanka has 5.3 million speakers, also comprising about 25% of its total population. Pakistan was part of India until 1947 and has the same British colonial roots as India, while Sri Lanka presents an interesting case study of having Portuguese and Dutch colonial rule before the British administration took over and introduced English-medium instruction based on the recommendations of the Colebrook-Cameron Commission of Inquiry of 1830–1832 (see Chapter 7, this volume). Collectively, English in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka should be able to give us insights about the evolution and development of South Asian Englishes in the post-Kachruvian era.

English in East and South Asia  5 1.2.2 Historical origins and relevant demographics To fully understand the complexities of the development of English in East and South Asia, there is a need to understand both the historical origins and the relevant demographic facts such as the linguistic repertoire of the speakers of the six countries surveyed in this volume. In East Asia, English arrived mainly through trade and commerce. The earliest contact between English speakers and the Chinese occurred in 1637, when four British merchant ships made an expedition to Macau and Guangzhou (Canton) under the command of Captain John Weddell (see Bolton, 2002 for more detail). In the case of Japan, an English sailor named William Adams was the first English speaker to set foot on Japanese soil in 1600, and he later rose to become a chief adviser to the Tokugawa feudal government (see Ike, 1995; Seargeant, 2011 for more details). For Korea, Western trading ships brought the language into the peninsular towards the end of the 1800s (Paik, 2018). While British English had been the original variety that introduced English to these countries, the influence of American English became quite predominant as the preferred variant of English in many areas in tandem with the rise of the United States in economic and military power. These interactions led to different contact varieties emerging, such as Pidgin English in the Chinese coastal areas with British traders, and Bamboo English in Japan and Korea with American soldiers (McArthur, 2005). These contact varieties, however, have become mostly extinct with the introduction of the formal education of English (McArthur, 2005). English continued to grow alongside the native languages and varieties in areas of business, politics and even education. English in East Asia is now quite cemented in its status with the steep increase of the number of students learning English (Honna, 2006). In South Asia, English was brought in by the British colonialists for trade, religious and educational purposes. India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka were then considered part of a large region and under British rule whereas Afghanistan, Bhutan and Nepal were not, with Maldives being a protectorate of the British. In the 17th century, the British brought the English language to India by establishing trading posts that were controlled by the East India Company in some cities including Surat in 1612, Madras in 1639– 1640, Bombay in 1674 and Calcutta in 1690 (see Kachru, 1994, p. 502). Pakistan followed next in the late 18th century, when it belonged to India. Upon gaining independence in 1947, Pakistan chose to adopt English as its lingua franca. British colonial powers were likewise responsible for bringing English into Sri Lanka around the same period and the English language is still prominent in the country (see Chapter 7, this volume). Just like in many other former British colonies, English is seen to be a link language between the British colonial master and the native populace and is viewed as a vehicle to help Indians, Sri Lankans and Pakistanis to move up the social ladder as a language of upward social, educational and occupational mobility.

6  Ee Ling Low and Anne Pakir In terms of the relevant demographics for each of the six polities studied, there are interesting parameters. In East Asia alone, China has a total population of 1.391 billion, with 61.4% living in urban areas. Its main ethnic groups include Han Chinese, Zhuang and others (including Hui, Manchu, Uighur, Miao, Yi, Tujia, Tibetan, Mongol, Dong, Buyei, Yao, Bai, Korean, Hani, Li, Kazakh, Dai and other nationalities), and they speak the main languages of Standard Chinese or Mandarin (Putonghua), Yue (Cantonese), Wu (Shanghainese), Minbei (Fuzhou), Minnan (Hokkien-Taiwanese) and English (which is widely taught in elementary, junior and senior high schools as the primary foreign language). Japan has a total population of 126.5 million, with 91.8% living in urban areas. Its sole ethnic group is Japanese, and they speak Japanese and English (widely taught as the main foreign language in elementary, junior and senior high schools). Korea has a total population of 51.8 million, with 81.4% living in urban areas. Its sole ethnic group is Korean, and they speak Korean and English (also widely taught in elementary, junior and senior high schools as the primary foreign language). In South Asia, India has a total population of 1.353 billion, with 34.9% living in urban areas. It has more than 2,000 diverse ethnic groups, with the main groups being Indo-Aryan, Dravidian and Mongoloid, and they speak the main languages of Hindi, Bengali, Marathi, Telugu and Tamil, while English enjoys the status of a subsidiary official language but is the de facto official language for national, political and commercial communication. Pakistan has a total population of 233.5 million, with 36.9% living in urban areas. Its main ethnic groups include Punjabi, Pashtun, Sindhi, Saraiki and Muhajirs, and they speak the main languages of Punjabi, Sindhi, Saraiki, Pashto and Urdu. English is spoken by 1% of the population and is the official lingua franca of the Pakistani elite and most government ministries. Sri Lanka has a total population of 21.4 million, with 18.7% living in urban areas. Its main ethnic groups include Sinhalese, Sri Lankan Tamil, Sri Lankan Moors, Indian Tamil and others, and they speak the main languages of Sinhala, Tamil and English. There appears to be much more homogeneity in terms of ethnic group composition for the East Asians compared to their South Asian counterparts. Unsurprisingly, there are fewer languages spoken in the three East Asian countries compared to the South Asian ones. It is also clear that a higher percentage of urban population exists in the three East Asian countries studied compared to the South Asian ones and this has clear ramifications for the access to education by the masses who reside in the rural countryside, especially with regard to the quality of English-medium instruction. With such a rich ground of research within each country, especially in the cases of India and China, potential reasons as to why research and publications have been dedicated to just one variety become more obvious, though lacking in terms of the ability to synthesise the growth of English in a broader world context. Looking at EESA from this macro perspective, we are able

English in East and South Asia  7 to discern even more from the similarities and differences between the varieties in each region and in each country, rather than looking at a variety in isolation.

1.3 Issues concerning English in East and South Asia In the East Asian Expanding Circle contexts, several key issues have emerged in relation to the development of English in the region. One issue concerns the status or development of English in East Asia. English in East Asia has been described as an Expanding Circle variety, i.e. a “performance variety” (Kachru, 1985, p. 13), which is learnt as a foreign language. After more than three decades of development in World Englishes since Kachru’s study, questions on the status of English in East Asia naturally arise. For example, “Have English language policies in East Asia facilitated the development of East Asian English?”; “Have features of East Asian English emerged that have changed the status of East Asian English?”; “Has English been so widely used in East Asia that English speech communities or ‘community of practice’ (House, 2003) have come into existence?” Another issue has to do with error-oriented versus features-oriented approaches to researching English in East Asia and other Expanding Circle varieties. The error-oriented approach adopts the position that any learners’ linguistic forms that are not consistent with the Inner Circle standards are to be regarded as “errors” or “deviations” or “non-standard forms”, which must be avoided or corrected. This approach embraces the mono-model paradigm. The features-oriented approach, however, regards the linguistic forms that are not consistent with the Inner Circle standards as features or innovations of Expanding Circle varieties. This approach embraces the poly-model paradigm that Kachru first advocated in 1990, which is now widely promulgated in the WE circles. Related to the issues of standards and norms is the issue of international intelligibility. English in East Asia is said to be mainly learnt as a foreign language, for which its domains of use are very limited, with education being the primary driving force. As most of those who learn English mainly do so for the purposes of educational mobility or furthering their job opportunities, the international intelligibility of English used is of prime importance. Whether speakers should conform to the standards of Inner Circle varieties is a separate moot point. It is important to ascertain whether the South Asian Outer Circle countries are indeed developing their own norms and whether the East Asian Expanding Circle countries are still dependent on Inner Circle norms for standards as earlier purported by Kachru. English in East Asia is mainly learnt as a foreign language, hence, it is commonly thought that teaching and learning must conform to the standards and norms of Inner Circle varieties. Whether a local norm, for example, Chinese English, Japanese English or Korean English, is being developed or accepted remains a question worthy of further investigation.

8  Ee Ling Low and Anne Pakir Another issue concerns the relationship between globalisation and English in East Asia. Scholars accept that globalisation plays a pivotal role in the spread and development of English in Expanding Circle countries and regions such as those in East Asia through international trade, tourism, cultural and educational change, international cooperation, global investment, global manufacturing industries and global supply chains. These are all important activities, which act as a catalyst for the spread of English in East Asia and other parts of the globe. Therefore, the deepening or weakening of globalisation will positively or negatively impact the development of English in East Asia. For example, although it is hard to predict how the global spread of COVID-19 will impact globalisation, the majority of voices in the media agree that while globalisation is unavoidable, its prospects are less clear. How the forces of globalisation strengthen or weaken the development of English in East Asia is worthy of close scrutiny and attention. There is a large body of existing research on English in South Asia, particularly on Indian English. However, there are various issues that remain to be addressed or revisited. Some issues concerning South Asian English were raised and discussed in the works of scholars such as Kachru (1994), Lowenberg and Sridhar (1986) and Sridhar and Sridhar (1986). These issues also pertain to Outer Circle varieties of English and are succinctly summarised in Kachru (1994, pp. 550–551). While also pertaining to norms and standards, the issue in South Asia revolves around attitudes towards the varieties, which in turn influence which norms are embraced. The past decades have seen a paradigm shift from the exocentric mono-model to the functional poly-model approach for South Asian Englishes. This has given rise to the recognition of and positive attitudes towards varieties of South Asian English such as Indian English and Sri Lankan English (see Bernaisch, 2012; Bernaisch & Koch, 2016). Recent research (e.g. Bernaisch & Koch, 2016) shows that his Indian informants have positive attitudes towards Indian English but hold more favourable attitudes towards British English. Bernaisch’s (2012) study, on the other hand, reveals that Sri Lankan informants show positive attitudes towards Sri Lankan English and at the same time highly value British English. This indicates that there still exists “mutual attitudinal demarcation” (Bernaisch & Koch, 2016, p. 128) between Indian English and Sri Lankan English speakers. Where English language teaching and acquisition in multi-lingual and multi-cultural South Asia is concerned, whether to adopt endonormative or exonormative norms in curriculum and assessment and to decide on what constitutes communicative competence in English forms a constant subject for debate. Specifically, whether the goal of English language acquisition is to acquire native-like competence or cross-cultural competence based on listener-dominated norms as espoused by Low (2015) is still unclear. The bi- and multilingual and multicultural background of the South Asian speakers of English and its impact on the development of English in the region requires further investigation.

English in East and South Asia  9 Pragmatic variations in the uses and users of South Asian English are another issue to be addressed. More research needs to be carried out to investigate how certain speech acts such as apologising, permitting, directing and informing are performed in each variety of South Asian English. There are still concerns with regard to language and culture. South Asian cultural values need to be carried in the varieties of English used in this region. The fallacy that “English is learnt to understand and teach British and American cultural values” needs to be debunked. The developing canon of South Asian English literatures dates back to the 1830s (Kachru, 1994). Since then, the bi- and multilingual creative uses of English in journalism, broadcasting, literary genres and advertising have emerged. The question “To what extent does the bilinguals’ creativity in English represent the underlying thought patterns of South Asian languages?” is not an easy one to answer. In addition, with the increasing use of the Internet and social media, creative uses of English are naturally extended to online platforms. Inequality in access to digital media will therefore also influence access to English creative content. A deeper dive into these issues will help advance the understanding of the future of English in the region.

1.4 Contributions to this volume Collectively, the contributions to this volume aim to provide a systematic and comprehensive account of English in East and South Asia, specifically English in China, Japan, Korea, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, based on current research by established and emerging scholars in the field. Contributions cover the historical context and language planning policies in order to provide a background for understanding the development of the linguistic features and present-day use. A systematic description of the linguistic features across the six focal varieties is also provided. The vibrancy of the sociolinguistic and pragmatic realities that govern actual language in use in a wide variety of contemporary domains such as popular culture, electronic and social media are explored. The overall intent is to consider the cross-cutting issues surrounding policy, features and English in use in East and South Asia; to update previous research and to add to and, if possible, break new ground on the existing research in the post-Kachruvian era. Part I: Policy Drawing on previous works in the literature (e.g. Adamson, 2004; Bolton, 2003), Guangwei Hu’s chapter presents a historical account of English in Mainland China from the time the English reached Chinese shores to the present day and considers current issues concerning English language policy in the country. Specifically, he showcases how the dominance of English has changed against the background of national language policies that

10  Ee Ling Low and Anne Pakir have been enforced through the education system such as the more recent English language policy reform concerning the National College Entrance Examination. He discusses issues surrounding English language policy in Mainland China such as the introduction of English in the primary school curriculum, the emerging use of English as a medium of instruction (MoI) in higher education and presents the challenges for English language policy and practice in China. Kayoko Hashimoto and Gregory Paul Glasgow’s chapter provides a historical view of the English language education policy and its context in Japan and discusses key issues in the government’s attempts to bridge the gap between policy and pedagogical practice by promoting the implementation of communicative approaches to English language teaching. It highlights the pervasive influence of the de facto language policy of the university entrance examination and a recent reform initiative to introduce commercial English tests as part of the new Common Test for University Admission. Korea’s globalisation drive, called segyehwa, currently serves as a potent discourse frame encouraging fervent engagement and considerable investment in English education. Jamie Shinhee Lee surveys critical issues in language policy and educational reform in Korea. She provides a historical overview of English education and discusses the significant role English plays in the Korean educational system. India has a huge population of English speakers and English proficiency and access to education plays an important role in economic, educational and social upward mobility. However, as pointed out in Kachru (1983), Ramanathan (2016), Bhatia (2020) and others, India is still in need of multipronged historical and contemporary research, which can better inform English language policy and practices. Tej K. Bhatia’s chapter therefore seeks to contribute to the body of such research, and discusses the English language curriculum, teacher education, language teaching methodology and language acquisition in India. Ahmar Mahboob’s chapter focuses on the inequalities that have arisen as a result of English attainment or the lack thereof in Pakistan. He also considers the impact of deep semantics or crypto-grammar (Halliday, 1990) of English on the evolution and current state of English in Pakistan and on the lives of the Pakistani people. Drawing on the study of Walisundara and Hettiarachchi (2016), and those by other scholars, Indika Liyanage’s chapter considers the impact of English as a medium of instruction (EMI) in Sri Lanka. The chapter provides a brief sociopolitical and socioeconomic background to Sri Lanka and a historical account of the development and role of English in the Sri Lankan education system during and after the British colonial period, with a particular focus on EMI policy in the country. It then examines the current realities of EMI in Sri Lankan schools, highlighting and discussing some key issues and suggesting possible solutions.

English in East and South Asia  11 Part II: Features The features of Chinese English have been described in several previous studies (e.g. Ao & Low, 2016; Deterding, 2006). However, a systematic and comprehensive overview of Chinese English encompassing its phonological, lexical, syntactic and other features is still lacking. The chapter by Rong Yang, Ran Ao and Ee Ling Low seeks to fill this gap by first providing a comprehensive description of the phonological features of Chinese English with respect to both segmental and suprasegmental features. It then presents some features of Chinese English lexis, focusing on three main types of word formation. Finally, the chapter summarises the syntactic features of Chinese English. Concrete examples of features of Japanese English are provided in the chapter by James D’Angelo, Toshiko Yamaguchi and Yasuhiro Fujiwara. In recent years, the international use of English and its impact on Japanese English has become more of a research focus than intra-national English use. While Expanding Circle varieties may be less “stable” than those in the Inner or Outer Circle, there are commonly used features observable. Hence, a certain “similect” (Mauranen, 2012) of Japanese English can be identified, even if it is not entirely codifiable or in an advanced stage of evolution according to Schneider’s Dynamic Model (Schneider, 2007; Ike & D’Angelo, 2020), which was not intended to describe non-colonial varieties. It is this form of Japanese English, with individual variation, which Japanese interlocutors will bring to their global interactions, whether locally, internationally, or in cyberspace. This chapter presents phonological and morpho-syntactic features, then moves on to discuss discourse and pragmatic features and lexical creativity. Jieun Kiaer and Hyejeong Ahn’s chapter focuses on emerging patterns of Korean English. It first discusses the distinctions between “Englishised Korean” and “Korean English”. This is followed by examples of the complicated hybrid phonological and lexical features of Korean English. Although Korean English has largely been created by Korean English speakers, considering the worldwide influence of the Korean Wave and Korean popular culture (K-pop), and the vibrant nature of Korean English words used in social media, Korean English is not limited to Korean English speakers but is also used by other English speakers. An overview of earlier and current research on Indian English is provided in Pingali Sailaja’s chapter. The chapter examines Indian English in the framework of Schneider’s dynamic model. It is suggested that the model needs to be reoriented to account for the linguistic features that are the result of a complex interplay of sociopolitical events, and also that the concept of multi-normativity should be built into the model. Tobias Bernaisch’s chapter provides a wide-ranging overview of features of Sri Lankan English including comparisons to British English and its neighbouring variety, Indian English. The descriptions of Sri Lankan English

12  Ee Ling Low and Anne Pakir zoom in on (1) its sound system with special emphasis on consonants, vowels and stress; (2) the lexis of Sri Lankan English to also uncover its possible contact with the local languages Sinhala and Tamil; (3) the lexicogrammar of Sri Lankan English, which is also related to potential epicentral configurations in South Asian Englishes; and (4) the syntax of Sri Lankan English. In addition to these rather formal approaches to the structures of Sri Lankan English, the pragmatics of Sri Lankan English are also scrutinised with a particular focus on discourse organisation, more specifically, on the extent to which speakers centre utterances around themselves or the hearer as well as on principles of turn-taking. These structural and pragmatic observations are jointly interpreted in various models of World Englishes, highlighting that Sri Lankan English is a variety of English in its own right with a distinctive structural profile. Part III: Language in use Contributions to present-day use of English in the six countries surveyed focus on contemporary discoursal modes like social media, the Internet and popular culture. The rapid increase in the number of smartphone users since the turn of the 21st century in China has dramatically boosted the growth of social media use in and beyond the country. A case in point is the widespread use of WeChat (literally, micro-messaging) as a common social media platform. Social media has formed an indispensable part of the daily life for the majority of Chinese people across the globe. It is therefore significant to investigate the extent to which English is used by Chinese social media users. Compared with other aspects of the use of English in China, e.g. English language teaching and learning, the use of English in social media by Chinese people has been under-researched. Zhichang Xu and Danya Zhang’s chapter examines English used in Chinese social media, based on data collected from a questionnaire survey and semi-structured interviews with Chinese users of English in relation to their social media communication. Their chapter looks at how English is used in Chinese social media and what its salient linguistic features are. James Stanlaw’s chapter explores how, and to what extent, English has influenced Japanese popular music and culture. In particular, the chapter examines various aspects of how “identity work” is enacted and constructed in the songs and performances of various J-pop stars, by using English resources. It draws upon the theoretical perspectives of research done on identity production and language contact found in linguistic anthropology and sociolinguistics. The use of English in another variety of East Asian popular music, i.e. Korean popular music (K-pop), forms the focus of Hyejeong Ahn’s chapter. The current features of English in K-pop lyrics and the roles that English plays within these lyrics are highlighted via an analysis of

English in East and South Asia  13 songs made popular by the K-pop band, BTS. The findings show that the features of English used in BTS songs are innovative and sophisticated, include aspects of computer-mediated communication, and use complicated English syntax. English words and phrases used in BTS lyrics deliver the main message or the theme of the song along with parallel use of Korean lyrics. Some songs are entirely written in English with simple Korean lyrics being used mainly for stylistic and rhyming purposes. In addition, BTS uses English-sounding Korean lyrics strategically, and seemingly at random, creating a discursive space that generates novelty and stimulates curiosity amongst global fans. In their chapter on multilingual ecologyof English in India, S. N. Sridhar and Kamal K. Sridhar outline the linguistic diversity of India and its multilingual ecology as the context and frame of reference for how English operates in India. In addition, the chapter discusses the uses or sociolinguistic functions of English in this country. Furthermore, it provides an overview of the salient characteristics of the community of users of English in India. It also gives a detailed analysis of the use of English in India in both its monolingual and multilingual modes. It finally discusses the implications of this analysis for current issues in theoretical and applied linguistics. Sham Haidar and Syed Abdul Manan’s chapter focuses on English language policy, features and present-day use of the English language in Pakistan. The chapter presents a description of the background of the English language in Pakistan through exploring the research literature. It discusses the language policies in Pakistan, where English has remained one of the important components in language planning and policy. It also provides a summary of various features of Pakistani English and discusses the present-day use of English in Pakistan with some data from previous research. The use of English on the Internet in Sri Lanka is the focus of Manel Herat’s chapter, which looks at how the Internet fosters diversity of the English language in Sri Lanka and examines the complex interrelationship between the Internet and English variations in this country. The Internet has emerged as one of the key communication channels for the increasingly interconnected world, dominating both the work and lives of people across the globe. It is therefore crucial to evaluate and study its impact on language. However, there has been little research on this aspect of English language use in the Sri Lankan context. This chapter seeks to fill this gap by examining the extent to which Sri Lankans use English variations on the Internet for work, communication and humour. Drawing on the contributions to this volume and on the insights from previously published works on EESA, Ee Ling Low’s chapter summarises the main trends emerging from the contributed chapters, focusing on policy, features and language in use in East and South Asia. She also argues that we need to re-think the paradigms used in the modelling of World Englishes in the post-Kachruvian era in the context of the findings presented in this

14  Ee Ling Low and Anne Pakir volume. Building on the challenges emerging from the growth and development of English in the region, the chapter then discusses prospects for English in this region and suggests some directions for future research. Recent years have seen increasing published scholarship on EESA. The chapter by Ee Ling Low, Anne Pakir, Ran Ao and Rong Yang brings together major published works on EESA so that scholars can have a stateof-the-art bibliographic resource on the topic divided according to general works and those that follow the foci of the book vis-à-vis policy, features and present-day use.

References Adamson, B. (2004). China’s English: A History of English in Chinese Education. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Ao, R., & Low, E. L. (2016). A description of the Yunnan English accent. World Englishes, 35(1), 18–41. Baumgardner, R. J. (Ed.) (1996). South Asian English: Structure, Use and Users. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Bernaisch, T. (2012). Attitudes towards Englishes in Sri Lanka. World Englishes, 31(3), 279–291. Bernaisch, T., & Koch, C. (2016). Attitudes towards Englishes in India. World Englishes, 35(1), 118–132. Bhatia, T. K. (2020). To teach or not to teach code-mixed English? Fortell: Journal of Teaching English Language and Literature, 40(January issue), 20–32. Bolton, K. (2002). Chinese Englishes: From Canton jargon to global English. World Englishes, 21(2), 181–199. Bolton, K. (2003). Chinese Englishes: A Sociolinguistic History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bolton, K. (2019). Braj B. Kachru and Asian Englishes. World Englishes, 38(1–2), 67–77. Deterding, D. (2006). The pronunciation of English by speakers from China. English World-Wide. A Journal of Varieties of English, 27(2), 175–198. Gargesh, R. (2020). South Asian Englishes. In C. L. Nelson, Z. G. Proshina & D. R. Davies (Eds.), The Handbook of World Englishes (2nd ed.) (pp. 107–134). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Hadikin, G. (2014). Korean English: A Corpus-Driven Study of a New English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Halliday, M. A. K. (1990). New ways of meaning: The challenge to applied linguistics. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6, 7–36. Ho, W. K., & Wong, R. Y. L. (Eds.) (2004). English Language Teaching in East Asia Today: Changing Policies and Practices (2nd ed.). Singapore: Eastern University Press. Honna, N. (2006). East Asian Englishes. In B. B. Kachru, Y. Kachru & C. L. Nelson (Eds.), The Handbook of World Englishes (pp. 114–129). Malden, MA, USA: Blackwell Publishing. House, J. (2003). English as a Lingua Franca: A threat to multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 556–578.

English in East and South Asia  15 Ike, M. (1995). A historical review of English in Japan (1600–1880). World Englishes, 14(1), 3–11. Ike, S., & D’Angelo, J. (2020). English in Japan: The applicability of the EIF Model. In S. Buschfeld & A. Kautsch (Eds.), Modelling World Englishes: A Joint Approach Towards Postcolonial and Non-Postcolonial Varieties (pp. 179–201). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Kachru, B. B. (1983). The Indianization of English: The English Language in India. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the Outer Circle. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures (pp. 11–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kachru, B. B. (Ed.) (1992). The Other Tongue: English across Cultures (2nd ed.). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Kachru, B. B. (1994). English in South Asia. In B. Burchfield (Ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language [Vol. V: English in Britain and overseas: Origins and development] (pp. 497–553). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kachru, B. B. (1997a). Resources for research and teaching. In L. E. Smith & M. L. Forman (Eds.), World Englishes 2000 (pp. 209–251). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press. Kachru, B. B. (1997b). English as an Asian language. In M. L. S. Bautista (Ed.), English Is an Asian Language: The Philippine Context [Vols. 2–3: Proceedings of the Conference Held in Manila on August 1996]. New South Wales, Australia: The Macquarie Library. The Macquarie Dictionary. Macquarie University. Kachru, B. B. (2005). Asian Englishes: Beyond the Canon. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Kachru, B. B. (2015). Collected Works of B. B. Kachru, Vols. 1–3 [Edited by Jonathan Webster]. London: Bloomsbury. Kachru, Y., & Nelson, C. L. (Eds.) (2006). World Englishes in Asian Contexts. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Low, E. L. (2015). Pronunciation for English as an International Language: From Research to Practice. London/New York: Routledge. Low, E. L., & Pakir, A. (Eds.) (2018a). World Englishes: Rethinking Paradigms. London/New York: Routledge. Low, E. L., & Pakir, A. (2018b). Introduction: World Englishes: Rethinking paradigms. In E. L. Low & A. Pakir (Eds.), World Englishes: Rethinking Paradigms (pp. 3–11). London/New York: Routledge. Lowenberg, P., & Sridhar, S. N. (Eds.) (1986). World Englishes and second language acquisition research [Special issue]. World Englishes, 5(1), 1–10. Mauranen, A. (2012). Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-Native Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McArthur, T. (2005). Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Mehrotra, R. R. (1998). Indian English: Texts and Interpretation. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Mesthrie, R. (Ed.) (2004). Varieties of English, Vol. 4. Africa: South and Southeast Asia. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Paik, K. (2018). The English language in Korea: Its history and vision. Asian Englishes, 20(2), 122–133.

16  Ee Ling Low and Anne Pakir Pakir, A., & Low, E. L. (2018). Concluding remarks. In E. L. Low & A. Pakir (Eds.), World Englishes: Rethinking Paradigms (pp. 222–230). London/New York: Routledge. Ramanathan, H. (2016). English education policy in India. In R. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), English Language Education Policy in Asia (pp. 113–126). New York: Springer. Sailaja, P. (2009). Indian English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Schneider, E. W. (2007). Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seargeant, P. (Ed.) (2011). English in Japan in the Era of Globalization. Hampshire/ New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Sedlatschek, A. (2009). Contemporary Indian English: Variation and Change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Sridhar, K. K., & Sridhar, S. N. (1986). Bridging the paradigm gap: Second language acquisition theory and indigenized varieties of English. World Englishes, 5(1), 3–14. Stanlaw, J. (2004). Japanese English: Language and Culture Contact. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Walisundara, D. C., & Hettiarachchi, S. (2016). English language policy and planning in Sri Lanka: A critical overview. In R. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), English Language Education Policy in Asia (pp. 301–332). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Wee, L., Goh, R. B. H., & Lim, L. (2013). The Politics of English: South Asia, Southeast Asia and the Asia Pacific. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Xu, Z., He, D., & Deterding, D. (Eds.) (2017). Researching Chinese English: The State of the Art. Switzerland: Springer. Zhao, Y., & Campbell, K. P. (1995). English in China. World Englishes, 14(3), 377–390.

Part I

Policy



2

English language policy in Mainland China History, issues and challenges Guangwei Hu

2.1 Introduction China’s cultural and economic contacts with foreign countries started in the Qin Dynasty (221 to 206 BC), and proficiency in the languages of these foreign countries was indispensable to the success and sustainability of these contacts (Fu, 1986). There had been, however, little written documentation of how the foreign languages were taught and learned in China until the Yuan Dynasty (1271–1368). The earliest known foreign language school was set up in 1289 to train translators in the Persian language and Estifi (a written foreign language used for accounting and finance) to facilitate commercial and cultural exchanges with countries in Central Asia (Gao, 2007). Another foreign language institution, the Siyi Guan, was established in 1407 under the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644) to train translators in eight languages spoken in China’s frontier areas and neighbouring countries. In the Qing Dynasty (1644–1911), the Eluosi Wenguan (Russian College) was set up in 1708 to train translators and officials in Russian to meet the growing need to deal with Russia (Fu, 1986). Among the several foreign languages introduced into China since its formation as a political entity, English was relatively a latecomer. The language made its inroads to China in the 19th century, and the earliest English language teaching took place in mission schools set up after the First Opium War in 1840 (Lam, 2005; Li et al., 1988). English language teaching in China has been closely intertwined with her political, ideological, socioeconomic, and cultural upheavals, reflecting and responding to the vicissitudes of national fortunes and successive national agendas “to acquire Western knowledge to withstand foreign aggression and to establish itself as a modern nation with economic, scientific and military might” (Lam, 2005, pp. 71–72). The twists and turns of English language policy have reflected changes in foreign relations, needs of national survival and development and a quest for modernisation in the last 180 years. Thus, English language teaching has been “a barometer of modernization” (Ross, 1992, p. 239). The relation of the English language to China, however, has always been ambivalent and complex (Adamson, 2002). Whenever DOI: 10.4324/9780429433467-2

20  Guangwei Hu there were major political, economic and cultural changes, the demand for English-knowing nationals also changed, and English language teaching was prioritised or dismissed accordingly. Drawing on previous works (e.g. Adamson, 2004; Bolton, 2003; Fu, 1986; Gao, 2007; Gil, 2016), this chapter presents a historical account of English language policies in Mainland China from the time when the language was first taught in the late Qing Dynasty to the present day, when the language is entrenched as the dominant foreign language in Mainland China’s education system. Specifically, it examines China’s English language policies in six historical periods marked by such profound happenings and changes as the two Opium Wars, the Self-Strengthening Movement and the “New Policies” Reform, the overthrow of the Qing Dynasty and the establishment of the new Republic, the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the reform and modernisation drive after the Cultural Revolution and the rise of China as the second largest economy in the world. This account aims to uncover the major underlying themes of various national English language policies by outlining key historical events, officially propagated English language curricula, prevalent teaching methodologies and textbooks commonly used in the teaching and learning of the language.

2.2 Period One: The earliest English language teaching (1840–1860) The earliest organised English language teaching in China took place in mission schools. Although British and American missionaries arrived at Guangzhou and Macau as early as 1807 (Bolton, 2003), they were unable to set up mission schools in Mainland China because the Qing Dynasty prohibited the preaching of foreign religions and Western non-traders’ longterm residence in China (Li et al., 1988). As a result, these early missionaries mainly engaged in linguistic and sinological work by publishing English journals on Chinese studies, writing Chinese grammars and dictionaries for Westerners to learn Chinese and translating English works into Chinese (Bolton, 2003). After the humiliating defeats it suffered in the First Opium War, the Qing government signed the Treaty of Nanking in 1842 and the Treaty of Wang-hsia in 1844, which opened five ports (i.e. Guangzhou, Xiamen, Fuzhou, Ningbo and Shanghai) to Western powers and allowed them to proselytise, build churches, and set up mission schools in these port cities (Bolton, 2003; Li et al., 1988). The stinging defeat of China in the Second Opium War led to more unequal treaties in 1858 (i.e. the Treaty of Tientsin) and 1860 (i.e. the Convention of Peking), which opened more ports and inland enclaves to foreign trade and missionary activities. Between 1840 and 1860, many mission schools started up (Deng, 1997), and Li et al. (1988) listed 14 of the best known of these mission schools. English was taught in “a substantial number” (Bolton, 2003, p. 192) of these mission schools as part of the effort to proselytise the Chinese

English language policy in Mainland China  21 populace. The curricula in these schools typically included both Chinese (e.g. the Chinese Classics) and Western subjects (e.g. English, the Bible and arithmetic) (Li et al., 1988). Level-based English teaching was adopted based on students’ age and English proficiency, and grammar and vocabulary were taught via translation exercises. Because of the scarcity of textbooks, teaching materials were generally teacher-made (Ford, 1988). Despite some debate, English was generally used as a medium of instruction for the Western subjects out of expediency because most missionaries did not know enough Chinese to teach these subjects (Bolton, 2003; Ford, 1988). The mission schools were often small in scale and attracted an inconsequential number of students. Even in as late as 1877, there were only some 230 students studying in these schools (Deng, 1997). The low enrolment was due to the populace’s Sino-centric world outlook and ignorance about the world beyond China, hence “the indifference and suspicion of the Chinese exhibited towards foreigners” (Williams, 1936, cited in Bolton, 2003, p.151). As Li et al. (1988) noted, English language teaching at the mission schools was not influential because of their concentration in the treaty ports and the small number of students involved. These schools, however, did open a window to new styled education in feudal China, and their curricular and teaching methodologies provided some models for the Western-styled government schools that were to appear after 1860.

2.3 Period Two: English teaching in the late Qing Dynasty (1861–1911) China faced its greatest humiliation in 3,000 years at the hands of Western powers in the two Opium Wars (Gao, 2007). To ward off imperialist encroachments, sustain the rule of the Qing Dynasty, and put China on an equal footing with others, a powerful faction of progressive scholar-officials proposed to the Qing Imperial Court, and spearheaded, a nation-building programme known as the Self-Strengthening Movement (c. 1861–1895). The overarching goal of the movement was to appropriate Western scientific expertise and technology to strengthen a mortally wounded China. A modern education system and proficiency in the languages of Western powers were seen as the necessary means to that end. As a result, the Tongwen Guan (the School of Combined Learning) was established in Beijing in 1862 as the first modern government school in China. This was the start of Chinese government-led English language teaching. This foreign language school, attached to the newly established Zongli Yamen (the Office of Foreign Affairs), aimed to train translators and future diplomatic personnel in Western learning through its expansive curriculum made up of foreign language courses, arithmetic and algebra, physics, geometry and trigonometry, mechanics, calculus, navigation, chemistry, astronomy, geology, mineralogy, political economy and international law (Ford, 1988; Li et al., 1988). At the time of its founding, there was only the English Department; subsequently, the

22  Guangwei Hu Departments of French, Russian, and German were added. The instructors were all foreigners, mostly Chinese-knowing Western missionaries recommended by Western embassies in China (Gao, 2007). The English language courses adopted textbooks published overseas and a few books compiled or translated by the instructors (Gao, 2007). Translation was a prominent component of the language programme, reflecting a Grammar-Translation pedagogical orientation (Ford, 1988). All other courses were taught in English, and the coursebooks were original textbooks from overseas. Similar foreign language schools and military/technical schools were established in other major cities as part of the Self-Strengthening Movement. These schools contributed to the technological transformation of China and loosening the hold of feudalism. The movement, however, came to an abrupt end with China’s miserable defeat in the Sino-Japanese War in 1895. The Qing government’s vulnerability to foreign invasion was attributed by a group of reform-minded intellectuals to the failure of the Self-Strengthening Movement to learn about the sociopolitical systems of the West and the lack of institutional reform. Consequently, Emperor Guangxu launched the Hundred Days’ Reform in 1898 to introduce sweeping social and institutional changes that aimed, among others, to abolish the imperial examination system, establish the Imperial University of Peking, and build a modern education system that would reach all provinces and cities (Li et al., 1988). The reform was brought to a halt by a coup d’état staged by the powerful conservative faction led by Empress Dowager Cixi. Many of the reformist ideas were, however, taken up in Cixi’s “New Policies” Reform instigated by the invasion of Beijing by the allied forces of eight Western powers in 1900 and the humiliations of the Boxer Protocol signed in 1901. The late Qing government finally came to see modern education as a necessity and adopted the educational ideas propagated by Zhang Zhidong, a high-ranking scholar-official, who proposed a synthesis of Confucian ethics and classics with Western knowledge and technology in the formula of zhongxue weiti xixue weiyong (Chinese learning for fundamental principles, Western learning for practical application). The imperial examination system, which lasted 1,300 years, was abolished in 1905, and the first modern education system in China was promulgated by the “Authorised Regulations of Primary and Middle Schools” issued in 1902 (Li et al., 1988). In the four-year middle school curriculum, English as a foreign language was allotted the most instructional time (nine hours per week, accounting for 25% of total curricular time). Although the weekly hours allocated to learning English were somewhat reduced in the five-year middle school curriculum issued in 1903, it still accounted for 20% of the total instructional time, second only to the time allocated for Chinese classics lessons (Li et al., 1988). English remained a compulsory subject in the five-year middle school curriculum issued in 1909 and took up 25% of the curricular time for students in the science stream. English language teaching focused on grammar, translation and writing using the Grammar-Translation Method.

English language policy in Mainland China  23 Owing to a lack of resources and qualified teachers, the quality of English language teaching in the government schools was markedly lower than that of the mission schools, where native English-speaking missionaries taught the language using the Direct Method and overseas textbooks (Li et al., 1988).

2.4 Period Three: English in the modern Republic (1912–1948) The overthrow of the Qing Dynasty in 1911 and the establishment of the Republic of China in 1912 led to a new era of English teaching in China. The English language was embraced as “a vehicle for diplomatic, military and intellectual interaction with the West” (Adamson, 2004, p. 22) and a conduit for Western knowledge that could transform China into a modern country (Pan, 2015). The status of English also rose because of the continued popularity of studying in Anglophone countries and the social mobility afforded by English proficiency (Adamson, 2004). The school system edicts issued in 1912 and 1913 prescribed the teaching of foreign languages (usually English) at well-resourced upper primary schools and the institutionalisation in the four-year middle school curriculum of English as a core subject that was allocated the most weekly hours, accounting for 21–23% of total instructional time (Li et al., 1988). In the 1922 school system modelled after the American system, English became again a core subject bearing the most credits (36 out of 180) in the three-year junior secondary curriculum and tied with Chinese as the subject bearing the most credits in the three-year senior secondary curriculum (Li et al., 1988). The prominence of English in the school curricula invoked resistance from conservative scholars and politicians who viewed the language as having ideological consequences and feared pernicious cultural transfer (Adamson, 2004; Pan, 2015). English remained a core subject in the secondary curricula introduced in 1929, 1933, 1940 and 1948, accounting for 15–20% of the total curricular hours (Li et al., 1988). Mission schools were also a key provider of English education in the Republican era (Bolton, 2003). In 1919, schools run by Protestant and Catholic missionaries had about half a million students (Fairbank et al., 1973), and by 1921, there were over 13,600 such schools (Fu, 1986). Although mission schools came under heavy fire because of growing antireligious and anti-imperialist sentiments and were more strictly regulated by the Republican government from the late 1920s, the strong tradition of English language teaching remained uninterrupted. Unlike the staffing of government-run schools by Chinese teachers, teachers of English in mission schools were mostly native speakers who were able to teach the language using the Direct Approach developed by British applied linguist Harold Palmer. Although the method was also promoted to governmentrun schools between 1920 and 1949, teachers typically employed the

24  Guangwei Hu Grammar-Translation Method instead because of their insufficient command of English coupled with the lack of resources (Bolton, 2003; Li et al., 1988). Furthermore, mission schools usually used original textbooks published in Anglophone countries, in contrast to the locally published learning materials used in government-run schools (Fu, 1986). English was also used as the medium of instruction for other subjects in mission schools. English was also taught as a compulsory subject for the first two years at the university level and took up a sizeable proportion of core curricular time. For example, in the Ministry of Education (MOE) listing of common compulsory subjects in 1938, English accounted for 12–15% of the credits, and the weighting increased to 17–21% in 1948 (Li et al., 1988). By 1949, there were 205 institutions of higher learning, including universities run by missionaries, which accounted for about 15–20% of university students (Deng, 1997). Of these universities, about one-third had foreign language/ literature departments and enrolled 7,000 students altogether, accounting for 6% of the total university enrolment (Fu, 1986). These missionary universities employed the Direct Method, used English as a medium of instruction and adopted original overseas textbooks (Ford, 1988; Fu, 1986). The quality of English teaching in these universities was markedly higher than that of government-run universities (Bolton, 2003; Ford, 1988), where the Grammar-Translation Method prevailed, and little attention was paid to listening and speaking (Fu, 1986).

2.5 Period Four: English as a barometer of national and international political strife (1949–1976) After the Chinese Communist Party won the Civil War and founded the PRC in 1949, English language teaching in Mainland China experienced “a roller-coaster ride of changing policy directives, mostly dictated by the prevailing political winds” (Bolton, 2003, p.246). Largely because of Western attempts to isolate Communist China, a friendly relationship developed rapidly between the PRC and the Soviet Union in the early 1950s and the Russians exerted a strong political influence on foreign language teaching (Adamson, 2004; Hu, 2002). Universities and secondary schools began to offer Russian programmes in 1952, while English language teaching declined dramatically (Ross, 1992). In 1954, English was removed from the junior secondary curriculum, and Russian subsequently became the dominant foreign language taught throughout the country. Although English teaching continued in a few senior secondary schools and institutions of higher education, it was generally considered unpatriotic to learn English. In the English classrooms, a teacher-dominated and textbook-centred pedagogical approach was adopted which placed an overwhelming emphasis on grammar and vocabulary (Hu, 2005b). In anticipation of increasing demands for Western technological expertise and expanding diplomatic and trade relations with foreign countries,

English language policy in Mainland China  25 the late 1950s saw a growing awareness of the importance of English, which was further heightened when the PRC’s relations with the Soviet Union became strained in 1960 (Lam, 2005). In 1957, English found its way back into the junior secondary curriculum (Ross, 1992), but its reinstatement was handicapped by an acute shortage of qualified English teachers. In 1957, there were only 73 full-time junior secondary and 770 full-time senior secondary school English teachers in the whole country (Hu, 2002). Consequently, many Russian teachers were retrained as English teachers in the late 1950s and early 1960s. In the 1960s, the PRC began a series of political, economic and educational readjustments, and English became a requirement for entrance into tertiary education in 1961. A new syllabus that stressed oral English and reading competence was introduced in 1963, and in the following year, a seven-year programme for foreign language teaching was launched by the MOE, which established English as the dominant foreign language in the school curricula. During this period, different methodologies such as the Direct Method, Audiolingualism and GrammarTranslation existed side by side, and there was a general spirit of innovation and experimentation in education as well as a growing understanding and adaptation of Western models and practices. The Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) disrupted China’s economic and educational development and led to a whole decade of chaos and isolation. The purpose of and motivation for learning foreign languages were totally undercut (Ross, 1992). In the first few years, all broadcasts in foreign languages were banned, all imported foreign books forbidden, all English language programmes removed from the secondary curricula and all universities and colleges closed. Although foreign language programmes resumed in some institutions of higher education in 1968, little teaching or learning actually took place. English reappeared on the curriculum in some secondary schools and universities in the early 1970s in response to the PRC’s effort to renew its ties with the West (Lam, 2005), but English language teaching was essentially in a state of anarchy. Textbooks were full of politically charged texts to serve the prevailing political agenda and students were taught using the Grammar-Translation Method (Fu, 1986). The quality of English language teaching was at its all-time low. This deplorable situation remained until the Cultural Revolution was brought to an end in 1976.

2.6 Period Five: English in the quest for national modernisation (1977–2007) To bring the country back from the brink of collapse caused by the Cultural Revolution, a new national policy of reform and opening-up was pursued in the late 1970s, with a view to rejuvenating and modernising Chinese agriculture, industry, defence, science and technology. English, which had been viewed in the previous decade as a language of the enemy, became associated with modernisation (Ross, 1992). This change stemmed from an

26  Guangwei Hu increasing recognition of the vital role that English could play in China’s modernisation effort (Hu, 2005b). English language teaching regained legitimacy, and its dominant goal was to prepare a new generation of Chinese for the language skills needed to advance scientific knowledge and to adopt technological know-how from the West. To keep up with the new developments, the MOE launched a trial English syllabus in 1978, and the People’s Education Press produced a unified set of secondary English textbooks. The textbooks advocated a combination of Audiolingualism and the GrammarTranslation Method. As “more and more educational, occupational and economic advantages became attached to learning English” (Lam, 2005, p. 78), an English craze was fast sweeping across the PRC. At the same time, however, there were some lingering concerns over “the potential for English language learning to provide a conduit for ideas and practices perceived to be harmful to Chinese culture and communist party ideology” (Gil, 2016, p. 58). The influx of foreign investment and businesses in the 1980s increased the demand for a workforce proficient in English. However, the quality of English language teaching was dismal according to a large survey study on 139 secondary schools in 15 provinces conducted in 1986 (Hu, 2002). The poor pedagogical outcomes were attributed to multiple causes, including outdated curricula, ineffective teaching methods, a severe shortage of qualified teachers, and examination-oriented instruction. Consequently, the State Education Commission updated the curricula for various levels and called for the design of new syllabuses and textbooks. Meanwhile, a large number of Chinese teachers of English and language teaching specialists were sent abroad to Western universities. The teaching force was considerably strengthened, and by 1995, there were about 400,000 full-time secondary school English teachers and 28,000 tertiary English teachers. New linguistic theories and language pedagogies, notably M.A.K. Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach, were introduced and promoted. Both SFL and CLT have since remained influential in the teaching of English in Mainland China (Hu, 2005a; Huang, 2011). The beginning of the 21st century saw the launch of new English curriculum standards for compulsory education and senior secondary education (Ministry of Education, 2001c) as well as the expansion of English into the primary school curriculum. In January 2001, the MOE issued a directive on English language teaching at primary school and a primary English curriculum, requiring better-resourced schools to start teaching English at Primary 3 in 2001 and the remaining ones to do so in the following year (Ministry of Education, 2001b). The official promotion of English reached a new high when the Ministry of Education (2001a) required English-medium instruction (EMI) for 5–10% of undergraduate courses within three years. The intensified propagation of EMI and English teaching at primary schools was prompted by a dissatisfaction with the quality of English language teaching

English language policy in Mainland China  27 up to then. A national survey conducted between 1999 and 2001 revealed that only 7.3% of the 390 million learners of English in China claimed to use English regularly and that the great majority of the learners did not possess functional competence in spoken (79%) or written (71%) English (Wei & Su, 2012). The new English teaching initiatives were also policy responses to China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001, Beijing’s successful bid for the 2008 Summer Olympics, and the escalating demands for internationally oriented talents and English-knowing professionals to support China’s growing global engagement (Hu, 2005b). Thus, English was increasingly taught and learnt for China’s “international stature” (Lam, 2005, p.82) and to create a positive international image of an open and reform-minded China (Gil, 2016). It is important to note, however, that the new initiatives, EMI in particular, gave rise to issues of educational inequality (Hu, 2005b, 2009) and, in many cases, failed to achieve the envisioned goals (e.g. pedagogical effectiveness; Hu, 2008; Hu & Lei, 2014; Lei & Hu, 2014).

2.7 Period Six: English language policy in the era of China’s rise (since 2008) The successful hosting of the 2008 Summer Olympics marked a new high of “national dignity” (Lam, 2005, p. 6). This was followed by another confidence-boosting international event, the World Expo 2010, held in Shanghai. In the same year, China overtook Japan to become the second largest economy and was widely expected to leapfrog USA to become the largest one between 2020 and 2030 (The Guardian, 2011). These achievements reflected the PRC’s deep integration with globalisation, boosted “confidence in her socialist path, guiding theories, political system, and culture” (Feng, 2016), and fuelled her aspiration to play a leading role in the “community of common destiny with mankind” (Mardell, 2017). Against this backdrop, English began to assume new roles. For example, the English curriculum standards for the compulsory education stage (ages 6–15) released by the MOE in 2011 underscored the important forces of globalisation and China’s “important historical missions, international responsibilities and obligations” (Ministry of Education, 2011, p. 1). English language teaching was charged with “broadening students’ horizons, enriching their life experience, forming their cross-cultural awareness, strengthening their patriotism, developing their creativity, and cultivating their moral character, outlook and values” (p. 2). The recommended pedagogy for achieving these goals was Task-based Language Teaching. The past decade has also seen some critical reassessments of the relationship between English and Chinese, especially in the school curricula. In 2013, a former MOE spokesman, Wang Xuming, called for the removal of English from the primary curriculum to make way for Chinese language studies (People’s Daily Online, 2013b). In the same year, the Beijing

28  Guangwei Hu municipal government announced that the marks of the English subject in the 2014 National College Entrance Examination would be reduced from 150 to 100 and those of the Chinese language subject would be increased from 150 to 180 (People’s Daily Online, 2013c). Furthermore, many within the league of 27 top Chinese universities, including Tsinghua University and Peking University, dropped English from their independent recruitment examinations (People’s Daily Online, 2013a). Notably, the most recent guidelines for English language teaching at the university level (Ministry of Education, 2017) have drastically reduced the weightage of College English from 16 credits (about 280 hours of instruction) to 8–12 credits (144–216 hours). A survey of close to 100 universities revealed that the credits for College English were reduced to 10 on average (Cai, 2017). The credit reduction was supposed to better cater to the rising English proficiency of secondary school graduates. Education First’s (2018) English Proficiency Index, however, ranked China as 47th out of the 88 countries surveyed in 2018, placing it in the Low Proficiency group. When English language teaching was being scaled back in her education system, China was concurrently promoting the Chinese language and culture to the world. This was made possible by China’s growing economic clout. The worldwide promotion of the Chinese language has been accomplished through Confucius Institutes and educational aids (Wang, 2014). In the eight years after the first Confucius Institute was set up in South Korea in 2004, the Office of Chinese Language Council International (Hanban) was able to set up more branches of Confucius Institutes than the branches of the British Council the UK acquired in 60 years (Wang, 2014). According to a source cited in Wang (2014), the Chinese government spent over $500 million on Confucius Institutes in just 10 years, and by 2011, there were 861 Confucius Institutes and Confucius Classrooms in 106 countries/ regions teaching Chinese to thousands upon thousands of learners. In addition, there have been influxes of international students learning Chinese in Mainland China. Pan (2015) suggests that the concurrent foregrounding of Chinese and backgrounding of English represent China’s deliberate reorientation towards “a central position in the modern world system” (p. 75).

2.8 Conclusion: Recurrent themes and current issues This brief review of English language policy in Mainland China has revealed a number of recurrent themes. First, English has had a deep connection with China’s modernisation quest. Throughout China’s tumultuous history of the last 180 years, the language was invariably seen as holding the key to Western knowledge and technology needed to transform the country into a respected, strong nation on an equal footing with foreign powers (Adamson, 2004; Lam, 2005). Second, and related to the modernisation theme, English language policies vacillated according to the vagaries of China’s development. There were constant, often radical, shifts in policy directions because

English language policy in Mainland China  29 of the internal landscape (i.e., China’s changing political, sociocultural and economic interests) and the external one (i.e., China’s international relations) that reflected “shifting ambiguities and dilemmas concerning English” (Adamson, 2004, p. 4; Gil, 2016; Hu, 2002). Third, the instrumental value of English was consistently emphasised because of perennial worries of cultural invasion through the language. Although English could provide access to Western scientific expertise and technology needed for national modernisation, it could also “embody values … undesirable and antithetical to the nature of Chinese culture” and pose a serious threat of “cultural erosion” (Adamson, 2004, p. 2). Thus, the language policymakers took a guarded attitude toward English from the outset and adopted an instrumental view of the language. Deep down, the cultural aspect of English has been perceived as a threat to Chinese culture and language (Pan, 2015). Last, there was a strong tendency to transplant pedagogies of foreign origins into the Chinese educational context, be it the Direct Method, Audiolingualism, Communicative Language Teaching, or Task-based Language Teaching. This tendency reflected a technological perspective on language teaching that makes methodological prescriptions in disregard of contextual differences (Hu, 2005a). The preceding review identified several policy challenges and some emerging trends. To begin with, English teaching for ethnic minorities poses a challenge to grapple with. If it is already difficult to develop Chinese– English bilingual competence in majority language students, it is conceivably more challenging to develop ethnic minority students’ trilingual competence in their mother tongue, Chinese, and English (Gil, 2016). The challenge is complicated by the fact that China’s ethnic minority policies are a battlefield between China and Western countries. Second, there have been widening gaps in the quality of English language teaching between different regions of China due to their uneven social, cultural, economic and educational development. This is a perennial problem that has serious social consequences (Hu, 2005b). Because of its complex and multifaceted nature, the thorny problem is likely to stay in the foreseeable future. Third, the recent reduction of instructional hours for College English makes it necessary to reorient English teaching at the university level and use the instructional time more effectively. There is an ongoing debate on whether College English should remain as an English-for-general-purposes (EGP) course to raise students’ general cultural and communicative competence or be restructured as an English-for-academic/specific-purposes (EAP/ESP) one to develop students’ ability to use English for disciplinary learning and research (Cai, 2017). If the EAP/ESP camp wins out, the necessary retraining of university English teachers nationwide for EAP/ESP instruction will be an immense challenge. Fourth, there is considerable uncertainty over EMI at the tertiary level. Initial enthusiasm for this form of English provision appears to have waned considerably, and recent research (e.g., Hu, 2019; Lei & Hu, 2014) indicates that many of the envisioned goals of EMI have not been achieved.

30  Guangwei Hu Given the many problems identified, it is not clear whether EMI will continue to receive policy support. Last but most important, the recent scaling back of English in tandem with the vigorous promotion of Chinese worldwide sends important policy signals about some perceived tension between the two languages. China’s rising global engagement and influence fuels her aspiration to promote Chinese as a world language. More than a decade ago, Graddol (2006) predicted that along with India, China “probably now holds the key to the long-term future of English as a global language” (p. 15). The intriguing question that needs to be asked now is: Will English continue to serve China as the language of modernisation and national development in the years to come? The history of English language policy in China suggests that a plausible answer to the question would be a cautious “yes”. However, the strong ideological underpinnings of Mainland China’s current discourse on national development, the growing suspicion and hostility that Western countries are showing toward the country and the anti-globalisation sentiments in many parts of the world may further restrict the importance officially accorded to English and its weight in the PRC’s education system. Perhaps the heyday of English language teaching in Mainland China has passed.

References Adamson, B. (2002). Barbarian as a foreign language: English in China’s schools. World Englishes, 21(2), 231–243. Adamson, B. (2004). China’s English: A History of English in Chinese Education. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Bolton, K. (2003). Chinese Englishes: A Sociolinguistic History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cai, J. (2017). Gaoxiao waiyu jiaoxue linian de tiaozhan yu dianfu: Yi daxue waiyu jiaoxue zhinanweili [Challenges for foreign language teaching at the tertiary level: The case of ‘guidelines on foreign language teaching’]. Waiyu Jiaoxu, 38(1), 6–11. Deng, P. (1997). Private Education in Modern China. London: Praeger. Education First. (2018). EF English Proficiency Index. Retrieved from https​:/​/ww​​w​ .ef.​​com​/w​​wen​/e​​pi​/re​​gions​​/asia​​​/chin​​a/. Fairbank, J. K., Reischauer, E. F., & Craig, A. M. (1973). East Asia: Tradition and Transformation. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Feng, Z. (2016). Cong sange zixin dao sige zixin [From ‘Three Confidences’ to ‘Four Confidences’]. Retrieved from http:​/​/the​​ory​.p​​eople​​.com.​​cn​/n1​​/2016​​/0707​​/c491​​ 50​-28​​53​246​​6​.htm​​l. Ford, D. J. (1988). The Twain Shall Meet: The Current Study of English in China. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. Fu, K. (1986). Zhongguo waiyu jiaoyu shi. [The History of Foreign Language Education in China]. Shanghai: Shanghai Waiyu Jiaoyu Chubanshe. Gao, X. (2007). Wanqing yangwu xuetang de Waiyu jiaoyu yanjiu. [Foreign Language Education in Government Schools in the Late Qing Dynasty]. Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan.

English language policy in Mainland China  31 Gil, J. (2016). English language education policies in the People’s Republic of China. In R. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), English Language Education Policy in Asia (pp. 49–90). Cham: Springer. Graddol, D. (2006). English Next: Why Global English May Mean the End of ‘English as a Foreign Language’. London: British Council. Hu, G. (2002). English language teaching in the People's Republic of China. In R. E. Silver, G. Hu, & M. Iino (Eds.), English Language Education in China, Japan, and Singapore (pp. 1–77). Singapore: National Institute of Education. Hu, G. (2005a). Contextual influences on instructional practices: A Chinese case for an ecological approach to ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 39(4), 635–660. Hu, G. (2005b). English language teaching in China: Policies, progress, and problems. Language Policy, 4(1), 5–24. Hu, G. (2008). The misleading academic discourse on Chinese–English bilingual education in China. Review of Educational Research, 78(2), 195–231. Hu, G. (2009). The craze for English-medium education in China: Driving forces and looming consequences. English Today, 25(4), 47–54. Hu, G. (2019). English-medium instruction in higher education: Lessons from China. Journal of Asia TEFL, 16(1), 1–11. Hu, G., & Lei, J. (2014). English-medium instruction in Chinese higher education: A case study. Higher Education, 67(5), 551–567. Huang, G. (2011). Challenges of developing SFL in China. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 12, 15–23. Lam, A. S. L. (2005). Language Education in China: Policy and Experience from 1949. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Lei, J., & Hu, G. (2014). Is English-medium instruction effective in improving Chinese undergraduate students’ English competence? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 52(2), 99–126. Li, Y., Zhang, R., & Liu, L. (1988). Zhongguo Yingyu Jiaoyu shi [A history of English language teaching in China]. Shanghai: Shanghai Waiyu Jiaoyu Chubanshe. Mardell, J. (2017). The ‘Community of Common Destiny’ in Xi Jinping’s New Era. Retrieved from https​:/​/th​​edipl​​omat.​​com​/2​​017​/1​​0​/the​​-comm​​unity​​-of​-c​​ommon​​ -dest​​iny​-i​​n​-xi-​​ji​npi​​ngs​-n​​ew​-er​​a/. Ministry of Education. (2001a). Guanyu Jiaqiang Gaodeng Xuexiao Benke Jiaoxue Gongzuo Tigao Jiaoxue Zhiliang de Ruogan Yijian [Guidelines for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Teaching]. Beijing: Author. Ministry of Education. (2001b). Jiaoyubu guanyu jiji tuijin xiaoxue kaishe yingyu kecheng de zhidao yijian [Guidelines for Promoting Primary English Language Teaching]. Beijing: Author. Ministry of Education. (2001c). Quanrizhi yiwu jiaoyu putong gaoji zhongxue yingyu kecheng biaozhun. [English Curriculum Standards for Compulsory Education and Senior Secondary Education]. Beijing: Author. Ministry of Education. (2011). Yiwu Jiaoyu Yingyu Kecheng Bianzhun [English Curriculum Standards for the Compulsory Education Stage]. Beijing: Beijing Shifan Daxue Chuban Jituan. Ministry of Education. (2017). Daxue Yingyu Jiaoxue Zhinan [Guidelines for College English Teaching]. Beijing: Author. Pan, L. (2015). English as a Global Language in China. Cham: Springer. People’s Daily Online. (2013a, March 17). English Dropped from Top Chinese University Exams. Retrieved from http://en​.people​.cn​/203691​/8171043​.html.

32  Guangwei Hu People’s Daily Online. (2013b, October 15). China’s English Fervor under Scrutiny. Retrieved from http://en​.people​.cn​/203691​/8426108​.html. People’s Daily Online. (2013c, October 21). Beijing Expected to See Exam Reforms in 2014. Retrieved from http:​/​/www​​.chin​​adail​​y​.com​​.cn​/c​​hina/​​2013-​​10​/21​​/cont​​ ent​_1​​​70490​​86​.ht​​m. Ross, H. (1992). Foreign language education as a barometer of modernization. In R. Hayhoe (Ed), Education and Modernization: The Chinese Experience (pp. 239–254). Oxford: Pergamon. The Guardian. (2011, February 14). China Overtakes Japan as World's SecondLargest Economy. Retrieved from https​:/​/ww​​w​.the​​guard​​ian​.c​​om​/bu​​sines​​s​/201​​1​/ feb​​/14​/c​​hina-​​secon​​d​-l​ar​​gest-​​econo​​my. Wang, D. (2014). English in the Chinese Foreign Language Classroom. Bern: Peter Lang. Wei, R., & Su, J. (2012). The statistics of English in China. English Today, 28(3), 10–14.

3

English language policy in Japan History, current realities and challenges ahead Kayoko Hashimoto and Gregory Paul Glasgow

3.1 Introduction The Japanese government’s vision for the 21st century formulated in 2000 launched several English language education policy initiatives across all levels of education – from primary to tertiary – in order to cultivate the human resources needed in the current era of globalisation. Despite various reforms, the English proficiency of Japanese people has still lagged behind that in other countries in Asia. This chapter highlights the pervasive influence of the de facto language policy of the university entrance examination and a recent reform initiative to introduce commercial English tests as part of the new Common Test for University Admission. In 2019, this initiative was abandoned at the last minute due to its perceived unfairness to candidates from differing socioeconomic backgrounds. It was also seen as a reflection of the problems and contradictions in applying the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) to the education system. The failure of the initiative suggests that not only did Japan miss an opportunity to create its own assessment tools suited to the Japanese context, but also that it is still not certain how the aforementioned gap between policy and practice will be systematically addressed in the future. An annual English proficiency survey conducted by an international education company, Education First (EF), shows that out of 100 non-English speaking countries and regions, Japan was ranked 53rd in 2019, down from 49th the previous year (The Japan Times, 2019), falling into the “low” category. In contrast, South Korea, Taiwan, and China were ranked 37th, 38th and 40th, respectively – all in the “moderate” category (EF Education First, 2019). Of the 25 Asian countries surveyed, Japan was ranked 10th after Vietnam. While EF connects Japan’s declining English proficiency with its stagnant economy, it also points to China’s transformation since 2000, which was brought about by targeted investment and policy reforms that include national assessment tools. This stands in stark contrast to Japan’s educational reforms for the new century. The 2003 “Action Plan to Cultivate Japanese with English abilities”, which originated with the idea of “English as an official or working language” proposed by the Prime Minister’s Commission on DOI: 10.4324/9780429433467-3

34  Kayoko Hashimoto and Gregory Paul Glasgow Japan’s Goals in the 21st century, included no changes in assessment policy (Hashimoto, 2009). In the Action Plan, the mutual dependence of Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) and EIKEN (Test in Practical English Proficiency) in terms of definitions of proficiency levels remained, suggesting that the policy would be implemented within the existing academic year’s level framework rather than genuinely attempting to develop actual working proficiency in English. Fifteen years later, in the 2018 tender process for commercial English tests, EIKEN’s initial bid was unsuccessful because productive skills were not tested systematically at all levels, and EIKEN subsequently developed “new tests” to meet the tender requirements (Asahi Shimbun, 2019). Given that EIKEN was originally established under governmental supervision, EIKEN’s lack of preparedness seems to symbolise the problems in English language teaching (ELT) in Japan. On 1 November 2019, Koichi Hagiuda, Japan’s Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, announced that commercial English tests would not be incorporated into proposed reforms of the university entrance examination system (Yajima & Miyazaki, 2019). This was also the day when registrations for student ID for the Common Test opened and the deadline for commercial English test providers to finalise testing locations. The delayed government decision was criticised as a serious error in educational administration (Nikkei, 2019a). In July 2017, MEXT had announced a new university entrance examination – the “Common Test for University Admissions” [大学入学共通テスト] to replace the “National Centre Test for University Admissions” [大学入試センター試験] from the 2021 intake (MEXT, 2017). This was one aspect of the reforms to the “High School to University Transition” initiated in 2013 by the Implementation of Education Rebuilding Group, which was part of the Liberal Democratic Party led by then Prime Minister Abe Shinzo. In March 2018, after a tender process, MEXT awarded contracts to seven test providers to include their tests: Cambridge Assessment English, EIKEN, GTEC, IELTS, TEAP, TOEFL and TOEIC. In July 2019, however, TOEIC pulled out due to foreseeable difficulties in satisfying MEXT’s requirements. MEXT justified its proposed reform by referring to the need to test productive skills (speaking and writing) and receptive skills (reading and listening), as well as the convenience of using commercial tests. In Japan, students take the examination administered by the National Centre for University Entrance Examinations (NCUEE) (under the control of MEXT) for admission to public (national, prefectural, and municipal) universities, and some private universities. The examination takes the form of multiple-choice questions using OMR sheets – unsuitable for assessing productive skills. Rather than allowing NCUEE to test these skills, however, MEXT decided to outsource the task. In a message notifying high school students and their guardians about the postponement of the new system, Minister Hagiuda emphasised the necessity for testing all four skills using the popular rhetoric that communicative ability

English language policy in Japan  35 in English is important in an increasingly globalised world, but failed to elaborate on why commercial tests should be used for this particular purpose (MEXT, 2019a). Reliance on such popular rhetoric, coupled with MEXT’s dependence on commercial English tests, suggests that the Japanese secondary and tertiary sectors are not equipped with the assessment tools to measure such global competency, which may help explain the continued decline of the English skills of Japanese people over recent years. This failed attempt to introduce commercial English tests as part of university entrance examinations addresses a number of key issues in the areas of language education policy, language testing and ELT in Japan. The impact of language testing on individuals who are subject to policy controls has been researched in relation to citizenship and immigration (Frost & McNamara, 2018) and the development of teachers’ assessment literacy (Xerri & Briffa, 2018; Gao, 2019). At the same time, it has been acknowledged that western or European concepts of national and foreign languages, language education and language rights are not particularly useful in understanding the particularities of Asian nations and regions (Tollefson & PérezMilan, 2018). To further understand the complexities involving the reform of university entrance examinations in Japan, the next section provides some historical background and examines the recent attempt to incorporate commercial English tests within a reform initiative. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the future challenges to be considered regarding language teaching and testing in Japan.

3.2 Review of previous research 3.2.1 Language tests as de facto language policy The university entrance examination system in Japan has been considered to be an obstacle in changing ELT in high schools, since most students learn English in order to obtain good grades or high test scores (Yamada, 2018). Historically, Japan, like China and South Korea, is an examination-oriented society (Horio, 1988; Zeng, 1999), and the impact of the high-stakes university entrance examination on individual learners seems not to have diminished over time (Timsit, 2018; Sharif, 2018). Shohamy (2007) sees language tests as de facto language policy because “tests are capable of affecting the behaviours of teachers, students, parents and institutions as well as national educational policies” (p. 118). Furthermore, according to Johnson (2013), a de facto activity can occur in practice despite the declaration of de jure policy. In the case of Japan, the de jure policy statements that promote communicative approaches to ELT are eschewed by the de facto educational practices influenced by the university entrance examination, which is an issue that MEXT intended to address through examination reform.

36  Kayoko Hashimoto and Gregory Paul Glasgow 3.2.2 English language education policy in Japan: Historical context This section provides historical background regarding the influence of socalled juken eigo (English for entrance examinations) on English language education policy in Japan. In her analysis of English language assessment, Sasaki (2008) notes a change in the status of English from being a language of instruction to a subject taught by explaining grammatical structures and translating texts into Japanese for the elite during the period between 1860 and 1945. Erikawa (2018) points out that “translation” replaced “conversation” in the subject list for middle school English in 1881, as more Japanese teachers taught English. According to Sasaki (2008), there were two issues behind the change – one was Japanese teachers’ difficulties in obtaining opportunities to travel abroad, leading to a lack of appreciation for the use of English for communicative purposes, and the other was that education through a second language was considered to be humiliating and likened to Japan being a colonised state. The sense of “humiliation” created by using the language to acquire new knowledge relates to the ideology behind the Grammar-Translation Method (GTM) in classical Chinese study, which was developed by cultivating learners’ minds to focus on the differences between Chinese and Japanese. Sasaki (2008, p. 66) argues that “cultivating students’ minds thus became one of the major purposes of teaching in English in Japan”. The 1901 Middle School Order specified the dual focus of foreign language education – practical skills in the language and advancement of knowledge through the language – which determined the content and form of upper-secondary school entrance examinations (Erikawa, 2018). In the post-World War Two period, from 1945 to 1970, the Japanese education system was overhauled, and English was introduced as a compulsory subject from junior-high school. Although English underwent a period of mass popularisation, teaching methods did not shift markedly. Houghton et al. (2018) see this period as a manifestation of insecurity and anxiety for the Japanese national self, perhaps reflecting the ongoing preference for GTM. 3.2.3 Conflict between Grammar-Translation Method and English for communicative purposes The current entrance examination system continues to exacerbate what is seen as the gap between macro-level language education policy and microlevel pedagogical practice (Butler & Iino, 2005; Glasgow & Paller, 2016). Central to this conflict are diverging representations of English for communication and English as a system of structural rules to be examined through the learners’ mother tongue, i.e. Japanese, which has persisted ever since native English speakers, mainly Christian missionaries, began to teach English in

English language policy in Japan  37 the early Meiji period (Butler & Iino, 2005). The “discursive shift” towards so-called communicative English (Noda & O’Regan, 2020), as manifested in recent policy discourse, has increasingly focused on the use of the target language in the ELT classroom. At the same time, several factors that preclude such an implementation have been highlighted (Glasgow & Paller, 2016). These include institutional culture (O’Donnell, 2005; Underwood, 2012), government-approved textbooks at odds with ELT policy directives (Kennedy & Tomlinson, 2013), and limited professional development for teachers (Hashimoto & Nguyen, 2018). Moreover, although language proficiency is multi-componential and grammar contributes to overall language proficiency (Iwashita, 2018), GTM has been continuously positioned as a major obstacle to communicative approaches to ELT in Japan. Hino (1988) reminds us of the history of yakudoku (訳読, lit. translate and read), a way of understanding classical Chinese texts, arguing that the same method should not be applied to English. He believes that GTM is popular among teachers because of their familiarity with this method as learners. Indeed, existing research on ELT in Japan abounds with information on the washback effect of university entrance exams on senior-high schools, affecting teacher beliefs and classroom practices through grammarcentred teaching styles (Sato & Kleinsasser, 2004; Nishino & Watanabe, 2008). Underwood (2012) finds that despite the emphasis on the communicative approach, teachers would still adhere to a grammar-focused approach because they believe it would best prepare their students for university entrance exams. This point might be justifiable given that the old National Centre Test and the new Common Test only assess receptive skills, but the persistence of GTM results from more complex issues with ELT in Japan, which are not limited to gaining better examination results. Research on translation and interpreting has advanced significantly over the past two decades. Countering the criticism of GTM as reflecting the promotion of monolingualism, Cook (2010) sees advantages in GTM mainly in terms of taking control of the learning and teaching process by using L1. Noda and O’Regan (2020) further argue that MEXT has manipulated the term yakudoku in order to marginalise the use of Japanese in classrooms. Although MEXT’s so-called “English-only” initiative in secondary and tertiary education is not a medium-of-instruction policy, and MEXT does not give English official status in the Japanese education system (Hashimoto, 2013; Dafouz & Smit, 2020), MEXT’s approach to the role of translation in ELT is in marked contrast to the approach taken in China. As mentioned earlier, China has managed to develop its own English proficiency frameworks that incorporate translation and interpreting competency (Liu & Pan, 2019). Such a move to tailor proficiency frameworks to the local context can be seen as an effort to gain control of ELT, demonstrating that L1 does not need to stand in the way of L2 acquisition in Asian contexts (Chan, 2015). ELT policies in Japan, however, have to be examined against the broader context of policy on assessments.

38  Kayoko Hashimoto and Gregory Paul Glasgow

3.3 The current situation: The new Common Test scheme MEXT sought to deliberately influence ELT pedagogy in high schools by changing the university entrance examination system through the 2017 proposal. In Japan, the Courses of Study for primary and secondary education are binding documents that determine the curriculum, which have been regularly revised since 1945. In the new senior-high school Course of Study, which was announced in 2018 and to be implemented in 2022, reference is made to CEFR in a section on assessment in the Common Test implementation plan – “in the next Course of Study, in order to have consistent objectives throughout primary, junior-high, and senior-high schools, gradual national targets have been set, using CEFR, which evaluates overall proficiency in a foreign language, as a reference” (MEXT, 2017, p. 14, authors’ translation). Even though the new Course of Study had been announced, it was rather hasty to use it as justification for the inclusion of commercial tests in the 2021 university admission process, prior to the implementation of the new Course of Study in 2022. In other words, students taking the commercial tests in 2020 would be assessed as if they had acquired the four English skills based on the new Course of Study. This reflects the contradictory statements in the Q&A document in relation to ELT in high schools. MEXT states that “as long as classroom teaching is conducted following the points addressed in the current Course of Study, it is absolutely possible to gain skills adequate for each qualifying/certificate exam”, but at the same time, it emphasises the importance of systematic and continuous study at home (MEXT, 2019b, p. 20, authors’ translation). While MEXT suggests that CEFR levels pre-A1, A1/2 and B1/2 are primary, junior-high and seniorhigh school levels respectively (MEXT, 2017), in the Q&A, MEXT explains that the Course of Study sets a minimum standard, and it should therefore not be a problem if a commercial test is at a higher level than the level in the Course of Study. MEXT claims that consistency between the commercial English tests and the Course of Study had been checked by experts and government officials, but as no evidence is provided, it is unclear whether they are consistent or coherent.

3.4 Challenges faced 3.4.1 The (in)applicability of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages The degree to which the CEFR benchmark applies to ELT in Japan is questionable, as CEFR may be a backward step in understanding language learning due to its assumption that the language learning process is linear and universally applicable (Shohamy, 2007). The statement on CEFR in the Course of Study is rather limited, and whether MEXT is aware of such issues in relation to CEFR is unknown. In fact, CEFR is only mentioned in

English language policy in Japan  39 the Course of Study Guide, not the Course of Study itself – “each English subject sets objectives in the areas of listening, reading, speaking-interaction, speaking-presentation, and writing (five skills) based on the international benchmark CEFR” (MEXT, 2018, p. 150, authors’ translation). In the Guide, further information on CEFR is given in a footnote, but no actual descriptors are provided. As mentioned earlier, MEXT proposes that pre-A1 corresponds to the achievement level of grade 6 primary school pupils (12 years old) and A2 to the level of junior-high school graduates (15 years old). However, there is a general awareness that current assessment standards have been developed for adults, not for young children’s language learning (Papp & Salamoura, 2009; Rixon, 2013). Nevertheless, the seamless progression represented by CEFR levels and the five skills appears to be convenient for MEXT because it matches one of the key aims of the 2013 “English Education Reform Implementation Plan Responding to Globalisation”, which is to ensure “nurturing English communication skills by establishing coherent learning achievement targets throughout elementary and lower/ upper secondary school” (Hashimoto, 2018, p. 31). The proposed target of B2 for senior-high school students, however, seems unrealistic, and it suggests MEXT’s limited understanding of English proficiency. As B2 is equivalent to 5.5–6.5 of IELTS, and 6.5 is the required level for international university students, Japanese high school students’ readiness for academic study in English speaking countries/regions upon graduation seems somewhat unlikely, even if classroom teaching follows the guidelines set by the Course of Study. 3.4.2 Challenges regarding implementation of the new scheme Under the scheme, universities can decide whether and how they would use commercial English tests in their admission processes. By October 2019, 70% of universities had decided to use them – 95% of national universities, 86% of prefectural/municipal universities, and 65% of private universities (Yajima & Miyasaka, 2019). Since the 2017 announcement of the new Common Test, high schools, universities, and academics raised concerns. In a survey conducted in June–July 2019, in which 683 universities (90%) and 959 high schools (20%) participated, the majority – 60% of universities and 90% of high schools – responded that using commercial English tests was problematic because of unfairness in terms of financial burden on families, geographical locations, and the lack of comparability between the seven commercial tests (Matsutani, 2019). Students can take the tests of their choice up to twice but bear the cost themselves (from approximately USD $60 to $240 for one test). The financial burden for students from remote areas includes the cost of travel and accommodation since the tests are conducted in urban areas. Such regional and individual disparities were further exposed by a remark by Minister Hagiuda on a TV news programme on 24 October 2019, where he stated that although the children of wealthy

40  Kayoko Hashimoto and Gregory Paul Glasgow families might take the test several times for practice, he expected that most children would choose two tests according to their means and then do their best. He did not retract the “according to their means” remark, even when he was criticised for sanctioning unequal educational opportunities based on income (Miyazaki et al., 2019). While the rationale for the introduction of commercial tests was the need to test all four skills and the convenience of using commercial test providers, the official reason for the postponement of the scheme focused solely on the logistics of conducting the tests (MEXT, 2019a). This was, however, seen as a political decision designed to avoid another scandal within the cabinet, coming soon after the Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry and the Minister of Justice had been forced to resign on 25 and 31 October respectively for electoral fraud (Abe et al., 2019). The opposition party even questioned the government about personal connections between the test providers and government officials, as well as MEXT’s refusal to disclose the minutes of consultation and working group meetings on the new examination system (Yajima & Nagata, 2019) – these minutes were eventually made public two months later (Nikkei, 2019b). MEXT published the details of its Common Test implementation plan (MEXT, 2017) as well as a 50-page Q&A document on the introduction of the commercial English tests (MEXT, 2019b). While英語民間試験 – lit. English private exams – is the term widely used by the media and the public, as opposed to government-administered tests, the official documents use a different term, 英語資格・検定試験 – lit. English qualifying/ certificate exams. In fact, the government-backed EIKEN (英検) is short for 実用英語技能検定 – lit. practical English skills certificate – although the official English term is “EIKEN Test in Practical English Proficiency”. One dictionary definition of the Japanese term 検定試験 (certificate exam) is “a test that examines the knowledge, experience and skills necessary to obtain a specific qualification” (Matsumura, 2006, authors’ translation). It seems rather odd to apply this term to language proficiency tests that form part of the university entrance examination, and this could be seen as a reflection of Japan’s credentialism or qualification-oriented society (Dore, 1997; Dawson, 2010; Tan et al., 2016). This could also explain why the term is not applied to the government-administered Japanese language test for foreigners – the Japanese term for the Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) is 日本語能力試験 (lit. Japanese language ability test). The notion of English proficiency tests as qualifying/certificate exams is also inconsistent with university plans to use the test results. The University of Tokyo, initially opposed to the plan, decided to use the results as one of its eligibility criteria for admission, setting at a minimum A2 level of CEFR. As mentioned, A2 is “Basic User” level, which is considered to be the level of junior-high school graduates (MEXT, 2017). In fact, one question in the Q&A document relates to universities that set A1 (the lowest level of CEFR) as their eligibility level for applicants. In response to a complaint

English language policy in Japan  41 that taking fee-based tests for low university eligibility levels such as A1 is meaningless, MEXT replied that the interpretation and application of CEFR to admission policy is up to each university. It is possible that the universities that set A1/2 as the level for applicant eligibility disregarded the commercial tests completely, or did not wish to deter potential applicants but felt an obligation to MEXT—a former Minister reportedly urged MEXT to instruct the University of Tokyo to use the commercial English tests for admission (Miyazaki & Kawai, 2019). Given that students with an A1/2 level normally do not take IELTS or TOEFL, which are designed for tertiary study in English, why do high school students need to sit for commercial English tests at their own expense to gain university admission, even where the results are irrelevant? The reasoning lies in MEXT’s answer to the question, “Why is it necessary to assess the four English skills in the university entrance examination?” in the Q&A document: As globalisation has progressed rapidly, it has been an issue to increase communicative skills in English. Because of this, the Senior-High School Course of Study has sought to develop comprehensively four skills in English – reading, listening, speaking and writing. According to our surveys, however, it has become apparent that third-year senior-high school students have particular problems in speaking and writing English. Moreover, in universities, acquisition of the four skills in English is important in order to cultivate human resources in the era of globalisation. Therefore, in the university entrance examination, it is necessary to assess the four skills in English, which students have obtained at seniorhigh school. This, in turn, will lead to an improvement in teaching at senior-high schools in order to develop the four skills in a balanced way. (MEXT, 2019b, authors’ translation and emphasis)

3.5 Discussion and conclusions As discussed above, the historical influence of the university entrance examination on ELT in Japan not only remains pervasive, but difficult to dislodge. The divide between teaching English to comprehend texts through Japanese as medium as opposed to teaching it for communicative purposes remains a consistent challenge in language education policy reform. Yet, the examination system has continually constrained the agency of educational stakeholders to make the shift towards a pedagogy more in line with governmental rhetoric. Moreover, the diversification of university admission processes introduced through the 2003 “Action Plan to Cultivate Japanese with English Abilities” was not able to significantly reduce student tendency to desire to sit the Centre Test, demonstrating that “the entrance examination has not yet lost its power as the central instrument of allocation” (Entrich, 2018, p. 287). Besides, the large number of English teachers in Japan continue their juken eigo teaching approaches and would probably

42  Kayoko Hashimoto and Gregory Paul Glasgow rationalise those approaches as being “practical” in light of the current situation. In consideration of these issues, the scheme to introduce commercial English tests could be seen only as a half-hearted measure to attempt to deal with the current system. Time and effort are required to communicate the rationale behind the changes and to provide supporting mechanisms to ensure compliance and ultimately acceptance among teachers. While proposing some changes is indeed better than nothing, the scheme’s roll-out and application of the CEFR remain controversial. While the ineffectiveness of the monolingual policy in ELT classrooms in Japan is highlighted in relation to native-speakerism (Glasgow, 2018), the shift towards “communicative” English with emphasis on colloquialism and native-like pronunciation is highly suited to the Anglo native-speaker model (Seargeant, 2009). As the native/non-native dichotomy in language assessment has been challenged increasingly over the last decade, CEFR has being criticised for upholding the native-speaker norm (McNamara 2014; Deygers, 2019). Japan did have an opportunity to tailor CEFR, or reimagine the benchmark that needs a new framework for the Japanese context. Furthermore, the controversy regarding unequal access to educational opportunities is an unintended consequence that needs resolving, not only in Japan but in other Asian contexts as well (Kirkpatrick & Bui, 2016). This chapter has examined the most recent development in Japan’s English language policy in education, which was a failed attempt to introduce commercial English tests as part of the university entrance examination. The official view is that this failure resulted from the potential unfairness to some candidates – mainly for socioeconomic reasons – but further examination demonstrates that it also raises other key issues in ELT such as the washback effect, GTM, monolingualism, native-speakerism, communicative competency and the application of CEFR to the national education system. Language testing and assessment are now seen as an important component of language policies, partly because development of teachers’ assessment literacy is vital for the successful implementation of a language policy (Gao, 2019) and also because the creation of assessment frameworks inevitably reflects the political, social, cultural and economic dynamics of a region.

References Abe, R., Yoshikawa, M., Miyazaki, R., Masutani, F., & Miyasaka, M. (2019, November 1). 官邸主導、土壇場の延期　身の丈発言で「ごり押し無理」 [PM-led last-minute postponement: “impossible to push through” after the “according to their means” remark]. Asahi Shimbun. Digital. Retrieved from https​:/​/ww​​w​.asa​​hi​.co​​m​/art​​icles​​/ASMC​​163XM​​MC1UT​​FK02K​​.html​​?iref​​​=pc​_s​​ s​_dat​​e. Asahi Shimbun. (2019, March 26). 英検「落選」に衝撃　高校教諭「最も身近な 試験なのに」[Shocked by EIKEN’s “fail”: High school teachers say “it’s the

English language policy in Japan  43 most familiar test for students”]. Retrieved from https​:/​/ww​​w​.asa​​hi​.co​​m​/art​​icles​​/ ASL3​​P36SV​​L3PUT​​IL00D​​.html​​?iref​​​=pc​_s​​s​_dat​​e. Butler, Y. G., & Iino, M. (2005). Current Japanese reforms in English language education: The 2003 “action plan.” Language Policy, 4(1), 25–45. Chan, L. T. (2015). Post-communicative pedagogies: Revisiting the translation method of teaching English in East Asia. Translation and Interpreting, 7(2), 75–90. Cook, G. (2010). Translation in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2020). ROAD-MAPPING English Medium Education in the Internationalised University. London: Palgrave Pivot. Dawson, W. (2010). Private tutoring and mass schooling in East Asia: Reflections of inequality in Japan, South Korea, and Cambodia. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(1), 14–24. Deygers, B. (2019). The CEFR Companion Volume: Between research-based policy and policy-based research. Applied Linguistics, 42, 1–7. doi​.org​/10​.1093​/applin​ /amz​024. Dore, R. (1997). The argument of the diploma disease: A summary. Assessment in Education, 4(1), 23–32. EF Education First. (2019). EF English Proficiency Index: A Ranking of 100 Countries and Regions by English Skills. Retrieved from https​:/​/ww​​w​.ef-​​ austr​​alia.​​com​.a​​u/__/​~​/med​​ia​/ce​​ntral​​efcom​​/epi/​​downl​​oads/​​full-​​repor​​ts​/v9​​/ef​-e​​p​i​ -20​​19​-en​​glish​​.pdf. Entrich, S. (2018). Shadow Education and Social Inequalities in Japan: Evolving Patterns and Conceptual Implications. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. Erikawa, H. (2018). 日本の外国語教育政策史 [A historical study of foreign language education policy in Japan]. Tokyo: Hitsuji-shobo. Frost, K., & McNamara, T. (2018). Language tests, language policy, and citizenship. In J. W. Tollefson & M. Pérez-Millans (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language Policy and Planning (pp. 257–279). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gao, X. (2019). Assessment and evaluation in English language teaching: Section introduction. In X. Gao (Ed.), Second Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp. 371–375). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Glasgow, G. P. (2018). The persistence of native speakerism in Japanese senior high school curriculum reform: Team teaching in the “English in English” initiative. In S. Houghton & K. Hashimoto (Eds.), Towards Post-Native-Speakerism: Dynamics and Shifts (pp. 197–215). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. doi​.org​/10​ .1007​/978​-981​-10​-7162​​-1​_11. Glasgow, G. P., & Paller, D. L. (2016). English language education policy in Japan: At a crossroads. In R. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), English Language Education Policy in Asia (pp. 153–180). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Hashimoto, K. (2009). Cultivating “Japanese who can use English”: Problems and contradictions in government policy. Asian Studies Review, 33(1), 21–42. doi​.org​ /10​.1080​/103578208027161​66. Hashimoto, K. (2013). “English-only”, but not a medium-of-instruction policy: The Japanese way of internationalising education for both domestic and overseas students. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14(1), 16–33. doi​.org​/10​.1080​ /14664208​.2013​.78​9956.

44  Kayoko Hashimoto and Gregory Paul Glasgow Hashimoto, K. (2018). Teaching licence renewal and the professional development of Japanese primary school teachers of English. In K. Hashimoto & V. Nguyen (Eds.), Professional Development of English Language Teachers in Asia: Lessons from Japan and Vietnam (pp. 29–44). London/New York: Routledge. Hashimoto, K., & Nguyen, V. (2018) (Eds.). Professional Development of English Language Teachers in Asia: Lessons from Japan and Vietnam. London/New York: Routledge. Hino, N. (1988). Yakudoku: Japan’s dominat tradition in foreign language learning. JALT Journal, 10(1), 45–55. Horio, T. (1988). Educational Thought and Ideology in Modern Japan: State Authority and Intellectual Freedom. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Houghton, S. A., Rivers, D., & Hashimoto, K. (2018). Beyond Native-Speakerism: Current Explorations and Future Visions. London/New York: Routledge. Iwashita, N. (2018). Grammar and language proficiency. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL Encyclopaedia of English Language Teaching. USA: Wiley Online Library. doi​.org​/10​.1002​/97811187842​35. Johnson, D. C. (2013). Language Policy. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Kennedy, C., & Tomlinson, B. (2013). Implementing language policy and planning through materials development. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Applied Linguistics and Materials Development (pp. 255–267). London: Bloomsbury Academic. Kirkpatrick, R., & Bui, T. T. (2016). Introduction: The challenges for English education policies in Asia. In R. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), English Language Education Policy in Asia (pp. 1–23). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Liu, J., & Pan, M. (2019). English language teaching in China: Developing language proficiency frameworks. In X. Gao (Ed.), Second Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp. 415–432). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Matsumura, A. (Ed.) (2006). Daijirin. Tokyo: Sanseido. Matsutani, F. (2019, September 16). 大学6割、高校9割が「問題ある」入試の英語民 間試験 [60% of universities and 90% of high schools think the English commercial tests for entrance examination have “problems”]. Asahi Shimbun Digital. Retrieved from https​:/​/ww​​w​.asa​​hi​.co​​m​/art​​icles​​/ASM9​​84GQQ​​M98UT​​ IL009​​.html​​?iref​​​=pc​_s​​s​_dat​​e. McNamara, T. (2014). Epilogue: 30 years on: Evolution or revolution? Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(2), 226–232. MEXT. (2017). 大学入学共通テスト実施方針策定に当たっての考え方 [Viewpoint of the University Entrance Common Test implementation plan]. Retrieved from http:​/​/www​​.mext​​.go​.j​​p​/a​_m​​enu​/k​​outou​​/koud​​ai​/de​​tail/​​​14204​​99​.ht​​m. MEXT. (2018). 高等学校学習指導要領（平成30年告示）解説、外国語編・英語編 [Senior-high school course of study (announced in 2018) guide: Foreign language & English]. Retrieved from https​:/​/ww​​w​.mex​​t​.go.​​jp​/co​​ntent​​/1407​​073​_0​​​9​_1​_2​​.pdf. MEXT.(2019a).大臣メッセージ（英語民間試験について）[Minister’smessageabout English commercial tests]. Retrieved from http:​/​/www​​.mext​​.go​.j​​p​/a​_m​​enu​/o​​ther/​​ 1422​3​​81​.ht​​m. MEXT. (2019b). 英語資格・検定試験に関する質疑応答集（Q&A）[Q&A about English qualifying exams]. Retrieved from https​:/​/ww​​w​.mex​​t​.go.​​jp​/co​​mpone​​nt​ /a_​​menu/​​educa​​tion/​​micro​​_deta​​il/__​​icsFi​​les​/a​​field​​file/​​2019/​​1​0​/04​​/1420​​469​_2​​.pdf. Miyazaki, R., & Kawai, T. (2019, November 20). 下村氏「東大指導を」　英語 民間試験活用で文科省に要求 [Mr Shimomura demands MEXT to “guide Tokyo University” about the use of English commercial tests]. Asahi Shimbun Digital.

English language policy in Japan  45 Retrieved from https​:/​/ww​​w​.asa​​hi​.co​​m​/art​​icles​​/ASMC​​N5VHZ​​MCNUT​​IL​032​​ .html​. Miyazaki, R., Yajima, D., Masutani, F., Yamashita, T., & Inoune, N. (2019, October29).「身の丈」発言に批判「格差容認か」荻生田氏撤回せず[Criticismof the “according to the means” remark. Acceptance of disparities? Mr Hagiuda did not retract it]. Asahi Shimbun Digital. Retrieved from https​:/​/ww​​w​.asa​​hi​.co​​m​/art​​ icles​​/ASMB​​X5K15​​MBXUT​​IL038​​.html​​?iref​​​=pc​_s​​s​_dat​​e. Nikkei (2019a, November 1). 社説：英語試験延期が問う行政の失態. [Editorial: Postponement of English exam presents an administrative error]. Retrieved from https​:/​/ww​​w​.nik​​kei​.c​​om​/ar​​ticle​​/DGXM​​ZO517​​04630​​R01C1​​9​A1SH​​F000/​. Nikkei(2019b,December24).英語「民間活用」初めから　非公開の会議、議事録公表 [From the start, “utilisation of private sectors” for English. Minutes of closed meetings made public]. Retrieved from https​:/​/ww​​w​.nik​​kei​.c​​om​/ar​​ticle​​/DGXM​​ZO537​​69170​​ U9A22​​1​C1CC​​1000/​. Nishino, T., & Watanabe, M. (2008). Communication-oriented policies versus classroom realities in Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 42(1), 133–138. Noda, M., & O’Regan, J. P. (2020). L1 marginalisation in Japan: Monolingual instrumentalism and the discursive shift against yakudoku in the Japanese government’s Course of Study. Current Issues in Language Planning, 21(2), 135–152. O’Donnell, K. (2005). Japanese secondary English Teachers: Negotiation of educational roles in the face of curricular reform. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 18(3), 300–315. Papp, S., & Salamoura, A. (2009). An exploratory study into linking young learners’ examinations to the CEFR. Cambridge ESOL-Research Notes, 37, 15–22. Rixon, S. (2013). British Council Survey of Policy and Practice in Primary English Language Teaching Worldwide. London: British Council. Sasaki, M. (2008). The 150-year history of English language assessment in Japanese education. Language Testing, 25(1), 63–83. Sato, K., & Kleinsasser, R. (2004). Beliefs, practices and interactions of teachers in a Japanese high school English Department. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(8), 797–816. Seargeant, P. (2009). The Idea of English in Japan. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Sharif, H. (2018, November 28). Suneung: The day silence falls over South Korea. BBC. Retrieved from https​:/​/ww​​w​.bbc​​.com/​​news/​​world​​-asia​​-461​8​​1240. Shohamy, E. (2007). Language tests as language policy tools. Assessment in Education, 14(1), 117–130. Tan, P. L., Morgan, S. P., & Zagheni, E. (2016). A case for “reverse one-child” policies in Japan and South Korea? Examining the link between education costs and lowest-low fertility. Population Research and Policy Review, 35(3), 327–350. The Japan Times. (2019, November 9). Japanese Ranked 53rd in English Skills in Annual Worldwide Survey. Retrieved from https​:/​/ww​​w​.jap​​antim​​es​.co​​.jp​/n​​ews​ /2​​019​/1​​1​/09/​​natio​​nal​/j​​apane​​se​-ra​​nked-​​53rd-​​engli​​sh​-sk​​ills-​​annua​​l​-wor​​ldwid ​ ​​e​-sur​​ vey/#​​.Xd8S​​BUYzZ​​PY. Timsit, A. (2018, January 13). Overhauling Japan’s high-stakes university-admission system. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https​:/​/ww​​w​.the​​atlan​​tic​.c​​om​/ed​​ucati​​on​/ar​​ chive​​/2018​​/01​/o​​verha​​uling​​-japa​​ns​-hi​​gh​-st​​akes-​​unive​​rsity​​-admi​​​ssion​​-syst​​em​/55​​ 0409/​.

46  Kayoko Hashimoto and Gregory Paul Glasgow Tollefson, J. W., & Pérez-Millans, M. (2018). Language policy and planning: Directions for future research. In J. W. Tollefson & M. Pérez-Millans (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language Policy and Planning (pp. 727–741). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Underwood, P. R. (2012). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the instruction of English grammar under national curriculum reforms: A theory of planned behaviour perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(6), 911–925. Xerri, D., & Briffa, P. V. (Eds.) (2018). Teacher Involvement in High-Stakes Language Testing. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Yajima, D., & Miyasaka, M. (2019, October 25). 英語民間試験、大学の3割使 わず　初年度の利用状況公表 [30% of universities do not use English commercial tests: Release of the first year users]. Asahi Shimbun Digital. Retrieved from https​ :/​/ww​​w​.asa​​hi​.co​​m​/art​​icles​​/ASMB​​T42KW​​MBTUT​​IL00W​​.html​​?iref​​​=pc​_s​​s​_dat​​e. Yajima, D., & Miyazaki, R. (2019, November 1). 英語新試験制度24年度導入め ざす　文科省1年間検討へ [Aiming at the introduction of the new English examination system in 2024, MEXT will investigate it for one year]. Asahi Shimbun Digital. Retrieved from https​:/​/ww​​w​.asa​​hi​.co​​m​/art​​icles​​/ASMC​​132JL​​ MC1UT​​IL00B​​.html​​?iref​​=pc​​_r​​ellin​​k​_02. Yajima, D., & Nagata, D. (2019, November 7). 民間試験「ありき」だったのか　追及 は他科目にも飛び火 [Was it a done deal to use commercial tests? Questions spread to other subjects]. Asahi Shimbun Digital. Retrieved from https​:/​/ww​​w​ .asa​​hi​.co​​m​/art​​icles​​/ASMC​​65H1V​​MC6UT​​FK​01P​​.html​. Yamada, M. (2018). Developing language awareness: A study of Japanese students’ perceptions toward English language education. Language. Discourse and Society, 2(12), 133–150. Zeng, K. (1999). Dragon Gate: Competitive Examinations and Their Consequences. London: Cassell.

4

The place of English in Korean language policy History, realities and issues Jamie Shinhee Lee

4.1 Introduction The place of English in contemporary Korean society is significant, particularly in terms of its position as a pragmatic and utilitarian resource advancing academic achievement and enhancing employability. English is closely tied to changes in language policy and education reform, which frequently invite debates in public as well as in private in Korea. Not only discussions but also subsequent personal decisions can be varied and even polarising at times. Lee (2011, p. 123) argues that “language ideologies are often recycled in the form of uncontested folk beliefs” and “[c]urrently no language shows a more revealing ideology than English, which approximates blind faith”. Ideologies regarding the English language tend to be conflicting and incompatible: The diffusion-of-English paradigm/the ecology-of-language paradigm (Butler & Iino, 2005), pragmatic English/perfect English (Bailey et al., 2016), and global language/local language (Bailey et al., 2016). These dichotomies do exist in South Korea as well. However, I argue that politics and economics have been two major driving forces behind English language education reform. In relation to noticeable changes in education priorities regarding the English language, this chapter focuses on notions such as economic commodity (Song, 2012), cosmopolitanism (Abelmann et al., 2014) and pragmatism (Kang, 2012). Korea’s globalisation drive, called segyehwa, currently serves as a potent discourse frame encouraging fervent engagement and considerable investment in English education. The term “English fever” (Park, 2009a) vividly captures the image of intense public interest in English education in contemporary Korea. Being a highly education-oriented society, Korea has not just English fever but “education fever”, known as 교육열, often problematised as a social issue in print and broadcast media. Sociolinguistic realities in Korea include educational migration at a young age, the proposal for English officialisation, and the implementation of English as a medium of instruction in college education.

DOI: 10.4324/9780429433467-4

48  Jamie Shinhee Lee

4.2 History Political factors play a significant role in policy change and reform in general. In fact, history and politics have been an integral part of the discussion on language policies. Choi (2006, p. 235) argues that international relations have played an influential role in English education in Korea. She notes that American missionaries, the Japanese colonial government, and the US military government affected English education practices in Korea. Despite its “perceived” impression of foreignness, English is actually not a new language in Korea (Lee, 2020). English education in Korea is reported to have started approximately 140 years ago; it was “first introduced into Korea around the year 1882 when Korea signed a treaty of amity with the United States and the United Kingdom” (Baik, 1994, p. 156). The first English classes were provided to train interpreters at Dongmoonhak in 1883 (Moon, 1976), and the Royal Academy was founded in 1886 to teach children from aristocratic and noble families (Shim, 1994). Lee (2016b, p. 569) mentions three modern schools that offered English programmes including “Tongmunhak1 (August 1883–1886), Yugyoung Kongwon2 (1886–1894) and Hansung English School (1895–1911)”. Lee (2016b, p. 570) reports that history, mathematics and geography were taught in English by three native speakers and argues that the “English immersion program was operated in Korea from the very beginning”. According to Lee & Yeo (2001), Yugyoung Kongwon was transformed into “영어학교” (English School) and adopted two American textbooks, National Readers by Charles J. Barnes and Union Readers by Sanders.3 The school taught reading, translation, composition and dictation using the Direct Method (Lee & Yeo, 2001, pp. 379–380). English was also used as a language of evangelism during this period. Chang (2019, p. 700) notes that the foundation of Christian private schools (e.g., Ehwa, Baejae, Kyungshin, and Baehwa, etc.) to proselytise in the late 19th century also played an important role in English education since they provided modern education. American missionary organisations founded several schools during this time not only in South Korea but also in North Korea,4 including Kwangsong, Chungjin Primary, and Union Christian School in Pyongyang as well as Sungduk in Yongbyon (Byun, 1985, p. 111; Han, 1962, p. 6). Lee and Yeo (2001) provide some details about the programme at Ehwa (the only academic institute in charge of women’s education at the time), which offered the following subjects: English, biblical studies, geography and mathematics. Drawing upon Kwak’s research (1973), Lee and Yeo (2001, pp. 380–381) further argue that the main purpose of English education at Ehwa was for religious purposes because learning English hymnals and attending worship services were an essential component of the curriculum. Lee’s (2016b, p. 557) research on English in early modern Korea (1882– 1899) takes a macro approach incorporating linguistic imperialism

The place of English in Korean language policy  49 perspectives and discusses “how and why English was committed to serving as a language for Korea's national independence”. He argues that “English functioned as a social, political, and international power and thereby surpassed, in its socio-political influence, any other foreign language that might be involved in the general Korean situation of the time, indicating that English came to Korea as part of the Western imperialism toward Korea late in the 19th century” (Lee, 2016b, p. 558). Lee’s survey outlines important events in the history of the English language in Korea including: (1) a special delegation’s visit5 to the US (1883); (2) entry of American missionaries (1884–1885); and (3) opening of modern schools (1883–1886). He further claims that English became a powerful language from the beginning to save Korea from Japan: With no way of protecting herself from the surging western imperialism, Korea was highly forced to select any other imperial power as better as possible as a means of getting out of the Japanese imperialism towards Korea, which was materialized in 1876 as a form of the JapanKorea Treaty of Amity, also known as the Kanghwado Treaty. Strongly influenced by China’s suggestion for Korea’s what to do and how to do in such a critical time, as mentioned above, King Kojong was remarkably in favor of the U.S., finally resulting in the Treaty of Peace, Amity, Commerce, and Navigation of 1882. (Lee, 2016b, p. 561). English education under Japanese rule (1910–1945) was challenging because Korean students had to learn a foreign language (English) in another foreign language (Japanese). According to Lee and Yeo (2001), native speakers were replaced with Japanese English teachers. Textbooks written by Koreans were banned and confiscated (Hahm, 1983) and only the textbooks and dictionaries written by Japanese authors were adopted at schools (Lee & Yeo, 2001). Korean students were taught English in Japanese (Lee & Yeo, 2001, p. 381). The 1915 private school regulation specified a qualified teacher as “일어에 능통한 자” (“the one fluent in Japanese”), which made the Direct Method unusable because Japanese teachers were in charge of English education (Lee & Yeo, 2001, p. 382). Mandatory English classes were offered as part of secondary education after Korea was freed from Japanese colonisation (Kim, 1985). Lee & Yeo (2001, pp. 384–388) present eight phases of curricular change in English education after Korea became independent6: (1) 임시 교수 요목시기(Interim/Provisional instruction period) (November 1946–March 1954); (2)교육 과정 기초 적립기 (Foundation of basic curricula period) (April 1954–January 1963); (3) 교육과정 상세화기 (Specified curricula period) (February 1973–November 1981); (4) 생활영어 중심 교육과정기 (Practical English-focused curricula period) (February 1977–December 1981); (5) 언어 사용 중심 교육과정기 (Language usage-centred curricula

50  Jamie Shinhee Lee period) (March 1987–19927); and (6) 회화위주 교육과정기 (Conversationfocused curricula period) (November 1992–March 2000).8 Phase 1 was a transitional period for Korea, which was freed from Japanese rule but under US control for about three years after the provisional Korean government was founded. During this period, an English professor named Lockhard from Chicago was charged to form the Korean Committee on Education in 1945 (Lee & Yeo, 2001). Korean was officially designated as the medium of instruction and Lee and Yeo argue that this started the tradition of teaching English in Korean (Lee & Yeo, 2001, p. 384). In Phase 2, the first ever 언어실습실 (“language lab”) was established at Daeryun High School in Daegu (Underwood, 1965, cited in Lee and Yeo, 2001, p. 384). Also, terms such as “Oral Method” and “Pattern Practice” were used in workshops designed for training middle school English teachers (Lee & Yeo, 2001, p. 384) and “the Audio-lingual Method” was widely adopted (Lee & Yeo, 2001, p. 385). The reformed English curricula in 1963 specified developing listening, reading, speaking, and writing skills as the primary goal based on “native speaker” norms (Lee & Yeo, 2001, p. 385). In Phase 3, English was selected as the only foreign language taught in middle school and the only textbook approved by 영어 교과서 편찬위원회 (English Textbook Compilation Committee) was used both in middle and high school curricula (Lee & Yeo, 2001, p. 386). Phase 4 emphasised 살아 있는 생활영어 (literally meaning alive/active practical English, arguably referring to authentic everyday English) (Lee & Yeo, 2001, p. 386). The textbook provided segments on listening, listening and repeating, dialogue and oral practice. It also provided a comprehension passage, further materials for the study of the linguistic structure and pronunciation exercises. The pronunciation section focused on phonics (Cho & Lee, 1991, cited in Lee & Yeo, 2001, p. 386). In Phase 5, there was a shift from sentence-centred instruction to conversations and context-oriented instruction, focusing on sociopragmatic appropriateness (Lee & Yeo, 2001, p. 387). Phase 6 continued to emphasise the importance of conversations that allowed students to learn about foreign traditions and behavioural patterns and to develop oral proficiency which enabled them to introduce Korean culture to foreigners (Lee & Yeo, 2001, p. 387). Chang (2019, p. 706) argues that the 1986 Asian Games and the 1988 Summer Olympics hosted by South Korea led to a recognition of the importance of understanding other cultures and the economic benefits of internationally recognised events, which ultimately led to 국제화의 열풍 (“The Internationalisation Craze”). The pressure to internationalise inevitably led to discussions about successful communication with other countries. Therefore, the need to improve oral communicative competence in English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) was emphasised in this phase. Economics has also been an important element in reforming language policies and reorganising educational priorities in South Korea. Hwang (2001, p. 609) argues that the strength of the national economy is inversely

The place of English in Korean language policy  51 correlated with concerns for “educational productivity”, which means that people do not problematise education when the domestic financial situation is stable. However, the notion of economic productivity is not only concerned with local and domestic markets but also global markets. Abelmann et al. (2014, p. 259) argue that cosmopolitanism reflects the idea that “citizens share a deep-seated interest in membership in the global community of developed, liberal nations”. They argue that the economic crisis in 1997 compelled South Korea to re-evaluate its position in the world and reach the conclusion that “acquir[ing] new skills and assets, such as the ability to speak and work in English” is necessary (Abelmann et al., 2014, p. 262). Cosmopolitanism on a personal level is closely related with elitism, which in Korea has become associated with an advanced educational attainment as well as knowledge of English since the mid-1960s (Baik, 1994, p. 1560). Collins (2005, p. 423) argues that “by the late 1970s and early 1980s, English had become part of middle-class pretension and cosmopolitanism”. However, prestige associated with English is not a recent phenomenon. Shim & Park (2008, p. 143) argue that “the importance of English as symbolic capital has been on the rise throughout Korea’s modern history. English has always been considered a means for upward social mobility since the late nineteenth century when the first schools for English language teaching were opened in Korea”. Social mobility is often mentioned in the context of an individual advancing to the next level of social strata. However, I argue that it is also a concept collectively applicable to a group. A nation’s enhanced social mobility can strengthen its position internationally and increase its global influence. The nation’s improved position in the world can affect its educational focus. According to Chang (2019), developing English speaking skills to keep up with the globalised world became the main focus of English education policy when Korea joined the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). This led to a dramatic shift in pedagogical focus from grammar-translation to oral communication in the 1990s.

4.3 Realities and perceptions Collins (2005, p. 427) argues that “English in Korea has been thought of as revolutionary, accommodationist, nationalist, collusive, cosmopolitan and anti-Korean” and English is part of “the fitful ‘globalization’ of Korea in the twenty-first century”. This kind of language ideology can influence perceptions about education reform. For example, Kang & Choi’s (1996) research indirectly suggests that Collins’ claim about English being “part of the fitful globalization of Korea” ideologically resonates with a considerable number of Koreans. They surveyed 300 students (third and fourth graders) and 300 parents at two different elementary schools regarding the newly implemented English language education curriculum. Results showed that 21.6%

52  Jamie Shinhee Lee of the students expressed extremely positive responses and parents showed greater enthusiastic reactions compared to children with 85.6% supporting English education in primary schools (Kang & Choi, 1996, p. 227). Intense interest in English education can easily lead to preference for native speaker teachers. According to Kang and Choi (1996, pp. 221–222),9 approximately 60% of the students in their study favoured native speakers because they believed that they could learn correct pronunciation from them. Another prevalent language ideology haunting many English learners in Korea is the desire to speak “good English” and this can lead to unattainable perfectionism and linguistic insecurity. Cho (2015, p. 690) discusses linguistic insecurity found in “collective and competitive” pursuit of “perfect” English. Her statement below is revealing since even sufficiently proficient overseas returnees are not immune to language anxiety: [E]ven proficient speakers of English feel anxious due to ever-rising local standards for English skills and the value accorded to neoliberal personhood. In turn, they are led to believe that the only solution to constant linguistic recalibration is to become “perfect” speakers of English through strenuous investment in language learning. (Cho, 2015, p. 690)

4.4 Early English education For those in pursuit of “perfect English”, early exposure to “real English” in an English-speaking country can be an attractive option. For those who cannot afford to relocate for early overseas English education, early English education in local schools was a viable alternative. The Korean government has consistently pursued the idea of implementing conversation-focused English education since the 1970s even when there was little public demand for it. The same efforts were made in the 1980s and 1990s (Ko, 2011, p. 1). In Phase 3, English classes were offered as part of extra-curricular activity in elementary education, which Ko (2011) views as the beginning of early English education. Initially, academia and the media offered criticisms because of the idea that (1) language education is closely related to the formation of national identity, and (2) 국적있는 교육 (“nationality-oriented education”) is perceived as essential (Ko, 2011, p. 32). Ko (2011, p. 32) argues that the Ministry of Education’s plan to revise the existing education policy dubbed “layering” was misunderstood as “displacement” by the public. The scale of change or reform was misconstrued and not well received. Consequently, the Ministry of Education abandoned its original plan in 1973 and no official English education could be offered at the elementary school level (Ko, 2011, p. 33). The official implementation of the early English education policy came into effect much later, in 1997, but Ko (2011, p. 1) argues that it has produced the unintended adverse effect of revitalising grammar-centred and memorisation-oriented English learning

The place of English in Korean language policy  53 early from elementary school. If Ko’s observation is correct, early English education implemented at the primary school level is a failed policy and a counter-productive endeavour because the main purpose of early English education is to expose Korean students to English early enough through conversation-oriented curricula so that they can develop strong oral communication skills. Early English education tends to be perceived as an effective option to become proficient English speakers. However, starting early in a local school is not the same as being educated in an English-speaking country. The idea that early exposure is a must in one’s success as an English speaker is popular, but early English education requires personal sacrifices and does not always go as smoothly as many assume. For example, Cho’s (2015) research on Korean-English interpreters with extensive experience residing in English-speaking countries shows that the young learners had a difficult time adjusting linguistically as well as culturally. Cho describes their experience as follows: Contrary to the common belief that “earlier is better” for the mastery of foreign languages, the data reveals that six out of eight participants found it extremely stressful to cope with linguistic transitions as a child after being thrown into a new environment overnight. (Cho, 2015, p. 698) Cho (2015, p. 708) acknowledges “the popularity of jogi yuhak” (“early overseas English education”) but warns that it “is only valuable by virtue of its rarity and the more people who sojourn overseas for English learning, the lesser the newly acquired bilingualism is valued in the market”. Park and Bae (2009, p. 366) define jogi yuhak as “short-term migration among pre-university students” and argue that it is “driven in part by ideologies that link valorized forms of English with specific geographical locations”. According to Lee (2012, p. 2), great interest in early overseas English educational migration started in the 1990s. Unlike earlier migrants, who were motivated by economic reasons and/or for seeking permanent residence, recent migrants tend to be more educationally driven (Lee, 2012). This recent trend is expressed in concepts such as “astronaut household” (Waters, 2002), “parachute kids” (Zho, 1998) and “wild geese father” (Lee & Koo, 2006). The migration of elementary school students for educational purposes has dramatically increased since 2000 (Lee, 2012).10 Along with the desire to escape from the stressful college entrance examination-driven Korean educational system, the prospect of seeking better opportunities in the era of globalisation through exposure to English and 선진 교육방법 (“advanced instructional method”) is mentioned as the main motivational factor in cases of educational migration (Lee, 2012, p. 6). The term “English fever” is often used in discussing overenthusiastic orientations towards English education (see, for example, Park, 2007, 2009a,

54  Jamie Shinhee Lee b; Shim & Park, 2008). Lim (2007, p. 71) asserts that “Korean education fever is a product of parents’ sacrifices for their children, and that this sacrificial attitude is heavily influenced by the traditional Confucian theory of ‘salvation’”. In fact, the role of mothers is highlighted with reference to English education (see, for example, Lee, 2010; Park and Abelmann, 2004; Park, 2007). Notions such as “education manager mother” (Park, 2007), “Kirogi mother”11 (Lee, 2010), and “astronaut wives” (Waters, 2002) metaphorically capture the mother’s fervent involvement in, and the woman’s sacrificial dedication to children’s education.12 Shim & Park (2008, p. 154) take a critical approach to the English fever, arguing that obsession with early English education heightens inequalities and class distinctions already existent in Korean society, and should be construed “as a local-level projection of global-level inequalities”.

4.5 Globalisation and English education English education is frequently discussed in conjunction with 세계화 (Seygeyhwa “Globalisation”). Lee (2011, p. 124) asserts that “English language ideology in contemporary South Korea is closely related to the concept of globalization”. Chang (2019) notes that globalisation gained traction in the late 1990s, which he argues, led to reform in English language education policy. He argues that “English education policies in Korea have developed to cultivate Korean students who are capable in a globalized world” (Chang, 2019, p. 699). What is meant by “capable” is not clearly defined, but his conclusion implicitly suggests that it refers to the ability to speak English to perform competently in an increasingly globalising world as well as to present Korean traditions and national identity to the world and enhance an understanding of Korea (Chang, 2019, p. 706). Park and Ablemann’s (2004, p. 651) discussion of important milestones in the history of education policy highlights the Chun Doo Hwan administration’s “equality of educational opportunity” prohibiting “all kinds of private after-school education” in 1980 and the Kim Young Sam administration’s “segyehwa, extending English education to elementary school (grades 1–6)” in the mid-1990s. English education and globalisation are often associated with utilitarian and pragmatic values (Kang, 2012). Lee (2011, p. 146) argues that “English simply serves as a practical linguistic tool, not a purpose, to fulfill South Korea’s global ambition”. Shim and Park (2008, p. 145) view it as “nationalistically-driven globalization” or “utilitarian nationalism”.

4.6 English officialisation Although it was not passed as a mandate or regulation, the proposal to designate English as an official language in Korea is ideologically revealing

The place of English in Korean language policy  55 and polarising, causing different positions to be hotly debated. Lee (2020, p. 598) observes that “the idea of English officialization (that is, making English an official language) in Korea is still controversial and elicits opposition from experts and non-experts alike. Even its proponents view it as a necessary evil which will help Koreans function competently in an increasingly globalizing world”. Song (2011, p. 35), however, is highly critical of the overly emphasised importance of English in Korean society arguing that “English has been recruited, in the guise of globalization, to exploit the meretricious ideology of merit to the advantage of the privileged classes and to the disadvantage of the other classes of the society”. Chae (2007, p. 305) questions whether English officialisation is practical, necessary, or even feasible in Korea. He further discusses potential risks such as financial stress, the loss of national identity, and accentuated class distinctions. Similarly, Ahn (2001, p. 38) argues that endeavours fiercely defending the exclusive use of the Korean language in Korea stems from the fear of losing their mother tongue. Ahn argues that the English language already coexists with the Korean language in various domains including signs in official government buildings, subway announcements and the mass media, but warns that supporting officialisation of English could easily render one a “매국노” (“traitor”) (Ahn, 2001, p. 5). However, Ahn argues that favouring the officialisation of English is based on national pride about Korean language and culture and urges Korea to take a leadership role to promote its own culture around the world as the 12th largest economy in the world (Ahn, 2001, p. 5). Ahn further suggests bilingual language policy as a solution maintaining Korean as “Korean people’s national language” and adopting English as an official language (Ahn, 2001, p. 63).

4.7 English as a medium of instruction English users in Asian countries tend to be recognised as learners, not as fluent speakers (Gil, 2010; Yang, 2006). When “unspeakable” English (also dubbed “mute” English in Lee, 2015, 2016a) was repeatedly problematised by learners as well as education practitioners, the importance of speaking skills or communicative competence started gaining its prominent position in the discourse about English education reform. The idea of “teaching English in English” was proposed as a solution. In other words, English as a medium of instruction (EMI hereafter) was offered as an answer to the question “How do we improve English oral proficiency?” and EMI elicited positive as well as negative reactions. Proponents of EMI often mention the possibility of learning “authentic” English and alleviating language anxiety through natural exposure to instructions given by native speakers. Some studies report on the perceived benefits of EMI including increased learner confidence, reduced fear

56  Jamie Shinhee Lee of foreigners and improved pronunciation (see, for example, Ahn, 1999; Lee, 1993; Park, 1997). Among the critical positions, teachers’ distrust for the government policy and their own perception of unpreparedness dealing with EMI are often mentioned. According to Sohn and Lee (2003, p. 202), who studied over 300 middle school English teachers’ perspectives on EMI, only 7.5% of English teachers from elementary, middle and high schools nationwide report that they can effectively enact EMI, which shows the lack of qualified teachers to successfully implement EMI. They suggest some solutions to assist them with enacting EMI and insist that making education policies should be approached democratically inviting all stakeholders including teachers, students and parents. Sohn and Lee (2003, p. 234) also propose that new policies be tested out on a smaller scale at a few schools first, indicating that the national implementation of new policies should follow afterwards. EMI is promoted not merely as a means for improving oral proficiency in English. Korean universities view it as a marketing strategy to promote themselves as offering world-class education and attracting foreign scholars and students. Cho (2012, p. 18) argues that EMI is part of the “internationalization strategy” in college education. Cho (2012) warns us about the risk of a superficial implementation of globalisation-driven English education without carefully evaluating consumer satisfaction (i.e. student reactions and learning outcomes).

4.8 Conclusion It is questionable whether implementing sensible English education policies and executing them successfully in school settings could enable the English language to secure the position of “a near-universal basic skill” (Graddol, 2006, p. 15) in South Korea. If history can teach us anything, what we know is that language issues are not just language issues and education problems are not just education problems. Political and economic factors will continue to influence language policy and educational practice. The English language undoubtedly occupies a powerful position in education and language policy in Korea. Its prominent presence is not new, and its prestige is not new. Its association with elitism and upward social mobility is not new either. However, globalisation as a discourse emphasising the need for Korea to step up and exercise its power and influence in the world has affected education policy, teaching practice, and individual language investment plans and choices. Intense interest in improving English communicative skills has yielded some positive outcomes facilitating educational reform and enabling devoted learners to enjoy new professional and academic opportunities. However, uncontested utilitarian advocacy for “better English” driven by blind faith in what I call “English as a saviour” has also created some social realities

The place of English in Korean language policy  57 that are divisive and polarising. Obsession with English education motivates some parents to invest in their children’s education beyond their financial means, and it is not uncommon that early overseas English education breaks families apart and traumatises young children emotionally, psychologically and socially. Strengthening local English programmes supported by a balanced collaboration between “native speaker” instructors and Korean teachers and sharing proven successful outcomes could motivate some parents to reconsider making unwise educational investments in their children’s future. The fear of falling behind and not “keeping up with the Joneses” may be expected in a highly competitive and academically oriented society like Korea. However, the development of affordable local immersion programmes and successful stories about fluent “domestically trained” (non 유학파 “non studying abroad”) English speakers could motivate English learners to be locally grounded and invested but globally skilled and proficient. In order to prevent a vicious cycle of failed policies and wasted time and resources, officials and administrators should work closely with academics. Research findings should inform policy makers and educational administrators. Learners, instructors and parents should get collaboratively involved in the decision-making process. What is even more important is a candid and transparent dialogue among all stakeholders and willingness to acknowledge each other’s contribution.

Notes 1 It is the same as Dongmoonhak mentioned in Moon (1976). 2 It is also known as “the royal academy” (Shim 1994) or “a royal college” (Lee 2016b). 3 The author’s first name is not specified in Lee and Yeo (2001). 4 Korea used to be one country at the time with no distinction between North and South. 5 It was called Bobingsa, and King Kojong sent them to the US “in return for the coming of Foote as the special envoy to Korea” (Lee 2016b: 562). 6 The titles of these phrases are my own translations as Lee and Yeo (2001) provide information only in Korean. 7 The month is not specified by the authors. 8 Although Lee and Yeo mention that there are eight phases, they discuss only six and no information is provided for the remaining two. 9 It is written in Korean. Direct quotations are my own translations. 10 It is written in Korean. 11 It is related to “an immigrant family in which the father is left behind in Korea to support the family and the mother lives with children in English speaking countries for their education” (Lee 2011: 137). 12 For the fathers’ role, refer to Lee and Koo (2006), whose research reveals that fathers “are not mere passive or reluctant participants in the family splitting and that they seem to maintain a stable conjugal relationship as well as a strong supportive role for the children despite their physical separation from the family” (p. 533).

58  Jamie Shinhee Lee

References Abelmann, N., Newendorp, N., & Lee-Chung, S. (2014). East Asia’s astronaut and wild geese families: Hong Kong and South Korean cosmopolitanisms. Critical Asian Studies, 46(2), 259–286. Ahn, C. (1999). 원어민 교사 지도 영어회화 시간 운영 결과 분석 및 개선방안 탐색 [Analysis of native speaker instructed English conversation classes and exploration of improvement solutions]. In 교육 행정 분석과 현장 교육 연구보고서 [Analytical Report on Educational Administration and Onsite Education]. Ahn, J. H. (2001). 영어공영화를 위한 제언 [A proposal for English as an official language]. 인문논집 [Collected Papers in Humanities], 51, 37–63. Baik, M. J. (1994). Syntactic features of Englishization in Korean. World Englishes, 13(2), 155–166. Bailey, A. J., Canagarajah, S., Lan, S., & Powers, D. G. (2016). Scalar politics, language ideologies, and the sociolinguistics of globalization among transnational Korean professionals in Hong Kong. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(3), 312–334. Butler, Y. G., & Iino, M. (2005). Current Japanese reforms in English language education: The 2003 “action plan”. Language Policy, 4(1), 25–45. Byun, M.-S. (1985). The Sociology of English as an Additional Language of Wider Communication: A Case Study. Jeju University Working Papers, 21, pp. 107–126. Chae, H. (2007). 영어 공용화/모국어화의 환상과 그 대안 (English officialization/ nativization: Fantasy and alternatives). In J. Yoon (Ed.), 영어, 내마음의 식민지 [English, Colonialism of My Mind] (pp. 289–313). Seoul: Toseochulpan Dandae. Chang, B.-M. (2019). 한국의 영어교육 정책과 세계화 [English language policies in Korea and globalization]. Asia-Pacific Journal of Multimedia Services Convergent with Arts, Humanities, and Sociology, 9(1), 699–707. Cho, J. (2012). Campus in English or campus in shock? English Today, 28(2), 18–24. Cho, J. (2015). Sleepless in Seoul: Neoliberalism, English fever, and linguistic insecurity among Korean interpreters. Multilingua, 34(5), 687–710. Choi, Y. H. (2006). Impact of political situations on the early history of English language education in Korea. 교과과학연구 [Curriculum Research], 10(1), 235–259. Collins, S. G. (2005). “Who is this Tong-il?”: English, culture and ambivalence in South Korea. Changing English, 12(3), 417–429. Gil, J. (2010). The double danger of English as a global language. English Today, 26(1), 51–56. Graddol, D. (2006). English Next: Why Global English May Mean the End of ‘English as a Foreign Language’. London: British Council. Hahm, J. K. (1983). 한국 교육과정 변천사 연구 [Research on Curricula Change in Korea]. Seoul: Sookmyung University Press. Han, J.-Y. (1962). Modern education in Korea. Korea Journal, 2(1), 6–8. Hwang, Y. (2001). Why do South Korean students study hard? Reflections on Paik’s study. International Journal of Education Research, 35(6), 609–618. Kang, J., & Choi, J. (1996). 국민학교 영어교육에 관한 실태조사. [Reality check on English education in elementary school]. 교육연구 [Education Research], 27, 217–234. Kang, Y. (2012). Singlish or globish: Multiple language ideologies and global identities among Korean educational migrants in Singapore. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 16(2), 165–183.

The place of English in Korean language policy  59 Kim, G.-O. (1985). Diachronic study of sociolinguistic situations in Korea. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 8(1), 25–43. Ko, A. D. (2011). A Study on the Making of Early School English Education Policy in South Korea: A Historical Institutional Approach (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Seoul, Korea: Korea University. Lee, B.-H., & Yeo, D.-S. (2001). 한국 영어교육에 관한 역사적 고찰과 전개 방향에 대한 연구 [Historical survey of English education in Korea and research on developmental directions]. 공주 영상정보대학 논문집 [Korea College of Media Arts Annals], 8, 377–392. Lee, H. (2010). “I am a Kirogi mother”: Education exodus and life transformation among Korean transnational women. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 9(4), 250–264. Lee, J. S. (2011). Globalization and language education: English Village in South Korea. Language Research, 47(1), pp. 123–149. Lee, J. S. (2015). “Go away, mute English!” Selling English in web advertising. Journal of Creative Communications, 10(3), 235–247. Lee, J. S. (2016a). “Everywhere you go, you see English!”: Elderly women’s perspectives on globalization and English. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 13(4), 319–350. Lee, J. S. (2020). English in Korea. In K. Bolton, W. Botha, & A. Kirkpatrik (Eds.), The Handbook of Asian Englishes (pp. 585–604). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Lee, K.-S. (2016b). A macro-level approach to English in the history of early Modern Korea, 1882–1899: A linguistic imperialism perspective. 영어영문학 [English Language and Literature], 21(1), 555–576. Lee, M. (1993). 원어민 교사가 한국학생들에게 주는 효과 [Effects of Native Speaker Instructors on Korean Students]. 연세대학교 교육대학원 석사학위 논문 (Unpublished master’s thesis). Seoul, Korea: Yonsei University. Lee, Y. (2012). 한국인의 교육이주와 트랜스로컬 주체성: 미국 페어펙스 카운티를사례로 [Korean educational migration and translocal subjectivities into Fairfax county, USA]. 한국 도시지리 학회지 [Journal of Korean Urban Geography], 15(1), 1–16. Lee, Y.-J., & Koo, H. (2006). Wild geese fathers and a globalised family strategy for education in Korea. International Development Planning Review, 28(4), 533–553. Lim, H. (2007). A religious analysis of education fever in modern Korea. Korea Journal, 47(2), 71–98. Moon, Y. (1976). 우리나라 영어교육의 사적 평가 [A historical review of English education in Korea]. 응용언어학 [Applied Linguistics], 8(2), 203–222. Park, J. (1997). 원어민 교수에 의한 대학생 의사소통 영어교육의 운영 결과 분석 [Analysis of communicative competence-oriented college English education provided by native speaker professors]. 영어교육 [English Education], 52(1), 161–187. Park, J.-K. (2009a). “Education fever” in South Korea: Its history and symptoms. English Today, 25(1), 50–57. Park, J. S. (2009b). The Local Construction of a Global Language: Ideologies of English in South Korea. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Park, J. S., & Bae, S. (2009). Language ideologies in educational migration: Korean jogi yuhak families in Singapore: Korean “Jogi Yuhak” families in Singapore. Linguistics and Education, 20(4), 366–377.

60  Jamie Shinhee Lee Park, S. J. (2007). Educational manager mothers: South Korea’s neoliberal transformation. Korea Journal, 47(3), 186–213. Park, S. J., & Abelmann, N. (2004). Class and cosmopolitan striving: Mother’s management of English education in South Korea. Anthropological Quarterly, 77(4), 645–672. Shim, D., & Park, J. S. (2008). The language politics of “English Fever” in South Korea. Korea Journal, 48(2), 136–159. Shim, R. J. (1994). Englishized Korean: Structure, status, and attitudes. World Englishes, 13(2), 225–244. Sohn, K., & Lee, K. (2003). “영어로 진행하는 영어수업” 의 문제점 및 개선방안 연구: 중등교사의 인식을 중심으로 [Research on problems and solutions regarding “English classes taught in English”: Middle school teachers’ perspectives]. Journal of Korean Education, 30(1), 201–234. Song, J. (2012). The struggle over class, identity, and language: A case study of South Korean transnational families. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 16(2), 201–217. Song, J. J. (2011). English as an official language in South Korea: Global English or social malady? Language Problems and Language Planning, 35(1), 35–55. Waters, J. L. (2002). Flexible families? Astronaut households and the experiences of lone mothers in Vancouver, BC. Social and Cultural Geography, 3(2), 117–134. Yang, J. (2006). Learners and users of English in China. English Today, 22(2), 3–10. Zho, M. (1998). “Parachute kids” in Southern California: The educational experience of Chinese children in transnational families. Educational Policy, 12(6), 682–704.

5

English language policy in multilingual India Tej K. Bhatia

5.1 Introduction To provide a holistic picture of contexts, challenges and goals of English education in India, this chapter first distils the key conceptual ideas of language planning and policies research (Section 5.2). Section 5.3 deals with the historical profile and the pioneering attempts in language policies in ancient and medieval India to show how historical multilingualism can inform English language teaching policies in India. Section 5.4 provides an overview of key issues and current challenges involving the execution of English language policy and the Three Language Formula in modern India. This section additionally investigates the role of English in the Indian school system, the impact of the English language on the increasingly top-down and bottom-up globalised India and the interplay of these factors to inform English language policy making in India. Other key issues addressed include access to English, competition and tensions between the English language and other Indian languages, global vs. local paradox, together with the urgent issue of culturally relevant model of English. Finally, in Section 5.5, conclusion and future directions are presented.

5.2 Language policy and planning: Conceptualisation Language planning involves any kind of decision concerning language choices in a society and their role in shaping language policies in different domains ranging from the home, school, workplace to national or supranational affairs. Its linguistic dimensions involve status planning (e.g. making one language official) and corpus planning (e.g. language standardisation, terminology, writing system). According to Spolsky (2004), language planning comprises three components – language practices, language ideology or beliefs, and language management – to solve language problems and participate in national building. In addition to formulating appropriate policy, language planning involves implementing, evaluating and ultimately revising that policy if needed. The evaluation component examines the impact of language policies on language sustainability, social and economic

DOI: 10.4324/9780429433467-5

62  Tej K. Bhatia inequalities, and minority language rights. For a more recent overview of trends in language planning and policies, see Kirkpatrick and Bui (2016).

5.3 India: Historical profile and theoretical preliminaries India has been a multilingual, multiethnic and multireligious society since ancient times. Multiplicity of language, ethnicity and other factors is the defining feature of ancient and modern India. With numerous major and minor languages, India is often characterised as the “linguistic laboratory” of the world; however, it is often overlooked that the pioneering language policy attempts were also carried out in India (see Spolsky, 2011, p. 421). How did Ancient India manage to maintain Sanskrit and its literary and intellectual tradition for centuries in the absence of a writing system? The answer lies in the belief system of the Ancient Indians and their quest to discover the real essence of linguistic knowledge and human communication. The Ancient Indians termed Sanskrit as Devavāṇī, “the voice of the gods”, and made every effort to preserve it. Clearly, the Aryan attitude toward their language was supremely positive due to the divine doctrine/conception of Sanskrit. To achieve their language maintenance goals, the Ancient Indians had two choices: (1) Language planning grounded in linguistic prescriptivism (e.g. monolithic linguistic – one language, one nation – model), or (2) to gain understanding of how language and language diversity/variation work. The body of research devoted to understanding the deeper principles of language led the Ancient Indians to realise the limitations of linguistic prescriptivism, paving the way for language practices based in linguistic pluralism and linguistic vitality (for more details, see Bhatia & Ritchie, 2013; Kiparsky, 1980; Kachru, 1983). Although there is no integrated theory to describe multidimensional aspects of language planning (Spolsky, 2011), the theoretical models and the body of research developed in Ancient India, current sociolinguistic models (variational linguistics), models of bilingual education and bilingual language acquisition research are promising and are instructive for English language policies. Concerning the linguistic situation in India, it is notable that multilingualism not only existed prior to colonialism and globalisation, in fact it thrived. Indian multilingualism represents more than 3,000 years of unbroken and sustainable multiple language use with a cultural memory that goes back to Vedic Sanskrit. Annamalai (2008, p. 223) sums up the exceptionalism of Indian multilingualism in the following words: “At no time in the history of India have the changes (i.e. linguistic and/or non-linguistic changes) led to monolingualism in any region of the country”. During the Middle Ages, the Great Mogul Empire imposed a foreign language (Persian) on India. Such a move, though based on prescriptive exocentric language policy, gradually led to the Indianisation of Persian, when the “foreign language” developed a distinct localised variety adapting to the multilingual character of India.

English language policy in multilingual India  63 This illustrates the assimilative power of Indian culture and its on-going tendency of linguistic diffusion. The latest language to re-ignite the engine of multilingualism in India is a product of British colonialism, beginning in the late eighteenth century as the Moghul Empire began to crumble. The new high-prestige link language, English, has added a new chapter in the linguistic landscape of India. English has begun to develop roots in Indian education. A blueprint for India’s educational policy was laid down in Lord Macaulay’s famous Minute (Feb. 2, 1835). Macaulay’s stated mission for the British Raj of creating “a class of persons, Indian in blood and color, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals and intellect” introduced English education to India. Ironically, the primary aim of his educational policies was not to introduce additive bilingual education (English + Indian languages) in India but to set the stage for subtractive bilingualism (i.e. monolingualism in English), which was counter-intuitive to the traditional language ecology of India. This policy has some striking parallels with the earliest chauvinistic language ideology of Ancient India which manifested itself in the divine view of Sanskrit, and later the Moghul Empire (i.e. imposition of Persian), which were viewed as unsuitable for India, and hence rejected.

5.4 Modern India India is a multilingual country, with 22 “scheduled” (i.e. regional) languages recognised by the Indian constitution. In addition, there are numerous other dialects and languages. According to India’s 2011 census, the 12 most spoken mother tongues (MT) are as shown in Table 5.1 below. Comparing with other better represented languages in India, the MT speakers of Hindi represent more than 43% of the total population, and 57% of Indians speak Hindi as a MT, second or third language. Approximately 97% of the Indian population have one of the 22 scheduled/regional languages as their mother tongue. Currently, though, in spite of the relatively small number of speakers, English has become a permanent fixture in the linguistic landscape of modern India. Parallel to the vision of Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the nation, the most popular pre-independence consensus was that Hindi would dethrone the colonial language of English. Gandhi was a supporter of endocentric (indigenous) models of language planning and policies. According to him, for all intents and purposes, Hindi-Hindustani was the lingua-franca of India. Gandhi often used metaphors like mother’s milk to emphasise the role of the mother tongue (Hindi) in education, to foster the linguistic and cognitive development of Indian children. After independence, unwittingly, English has become a member of the family of Indian languages. The key reason is that English found a new identity in the post-independence era by shedding its old colonial identity and departing from the pre-independence religious model of teaching English

528,347,193 259,678 97,237,669 83,026,680 81,127,740 69,026,881 55,492,554 50,772,631 43,706,512 37,521,324 34,838,819 33,124,726

Hindi English Bengali Marathi Telugu Tamil Gujarati Urdu Kannada Odia Malayalam Punjabi 43.63% 0.02% 8.03% 6.86% 6.70% 5.70% 4.58% 4.19% 3.61% 3.10% 2.88% 2.74%

L1 speakers / % of total population

Language 139,207,180 83,125,221 9,037,222 12,923,626 11,946,414 6,992,253 4,035,489 11,055,287 14,076,355 4,972,151 499,188 2,300,000

L2 speakers 24,160,696 45,993,066 1,008,088 2,966,019 1,001,498 956,335 1,007,912 1,096,428 993,989 31,525 195,885 720,000

L3 speakers 691,347,193 129,259,678 107,237,669 99,026,680 94,127,740 77,026,881 60,492,554 62,772,631 58,706,512 42,551,324 35,538,819 36,074,726

57.09% 10.67% 8.85% 8.18% 7.77% 6.36% 4.99% 5.18% 4.84% 3.51% 2.93% 2.97%

Total speakers / % of total population

Table 5.1 First (L1), second (L2) and third (L3) languages by number of speakers in India (2011 Census)

64  Tej K. Bhatia

English language policy in multilingual India  65 to promote Christianity. The post-independence identity marked English as a neutral pan-Indian language with no prior regional, religious, ethnic or linguistic identity. In spite of the very low numerical incidence of bilingualism with English, the language has acquired domains such as (higher) education, federal law, government, media, and science and technology, linguistic domains which once belonged to either Sanskrit in Southern India or Persian in Northern India. In terms of the acquisition of these high-status domains, Hindi lags behind miserably, particularly after the introduction of the Three Language Formula. 5.4.1 The Three Language Formula The major milestone to determine language planning and policy was laid in the form of the Three Language Formula (1964–1966; aka Kothari Commission report), which was designed to respond to the needs of multilingual modern India. The underlying spirit and the guiding principle of this policy was to recognise the language diversity of India and to safeguard the rights of linguistic minorities as well. It was a “top-down” language policy, modelled after the Soviet language policies of the 1920s and 1930s. Though guided by India’s socialist ideology, the Three Language Formula was flawed on linguistic grounds. Russian was the dominant language of the Soviet Union. In contrast, there was no sole majority language in India. Hence, as we will see below, the case of Hindi and English was much different from Russian. The implementation of the Three Language Formula organised independent India into several linguistic states, each with their own “scheduled” (regional) language. The scheduled language was to serve as a regional third language to accompany English and Hindi, the national “official associate” languages. The 22 “scheduled” (i.e. regional) languages served as a regional link to pan-Indian communication. For instance, the regional language of West Bengal is Bengali, while Tamil is regional language of the state of Tamil Nadu. Within Tamil Nadu, Tamil can be used for communication, but for communication between Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, Hindi or English should be used. The Three Language Formula was aimed at developing a blueprint of a nationwide education policy, based on the endocentric (native) linguistic model to promote national integration and multilingualism. Immediately after Indian independence, the Indian constitution had also made room for English, the colonial exocentric (foreign) language, as a transition language to be replaced by Hindi as the sole national language within 15 years. However, recognising that English had gained more and more appropriateness, acceptance, power and vitality in India, The Three Language Formula required the teaching of English and Hindi nationwide along with the regional language of the area. All schools were expected to provide education in three languages during the course of their school education. The first national language (English or Hindi) served as the medium

66  Tej K. Bhatia of instruction in primary school, and instruction took place in the other national language during middle school, starting from grade V. The third language was the required instructional medium for at least for three years between grade VI and X. Hindi and English, official national associate languages, were required to be taught as the first two of the three languages, and the students were tested in these two languages in grade X and XII by the Board of Education. However, the testing of the third regional language was carried out internally by the school. The execution of the Formula manifested itself differently along the north-south axis. While the non-Hindi-speaking regions of the South learned Hindi and English, the Hindi-speaking region in the North chose to learn Sanskrit, the classical language, as its third language. Such a differential manifestation created resentment among the non-Hindi-speaking areas, particularly in South India. This resentment undermined the learning of South Indian languages in North India. Furthermore, the Three Language Formula turned out to be a moving target, subject to the changing linguistic, social and political climate of each region. Both Hindi and English education have remained contested terrains of political and social ideological battles in the Indian schools. For instance, the pioneering and rich tradition of English education founded in West Bengal during the British Empire went through a series of setbacks during the 34 years of communist/leftist rule (1983 to 2004) and was finally abolished from primary school education in favour of Indian languages (Chattopadhyay, 2004). At the same time, schools in the Southern states became the hotbed of anti-Hindi movements. As it stands now, in both urban and rural areas, primary and sometimes secondary education is imparted in at least 47 MT languages. Interestingly, though, in spite of this linguistic turmoil, the pattern of English in middle and high school education is largely stable. 5.4.2 Teaching English: Methodology and objectives The tradition of English language teaching in India (henceforth ELTI) has its roots in colonial ideology. In the colonial era, the primary objectives of learning English were mastery of English literature and acquisition of English culture and religion, including Christianity. However, with advances in second language pedagogy and applied linguistics, ELTI underwent a new phase, shifting from the colonial model to secular models. Around the globe as well as in India, the following four notable methods – the Grammar-Translation method, the Direct Method, the Audiolingual Method, and the Structural Method – began to shape ELTI (For more details about these four methods of teaching second or foreign languages, see Bhatia, 2011a). Advances in applied linguistic research laid the foundation for the following three research projects/works (from 1960s and late 1990s), which in turn determined the context, purpose and curricular agenda of ELTI: (1) The National Council of Educational Research and Training, The teaching

English language policy in multilingual India  67 of English in India (NCERT, 1963); (2) The Government of India (1967); and (3) The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE, 1997) in collaboration with British Council Division based in New Delhi. These projects marked a point of departure from the grammar-translation method, perhaps the oldest method of English language teaching dating back to the 19th century. This original method of English teaching emphasised memorisation and rote learning on one hand and reading and written comprehension on the other. Since the NCERT project (1963) was grounded in the Audiolingual approach, a variety of audio-visual teaching materials were developed. The goal was to provide communicative skills, which Indian English language learners were lacking even after undergoing six years of language instruction. Following the same lines as the NCERT project, The Government of India called for strengthening efforts in materials development, teacher training (in-service and pre-service training of teachers), research methodology and infrastructure to provide academic and functional knowledge of English. The third project, CBSE, focused on improving the teaching and learning of English from grade IX to X with a goal to strengthen students’ acquisition of four foundational competencies – speaking, listening, reading and writing – rather than the knowledge of English literature. It also made a comprehensive contribution in the area of new curriculum development, ranging from designing syllabi, grammar books, designing textbook material and tests to training manuals for teachers. Task-based language learning became an integral part of ELTI. In spite of these advances, the main drawback of the projects was that they did not make room for diverse learner-types. It is noteworthy that material designed by CBSE primarily catered to those students who had already developed a good command of English before entering the ninth grade. Naturally, then, most learners turned to NCERT textbooks, primarily based on the Structural Method grammar approach rather than the communicative approach, in spite of the NCERT’s overt claim that their material was based on a competence approach. The former placed emphasis on memorisation and behaviouristic drills of linguistic patterns, tasks that were far more approachable for less advanced learners. The linguistic creativity required by CSBE was sadly out of reach for many Indian learners of English. To raise the quality of ELTI, the Government of India took initiatives to establish institutions of higher learning such as the Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages and ten other Regional Institutes of English. Nevertheless, such centres and institutes were not “uniformly effective or dynamic” (Gargesh, 2006, p. 99). In short, lacking uniform language teaching policies and practices, ELT failed to satisfy the variable needs of a highly diverse body of Indian teachers and students, needs which ranged from mastering English for academic achievement to the achievement of oral skills for social and professional mobility and success. The perceptions of teachers, students, and parents added yet another complex dimension to ELTI. Based

68  Tej K. Bhatia on their objective of learning English, Indian students can best be characterised as “instrumental” rather than “integrative” learners of English (see Bhatia, 2011a for details on learner typology). They learn English primarily for economic and social mobility gains rather than to assimilate in the target language culture. While the teachers place emphasis on academic achievements, society and parents prefer the demonstration of oral skills over academic achievements. These factors impacted teachers’ and students’ proficiency negatively and asymmetrically with regard to the four foundational skills – reading, writing, speaking and comprehension (see Kachru, 1985, among others). Teachers’ emphasis on reading, writing and the structural characteristics of English outweighed oral and communicative skills, resulting in students’ low oral and communicative proficiency in English (Ramanathan, 2016, p. 117). Teacher education did not help in the imparting of oral and communication skills. In spite of graduating more than a million new teachers, the supply of trained teachers could not keep up with the surge in demand for ELTI at the elementary and secondary levels. This problem is further aggravated by the very low passing grade of teacher candidates taking the newly established Teacher Eligibility Test administered by the National Council for Teacher Education Notification (NCTE, 2010). Consequently, in spite of the government’s effort to seek excellence in teacher education, language teaching in India is in a sorry state (see Ramanathan, 2016, pp. 121–123 for further details). English language testing has failed to align with actual classroom pedagogy and practices. In government schools, the prime focus is on testing reading and writing skills and the test is conducted by an external body at the end of each year. Diagnostic testing of students with limited language proficiency was largely overlooked. In order to overcome the inadequacy of language testing, in 2009, Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE) called for reforms involving new assessment types and processes in all subjects, mandated by the Right of Education Act of India. The new approach to assessment, introduced by state governments as well as by the CBSE, replaced once-a-year testing with a series of formative and summative tests at different time intervals. Students welcomed the reform as it was less stressful and more meaningful as it measured students’ continuous incremental performance. CCE had a major impact on language skills formerly neglected in Indian education, namely listening and oral skills. The CCE assessments also reflected the acceptance of Indian English as a mode of pan-Indian communication. For instance, phonological features of Indian English such as word-initial unaspirated consonants, lack of initial dental consonants, and other syntactic markers of Indian English were no longer considered as errors under the new assessment. In spite of this important assessment milestone, in 2017, the CCE system was replaced with a remodelled assessment plan for tenth grade students, bringing back the compulsory standardised Annual Board Examination and removing the more

English language policy in multilingual India  69 frequent formative and summative assessments. It was a step backward. In short, in India, the correlation between classroom pedagogy and assessment is still lagging and problematic. 5.4.3 Current key issues and challenges Having discussed historical and contemporary context of multilingualism, the challenges of executing the Three Language Formula and ELTI, let us turn to three pertinent intertwined issues: (i) Access to English language education; (ii) the global vs. local paradox; and (iii) the on-going issue of model(s) of English for Indian learners. (i) Access to English language education Access to English language education and knowledge resources in India is subject to major divides: Urban vs. rural, haves vs. have-nots and elitist vs. ordinary. India has two types of schools. Public (privately funded) schools have copious resources and are able to afford high-quality education for their students. Lacking the money of the public schools, government-funded schools were unable to provide comparable education. On average, privately funded schools enrol more students in English (1,200 per school) than government schools and account for 40% of the total number of students enrolled in the K–12 segment (see iValue Consulting Private Limited). The urban vs. rural and the haves and have-nots divides are clearly visible in public (privately funded) and government schools in India. Rich in infrastructure and teaching resources, public schools consistently impart highquality education through the medium of English, from primary to higher education in all subjects. In essence, privately funded English-medium schools teach English as a first language rather than a second or third language, paving the way for high-level linguistic skills, economic resources, social mobility and prestige for their students. In contrast, short on teacher resources, infrastructure and basic books, students in government schools struggle to attain basic language proficiency even in their native languages, let alone in English. As it stands, the rural and urban poor lack access to any form of English instruction. Access to English education requires extensive financial resources, and the rich are the overwhelming beneficiaries of quality English education. Although this education gap is rapidly being filled by the unregulated cottage industry of teaching English, these less professional instructional solutions are taking a serious toll on the overall quality of English teaching in India. The obsession with and the aspiration of Indians to attain English proficiency was clear. A case in point is the South Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. Beginning from the 2020–2021 academic year, the state with 81 million Telugu mother tongue speakers declared English as the medium of instruction for classes one to six in all schools. Such a policy change invoked

70  Tej K. Bhatia a fear of the death of Telugu. In Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, English was already being used in primary education. Other states were eager to join the bandwagon of English for primary education. The role of English in education, government and other regulatory domains is rising at an astonishing rate. Fears of language death and the risks of losing the cognitive and linguistic advantages of multilingualism related to mother tongue education became real (see Bialystok, 2005). A lack of access to digital information dealt another serious blow to the execution of the Three Language Formula. The elitist attitude of Government of India offices reflects a “covert” English-only language policy at the cost of restricting access to information in Hindi and other regional languages on its websites. Their covert policy violates their own overt policy of the Three Language Formula. Consider the letter by Mr. P. K. Jain, who since 2014 has been reminding the directorate publication division of the Government of India that the e-gazette of the Ministry of Urban Affairs, hosted by National Informatics Center, provides no corresponding website in Hindi. Jain’s latest letter dated 7 November 2019 underscores his frustration that in spite of his repeated requests during the past five years, no Hindi website is available to this day. Included in his email are PDF copies of his approximately six such letters during the five years. Similarly, the website of the 2011 Census is in English, without any corresponding Hindi website! For Hindi and other languages, one has to turn to a translation link powered by Google, which yields inaccurate Hindi output. For instance, the term “mother tongue” either gives the Devanagari transliteration of mother tongue मदर टंग or Hindi translation as maa-jiibh मॉं-जीभ, which refers to the speech organ “tongue” rather than the idea of speech or language. Google translation misses the actual Hindi translational equivalent of mother language, matri-bhashaa मातृ-भाषा. (ii) Global vs. local paradox The status of English as a global language and its role in the driving of the global economy is undisputable. While English breeds social and economic inequity, unwittingly, equal and quality access to English education eradicates religious, regional, social and caste barriers in India (Deshpande, 2019). However, as it stands, equal access to quality English education is still a distant dream. Additionally, the failure to provide Hindi or other regional languages access to basic information such as medical instructions, food ingredient and nutritional labels, government forms, courts and political access and street signs is a gross violation of human rights for approximately 90% of the Indian population (see also Bhatia, 2007; Bhatia & Bhargava, 2008 on English as a language of deception in rural India). Ultimately, what is at stake is the diversity of cultures and languages. The cultural contributions of generations of authors, activists, actors, artists, playwrights, innovators, orators are being lost as a result of the current societal preferences

English language policy in multilingual India  71 for English in India (Aula, 2014; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). Reclaiming the role of regional languages in the education and other domains is the most serious challenge to the Three Language Formula (Canagarajah, 2013). The relative status of English and the true regional languages of India is an issue that calls for urgent status planning research to reverse the risk of language death of major Indian languages including Hindi. Regional language-based corpus linguistic research must solve the problem of how to shift elitist attitudes toward English, and move mindsets to consider the rich cultural capital, heritage and advantages offered by the many Indian languages and multilingualism. (iii) Models of English In the multilingual context of India, English has evolved into a distinct variety from the Inner Circle varieties (e.g. US, UK). Kachru (1983, 1985) argued that the model of ELT had to respond to the social and pragmatic reality of India, therefore Indian English should take precedence over native varieties of English. At present, Kachru’s Indian English has found its validity in ELT and testing in India (for teaching of distinctive features of Indian English, see Gargesh, 2006, pp. 102–104). As shown in Section 5.3, sustainable multilingualism is an exceptional characteristic of the approximately 3,000-year history of India. Its historical perspective suggests that centuries-old coexistence and an on-going process of convergence has led to the evolution of several hybrid languages, including Hinglish – a mixed Hindi-English variety. Hindi-English language mixing is the salient and natural characteristic of Indian verbal behaviour. The question then arises whether to teach Hinglish or not in India? The issue of teaching hybrid varieties is not restricted to India. Forces of globalisation and the digital age, in addition to naturalistic and language accommodation/ hybrid models, require a departure from the normative approach towards a socially realistic approach, as summed up by the UK’s thinktank, Devos. The challenge that faces us is how we move beyond seeing such hybrid languages as Chinglish, Hinglish, Singlish, Spanglish and multiple others as amusing corruptions. We should see them as varieties, rather than “interlanguages”, which bring with them their own distinct culture and provide equally distinct means of understanding their users. (Jones & Bradwell, 2007, p. 87) The complex interplay of cognitive, linguistic and socio-cultural factors (e.g. bilingual self-reporting, language accommodation, language identity, mechanism for identity construction, language attitudes, etc.) calls for a careful consideration that may bear on the new way of teaching English, in India and beyond (see Bhatia & Ritchie, 2009) . However, we should hasten to add that this new mindset of English language pedagogy is not free from future challenges (see Bhatia, 2020 ).

72  Tej K. Bhatia

5.5 Conclusions and future directions It is rather ironic that the introduction of English under the Three Language Formula, a stop gap measure to enrich Indian languages in professional and educational domains by accessing the knowledge-based resources of English, has led to the primacy of English in India. Prior to the Three Language Formula, during colonial times as well as in independent India, Indian languages served as the main vehicle of imparting education in fields ranging from fine arts to natural sciences. This author is the by-product of native language schools in Delhi. However, due to the rise of English as a global language, the covert policy of government employees, and the Indian obsession with English, mother tongue education in India is in an abysmal state As evident from the preceding discussion, the Three Language Formula was well-conceived. However, it fell short in execution due to the complexity of social, political and attitudinal factors involving language planning in multilingual India (see Aggarwal, 1991). In-depth interdisciplinary analysis of the execution failure can provide new directions to language planning and policies for ELT professionals in India and abroad. Current research on bilingual children and adult language acquisition grounded in linguistic theory, namely Universal Grammar (Bhatia & Ritchie, 2013), implicit and explicit learning (Bhatia, 2018), bilingual linguistic creativity (Kachru & Smith, 2008; Bhatia, 2011b) and socialpsychological models (e.g. accommodation theory) can further benefit the theory and practice of ELTI (see Siegel, 2010). Even more important is the urgent need for socio-psychologically realistic models of language teaching (which would include hybrid varieties), and testing aimed at bilingual/multilingual learners with diverse socioeconomic backgrounds and differential language proficiencies (Bhatia, 2018; Brown & Bhatia, 2021). The field of ELTI is in critical need of a major mindset shift away from elitist attitudes to incorporate the multilingual realities of India. In addition to contemporary research, ELTI research and pedagogy has yet to capitalise on the groundbreaking multidimensional linguistic heritage grounded in theory and teaching of language on one hand, and the orality and multilingualism on the other (Bloomfield, 1933, among others).

References Aggarwal, S. (1991). Three Language Formula: An Educational Problem. New Delhi, India: Gyan Publishing House. Annamalai, E. (2008). Contexts of multilingualism. In B. Kachru, Y. Kachru, & S. Sridhar (Eds.), Language in South Asia (pp. 223–234). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Aula, S. (2014). Problem with English language in India. Retrieved from https​:/​/ww​​ w​.for​​bes​.c​​om​/si​​tes​/r​​ealsp​​in​/20​​14​/11​​/06​/t​​he​-pr​​oblem​​-with​​-the-​​engli​​sh-​ la​​nguag​​e​-i​ n-​​india​/​#3e5​​8223a​​403e.

English language policy in multilingual India  73 Bhatia, T. K. (2007). Advertising and Marketing in Rural India. New Delhi: Macmillan India. Bhatia, T. K. (2011a). Teaching language. In P. Hogan (Ed.), Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Science (pp. 842–845). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bhatia, T. K. (2011b). The multilingual mind, optimization theory and Hinglish. In R. Kothari & R. Snell (Eds.), Chutneyfying English: The Phenomenon of Hinglish (pp. 37–52). New Delhi: Penguin Books India. Bhatia, T. K. (2018). Bilingualism and multilingualism. In A. Phakiti et al. (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Applied Linguistic Research Methodology (pp. 681– 701). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Bhatia, T. K. (2020). To teach or not to teach code-mixed English? Fortell: Journal of Teaching English Language and Literature, 40: 20–32. Bhatia, T. K., & Bhargava, M. (2008). Reaching the unreachable: Advertising in rural India. Journal of Creative Communications, 3(2), 209–230. Bhatia, T. K., & Ritchie, W. C. (2009). Language mixing, universal grammar and second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The New Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 591–621). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Bhatia, T. K., & Ritchie, W. C. (2013). Bilingualism and multilingualism in South Asia. In T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism (2nd ed.) (pp. 843–870). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Bialystok, E. (2005). Consequences of bilingualism for cognitive development. In J. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches (pp. 417–432). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Brown, A., & Bhatia, T. K. (2021). Testing bi/multilingual learners. In P. Winke & T. Brunfaut (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Language Testing. New York/Oxford: Routledge. Canagarajah, Suresh (2013). Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations. New York: Routledge. Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). (1997). CBSE-ELT Project: A Report 1989-1997. Delhi: CBSE. Chattopadhyay, T. (2004). The ever-changing status of English in government-run schools of West Bengal: Ideology, policy and paraxis. International Journal and Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(1), 131–138. Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE). (2009). https​:/​/en​​.wiki​​pedia​​.org/​​ wiki/​​Conti​​nuous​​_and_​​Compr​​ehens​​ive​_E​​​valua​​tion. Deshpande, S. (2019). The story of my English. Sept 6. The India Forum. Retrieved from https​:/​/ww​​w​.the​​india​​forum​​.in​/a​​rticl​​e​/sto​​ry​-my​​​-engl​​ish. Gargesh, R. (2006). South Asian englishes. In B. B. Kachru, Y. Kachru, & C. L. Nelson (Eds.), The Handbook of World Englishes (pp. 90–113). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Government of India. (1967). The Study of English in India. Delhi: Ministry of Education. iValue Consulting Private Limited. (n.d.). English Language Training Market: India. Retrieved from https​:/​/ww​​w​.bri​​tishc​​ounci​​l​.in/​​sites​​/defa​​ult​/f​​i les/​​draft​​_elt_​​repor​​​t​ _24_​​dec​.p​​df. Jones, S., & Bradwell, P. (2007). As you like it: Catching up in an age of global English. London: Demos Institute. http://www​.demos​.co​.uk​/files/.

74  Tej K. Bhatia Kachru, B. B. (1983). The Indianization of English. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the Outer Circle. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures (pp. 11–30). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Kachru, Y., & Smith, L. (2008). Cultures, Contexts, and World Englishes. New York: Routledge. Kiparsky, P. (1980). Panini as a Variationist. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Kirkpatrick, R., & Bui, T. T. N. (2016). Introduction: Challenges for English education in Asia. In R. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), English Language Education Policy in Asia (pp. 1–23). New York: Springer. National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT). (1963). The Teaching of English in India. Delhi: National Council for Educational Research and Training. National Council for Teacher Education Notification (NCTE) (2010, August 23). Retrieved from http:​/​/www​​.ncte​​-indi​​a​.org​​/Norm​​s​/RTE​​​-3​.pd​​f. Ramanathan, H. (2016). English education policy in India. In R. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), English Language Education Policy in Asia (pp. 113–126). New York: Springer. Siegel, J. (2010). Second Dialect Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic Genocide in Education—Or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Spolsky, B. (2004). Language Policy: Key Topics in Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Spolsky, B. (2011). Language policy. In P. Hogan (Ed.), Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Science (pp. 421–424). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

6

English in Pakistan Past, present and future Ahmar Mahboob

6.1 Introduction English has been around in Pakistan since its independence. This chapter examines how English has affected Pakistan across time. The English language is strong in Pakistan today and is likely to remain so unless there are major reforms. Given the long and established history of English in the region, there are also many policies governing its use and dominance. Previous studies have reviewed these policies and the sociopolitical circumstances surrounding them (Mahboob, 2003). Research has also examined the linguistic features of Pakistani English including its phonetics (Mahmood et al., 2011), phonology (Khan, 2012), morphology (Mahboob, 2004), syntax (Iqbal, 2018), semantics (Jilani & Anwar, 2018), pragmatics (Saleem et al., 2018) and discourse analysis (Bhanbhro, 2019). However, little attention has been paid to the impact of the adoption of English on the people of Pakistan. The question, “How has English affected Pakistan across time?” can be answered in many ways. For example, it is possible to focus on how formal/structural features of English have influenced and been influenced by local languages; or how English has spread across different regions of Pakistan over time. This chapter will, however, take a different approach. In this chapter, we will consider the impact of the deep semantics or cryptogrammar (Halliday, 1990) of English on the evolution and current state of Pakistan and her residents. The terms “deep semantics” and “cryptogrammar”, as used in this chapter, can be understood as ways in which a language influences the kinds of meanings that a person makes. The deep grammar of a language is not determined by a simple presence or absence of a particular feature/structure, but rather by looking at meanings projected by syndromes of lexico-grammatical features (Halliday, 1990). We will discuss this in more detail, with examples, later in this chapter.

6.2 Preliminaries An analysis of how the English language has impacted Pakistan requires us to establish some definitions of language in relation to society and people. DOI: 10.4324/9780429433467-6

76  Ahmar Mahboob Language is commonly defined as a means of communication and/or as a system of sounds, words, rules, etc. While these definitions explain the use and study of language to some degree, I find them limited in their ability to help us understand potential relationships between language, human civilisations and the environment. In this chapter, I will define language in the following four interrelated ways: 1) Language is a semo-genic system: It helps in both construing and representing meanings; 2) Language is a socio-semiotic inheritance: Under normal circumstances, we develop language in our homes and in engagement with people around us; 3) Language is science: It includes all the taxonomies and the ways of classifying and categorising the world, which, at its core, is science; and 4) Language is a complex dynamic system: It changes all the time, is unpredictable, and operates on fractals. The four definitions (see Mahboob, 2020, for a detailed discussion of each of these definitions) together can help us in: a) Understanding what language is; and, b) Identifying potential consequences of interfering with the linguistic ecology of a region. In this chapter, we will discuss the relevance of each of these definitions of language in relation to the past, present and future of English in Pakistan. For example, we will discuss how altering the language ecology of a region alters the knowledge, the categories and the approaches that people use to interact with each other and to make sense of the world around them.

6.3 The past (xx–1947) English is not a Pakistani, nor even a South Asian language. The English language was implanted in South Asia by the British. While in the early days of European excursions into South Asia, language was not much of an issue, the institutionalisation and promotion of English through the British Raj altered the history of South Asia and set up the course that brings us to the highly populated, congested, polluted, intolerant and violent South Asia of today. The English colonial powers (like other colonial powers) assumed and projected a high moral and intellectual acumen for the Europeans in general and the British in particular. They disregarded, discounted and destroyed local texts, sciences and knowledge. For example, today, few records or original manuscripts of ancient South Asian literature are available (they were all destroyed or looted during the British times); and most histories currently

English in Pakistan  77 available were written or sponsored by the British. Given the goals of the British, there is little reason to believe that these histories, which have – over the centuries – been further altered and taught through schools and books, are based on any real events, data, incidents or texts. On the other hand, it is very likely that the British invented stories to serve colonial interests. Today, most Pakistanis are only familiar with these colonial and colonial inspired histories about Pakistan and the region, largely because access to most original sources and texts has been destroyed (see also Mahboob, 2019a, b). Combined with a sustained negative evaluation of all things local, the British promoted the English language and literature across South Asia. The British believed, as can be observed in Macaulay’s Minute (Macaulay, 1835), that by teaching English literature, the British would be able to introduce English cultural beliefs and practices to the local populations. Over time, the attitudes and beliefs modelled by the British were picked up by the locals who were dependent on the British. The locals started developing negative attitudes towards their own heritage, practices and languages, and started to adopt the attitudes and manners of the English. This change in the local populations was not a natural process, but an act of deliberate planning (Mahboob, 2019c). This can perhaps be best understood by re-reading Macaulay’s Minute of 1935; an extract from which is quoted below: How, then, stands the case? We have to educate a people who cannot at present be educated by means of their mother-tongue. We much teach them some foreign language. The claims of our own language it is hardly necessary to recapitulate. It stands preeminent even among the languages of the West … Whoever knows that language, has ready access to all the vast intellectual wealth, which all the wisest nations of the earth have created and hoarded in the course of ninety generations. It may safely be said that the literature now extant in that language is of far greater value than all the literature which three hundred years ago was extant in all the languages of the world spoken together. Nor is this all. In India, English is the language spoken by the ruling class. It is spoken by the higher class of natives at the seats of Government. It is likely to become the language of commerce throughout the seas of the East. It is the language of two great European communities which are rising, the one in the south of Africa, the other in Australasia; communities which are every year becoming more important, and more closely connected with our Indian empire. Whether we look at the intrinsic value of our literature or at the particular situation of this country, we shall see the strongest reason to think that, of all foreign tongues, the English tongue is that which would be the most useful to our native subjects… (Macaulay, 1835)

78  Ahmar Mahboob The extract above shows how deliberate Macaulay and the British were in making sure that local Indian languages, which they deemed to be insufficient for education and development, would be replaced with English. A decision to introduce a foreign language into a linguistically complex and dynamic region has implications that are far-reaching. These can be seen today and, unless altered, will have predictable impact in the future. In introducing English and English education, the British altered the socio-semiotics of the region. This is one way in which the British (and other Western colonial powers) have continued to benefit from the colonies, while, at the same time, taking no responsibility for what happens within the colonies. To understand how language and education have enabled a continuation of the exploitation of the colonies, we need to look at the coevolution of language and context. Language and context co-evolve: Language evolves in context, and context is influenced by language. Language as a meaning making system and as a science creates and lays out the various taxonomies through which a speaker of a language classifies and categorises things. These taxonomies evolve over time and are used and expanded by people based on their needs and in relation to their context and environment. As such, the languages of South Asia had evolved in an environment where people spoke multiple languages and held diverse belief systems and practices (Kachru et al., 2008). With the exception of a few large towns, most of South Asia was unsettled. The Indigenous populations of the region had a complex and diverse set of approaches towards land ownership (Bandyopadhyay, 1993). Many nomadic groups lived across the land and migrated seasonally along established routes; they knew each other, and many had intermarriages and other interrelationships (some of these groups, e.g. the camel herders of Thar and Rajashtan, still follow some of these semi-nomadic lifestyles; Robbins, 1998). Languages that evolved in such diverse and multilingual contexts assumed the plurality of languages, cultures and beliefs. These assumptions reveal themselves when we examine the lexico-grammatical features of these languages. The lexico-grammar of a language maps the meanings that speakers of the language can make. In South Asian languages, there were no terms for English concepts such as “language” or “religion”. This is not saying that people did not have “language” or “religion”, but that these concepts did not have semantic equivalents in the local languages. One translation for “language” in Urdu (as well as some other “languages” in the region) is “boli”. While people often translate “boli” into “language” and “language” into “boli”, the two are not the same. There are a few key differences between them: 1. “Boli” can be used both as a count and a non-count noun; “language” is used only as a count noun;

English in Pakistan  79 2. “Boli” is always oral (in its literal sense, boli translates to “spoken”); “language” is both spoken and written; 3. “Boli” is not restricted to humans or animate beings; “language” is restricted to humans (Western linguists differentiate between human “languages” and non-human “communication systems”); 4. Traditionally, “boli” did not have names, they were referred to in terms of relationship to people and places, e.g. maikay ki boli (home boli), susral ki boli (in-laws boli), Pahari (boli of the mountain region); most languages in South Asia were identified and named during or after British colonisation (including Urdu and Hindi, which are two languages that one carved out of one by using identity and script politics); and 5. “Boli” captured the complex multilingual dynamics of the region and was seen in terms of relationships that it formed (not identity), in other words, the concept of “boli” unified people by promoting pluralism; “language” is seen as an identity marker and different languages represent different identities, in other words, the concept of “language” divides people by highlighting structural or genealogical variations. The British, operating with the taxonomies and semantics of English, mapped “languages” across South Asia. In doing so, they identified and gave names to many “new” languages (and people) and wrote down descriptions of “languages”, “religions”, the other beliefs and practices of the Indigenous groups (e.g. the languages “Urdu”, “Hindi”, “Punjabi” etc. were all identified and named after the British invasion). In doing this descriptive work, the British drew on categories informed by English and other European languages. For example, by drawing on the deep semantics of English, the discipline of linguistics has evolved with assumptions that define “language” in particular ways. These assumptions do not necessarily match the ways in which other “languages” view this concept; in spite of these differences, the English crypto-grammar dominates how the discipline of linguistics has evolved over time. This leads to many questions; for example, one may ask what the discipline of linguistics might have looked like if it were grounded in understandings of “boli” (not “language”)? Perhaps one of the issues in linguistics, as in other academic disciplines that draw on and/or use English terminologies and concepts, is the influence of the deep semantics of English on these disciplines. This is because the deep semantics of English is quite unique in comparison to the cryptogrammar of South Asian languages. We find evidence of this when we look at differences across syndromes of language features in these languages (Halliday, 1990). The English language is one of the rare languages in the world in that it uses “human” as a grammatical category (Halliday, 1990). For example, if we focus on relative pronouns, we will note that many grammar books state

80  Ahmar Mahboob that “who” is preferred for humans and “that” for all other living beings and non-living things (Cambridge University Press). Similarly, of the three third-person singular pronouns, two (he and she) are used for humans and one (it) is used for every other living being and non-living thing (Cambridge University Press). In addition, English uses “the human category” to limit the use of certain vocabulary items to humans; for example, “language” is considered to be a human activity. Most introductory textbooks for linguistics include a section that helps readers differentiate between human language and animal communication (e.g. Yule, 2010). Most South Asian languages, e.g. Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, Sindhi, etc. do not use humans as a feature in defining grammatical categories; thus, in these languages, humans and non-humans are not differentiated within the grammatical systems. In fact, on the contrary, the grammars of these languages extend features that are restricted to humans in English to all nonhuman living beings and sometimes non-living things. For example, many South Asian languages ascribe gender to every noun; e.g. in Hindi/Urdu, a “darwaza” (door) is considered masculine and a “khirki” (window) is considered feminine. As far as I am aware, there are no grammatical explanations for why certain things have different gender in different regional languages or why a particular gender is selected for a certain thing. Perhaps this is because the choice of gender for particular things is not important; what is important is that everything has gender, so everything shares the features: +human, and +life. While it is difficult to predict how this deep grammar impacted the people who grew up speaking pre-colonial South Asian languages vs. English, we can look at some non-linguistic evidence to observe differences. The English government was formed of landlords and industrialists; in South Asia the Mughal and other regional leaders were advised by artists, poets and philosophers. For example, the Mughal leader Akbar was advised by Navaratnas, a group of nine artists, poets, and philosophers, who belonged to different “religions”. While the English named and separated out languages and religions, these categories did not exist in South Asia. We have already discussed “language” above; we will now focus briefly on the concept of “religion”. While people in South Asia had and continue to have different belief systems, this was not a cause for conflict. Rather, both historical and linguistic evidence suggests that the people of South Asia were pluralistic, inclusive and prosperous. For example, the Mughal leader Akbar was married to a Hindu woman and his Navaratnas included people of different “religions”. The Europeans continued their invasion and capture of the region because of its wealth and prosperity. In addition to historical elements, the cryptogrammar of South Asian languages reflects a valuation of diversity and plurality. For example, there is no literal translation for “religion” (a system of beliefs) in “boli”. Many people mistranslate “religion” into “muzhab” or

English in Pakistan  81 sometimes into “deen”/“dharam”; and this mistranslation has major consequences for the people. Introducing a new category “religion”, that evolved in the context of English (and other Western languages), into boli and equating it with “muzhab” disharmonised the deep semantics of boli and has real-world, on-going consequences. Note that the meaning of the Latin root “religio” is different from the current English meaning of “religion”. The current meaning of religion: “A system of belief” is a relatively recent development. This change in language coevolved with expansion in the English colonisation: As the English captured and colonised more parts of the world, they came across different “belief systems”. To understand these different ways of being, the English language, drawing on its crypto-grammar, developed a new taxonomy, “religion”. Religion, like other taxonomies in the English language, are categorised and classified in terms of their genealogical (e.g. Abrahamic religions) and/or structural (e.g. monotheistic religions) features. The English taxonomies of “religion” do not focus on the interrelationships between or the co-existence of multiple belief systems within a region. The English (as recognised in their vocabulary), grouped people and communities based on their own belief systems. This is not something that occurred in pre-colonial South Asia. Evidence for this can be found in the “boli”. In boli, we have three interrelated concepts, “deen”/“dharam”, “iman”, and “muzhab”. None of these three means “a system of beliefs”. Deen is associated with deity. It can be any deity (Allah, God, Bhagwan…) or none. Iman is an idea that we are all part of the same universe (dishonesty, cheating or causing harm to anyone or anything are considered acts of breaking iman). Muzhab are individual and local ways of celebrating deen, iman and life. Muzhab, by definition, recognises and respects diversity and is closer to the English word “culture” than “religion”. It is noteworthy that while “religion” is translated into “muzhab” and sometimes “deen”/“dharam”, it is not translated into “iman”. The concept of “iman” is crucial in boli as it unifies everyone and everything (any practice that harms others is an act of “bayimani”). By neglecting the notion of “iman” within “religion” (or reducing it to “a belief in Allah and his prophet), and by re-semanticising “muzhab” into “a belief system”, the shifts in the language and its deep semantics, changed people’s beliefs, attitudes, and practices. Where “deen”/“dharam”, “iman”, and “muzhab” recognised plurality and promoted inclusive ways of living, the English/Western concept or “religion” divided people and pitched them against each other. This happened partly because of how the crypto-grammar of “religion” in English influenced local languages and the people who speak these languages. The consequences of this division of people along the lines of “religion” is manifest across South Asia and many other parts of the colonised world today, where people discriminate against and even murder others because of a difference in “religion”.

82  Ahmar Mahboob Two questions that can be asked at this point include: 1) Why did English and other European languages develop the concept/ taxonomy “religion”? And, 2) Why did the taxonomy of “religion” not exist in other languages? Both of these questions can be addressed by making two observations: Observation 1: English and Western European colonisers captured and enslaved people from all parts of the world; Observation 2: English grammar typically taxonomises things using two lenses: Genealogy and structural/functional features. As the English and other Western European colonials started colonising the rest of the world, they went to different parts of the world. In doing so, they found different types of people, who spoke differently, believed different things and practiced different traditions. As a consequence of colonisation, English and other Standard Average European Languages (SAE) (Haspelmath, 2001; Whorf, 1941) expanded and changed; and, drawing on their own semantics, developed new categories and concepts such as “religion”, “language”, “race”, etc. These concepts, once emerged, were used to index and categorise people. This is one reason why language is seen as an aspect of identity (e.g. Edwards, 2009; note that research on identity is a relatively recent phenomenon in language studies, but it has mushroomed and a relationship between language and identity today is taken as a given, an assumption); it was and is used to categorise and classify people by the colonials. Local “languages” in South Asia did not need these taxonomies as they have different ways of understanding these concepts, ones that are more suited for pluralistic and diverse peoples. Furthermore, taxonomies in English are typically based on two factors: Genealogy and structural/functional elements. For example, in biology, taxonomies are based on structural/functional similarities/differences (e.g., passerines and non-passerines) and/or genealogical relationships (e.g. species such as Felidae, Canidae). Similarly, linguistics studies languages in terms of structural/functional features (e.g. linguistic typologies) and/or genealogical relationships (e.g. language families). In doing so, English and other SAE do not focus on the interrelationships between various categories of life forms or languages. A neglect of these interrelationships in English and SAE taxonomies leads to the development of fields of study that isolate things, rather than looking at the ways in which they co-exist and contribute to the same ecosystem (whether biological or linguistic). South Asian languages, such as Urdu, Hindi and Punjabi did not have these ways of taxonomising the world. And, under the influence of English – as English is the language of law, of (higher) education, of policy making, of research, of government, of media – these taxonomies changed, and continue to change, these languages

English in Pakistan  83 have altered their ways of classifying and categorising the world (Mahboob & Tupas, forthcoming). Once this process of changing the socio-semiotics of the colonised peoples started making an impact, the British divided South Asia along religious lines (and various regions within South Asia based on linguistic lines) and transferred the direct day-to-day management of new “countries” to the locals, while ensuring that their interests continued to be served. Or, in the words of Lord Macaulay (Macaulay, 1835), once the English succeeded “to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern, – a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect”, they left the “country” in their hands, feeling secure in their knowledge that these “brown sahibs” (people brown in colour, but English in the beliefs and practices) will continue to serve their interests.

6.4 The present (1947–2020) Pakistan, like most of the rest of the colonised world, is more colonised today than it was before it became an “independent country” (a concept that was engineered by the English: The use of “country” to refer to a “sovereign nation state” is a relatively new use of this word). Colonialism today operates through the establishment of a number of institutions, e.g. the IMF, the UN, the World Bank, that influence and control “countries”; as well as through the promotion of particular languages and education through/in these languages. In 1835, Macaulay predicted that the class of persons “Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect” would translate the knowledge learnt and share it with others to “benefit” their communities. However, instead of that, this class of persons learnt how the British used language, education and economics as tools for building power, control and influence. In turn, when members of this class took over the governance of Pakistan, they maintained the socio-semiotics of the British and now use this socio-semiotics to keep themselves in power. By doing so, they have maintained and extended colonisation, one with layers of colonised and colonising communities within and outside “countries”. Successive governments in Pakistan have continued to maintain the dominance of English. This is partly done by establishing policies and practices that require the masses to learn English to be “successful”. In doing so, the government also retain their own power and prestige. In addition, by maintaining the English language (e.g. it was identified as one of two languages recognised in 2020 draft national curriculum of Pakistan), the elites of Pakistan continue the colonial policy of suppressing Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing and replace these with English. Evidence for this can be found in how English influences other languages (Sipra, 2013). In addition, as languages such as Urdu develop new genres to

84  Ahmar Mahboob talk about and/or write things that were not done in/through Urdu before (e.g. writing research papers), these languages borrow/adapt the genre practices of English. For example, to be able to write research papers in Urdu, people need to develop a new way of writing in Urdu. In fact, the very idea of “research” and “research paper” as it is understood in English did not exist in South Asian communities. So, in developing the new genre of a research paper in Urdu, writers/researchers, who are influenced by English in their own training/work, imitate the English genres. This impacts the way that local communities in Pakistan now choose to do and write research: Not grounded in the deep semantics of their Indigenous languages, but in the crypto-grammar of English. Pakistani governments, through policies and practices (endorsed and sometimes funded by the colonising powers), lead the masses into speculating and believing that adopting English is the only way out of the current socioeconomic problems in the country. Ironically, a socio-semiotic analysis of the problems would suggest that it is “English” which is in fact the cause of the problems: English has introduced concepts and taxonomies into local languages that have led to divisions and conflicts. This is an example of how the English created and enabled a “divide-and-rule” policy, a policy that is now perpetuated by our English-trained educationists, academics, military, and politicians. Even if it were true and English was indeed the only key to success, access to the English of “success” is a myth for many. The type of English that one needs to succeed through English is controlled by testing corporations (e.g. TOEFL, IELTS, Pearson) and corporate publishers (e.g. Oxford/ Cambridge/Harvard/Princeton University Presses). The English needed to meet the requirements of corporate tests, universities and jobs is restricted to those who come from certain socioeconomic backgrounds: People who are able to study in schools where elite English medium curriculum is used and afford the exorbitant charges for corporate tests and other training. By using money to both define and control access to “good” English and education, the elites control who gets access to the language and knowledge of power (Rahman, 2002). A belief that English is the only language to achieve success and the resultant desire to learn English and admiration of all things “English” brings more benefit to the monolingual English- speaking colonials than to the colonised. The colonised, because English is not their language, have become dependent on English: They consume the material written and produced in English. This adds to a loss of Indigenous knowledge and sciences. And, at the same time, since English is not their language, Pakistanis are largely unable to contribute back to or influence the creation of “global” knowledge (Mahboob, 2017). By maintaining and extending the use of English in Pakistan, the government has made changes in the linguistic ecosystem of Pakistan. This change includes shifts in the semantics and deep semantics of local languages. We

English in Pakistan  85 looked at a couple of examples of this in the previous section. Here, I will discuss one tangential, but relevant, consequence of the rise of English in Pakistan: Skilled migration. One reason why people want to maintain English in (higher) education today is because it allows global mobility. With English being one of the preferred global lingua franca, people who can use English have more opportunities to study and/or work abroad. Given the poor state of economy and most social indicators in Pakistan, many people are desperate to leave Pakistan to find a “better” life abroad (Farooq & Ahmad, 2017). This desire to leave further increases the demand for English in Pakistan. However, migration (educational or economic) has costs for the country. Each year, thousands of trained professionals – professionals that Pakistan spent millions on to train and educate – leave the country. These professionals are hired abroad to serve the needs of the “rich” countries. As these people leave the country, there is a shortage of skilled and trained professional at home, a gap that contributes to the poor state of things in Pakistan. Migration from Pakistan – like in many other colonial states – is a major concern for the country. While migration may help boost a remittance economy, it is an economy of dependence, i.e. it makes a country dependent on money being sent by its citizens living and working abroad (often in less than ideal conditions). In addition to skilled migrants, Pakistan also exports a large number of unskilled migrants, who often accept low-paid and exploitative contracts in the Middle East and other places (Kalra, 2009). As such, Pakistan today serves as a “human farm”: A farm that produces a lot of humans, some of which are selected – through different criteria and for different purposes – as cheap labour to serve the needs of the rich and the powerful. In this, expectedly, those who know English are given better opportunities and wages than those who do not. In summary, at present, the English language serves the interests of the colonials. By using English as a marker of “success” and “development”, a certain class of people, who are loyal to the colonials, are able to maintain power. In addition, English serves as a tool that enables brain drain in Pakistan: It provides an opportunity for people to find a job or study abroad. Given both its value to the elites and its potential for the rest, the English language is strong in Pakistan today.

6.5 The future (2020–xx) The current government’s policies, like those of preceding governments, promote English in education, both as a language and as a medium of instruction. There is a continued lack of interest in an understanding of language and the potential contributions that well-designed language policies can play in strengthening the country. Given the current situation, and unless major reforms are introduced, English will continue to serve as a gatekeeper for socioeconomic opportunities and mobility. At the same time, continuing

86  Ahmar Mahboob promotion of English will damage, destroy, and replace Indigenous ways of knowing, doing, and being. This will create further divisions within the society and lead to a weaker Pakistan (and South Asia), which is in the interest of colonial powers. The elite’s support of English and their use of English (and literacy in English) as a gatekeeper for educational and socioeconomic mobility suggests that people who do not have strong abilities in particular registers and varieties of English will continue to be disadvantaged in Pakistan. A disregard and devaluing of minority and Indigenous languages will likely lead to further language loss as well. A belief that English is essential for success will lead to a stronger drive for English. People will do what they can to learn English, even at the cost of abandoning their own languages. While to some, it may seem odd that someone would give up their language, it is not too difficult to explain this. Most people do not know the definition or value of language as socio-semiotic inheritance; nor do they think of their language as being their ancestral and Indigenous science. Since most people think of language as just a tool of communication, they believe that one tool can be replaced by another without any loss. However, language is science that evolves in response to our environmental and ancestral conditions and provides us with a guide of the world around us. Replacing one language with another implies that the people lose their ties with their ancestral sciences, knowledges, beliefs and practices. These changes, which had their origins in the past, have impacted our present, and, unless diverted, will continue to influence our futures. A future where English and SAE influence all knowledge construction and policy making in Pakistan will continue to wipe out diversity in both human and non-human ecological systems. This is because the academia and government, which operate in and through English, fail to recognise or value non-English ways of being, doing and knowing. Indigenous and minority understandings of the world, which evolved over long periods of times and which enabled the people who developed these to live in harmony with their environment and with each other have been replaced by terms, concepts, and ideas that are alien to many (if not most) local and Indigenous people. As a result, these people become disoriented and disadvantaged: They are neither able to sustain their old ways of knowing, doing and being, which are lost to them; nor are they able to take advantage of the new practices, which are alien to them. In addition, a continued influence of the deep semantics of English on our study and understanding of the world will lead to an increase in divisions between the peoples of Pakistan. Adoption of concepts such as religion (and sects) and language (as identity) have and continue to divide people. Even today, there are “new” languages being named and documented. These new languages are often based on differentiating between particular structural/ functional features in an existing language (community) and then indexing or mapping these features to identity. These “new” languages enable

English in Pakistan  87 new identities, which, in time – and specially in communities with limited resources – can lead to conflicts. Examples of this can be found in the ethnolinguistic divisions that fuel thousands of incidents of violence and discrimination across Pakistan every day. If one is to predict the future of English in Pakistan based on its past and present, then it seems that English will continue to play a major role in Pakistan, even if this role contributes to the weakening and disempowerment of a large number of Pakistanis. If Pakistan is to avoid the pretty gloomy and desperate future that the present situation predicts, then she – or, rather, the people governing her – needs to learn from her past and make some major changes in the present.

6.6 Charting the future: Learning from the past and changing the present Previous sections have established that the English-based Western academia: 1) Emerged to serve the needs and interests of the English (and Western European) colonial powers; 2) Draws on the deep semantics and crypto-grammar of English and SAE; and, 3) Promotes the use of structural/functional features and/or genealogy in classifying and categorising the world. Today, Pakistan continues to model its education on the English system and to adopt the English language for research as a medium of instruction for almost all higher education. The outcomes of Pakistan’s investment in Western education (and English) are also quite evident: little development in her socioeconomic profile; migration of both skilled and unskilled labour; major corruption and malpractices in government, administration and law; violent divisions between people and groups; and a high intolerance of difference and diversity. If Pakistan continues to do the same as it has always done, then why should her residents and citizens – or anyone else – expect different results? The situation that Pakistan finds herself in today is partly determined by the language policies and practices that the policymakers of the country have espoused: One where they promote an outsider language, which differs greatly from the deep semantics and the crypto-grammar of the local languages. Furthermore, by promoting English, the Pakistani government promotes a belief that the English language is more valuable than local languages and that it contains knowledge that is of more worth than the knowledge contained in local languages. This difference in attitude towards English vis-à-vis local languages contributes to a dependency of the local populations on English.

88  Ahmar Mahboob To change the future of Pakistan, i.e. to break Pakistan’s dependency on English and other colonial languages/knowledge, the Pakistani government will need to make some difficult and, perhaps, unpopular decisions. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to speculate what these decisions might be, but they must consider the following two complementary observations: 1) No country that has adopted or uses a colonial language as the medium of instruction and knowledge building has been able to become economically or politically independent (Hong Kong and Singapore are city states and are highly dependent on the global economy); and 2) All countries that have developed their socioeconomic and human indexes in the past 50 years have done so by using, expanding and developing one of their own languages (e.g. China, S. Korea, Japan, Malaysia).

References Bandyopadhyay, R. (1993). Land system in India: A historical review. Economic and Political Weekly, 28(52), A149–A155. Retrieved from www​.jstor​.org​/stable​ /4400592. Bhanbhro, S. (2019). Representation of honour killings: Critical discourse analysis of Pakistani English language newspapers. In J. Tomás & N. Epple (Eds.), Sexuality, Oppression and Human Rights (pp. 3–16). Oxford: Interdisciplinary Press. doi: 10.1163/9781848884243_002. Cambridge University Press. (2020). Cambridge Dictionary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://dictionary​.cambridge​.org​/es/. Edwards, J. (2009). Language and Identity: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511809842. Farooq, S., & Ahmad, E. (2017). Brain drain from Pakistan: An empirical analysis. Forman Journal of Economic Studies, 13, 55–81. Halliday, M. A. K. (1990). New ways of meaning: The challenge to applied linguistics. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6, 7–36. Haspelmath, M. (2001). The European linguistic area: Standard average European. In M. Haspemath, E. König, W. Oessterreicher, & W. Raible (Eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals (pp. 1492–1510). Berlin: de Gruyter. Iqbal, A. (2018). Pakistani Englishes: Syntactic Variations. London: Taylor & Francis. Jilani, S., & Anwar, B. (2018). Lexico-semantic features of Pakistani English newspapers: A corpus-based approach. International Journal of English Linguistics, 8(4), 50–63. doi: 10.5539/ijel.v8n4p50. Kachru, B. B., Kachru, Y., & Sridhar, S. N. (2008). Language in South Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kalra, V. S. (2009). Pakistani Diasporas: Culture, Conflict, and Change. Karachi: Oxford University Press. Khan, H. I. (2012). The evolution of Pakistani English (PakE) as a legitimate variety of English. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 1(5), 90–99. doi: 10.7575/ijalel.v.1n.5p.90. Macaulay, T. B. (1835). Minute on education. In H. Sharp (Ed.), Bureau of Education. Selections from Educational Records, Part I (1781-1839) (pp.

English in Pakistan  89 107–117). Calcutta: Superintendent, Government Printing, 1920. Reprint. Delhi: National Archives of India, 1965. Mahboob, A. (2003). The English language in Pakistan: A brief overview of its history and linguistics. Pakistan Journal of Language, 4(1), 1–28. Mahboob, A. (2004). Pakistani English: An overview of its syntax, morphology, and lexis. In B. Kortmann, E. Schneider, K. Burridge, R. Mesthrie, & C. Upton (Eds), A Handbook of Varieties of English (pp. 1045 –1056). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Mahboob, A. (2017). English medium instruction in higher education in Pakistan: Policies, perceptions, problems, and possibilities. In I. Walkinsah, B. FentonSmith, & P. Humphreys (Eds.), English as a Medium of Instruction in Higher Education in Asia-Pacific: Issues and Challenges (pp. 71–92). London: Springer. Mahboob, A. (2019a). The Unmaking of Paradise: Literacy as Trojan Horse. Part I. Swat, Pakistan: wemountains​.com​. Retrieved from https://wemountains​.com​/07​ /02​/1371/. Mahboob, A. (2019b). The Unmaking of Paradise: Literacy as Trojan Horse. Part II. Swat, Pakistan: wemountains​.com​. Retrieved from https://wemountains​ .com​/09​/12​/1410/. Mahboob, A. (2019c). Why English. Swat, Pakistan: wemountains​.com​. Retrieved from https://wemountains​.com​/04​/10​/1176/. Mahboob, A. (2020). World Englishes, social disharmonisation, and environmental destruction. In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed), The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes (p. 461). London: Routledge. Mahboob, A., & Tupas, R. (forthcoming). World Englishes and social change. In A. Borlongan (Ed.), Philippine English: Development, Structure, and Sociology of English in the Philippines (pp. TBA). London: Routledge. Mahmood, M. A., Asghar, M., & Jabeen, F. (2011). Acoustic analysis of /?/ and /ð/ sounds in Pakistani English. International Education Studies, 4(4), 131–136. Rahman, T. (2002). Language, Ideology and Power: Language Learning among the Muslims of Pakistan and North India. Karachi: Oxford University Press. Robbins, P. (1998). Nomadization in Rajasthan, India: Migration, institutions, and economy. Human Ecology, 26(1), 87–112. Saleem, T., Anjum, U., & Naz, A. (2018). Pragmatic transfer in Pakistani English speakers apology responses: Impact of social power. FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 12, 74–98. Sipra, M. (2013). A linguistic study of borrowings from English to Urdu. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 2(1), 203–207. Retrieved from https://ssrn​.com​/abstract​=2928685. Whorf, B. (1941). Languages and logic. Technology Review, 43, 250–252, 266, 268, 272. Reprinted in Whorf, B. (2012). Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (2nd ed., pp. 299–314). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Yule, G. (2010). The Study of Language (4th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

7

English language education policy in Sri Lanka Historical developments, current realities and future challenges Indika Liyanage

7.1 Background Language in education policymaking since Sri Lanka’s independence has gradually shifted from inward orientation to openness in order to attract investments to the country’s capital. Sri Lanka is “a development success story in many ways” (The World Bank, 2019, p. 1), yet beneath this success story is a predominantly rural-based economy in which “a relatively large share of the population subsists on slightly more than the extreme poverty line” (The World Bank, 2019, p. 1). Education spending stays below that of other comparable countries, and wealth and development are unevenly distributed, both geographically across the various provinces and between rural and urban areas. While ethnic divisions are the target of policy and media reports, there are equally fundamental divisions based on class, education and access to employment. The chapter that follows is devoted to a discussion of this situation with emphasis on the education domain, but first, a brief sketch of Sri Lanka’s diverse linguistic landscape is necessary. Three languages are in focus in discussion of language education policymaking in Sri Lanka. Historically, all three have had periods of dominance in national affairs and government, and all have served the educational needs, purposes and agendas of their communities of users. Sinhala and Tamil are considered local vernaculars, have different linguistic sources but many similarities. Centuries of coexistence have exerted cross-linguistic influences on both, and both are diglossic, with high/written and low/ spoken forms (Coperahewa, 2009) associated with class and education. English was introduced by the most recent colonisers, and its continuing prominence reflects not just a colonial hangover, but its current status and power as global lingua franca. While Standard British English is the variety taught in schools and ostensibly used in formal contexts, and there is an acknowledged local variety, Standard Sri Lankan English, there are “many complexities involved in terms of speakers, status and functions, dialectical variation, and recognition and acceptance” (Mendis & Rambukwella, 2010, p. 181). Less than 0.05% of the population claim English as their first or only language (Eberhard et al., 2019). Of the two local vernaculars, Sinhala DOI: 10.4324/9780429433467-7

English language education policy in Sri Lanka  91 has a longer local history, is the dominant language of around 75% of Sri Lankans, and strongly tied to Sinhalese ethnic identity and cultural practices, including Buddhism. The Tamil language is not so firmly associated with a distinct community of users in terms of ethnicity, culture, or religion. Tamils constitute about 15% of the population, but identify as two distinct groups (Coperahewa, 2009). Sri Lankan Tamils are descendants of Tamil traders and settlers who began arriving in northern Sri Lanka perhaps 1,000 years ago and emerged for a period not long after as the dominant political/ monarchical power in the island. About one-quarter of the Tamil population identify, or are identified as, Indian Tamils, brought to the island much later as plantation labour during the period of British control. While many Tamils of both groups follow the practices of Hinduism, some are adherents of Islam. The term “Muslim” is used in Sri Lanka to denote ethnicity as well as religion, and Tamil is also used by much of the “Muslim” population, primarily descendants of Arab traders who began settling at least 1,500 years ago, and some Malays from Indonesia and the Malay peninsula, who settled both prior to and during the colonial period. Thus, the Tamil language community is more diverse without the tight association of language and ethnic identity found amongst the Sinhalese. Besides Sinhala, Tamil and English, other languages are in use, for example, Arabic, restricted almost exclusively to religious purposes, and in Islamic schools, and Sri Lankan Creole Malay, Portuguese Creole (used by Burghers, descendants of Portuguese settlers), as well as more minor language variations and dialects (Coperahewa, 2009). The English language, in its local variations, is thus one element of a language ecology in which plurilingualism is a practical necessity for many, but in which language rights and loyalties have been a prominent political and policy issue, and associated recently with nearly three decades of armed conflict. Although woven into the linguistic landscape of Sri Lanka, English remains, essentially, the language of outsiders, and learning and use of it continues to be contentious, in both social and policy terms. The circumstances might have changed, but English language education policy continues to serve purposes remarkably similar to those of the British colonisers – economic development and regulation of access to its benefits.

7.2 English in the Sri Lankan education system during the British colonial period (1800s–1940s) Britain was the third European empire-builder to establish a presence in Sri Lanka, but indisputably the most effective in exerting control throughout the island and imposing a colonial hierarchy that used language as local gatekeeper to power, prestige, and influence. By the 1830s, English had been installed as the official language for all government activities, and, ostensibly, as the medium of instruction (MOI) for education (Herath, 2015). Education was also provided by temple schools which did not teach or use English. In the colonising paradigm, the transformative power of the

92  Indika Liyanage English language was such that its acquisition would produce individuals who were Sri Lankan “in blood and colour but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect” (Sumathipala, 1968, as cited in Baldsing, 2013, p. 20). The English-medium schools were transplants of British educational practices, curricula, and materials, entirely ignored local cultural values and history, and saw their mission as producing not just an educated class, but a class of faux Europeans (Golding, 2018). Underpinning policy was an agenda to develop a bilingual professional class of English-speaking locals in the colonial hierarchy (Canagarajah, 2005) to reduce the financial burden of bringing staff from Britain to perform more mundane, lower echelon administrative tasks (Baldsing, 2013). Entry to these minor government positions was regulated by proficiency in English, and the material benefits, prestige and proximity to power quickly made English, and an English MOI education, an object of desire. By the beginning of the 20th century, “English was adopted by many educated people as their first language. The vernaculars were used chiefly by simple and illiterate folk, and by the educated only in the simplest and most familiar intercourse” (Passe, 1943, as cited in Coperahewa, 2009, p. 92). Thus, colonial policy denied English language education to the majority of Sri Lankans through what Burnett (2005, p. 101) has described (in another colonial setting) as a “technology of exclusion”. The enactment of English language education policy not only further cemented the status of an already privileged class, and divisions between urban and rural Sri Lankans, it created ethnic tensions between Sinhalese and Tamils that contributed to post-independence turmoil. Sinhala was endemic to Sri Lanka (Coperahewa, 2009), but Tamil, as a regional lingua franca in British colonies in the Asia-Pacific, served imperial interests in the development of a vernacular/English bilingual administrative class. A concentration of EMI schools in the Tamil-dominated northern region of the island favoured access of this ethnic group to EMI education (Lim, 2013), thence to higher education and the privileged prosperity of membership of the administrative class, marginalising the majority Sinhalese population (Herath, 2015). The underlying objectives of imperial power and profit-seeking exploitation that informed the formulation and enactment of English language education policy during the British colonial period thus disrupted the established socioeconomic order across several dimensions, established the language as an object of desire, a symbol of inequality, and provoked antipathy between ethnic communities.

7.3 Post-independence English language education policies (1940s–2000) Preceding independence in 1948, the strength of the swabasha (local languages) movement became a sign of reassertion of national identity. A new language policy in 1946 proposed a ten-year plan to transform the linguistic

English language education policy in Sri Lanka  93 orientation of the public sector, with English to be phased out as the language of government, replaced by the vernaculars to enable day-to-day dealings of Sri Lankans with governmental functions to be conducted in a familiar language. Although the education provisions of the 1946 reforms aimed to elevate the status of local vernaculars and revitalise their teaching and study, English language education was acknowledged as important in Sri Lanka’s future; it was compulsory for all schools to include the study of English in their curriculum (Coperahewa, 2009). While the MOI of all pre-secondary education was to be either Sinhala or Tamil, as appropriate, either vernacular or bilingual (Sinhala/English, Tamil/English) MOI was permitted in lower secondary education, while in upper secondary schools, options included English-only MOI (Balakrishnar & Thanaraj, 2015). There was, however, no immediate possibility of English being taught in all schools; the majority of schools had no teacher/s of English, and the quality of the English teaching workforce – specifically, their English proficiency and their knowledge of and expertise in language teaching pedagogy – left much to be desired (Balakrishnar & Thanaraj, 2015). This meant it was unlikely that students receiving a vernacular primary education, particularly those attending poorly resourced rural schools, would be capable of joining English-medium instruction (EMI) classes in junior secondary school. The use of vernaculars as MOI in secondary schools to deliver education effectively and with acceptable outcomes also faced the obstacle of resourcing the curriculum with teaching and learning materials in the local languages (Balakrishnar & Thanaraj, 2015). Until this could be remedied, the limited number of state secondary schools had little alternative but to continue to use EMI, and private fee-levying schools, of course, offered EMI only. Thus, the policy had little immediate impact on the relative socioeconomic status of users of the three languages, Sinhala, Tamil and English. During the decade after independence in 1948, English language education policy became progressively caught up in political and ethnic rivalry. English was planned to remain the official language only until its phasing out by 1956, but it became clear English proficiency was continuing to act as gatekeeper to employment in government and business (Balakrishnar & Thanaraj, 2015). The local educated English-speaking political class initially perceived little advantage in diminishing the power associated with the language (Canagarajah, 2005; Walisundara & Hettiarachchi, 2016). However, in an increasingly strident ethno-nationalistic political climate, public debate of language policy shifted from direct attacks on the privileged place of English to interethnic disputation about the status of the vernaculars. As obstacles to revival of vernacular education were overcome, a Sinhala-educated “rural elite” (Coperahewa, 2009, p. 112) had begun to emerge, opposed to Western cultural influences symbolised by English and angered by the continued demand for English as a requisite for employment in the government sector. The Sinhala Only Act of 1956 replaced English in official activities with Sinhala, and excluded Tamil from this sphere

94  Indika Liyanage (although the right to vernacular education was preserved), and during the decade that followed policy efforts to reduce or remove the use of English as instructional medium resulted in disappearance of EMI from all levels of education in Sri Lanka. At the beginning of the 1960s, the government prohibited the establishment of any new private schools (Wettewa, 2016) and took control of almost all existing private schools (Balakrishnar & Thanaraj, 2015), except those operated by Christian churches. Cessation of EMI in state schools, nationalisation of private schools, and the inequitable availability of effective English language education in state schools perpetuated socioeconomic divisions around access to the commodity of English proficiency. Despite a ban on new private schools, English MOI education continued to be available for those with the necessary money because of a legal anomaly that allowed “international schools” to be opened under legislation covering companies (Wettewa, 2016, p. 67). These “international schools” used EMI and, in the majority of cases, curriculum programmes imported from Anglophone countries such as the UK and Australia. This new class of elite EMI schools was not simply tolerated, but actively encouraged by members of the Government (Wijesinha, 2003), and in doing so, they knowingly reinforced the English language-based social distinctions that had emerged prior to independence during the colonial period. It was socioeconomic class, not ethnicity, language or gender, that determined the clientele of “international schools”, and this effectively maintained the concentration of access to power, privilege and prosperity in the hands of those with the capacity to pay for English-medium schooling. Graduates with English proficiency and foreign education credentials were accorded priority for both public and private sector employment (Punchi, 2001; Wettewa, 2016). In 1987, a constitutional provision, designated English a “link” language (Walisundara & Hettiarachchi, 2016), ostensibly to promote ethnic relations of Sinhalese and Tamils, but arguably an acknowledgement of its practical necessity for official communication between the two language communities, and in response to growing demand for its use under a more outward-oriented policy regime. While English was positioned in language policy as a “link” facilitating ethnic harmony, the “class ideology” (Perera & Canagarajah, 2010, p. 113) underpinning tacit government support of the “international school” sector confirmed for Sri Lankans the role of English as a “link” between an English-medium education and (arguably unjust) access to opportunity. The vernacularly educated majority resented this new iteration of colonial hierarchy and injustice based on language, but struggled with tensions between ideological resistance to the power of English and the attractions of the language as an object of desire. Forty years after independence, steady decline, particularly in vernacular-medium schools in rural areas, of the quality of the compulsory teaching and learning of English as a second/additional language had led to a situation in which “fewer than a third of students pass in English, while

English language education policy in Sri Lanka  95 many do not even take the exam since the subject is neglected in the majority of schools” (Wijesinha, 2003, pp. 369–370). During the 1980s, efforts to revive English language teaching and learning to support more globally oriented policy reforms experienced mixed success (Walisundara & Hettiarachchi, 2016). In higher education, the study of English languished, concentrating on emulation of English literature courses offered by British universities rather than on the language, attracting limited enrolments and with graduates rarely interested in teaching (Wijesinha, 2003). A key obstacle to effective English language education policy implementation during the 1980s and 1990s was general political instability, more specifically, policy inconsistency and reversals (Walisundara & Hettiarachchi, 2016; Wijesinha, 2003). One constant was the continuing expansion of the private “international school” sector and political reluctance or refusal to intervene, arguably because these schools were performing an essential role in the education of English-proficient graduates in demand in both public and private sectors (Jenkins et al., 2005, cited in Wettewa, 2016). Recognition, however, that national development in a globalising context could not be achieved with only a small elite group of competent English language users brought renewed attention to policy in the state education system. General education reforms of the late 1990s included a renewed focus on English as an additional language across all the years of schooling (Walisundara & Hettiarachchi, 2016), including introduction of a General English course for Advanced Level GCE. In 2000 the government announced the rehabilitation of EMI in state schools (Balakrishnar & Thanaraj, 2015). In the years leading up to this decision, 75 percent, or more, of students in state schools were failing the Ordinary Level General English examination, and the proficiency of many who passed was inadequate to satisfy the demands of workplaces, particularly in the expanding private sector.

7.4 Current language education policy(ies) (2000–present day) Following cessation of armed hostilities between the government and separatists in 2009, language education policy has focused on the development of trilingualism, with vernacular bilingualism prescribed as a means of ethnic reconciliation (Liyanage & Canagarajah, 2014), and English proficiency repositioned in political terms as a “culturally neutral life skill for occupation, employment and for accessing knowledge from the outside world” (Fernando, 2011, p. 4). Thus far, these policy adjustments failed to deliver English proficiency to the population at large, and perennial problems persist. Although there is still strong nationalist sentiment opposed to development of English as a third language (Baldsing, 2013), there is little argument that there exists a demand for English as valuable capital (Wettewa, 2016). Twenty years after Advanced Level General English was introduced, this demand has not been translated into learner outcomes, at least not in the government schools attended by more than 95 percent (Ministry of

96  Indika Liyanage Education Sri Lanka Statistics Branch, 2018) of Sri Lanka’s school students. As a subject compulsory for those seeking university admission, almost 94% of candidates sat the General English examination in 2018, but 60% of candidates failed, and half of those who passed achieved the lowest passing grade of Satisfactory (Department of Examinations, 2018). Clearly, there are serious problems with the teaching of English. While there is not an apparent shortage of teachers, many are either poorly qualified or not qualified. A 2009 survey conducted by the government found nearly 21,000 English teachers in primary and secondary schools were untrained (Lim, 2013). When combined with weaknesses in the curriculum itself, classroom teaching is characterised by ineffective teaching methods based on unsuitable materials. That many of those tasked to deliver the English language curriculum are not adequately trained as (English) language teachers is identified by some (e.g. Walisundara & Hettiarachchi, 2016) as the major impediment to achievement of policy goals, but there has been little attempt to remedy the situation (Wijesekera, 2011/2012). An arguably inevitable consequence of the persistent failure of English teaching and learning is the poor English proficiency of many teachers of English, and the notion of proficiency is additionally complicated by the target being Standard British English, rather than Standard Sri Lankan English (Mendis & Rambukwella, 2010; Meyler, 2015). The grammatical rules, vocabulary and written language learners encounter in the curriculum, teaching materials and examinations regime does not match much of the English they experience outside the classroom. Apart from adding another dimension to the questions about teacher proficiency, the focus on British English to satisfy an ostensible need for communication with English-speaking outsiders devalues the local variety and reinforces “English” as gatekeeper of access to the ranks of the elite (Parakrama, 2012). Attempts to recognise Sri Lankan English in the 2009 Presidential call to “speak English our way” (Meyler, 2015) did not, notably, extend to the written language, and teaching of English literacy retained the target of Standard British English. In practice, the “speak English our way” initiative disappeared quickly (Meyler, 2015); plans to prepare teachers to use materials developed for teaching spoken Sri Lankan English, to introduce communicative spoken English in Grade One and to test oral communicative skills for the Ordinary Level GCE (Meyler, 2015; Walisundara & Hettiarachchi, 2016) provoked opposition. The most immediate concerns – uncertainty about what actually constituted “our” Sri Lankan English, the status of the variety and who it “belonged” to – probably reflected a linguistic inferiority grounded in many users clinging to the (largely misplaced) belief that what did constitute Sri Lankan English was in fact identifiably Standard British English (Mendis & Rambukwella, 2010) used by urban elites. Academics and teachers denounced the plan as undermining standards, although given the rates of failure in the examinations, the standard of English among learners was already problematic. Policy initiatives for reform of teaching English

English language education policy in Sri Lanka  97 as a second/additional language continue, but many, such as oral English communication in Grade One and formal teaching of English from Grade Three, are reiterations of earlier policy. If English language learning is to be a policy priority, examination results over the last 20 years suggest that it is not policy that is lacking, but effective resourcing, policy stability and determination to see implementation through to enactment in classrooms. Another policy panacea to transform English language education during the last two decades has been introduction of bilingual education – essentially re-introduction of EMI – because, to cite the Presidential Task Force on Educational Reforms 1997–2002, “the ELT [English language teaching] project had failed miserably … for more than forty years” (Premarathna et al., 2016, p. 11). The official rationale was quickly extended to encompass political objectives – the benefits for national unity of Sinhalese and Tamil students learning together in a common language, and the opportunity to achieve equitable access for all students, urban and rural, to education and employment advantages of students attending EMI private and international schools (Premarathna et al., 2016). In pragmatic political terms, it was a means of expanding an English-proficient workforce in response to private sector and external demands (Liyanage, 2012). English MOI had been available since 1960 only in a limited number of existing private schools, and then in “international schools” (Balakrishnar & Thanaraj, 2015). Less than five percent of students attend these schools (Ministry of Education Sri Lanka Statistics Branch, 2018), but they were equated with effective English education, and the advantages that followed. Quickly rebadged bilingual education to avoid perceptions of abandoning the national vernaculars and dissipating cultural identity (Prasangani, 2014), learning English through communicative activity in the authentic context of constructing content knowledge (Premarathna et al., 2016) appeared to offer a way forward for reform of English language teaching. Arguably, policymakers in Sri Lanka were “seduced by it. The rewards look enticing: Learners, they assume, kill two birds with one stone: They acquire subject knowledge and English language ability at the same time” (Clegg, 2009, p. 46). Progress toward achieving the goals of the bilingual education policy has been minimal, and in the schools that introduced bilingual classes, the 2001 proviso that “adequate resources” must be available has often been ignored. Parental pressure has been blamed for precipitating its introduction in many schools (Balakrishnar & Thanaraj, 2015) when there were few teachers available with the necessary language proficiency, the subjectspecific pedagogic knowledge, or experience of teaching in the medium of an additional language. Lacking suitable teaching resources and materials, many teachers without the knowledge or capacity to effectively identify language and content outcomes (Liyanage, 2012) were overwhelmed with preparation. The initial enthusiasm of students, especially those with limited English, waned as they found it difficult to learn without adequate support in poorly planned programmes delivered by teachers lacking the required

98  Indika Liyanage language and pedagogic skills, and many students opted to return to vernacular-medium programmes in the same school (Balakrishnar & Thanaraj, 2015). Larger schools in urban areas such as Colombo with experienced, qualified and English-proficient teachers have experienced some success, but in other areas content teachers with adequate English proficiency can be scarce or unavailable. English teachers, who themselves frequently lack proficiency in the target language, are deployed teaching, in English, content subjects with which they have little familiarity, and switching to one of the vernaculars to explain difficult material is common. The National Education Commission (2016) found professional learning opportunities for teachers involved in bilingual education to be inadequate and irregular, that learning materials were deficient, frequently poor translations of textbooks for the relevant vernacular-medium course, with widespread examples of imprecise technical terms, unsuitable language and distorted meanings (National Education Commission, 2016). The shortcomings of the General English curriculum mean many students have not developed the communicative skills or cognitive academic language proficiency for effective learning in English MOI classrooms, and those who enter bilingual streams in secondary school often find themselves unprepared for the demands of learning often challenging content via EMI. Studies finding that learning outcomes in bilingual programmes compare favourably with vernacular programmes (National Education Commission, 2016) do not account for the considerable numbers of students who opt out when they experience difficulties learning without the requisite language proficiency. The very limited numbers of students across all government schools who are taking advantage of bilingual programmes – despite the shortcomings of many of the programmes – are arguably the more English-proficient students, many of whom have had opportunities to learn to use the language communicatively in homes where English is used. Referring specifically to Sri Lankan bilingual education, Brock-Utne (2016, p. 123) argues that, without a much more effective approach that integrates language and content, English MOI policy based on an assumption that EMI produces better academic outcomes ignores the possibility that students “will learn less than they could have, had they been taught in a language they know well”. The assumption that English MOI is essential for science teaching and learning reflects the mantra of Western aid agencies, Anglophone academia, and suits the agendas of the English-language publishing industry and local political elites, but is refuted by the success of nations such as Finland and South Korea (Brock-Utne, 2016). Effective science teaching and learning is associated with activity- and inquiry-based pedagogy that learning through the vernacular media facilitates. In Sri Lanka, at present, science learning for the majority is suffering due to the cause of teaching English to a small elite minority of students. If the policy aim of bilingual education is to remedy forty years of ELT policy failure, it has yet to demonstrate success. Failure to adequately implement the policy,

English language education policy in Sri Lanka  99 and another 20 years of mass failure at examinations, has perpetuated the socioeconomic divide around English.

7.5 The future There is no indication that Sri Lanka will reconsider current policies of either English language education or English language-in-education, that is, bilingual schooling. Isolation from the world is not an acceptable or feasible option, and with local vernaculars in no position to fill the role of lingua franca with most of the external world, there is no disagreement that English proficiency is an advantage for at least some individuals and for the nation as a whole. Portraying English as a “politically neutral” life skill is understandable given residual tensions around the vernaculars, but it is far from neutral; the historical animosity toward English may be disappearing as a consequence of generational change, but the language, or “possession” of it, continues to be a marker of privilege and advantage. While this inevitably divides the population linguistically, the desire for English remains undiminished given “English is the passport to wealth and opportunity and an essential requirement for almost every profession” (Gunawardana & Karunarathna, 2017, p. 3). Yet despite reforms two decades ago that made learning of General English compulsory throughout schooling, most students still cannot use the language appropriately (Wijesekera, 2011/2012). A key problem continues to be failure to embed monitoring and evaluation processes in implementation of policy (Coperahewa, 2009); thus attempted enactment in schools and classrooms that lack adequate human and physical resources have frequently failed to reflect or achieve policy intentions without provoking suitable responses. Implementation failures have been acknowledged in current proposals for reform of the Education Act, but simply reaffirming objectives, as proposed, will not break the cycle of poor-quality English teaching and learning. The policy objective of teaching English as a second/additional language requires sustained political will backed up by allocation of funding and resources for both pre-service teacher preparation and in-service professional development, and for provision of suitable teaching and learning materials, particularly those that are necessary if the bilingual education project is to reach more students than at present. Millions of dollars of aid and assistance, including involvement of foreign experts and consultants, are provided by international agencies and institutions to reform and rationalise English language education in Sri Lanka, informed by the assumption that a policy of English MOI will produce the greatest benefits for the nation (Liyanage, 2010). Arguably, local policymakers need to resist this imposition and to assert the primacy of local needs; until the quality of teaching and learning in the English language curriculum improves enormously, opportunities for the great majority of students in government schools to participate successfully in bilingual education will remain limited.

100  Indika Liyanage

7.6 Conclusion The introduction to Sri Lanka of English via colonial domination has had a lasting impact on language education policies and on the current state of ELT and the use of English. Attempts to restore the status of the vernaculars at the expense of what proved to be the pre-eminent international language have positioned Sri Lanka behind other former British colonies in the region as regards the extent and standard of English proficiency. The failure of government schools to provide quality in, and access to, English language education amid growing demand for the language is perhaps most clearly illustrated by the success of “international schools”. Sri Lanka’s own National Education Commission has identified the lack of political will for the inadequate resourcing and monitoring of implementation of policy to remedy the situation. Frequent language policy changes since independence have prioritised political and economic objectives without due consideration of the structural or practical obstacles of educational approaches. Contributing to and compounding the difficulties have been imported economic development paradigms based on the belief that English is the “only language that will enable people to take part in modernity and development” (Perera & Canagarajah, 2010, p. 113). Educational approaches based on “the undeniable ‘truth’ that having English as the language of instruction is the best way to learn English” (Brock-Utne, 2016, p. 123) need interrogation to determine if they are applicable to the Sri Lankan context. In the case of bilingual English/vernacular education, an equally important question is whether English MOI is the best way to learn content across the curriculum; Sri Lanka’s high rates of literacy and educational participation – compared to similar lessdeveloped nations – indicate education in the vernaculars has been successful (Brock-Utne, 2016). In a complex multilingual setting such as Sri Lanka, policymakers need to reconsider what constitutes English proficiency necessary to satisfy diverse communicative needs, and how English language education policy can be shaped to provide teaching and learning of English that addresses these needs. To achieve more widespread proficiency of the kind demanded for interaction with monolingual English speakers, or for work, study or travel outside the country, high-quality English-as-an-additional-language teaching could be a more advantageous path rather than continuation of the current push for a widespread bilingual model of English MOI education.

References Balakrishnar, J., & Thanaraj, T. (2015). Instruction in the English medium: A Sri Lankan case study. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Language and Social Cohesion in the Developing World (Selected Proceedings of the Ninth Language and Development Conference, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2011) (pp. 166–177). Colombo, Sri Lanka:

English language education policy in Sri Lanka  101 British Council and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. Baldsing, L. (2013). Making English the Lynchpin for Globalisation of Education in Sri Lanka: Quality versus Equality (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Perth, Australia: Edith Cowan University. Retrieved from http://ro​.ecu​.edu​.au​/theses​/594. Brock-Utne, B. (2016). English as the language of science and technology. In Z. Babaci-Wilhite (Ed.), Human Rights in Language and STEM Education: Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (pp. 111–128). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Burnett, G. (2005). Language games and schooling: Discourses of colonialism in Kiribati education. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 25(1), 93–106. Canagarajah, A. S. (2005). Dilemmas in planning English/vernacular relations in post-colonial communities. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9(3), 418–447. Clegg, J. (2009). The lure of English-medium education. Paper presented at the Access English EBE Symposium, June 2009. Jakarta. Coperahewa, S. (2009). The language planning situation in Sri Lanka. Current Issues in Language Planning, 10(1), 69–150. Department of Examinations. (2018). G.C.E. (A.L) Examinations 2018: Performance of Candidates. Retrieved from https​:/​/do​​enets​​.lk​/d​​ocume​​nts​/s​​tatis​​ tics/​​2018A​​LAnal​​ysis​B​​ook​.p​​df. Eberhard, D. M., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (2019). Ethnologue: Languages of the world: Sri Lanka. Retrieved from https​:/​/ww​​w​.eth​​nolog​​ue​.co​​m​/cou​​ntry/​​LK​/ la​​​nguag​​es. Fernando, S. (2011, October 26). From dethroning English to planning for a trilingual society: Keynote address by Sunimal Fernando at the 9th International Language and Development Conference on ‘Language and Social Cohesion’, Colombo, October 18, 2011 (Part 3). Daily News. Retrieved from http:​/​/www​​ .dail​​ynews​​.lk​/2​​001​/p​​ix​/Pr​​intPa​​ge​.as​​p​?REF​​=201​1​/10​/25​/fea0. Golding, D. (2018). The colonial and neoliberal roots of the public-private education debate in Sri Lanka. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 16(1), 145–174. Gunawardana, A. A., & Karunarathna, J. A. M. B. (2017). Teacher research: Remedy for failures in English language teaching in Sri Lanka. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference of Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka, 3–5 May 2017. Kandy, Sri Lanka. https​:/​/ww​​w​.res​​earch​​gate.​​net​/p​​ublic​​ation​​/3189​​ 01986​​_Teac​​her​_R​​esear​​ch​_Re​​medy_​​for​_F​​ailur​​es​_in​​_Engl​​ish​_L​​angua​​ge​​_Te​​achin​​ g​_in_​​Sri​_L​​anka. Herath, S. (2015). Language policy, ethnic tensions and linguistic rights in post war Sri Lanka. Language Policy, 14(3), 245–261. Lim, L. (2013). Kaduva of privileged power, instrument of rural empowerment? The politics of English (and Sinhala and Tamil) in Sri Lanka. In L. Wee, R. B. H. Goh, & L. Lim (Eds.), The Politics of English. South Asia, Southeast Asia and the Asia Pacific (pp. 61–80). Amsterdam/Philidelphia: John Benjamins. Liyanage, I. (2010). Globalization: Medium-of-instruction policy, indigenous educational systems and ELT in Sri Lanka. In V. Vaish (Ed.), Globalization of Language and Culture in Asia: The Impact of Globalization Processes on Language (pp. 209–232). London/New York: Continuum. Liyanage, I. (2012). Critical pedagogy in ESL/EFL teaching in South-East Asia: Practices and challenges with examples from Sri Lanka. In K. Sung & R. Pederson

102  Indika Liyanage (Eds.), Critical ELT Practices in Asia: Key Issues, Practices, and Possibilities (pp. 137–152). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Liyanage, I., & Canagarajah, A. S. (2014). Interethnic understanding and the teaching of local languages in Sri Lanka. In D. Gorter, V. Zenotz, & J. Cenoz (Eds.), Minority Languages and Multilingual Education: Bridging the Local and the Global (pp. 119–135). Dordrecht: Springer. Mendis, D., & Rambukwella, H. (2010). Sri Lankan englishes. In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes (pp. 181–196). London/ New York: Routledge. Meyler, M. (2015). Sri Lankan English: An appropriate model for the teaching of English in Sri Lanka? In H. Coleman (Ed.), Language and Social Cohesion in the Developing World (Selected Proceedings of the Ninth Language and Development Conference, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2011) (pp. 178–185). Colombo: British Council & Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. Ministry of Education Sri Lanka Statistics Branch. (2018). School Census Report 2017. Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http:​/​/www​​.stat​​istic​​s​.gov​​.lk​/e​​ducat​​ ion​/S​​chool​​%20Ce​​nsus%​​20Rep​​o​rt​_2​​017​.p​​df. National Education Commission. (2016). Raising the Quality of Education: Proposals for a National Policy on General Education in Sri Lanka. Nugegoda, Sri Lanka: National Education Commission Parakrama, A. (2012). The malchemy of English in Sri Lanka: Reinforcing inequality though imposing extra-linguistic value. In V. Rapatahana & P. Bunce (Eds.), English Language as Hydra: Its Impacts on non-English Language Cultures (pp. 107–132). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Perera, K., & Canagarajah, A. S. (2010). Globalisation and English teaching in Sri Lanka: Foreign resources and local responses. In V. Vaish (Ed.), Globalization of Language and Culture in Asia: The Impact of Globalization Processes on Language (pp. 106–119). London/New York: Continuum. Prasangani, K. S. N. (2014). Overview of changes in the Sri Lankan English education system: From the colonial present day Sri Lanka. Modern Research Studies: An International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(2), 193–202. Retrieved from http:​/​/fil​​es​.ho​​stgat​​or​.co​​.in​/h​​ostga​​tor20​​1172/​​file/​​20140​​​10208​​.pdf. Premarathna, A., Yogaraja, S. J., Medawattegedara, V., Senarathna, C. D., & Abdullah, M. R. M. (2016). Study on Medium of Instruction, National and International Languages in General Education in Sri Lanka. Retrieved from http:​ /​/nec​​.gov.​​lk​/wp​​-cont​​ent​/u​​pload​​s​/201​​6​/04/​​9​-​Fin​​al-​.p​​df. Punchi, L. (2001). Resistance towards the language of globalisation: The case of Sri Lanka. International Review of Education, 47(3–4), 361–378. The World Bank. (2019). The world bank in Sri Lanka: Overview. Retrieved from https​:/​/ww​​w​.wor​​ldban​​k​.org​​/en​/c​​ountr​​y​/sri​​lanka​​​/over​​view. Walisundara, D. C., & Hettiarachchi, S. (2016). English language policy and planning in Sri Lanka: A critical overview. In R. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), English Language Education Policy in Asia (pp. 301–332). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Wettewa, V. (2016). Postcolonial emotionalism in shaping education: An analysis of international school choice in Sri Lanka. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 15(1), 66–83.

English language education policy in Sri Lanka  103 Wijesekera, H. (2011/2012). Dreams deferred: English language teaching in. Sri Lanka. Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences, 7/8, 16–26. Wijesinha, R. (2003). Bringing back the bathwater: New initiatives in English policy in Sri Lanka. In C. Mair (Ed.), The Politics of English as a World Language: New Horizons in Postcolonial Cultural Studies (pp. 367–374). Amsterdam; NY: Rodopi.

Part II

Features



8

Features of Chinese English Rong Yang, Ran Ao and Ee Ling Low

8.1 Introduction English in China, as an Expanding Circle variety (see Kachru, 1985, 1992), has aroused much research interest. Kachru (1992, p. 55) describes it as a “performance variety” with no legal status as a language of administration or the law and only used in limited domains such as “education; business, trade, and tourism; and in the personal lives of individuals” (Zhang et al., 2019, p. 268). However, many scholars have been arguing for the possibility of “Chinese English” or “China English” being an emerging variety within the World Englishes paradigm (e.g. Bolton, 2002; Ge, 1980; Hu, 2004; Jiang, 2002; Kirkpatrick & Xu, 2002; Xu, 2010; Xu et al., 2017; Zhang, 2002; Zhao & Campbell, 1995). This chapter adopts the view advocated by these scholars and uses the term “Chinese English” (hereafter CE) as an emerging variety in the Kachruvian Expanding Circle countries and focuses on the linguistic features of CE. For reference to the historical development and English language policy in China, see Chapter 2 of this volume; for a discussion of present-day English language use in China, see Chapter 14 of this volume. While recent years have seen a growing amount of research on the features of CE, a comprehensive coverage of the linguistic features of CE such as phonology/phonetics, lexis and syntax are relatively lacking. This chapter seeks to fill this gap by presenting a comprehensive review and discussion of the phonological, lexical and syntactic features based on previous studies. As China is a large country and the homogeneity of CE cannot be assumed, the features of CE described in this study will refer to the educated variety documented in previous research. Where regional variations have been documented in previous research, mention will be made of the specific region being described.

8.2 Phonetic/phonological features This section focuses on both the segmental and suprasegmental features of CE, namely, vowels, consonants, stress and rhythmic patterning as described in previous published research. DOI: 10.4324/9780429433467-8

108  Rong Yang, Ran Ao and Ee Ling Low 8.2.1 Vowels A vowel inventory of Chinese English, Yunnan English and Beijing English is presented in Table 8.1 using Wells’ (1982) standard lexical sets. Hung (2002) found that CE speakers produced a small vowel inventory comprising only the vowels /i/, /ɛ/, /ɑ/, /ɒ/, /ɔ/, /u/ and /ɜ/, with the long-short vowel pairs /i:/~/ɪ/, /ɛ/~/æ/, /ʊ/~/uː/, /ɒ/~/ɔː/ and /ʌ/~/ɑː/ being conflated. Ao (2015) proposed a vowel inventory of Yunnan English, a sub-variety of CE, which also indicates a lack of vowels /ɪ/, /ʌ/ and /ʊ/. Similarly, Yang (2020) found conflations of vowel pairs /ʊ/~/uː/ and /ʌ/~/ɑː/, resulting in an absence of /ʊ/ and /ʌ/ in Beijing English vowel inventory. The comparative fewer vowels in the CE vowel inventory may be attributable to the influence from CE speakers’ first language(s). In addition, language proficiency may be considered to be another contributing factor that affects the speakers’ production of vowels, where English majors had different vocalic features compared to non-English majors (Ao, 2015; Ao & Low, 2016; Yang, 2020). The lack of distinction between vowel pairs in terms of both quality and duration was also documented in previous studies and considered the major feature of CE. For example, Wang and van Heuven (2006) provided acoustic evidence that CE speakers made little spectral distinction between vowel pairs /ʊ/~/uː/ and /i:/~/ɪ/. Robb and Chen (2008) found that Mandarin speakers’ production of the English vowels /ɪ, ʊ, ɔ/ had considerable acoustic overlap with /i, u, ɑ /. According to Ao and Low (2012, 2016), Yunnan English speakers generally had difficulty differentiating between /i:/~/ɪ/ and /ʌ/~/ɑː/. In another region-based study, Deterding (2017) reported that speakers from Guangxi province also tended to conflate long and short vowels. Another noticeable vocalic feature of CE is the insertion of vowels after consonants. According to Pride & Liu (1988), as Standard Mandarin Table 8.1 Vowel inventory of CE, Yunnan English and Beijing English Chinese English (Hung, 2002)

Yunnan English (Ao, 2015)

Beijing English (Yang, 2020)

Keywords

i ɛ ɑ ɒ ɔ u ɜ

i ɛ (æ) ɑ ɒ ɔː (ɔːr)* u ɜ (ɝ)

(ɪ) i ɛ (æ) ɑ ɑ: ɒ (ɔ) u u: ɜ:

KIT FLEECE DRESS TRAP STRUT BATH LOT THOUGHT FOOT GOOSE NURSE

* The vowel /ɔːr/ is related to pronunciation of FORCE vowels.

Features of Chinese English  109 Chinese or Putonghua “has no consonantal clusters” (p. 60), some CE speakers tend to insert a schwa after the bilabial stops (/p/, /b/) or velar stops (/k/, /g/). Ho (2003) observes that Chinese students are likely to voice some consonants including /d/, /b/, /t/ and /k/, which makes words such as and, must sound like [ˈʌndə] and [ˈmʌstə] respectively. Deterding (2006) reports the addition of “an extra final vowel” or “an epenthetic vowel” (p. 180) by Chinese speakers, stating that an extra vowel is inserted “after a final plosive and before the next word” (p. 180). He believes this feature originates from the phonetic rule of Putonghua that final plosives are not allowed. More recently, Deterding (2017) also identifies “epenthetic vowels” (p. 22) in Guangxi English, though they are not as common as in Northern and Central China as reported in the earlier study (2006). Li and Sewell (2012) also found that a majority of the speakers in their study added an extra final vowel to the word and. Ao (2015) and Ao & Low (2012) state that schwa insertion can be found in three positions in Yunnan English, namely (1) after the word-final plosive (before another plosive), e.g. next to [ˈnekstə tʊ]; (2) in between consonantal clusters, e.g. cried [kəˈrɑɪd]; and (3) before nasal /n/, e.g. soon [ˈsuːən]. Apart from the influence of Chinese languages, it is assumed that the schwa insertion may be considered as a strategy used by CE speakers to enhance the intelligibility of their English by emphasising the final consonants (Ao, 2015) or as a “hypercorrection behavior” to maintain faithfulness to the original words (Li & Sewell, 2012, p. 86). English, being a traditionally stressed-based1 language, would have some unstressed syllables reduced. However, this feature tends to be absent in CE. Chang (1987) observes that, perhaps due to the influence of Mandarin Chinese, it is difficult for CE speakers to place stress in the same positions as where one would find them in British or American English, and they also tend not to have weak forms for unstressed syllables. Deterding (2006) remarks that CE speakers “almost always use a full vowel in monosyllabic function words” (p. 183). It may seem that CE speakers are unaware of connected speech processes such as elision or the weak form of certain words like and being pronounced as /ən/ in rapid speech. Ao (2015) and Ao and Low (2012) report that no reduced vowels can be observed in the speech samples of Yunnan English, for example, speakers tend to pronounce the phrase convinced of as [kɒnˈvɪnst] and [ɒf] separately. With the absence of reduced vowels, CE appears to be syllable-based2 like other Outer Circle varieties in Asia such as Singapore English where vowel reduction is not exploited in order to achieve foot isochrony or equality in timing between stressed syllables. Deterding (2006, p. 184) describes CE speakers to be “in the forefront of the global evolution of the language”. The basis for his statement is that CE appears to have a rhythmic patterning that is in tandem with Outer Circle norm-developing varieties. This finding is corroborated by Low’s (2010) study which proved acoustically that CE had a statistically similar rhythmic patterning as Singapore English.

110  Rong Yang, Ran Ao and Ee Ling Low Chang (1987) found that CE speakers usually pronounced diphthongs “with quicker and smaller tongue and lip movements” (p. 225) than their English counterparts. Similarly, Pride & Liu (1988) mentioned the same feature of shortening of diphthongs and attributed it to the influence of Chinese, since diphthongs in Chinese are shorter than those in English. Hung (2002) identified monophthongisation in CE speakers’ speech. Specifically, closing diphthongs /oʊ/ and /aʊ/ tend to be reduced to [ɔ], and diphthongs /aʊ/, /aɪ/ followed by a nasal /n/ become [ɔŋ], [aŋ] and [ɛn], [ʌn]. Li and Sewell (2012) note that diphthongs produced by CE speakers are often shortened or substituted. In their study, the diphthong that is most likely to be simplified is /ou/, involving three sample words stone, scolded and woke. Ao & Low (2012) find that Yunnan speakers tend to pronounce English diphthongs in variable ways. For example, /eɪ/ is pronounced as [ɑɪ] in the word raising and as [iː] or [e] in the word safety; /ɑɪ/ is substituted with [e] in the words while, tried, cried and diet; /ɪǝ/ is pronounced as [εǝ] in the word fear and /εǝ/ as [ɜː] in the word air. Apart from the above-mentioned features, Chang (1987) identifies the nasalisation of /æ/ (e.g. cap as [kæ̃p]) in CE. Deterding’s (2006) study records a different type of nasalisation, where the nasalised vowels usually occur before a final nasal consonant like /n/ or /m/ with no closure for the nasal, e.g. time [tãɪ]. In addition, syllable deletion is found in Ho (2003) where CE speakers delete some syllables, especially in the polysyllabic words, hence revolution becomes rev-lu-tion. 8.2.2 Consonants A consonantal inventory for consonants in initial positions in CE is based on a compilation from the works of Chang (1987), Hung (2002), Ho (2003), Deterding (2006, 2017), Ao and Low (2012) and Ao (2015) and shown in Table 8.2. It is evident that CE speakers tend to substitute several consonants with other consonants, like dental fricatives /θ/ and /ð/, postalveolar fricative /ʒ/, labiodental fricative /v/ and approximants /l/ and /r/. The dental fricatives /θ/ and /ð/ are reported to be the most difficult for Chinese learners, as they are absent in the Mandarin Chinese consonant inventory. According to Chang (1987), CE speakers are likely to replace /θ/ with [s], [f] or [s]. In Hung’s (2002) study, almost more than half of the informants from different provinces and cities replaced /θ/ with [s]. Ho (2003) also observes that Chinese students tend to substitute /θ/ with [s] or [t]. Likewise, Deterding (2006) reports that Chinese speakers tend to use /θ/ and [s] alternatively, with more than half syllable-final instances being pronounced as [s] and less than half of syllable-initial instances of /θ/ pronounced as [s]. Ao and Low (2012) identify the same feature of substituting /θ/ with [s] in Yunnan English, such as /θ/ in thought and threaten. Chang (1987) notes that /ð/ is likely to be replaced with [d] or [z] by Chinese speakers, for example, this may be pronounced as “dis” or “zis”. Informants

Features of Chinese English  111 Table 8.2 Inventory for consonants in initial position of CE based on Chang (1987), Hung (2002), Ho (2003), Deterding (2006, 2017), Ao & Low (2012) and Ao (2015)

in Hung’s (2002) study prefer [d] to [s] when substituting /ð/. Deterding (2006) reports that two informants from Liaoning and Zhejiang replace /ð/ in that, than and then with [d], and that the rest of the informants use [z] instead of /θ/. The use of [z] as a substitution is less evident in Li and Sewell (2012), which show that 55% of the tokens with /ð/ were pronounced as [d] while only 5 % as [z]. Meanwhile, the tendency of using [z] to replace /ð/ is supported by Ao and Low (2012), where four out of ten speakers from Yunnan replaced almost all the /ð/ with [z]. Many CE speakers also have difficulty producing /ʒ/. Hung (2002) finds that /ʒ/ is most likely to be replaced with [ɹ], followed by [dʒ] and [j] by Chinese speakers. Ho (2003) confirms that speakers from Beijing and Shandong replaced /ʒ/ with [ɹ] in the word usually. Deterding (2006) and Li & Sewell (2012) also observe the replacement /ʒ/ with [ɹ], which occurs most in the word usually [ˈjuːɹəli] pronounced by many Chinese speakers. Ao and Low (2012) show that more than half of Yunnan English speakers pronounce /ʒ/ as [j], supporting Hung (2002)’s observation. As /v/ is absent in most Chinese dialects, many CE speakers are likely to pronounce it as [w] or [f], e.g. invite as inwite (Chang, 1987). Hung (2002) reports the substitution of /v/ for [w] by approximately 30% of his informants. Ho (2003) notes that participants from southern China (Guangzhou and Shenzhen) are unable to distinguish between /v/ and [w]. Deterding (2017) describes this feature as one of the most salient features in English spoken by Guangxi students, who have [w] in many words like very, value, movie and divorce. He notes, however, that using [w] to replace /v/ seems to be less obvious in the data collected from speakers from Central and Northern China. Omission of dark /l/ is found to be quite common in CE in words such as successful and small (Ho, 2003; Deterding, 2006, 2017). Ao and Low (2012) find this to be the most prominent feature in Yunnan English.

112  Rong Yang, Ran Ao and Ee Ling Low Other consonantal features of CE identified in the previous research are: Lack of distinction between /l/~/n/ (Chang, 1987; Ho, 2003; Deterding, 2006) and replacement of /l/ for /r/ (Chang, 1987; Hung, 2002; Deterding, 2017); substitutions of /dʒ/, /tʃ/ and /ʃ/ by Chinese consonants zh (/ʈ͡ʂ/), ch (/ʈ͡ʂʰ/) and sh (/ʂ/) (Chang, 1987), /h/ pronounced as [x] (Chang, 1987; Deterding, 2006); glide before initial /i/ (Deterding, 2006), a possible replacement of /ʃ/ with another consonant in Chinese x (/ɕ/) in such word as shepherd in Yunnan English (Ao, 2015; Ao & Low, 2012). Regarding rhoticity, there has been no consensus among researchers that whether CE is a rhotic variety or a non-rhotic variety. Ao (2015) reports that Yunnan English is more similar to British English than to American English, a rhotic variety, but that Yunnan English may develop into a rhotic variety. Sundkvist and Gao (2016) find that six out of eight Yunnan English speakers displayed rhoticity, while the English spoken by the rest of the speakers could be considered non-rhotic. They caution that, considering the notably large inter- and intra-speaker differences found in their study, it is arguable to generalise whether an Expanding Circle variety like CE is rhotic or non-rhotic. Li & Kabak (2017) conclude that CE can be categorised as marginally rhotic, notwithstanding the variations within and between the speakers. However, in a more recent study, Li (2019) argues that CE is highly rhotic and is on its way to becoming nativised. Given the vast geographical region of China, a comprehensive description of the segmental features of CE can only be made if more region-based studies covering different geographical regions of China with different ethnic groups speaking different languages spoken are undertaken. 8.2.3 Stress Stressed final pronouns are noticeable in some studies including Deterding (2006) and Li and Sewell (2012). According to Deterding (2006), most speakers in his study place considerable stress on him in the phrase fold his cloak around him. Li & Sewell (2012) also note that him was stressed by nine out of 12 speakers in the phrase looked through the window and saw him. Deterding (2017) finds that not only final pronouns but basically all the pronouns (first person and third person) in the sentence receive considerable emphasis, for example, “HE thought it’s: (.) not so useful for HIM” (p. 28). 8.2.4 Rhythm As Mandarin Chinese is categorised as a syllable-based language, English spoken by Chinese speakers is assumed to follow a similar pattern. Mok & Dellwo (2008) find that both Cantonese and Mandarin are perceived to be syllable-based, but acoustic analysis suggests that Cantonese-accented English

Features of Chinese English  113 and Mandarin-accented English are more similar to stress-based languages. Low’s (2010) study using the Pairwise Variability Index (PVI) to measure the variability in duration between successive vowels in read sentences shows that CE is statistically similar in terms of rhythmic patterning to both Singapore English and British English. It is observed that, as an Expanding Circle variety, CE might be considered to have “shared features with both the Inner Circle (norm-providing) and the Outer Circle (norm-developing) varieties” (p. 402). Using sonority-based metrics, Fuchs and Wunder (2015) provide evidence that Chinese learners maintain the rhythmic pattern of Chinese, namely syllablebased, even if they are advanced English language learners. Similarly, Chen (2015) demonstrates that speakers from Beijing rarely have vowel reduction, which makes their English more syllable-based. Ao’s (2015) study of Yunnan English found that this sub-variety of CE is more syllable-based.

8.3 Lexis Many scholars advocate that the “unique lexicon, words that are native to China or have meanings peculiar to China” (Jiang, 2002, p. 13) have become a strong proof of the legitimacy of CE. Early Chinese contact with English speakers has resulted in a large number of borrowed lexical items for place names, cultures and foods from Chinese languages, as Westerners “began to adopt a vocabulary that reflected the reality of life around them in treaty-port China” (Bolton, 2003, p. 89). Presently, Chinese media and literary works have provided a fertile ground for the development and innovation of CE lexis through transliterations and loan translations. Especially for journalism, “there is a routine need for the translation of contemporary Chinese vocabulary relating to the culture, economics, and politics of a rapidly-changing China” (Bolton, 2003, p. 94). Many studies have examined words used in China’s English magazines and newspapers (Alvaro, 2013; Gao, 2001; Yang, 2005; Yu & Wen, 2010), and others focus on literary works written by local bilingual English writers, such as Zhang’s (2002) exploration of loan translation in Ha Jin’s novel In the Pond. The following subsections discuss transliterations, loan translations of Chinese words and nativised CE words. 8.3.1 Transliterations Many early Chinese loanwords in English originated from southern Chinese regional varieties with the main source being Cantonese, a regional variety spoken in Guangdong province, Hong Kong and Macau. As these regions have been the pioneers of foreign trade in China’s history, a large number of loanwords are formed based on Cantonese pronunciation, such as bok choy, wok, dim sum, wonton, ginseng and cheongsam.3Another source of Chinese loanwords is from the Amoy (now known as Xiamen, a port famous

114  Rong Yang, Ran Ao and Ee Ling Low for producing and trading high-quality Chinese tea) dialect, which is a subvariety of Min Chinese4 in Fujian province. Words from the Amoy dialect include bohea, congou, hyson, pekoe, tea and cumshaw (Yang, 2009).5 In addition, many of those early Cantonese immigrants in English-speaking countries earn their living by running Chinese restaurants. Therefore, it is noticed that lexis borrowed from Cantonese and Amoy dialects tend to be used in the nomenclature for foods and drinks (Chan & Kwok, 1985; Moody, 1996). With Standard Mandarin Chinese or Putonghua being established as the contemporary lingua franca of China since 1949 (Zhou, 2006), an increasing number of loanwords that are based on Putonghua emerged, including renminbi, feng shui and yuan. Putonghua-based words are believed to “typically reflect Chinese ‘high’ culture: Terms associated with philosophy, religion, history, politics, art, and literature” (Moody, 1996, p. 405). As Cantonese and Amoy dialects are considerably dissimilar to Putonghua and other Chinese languages in terms of pronunciation and lexis, many early loanwords are only familiar to the minority of Chinese people. As a result, there is a tendency for the emergence of new Putonghua-based loanwords that bilingual English speakers in China can understand. Yang (2009) mentions that the Cantonese loanword cheongsam, which refers to a type of traditional dress worn by Chinese women, is becoming less frequently seen, while its Putonghua equivalent qipao was used in a report on a Chinese wedding ceremony in Fortune Magazine (March 5, 2007 issue), reading that “then a 1920s-style qipao with a long string of pearls for the seemingly interminable toasting and post-ceremony festivities” (p. 102). 8.3.2 Loan translations/calque Some CE lexical items are created through word-for-word translations into English. The words formed through transliterations and loan translations are termed by Xu (2010) as “Inner Circle CE lexis” (p. 27). When Ge (1980) first proposed the concept of “China English”, he used it to refer to the translation of things specific to Chinese culture, such as “Four Books” (si shu), “eight-legged essay” (bagu wen) and “Four Modernizations” (sige xiandaihua). Many politically related loan translations are formulated with “terms topped by numerals” (Li, 1957, p. 33, as cited in Alvaro, 2013), which makes “complicated political phenomena reduced to a simple numerical form of rhetoric, easy to memorize and to quote” (Yang, 1994, p. 32). Such words include “three representatives” (sange daibiao), “Eight Honors and Eight shames” (ba rong ba chi) and “one country, two systems” (yi guo liang zhi). These CE formulations are commonly found at the official government website and are widely used by news media for foreign readers like Beijing Review, China Daily and People’s Daily. As the established Chinese borrowings and loan translation continue to increase, whether these CE words are accepted and used by the

Features of Chinese English  115 English-speaking world attracts researchers’ attention. Fan (2012) studied the use of CE lexis in the news media based on the analysis of 1,249 articles from the New York Times. He found that loan translation is the most frequently used means of rendering Chinese words and expressions into English, occupying 40% of the words analysed. However, in terms of the total number of CE words used in New York Times articles, these words are still considerably underused. Some loan translations, however, may cause confusion among users of English as they are in different forms. For example, He and Li (2009), examining the translation of Jingshen wenming, found at least 16 different translations such as “spiritual civilization”, “cultural and ideological progress” and “moral civilization” (p. 73). 8.3.3 Nativisation of English words Xu (2010) describes English words that have been semantically shifted within Chinese social and linguistic contexts as “Outer Circle CE lexis” (p. 35). He further categorises the observed semantic shifting CE words into two types, namely words with extended or narrowed meaning. One example of semantic broadening is face (mian zi), representing an individual’s honour and prestige metaphorically instead of the front of one’s head. The common phrases lose face (diu mianzi) and save face (bao mianzi), meaning “to be humiliated” and “to avoid humiliation” respectively, connotate the equivalence of face to a person’s honour. On the other hand, the meaning of migrant worker in CE is narrowed, as it usually refers to those who have temporarily migrated from the rural areas to the cities to live and work but not any people working outside of their home country. Fang (2012)’s study exemplified that, the word “propaganda” has been nativised to some extent, as it conveys not only negative connotation but neutral and even positive meanings in Beijing Review, an English national news magazine in China.

8.4 Syntax At the syntactic level, many scholars argue that there are some identifiable characteristics in CE (e.g. Cao 2000; He & Li, 2009; Jia & Xiang 1997; Jin 2001, 2002; Li & Wang 2002; Xu, 2010; Yang & Yan, 2002). However, consensus remains to be achieved among researchers as to what can be considered as common syntactic features that distinguish CE from other English varieties. Previous studies that have done a relatively comprehensive analysis of syntax in CE include Wei and Jia (2003), He and Li (2009) and Xu (2010). For example, Xu (2010) conducted a thorough study on syntactic features of CE based on data collected from interviews, news articles and short stories, which represent CE in both spoken and written forms. Similar to He & Li (2009), Xu (2010) ascribed the “syntactic inter-variety differences” to “the contact of Chinese with English” (p. 106). He also documented an assemblage of syntactic features found in spoken and written data. It should also

116  Rong Yang, Ran Ao and Ee Ling Low be noted that there is no clear distinction between the features of spoken and written CE as noted by Xu (2010). It is highly possible for a feature of written CE to be found in a CE speaker’s speech, and syntax features of spoken CE appear in the texts. The following subsections summarise the main findings. 8.4.1 Parallel structure CE favours parallel structure due to the syntactic preference in Chinese writing, especially for Chinese idioms and proverbs. For example, a Chinese proverb chi yi qian, zhang yi zhi is rendered as a fall into the pit, a gain in your wit with a balanced structure (He & Li, 2009). Xu (2010) identifies it as multiple coordinate construction found in written data and considers the use of three verb-related conjoins unique to CE because of the pragmatic motivations behind the sentence. In Chinese, it is common to use numbers to list sloganlike ideas in political discourse. Therefore, it is not surprising to see several predicates or nominalised phrases, which usually come in threes, appear in CE texts. For example, the ministry will maintain the principle of supporting overseas studies, encouraging the return of overseas Chinese students, and lifting restrictions on their coming and going presents three verbs that follow the same grammatical pattern: Supporting, encouraging and lifting (p. 91). 8.4.2 Topicalisation of adjuncts Topicalisation of adjuncts in CE refers to the placement of modifiers such as adverbials or adverbial clauses before the verb of a sentence, especially for time adjuncts. For instance, last week I went to Nanjing is more likely to be expressed as I went to Nanjing last week in British or American English (Wei & Jia, 2003). This feature, again, results from the influence of Mandarin Chinese, where time adjuncts are always placed at the beginning of the sentence. 8.4.3 Null-subject/object structure A subject or a pronoun is required in an English sentence, whereas it is optional in Chinese sentences. Therefore, CE speakers tend to write sentences like very glad to write to you again (He & Li, 2009), where subjects like I in the example sentence is likely to be omitted. Xu (2010) also identifies similar cases in his interview with Chinese students. For example, we can see movies, and other activities about English. Yes, I like very much. In this sentence, the object it after like is missing. 8.4.4 Yes–no response CE speakers also tend to use “yes” in a negative reply that confirms the speaker’s assumption in a negative question and tag questions. For example,

Features of Chinese English  117 Xu (2010) documents an exchange between him and one of his informants – “You mean your hometown is not so crowded?” “Yeah. Not so crowded.” Some English speakers may find this reply rather confusing, because it should be “No. Not so crowded” in British or American English. Wei and Jia (2003) note another type of negative question like “Isn’t there any coffee in the cup?” is often answered with “Yes”, which actually means “no, there is no coffee.” Similarly, for tag questions, such as “You went to school yesterday, didn’t you?” could be answered with “Yes, I didn’t” by CE speakers.

8.6 Concluding remarks In terms of the phonetic and phonological features, the absence of contrast for vowel pairs, schwa insertion and absence of reduced vowels are identified as the most noticeable vocalic features. CE speakers are also found to have difficulties to pronounce /θ/, /ð/, /ʒ/ and possibly /l/. Rhythmically, CE shows the tendency of veering towards a syllable-based variety. However, it remains contentious whether CE is a rhotic variety or not. In terms of lexical features, transliteration and loan translation are two major means of rendering Chinese words and expressions into English. Although there is an increase in the number of CE lexical items, they are still mainly used by CE bilingual speakers. In terms of the syntactic features, the used of parallel structures, null subject/object utterances, topicalisation of adjuncts and yes–no response are recognised as distinctive features of CE, which are largely attributed to the transfer from Chinese to English. As an Expanding Circle variety, CE contains some emergent identifiable unique phonetic/phonological, lexical and syntactic features. However, considering substantial inter-/intra-speaker variations, some of CE’s phonetic/ phonological features require further investigation. CE lexis is still unlikely to become a major source for English words in the near future. Many of the syntactic features are not distinctive enough to distinguish CE from other English varieties. Several gaps can be identified regarding the study of CE. Firstly, a systematic and comprehensive overview of CE encompassing its phonological, lexical, syntactic and other features is still lacking. Many early works drew their conclusions mostly based on personal observations or experience, which need to be further validated through more empirical studies. Secondly, given the large population and ethnic diversity in China, further research is still needed to identify more features based on data collected from learners/users from provinces other than those that have been included in previous studies. In terms of phonology of CE, previous studies have largely been based on auditory analyses and impressionistic observations, and there is a general lack of acoustic investigation in this respect. Finally, the issue of whether CE is norm-dependent as described in Kachruvian theory or in reality becoming more norm-developing is worthy of further investigation.

118  Rong Yang, Ran Ao and Ee Ling Low

Notes 1 If a language is stress-based, its stress is supposed to have approximately similar durations regardless of syllable lengths. 2 If a language is syllable-based, its syllables are more likely to have similar durations. 3 Loanwords originated from Cantonese bok choy: literally means “white vegetable”, Chinese cabbage wok: Chinese round-bottomed cooking pan dim sum: generic term for the food served in the Cantonese-style morning meal wonton: a Chinese dumpling ginseng: a Chinese medicinal herb cheongsam: literally means “long clothes”, a traditional long dress worn by Chinese women 4 Min Chinese is a group of Chinese languages spoken in Fujian, China. 5 Loanwords originated from Amoy bohea: also known as Wuyi tea, an oolong tea which is grown in the Wuyi Mountains of northern Fujian Province, China congou: also known as Gongfu tea, a generic term for a category of Chinese black tea hyson: also known as Lucky Dragon tea, a green tea from Anhui Province, China pekoe: literally means “white hair”, a generic term for white tea which is primarily produced in Fujian Province, China tea: a drink made by steeping dried leaves in water cumshaw: to show gratitude by giving a present (verb) or gratuity (noun)

References Alvaro, J. J. (2013). Political discourse in China's English language press. World Englishes, 32(2), 147–168. Ao, R. (2015). An Acoustic Investigation of Segmentals and Rhythm in Yunnan English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Singapore: Nanyang Technological University. Ao, R., & Low, E. L. (2012). Exploring pronunciation features of Yunnan English. English Today, 28(3), 27–33. Ao, R., & Low, E. L. (2016). A description of the Yunnan English accent. World Englishes, 35(1), 18–41. Bolton, K. (2002). Chinese Englishes: From Canton jargon to global English. World Englishes, 21(2), 181–199. Bolton, K. (2003). Lexical innovations in Hong Kong English and Chinese Englishes. In P. H. Peters (Ed.), From Local to Global English: Proceedings Style Council 2001/2 (pp. 81–97). Sydney: Dictionary Research Centre, Macquarie University. Cao, L. J. (2000). Zhongguo Yingyu chutan [The first exploration into China English]. Xibei Qinggongye Xueyuan Xuebao [Journal of Northwest Institute of Light Industry], 18, 120–123. Chan, M. & Kwok, H. (1985). A Study of Lexical Borrowing from Chinese into English with Special Reference to Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong.

Features of Chinese English  119 Chang, J. (1987). Chinese speakers. In M. Swan & B. Smith (Eds.), Learner English: A Teacher’s Guide to Interference and Other Problems (pp. 224–237). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chen, H. C. (2015). Acoustic analyses and intelligibility assessments of timing patterns among Chinese English learners with different dialect backgrounds. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44(6), 749–773. Deterding, D. (2006). The pronunciation of English by speakers from China. English World-Wide: A Journal of Varieties of English, 27(2), 175–198. Deterding, D. (2017). The pronunciation of English in Guangxi: Which features cause misunderstandings? In Z. C. Xu, D. Y. He, & D. Deterding (Eds.), Researching Chinese English: The State of the Art (pp. 17–31). Cham: Springer. Fan, Y. (2012). Meiguo zhuliu meiti shang de “zhongguo yingyu” yangben fenxi – Jiyu niuyue shibao shehua baodao (2009–2010) [An analysis of "Chinese English" in American mainstream media – An empirical study based on the New York times report on China (2009–2010)]. Chinese Translators Journal, 4, 112–116. Fang, Z. X. (2012). Yingyu mingci zai zhongguo yujing xia de bentuhua xianxiang: “propaganda” gean yanjiu [The nativisation of English nouns in Chinese context as exemplified by “propaganda”]. Foreign Language Research, 165(2), 77–80. Fuchs, R., & Wunder, E. M. (2015). A sonority-based account of speech rhythm in Chinese learners of English. In U. Gut, R. Fuchs, & E. M. Wunder (Eds.), Universal or Diverse Paths to English Phonology (pp. 165–183). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Gao, L. (2001). The lexical acculturation of English in the Chinese context. Studies in the Linguistics Sciences, 31, 73–88. Ge, C. G. (1980). Mantan you han yi ying wenti [Random thoughts on some problems in Chinese–English translation]. Chinese Translator’s Journal, 2, 1–8. He, D., & Li, D. C. (2009). Language attitudes and linguistic features in the ‘China English’ debate 1. World Englishes, 28(1), 70–89. Ho, L. (2003). Pronunciation problems of PRC students. In G. L. Lee, L. Ho, J. E. L. Meyer, C. Varaprasad, & C. Young (Eds.), Teaching English to Students from China (pp. 138–157). Singapore: Singapore University Press. Hu, X. Q. (2004). Why China English should stand alongside British, American, and the other World Englishes. English Today, 20(2), 26–31. Hung, T. (2002, December 6–8). Phonological Features of Chinese varieties of English. Paper presented at the 7th English in Southeast Asia Conference. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Baptist University. Jia, G. J., & Xiang, M. Y. (1997). Wei zhongguo yingyu yi bian [In defence of Chinese English]. Waiyu yu Waiyu Jiaoxue [Foreign Languages and Foreign Language Teaching], 5, 11–12. Jiang, Y. J. (2002). China English: Issues, studies and features. Asian Englishes, 5(2), 4–23. Jin, H. K. (2001). Zhongguo jiangfa: Hanying kuawenhua jiaojifanyi yanjiu zhaji [Chinese terms: The reading notes of the research of the intercultural communicative translation between Chinese and English]. Guangdong Zhiye Jishu Shifan Xueyuan Xuebao [Journal of Guangdong Polytechnic Normal University], 2, 58–62. Jin, H. K. (2002). Hanying kuawenhua jiaoji fanyi zhong de China English [China English in the intercultural translation between Chinese and English]. Guangdong

120  Rong Yang, Ran Ao and Ee Ling Low Zhiye Jishu Shifan Xueyuan Xuebao [Journal of Guangdong Polytechnic Normal University], 2, 72–78. Kachru, B. B. (1985). Institutionalized second-language varieties. In S. Greenbaum (Ed.), The English Language Today (pp. 211–226). Oxford: Pergamon Institute of English. Kachru, B. B. (1992). Teaching world Englishes. In B. B. Kachru (Ed.), The Other Tongue: English across Cultures (2nd ed., pp. 355–365). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Kirkpatrick, A., & Xu, Z. C. (2002). Chinese pragmatic norms and 'China English'. World Englishes, 21(2), 269–279. Li, J. (2019). (r) we Americanised? The emerging rhoticity features in China English. English Today, 35(1), 28–35. Li, S., & Sewell, A. (2012). Phonological features of China English. Asian Englishes, 15(2), 80–101. Li, S. H., & Wang, W. P. (2002). Zhongguo yingyu he zhongguo yingyu jiaoxue [China English and English teaching in China]. Guangdong Waiyu Waimao Daxue Xuebao [Journal of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies], 2, 33–37. Li, Z., & Kabak, B. (2017). Rhoticity in Chinese English: An experimental investigation on the realization of the variant (r) in an Expanding Circle variety. Alicante Journal of English Studies, 30(30), 61–91. Low, E. L. (2010). The acoustic reality of the Kachruvian circles: A rhythmic perspective. World Englishes, 29(3), 394–405. Mok, P. P. K., & Dellwo, V. (2008). Comparing native and non-native speech rhythm using acoustic rhythmic measures: Cantonese, Beijing Mandarin and English. In Proceedings from Speech Prosody 2008 (pp. 423–426). Campinas, Brazil. Moody, A. J. (1996). Transmission language and source languages of Chinese borrowings in English. American Speech, 71(4), 405–420. Pride, J. B., Liu, R., & S. (1988). Some aspects of the spread of English in China since 1949. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 74, 41–70. Robb, M. P., & Chen, Y. (2008). Vowel space in Mandarin-accented English. Asia Pacific Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing, 11(3), 175–188. Sundkvist, P., & Gao, M. (2016). Rhoticity in Yunnan English. World Englishes, 35(1), 42–59. Wang, H., & van Heuven, V. J. J. P. (2006). Acoustical analysis of English vowels produced by Chinese, Dutch and American speakers. Linguistics in the Netherlands, 237–248. Wei, Y., & Jia, F. (2003). Using English in China. English Today, 19(4), 42–47. Wells, J. (1982). Accents of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Xu, Z. C. (2010). Chinese English: Features and Implications. Hong Kong: Open University of Hong Kong Press. Xu, Z. C., He, D. Y., & Deterding, D. (Eds.) (2017). Researching Chinese English: The State of the Art. Cham: Springer. Yang, J. (2005). Lexical innovations in China English. World Englishes, 24(4), 425–436. Yang, J. (2009). Chinese borrowings in English. World Englishes, 28(1), 90–106. Yang, N., & Yan, H. (2002). Zhongguo yingyu de biaoxian cengmian ji tezheng [Aspects and features of China English]. Xi’an Dianzi Keji Daxue Xuebao [Journal of Xidian University], 12, 85–88.

Features of Chinese English  121 Yang, R. (2020). An Acoustic Study of Segmentals and Suprasegmentals of English in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou (Unpublished PhD candidature confirmation report). Singapore: Nanyang Technological University. Yang, X. M. (1994). The Rhetoric of Propaganda: A Tagmemic Analysis of Selected Documents of the Cultural Revolution of China (Vol. 28). New York: Peter Lang. Yu, X., & Wen, Q. F. (2010). Zhongguo Yingyu Baozhang zhong pingjiaxing xingrongci dapei de bentuhua tezheng [Nativised features of evaluative adjectivenoun collocations in China’s English-language newspapers]. Waiyu yu Waiyu Jiaoxue [Foreign Languages and Their Teaching], 5, 23–28. Zhang, H. (2002). Bilingual creativity in Chinese English: Ha Jin’s in the Pond. World Englishes, 21(2), 305–315. Zhang, W., Bolton, K., & Botha, W. (2019). English in the People’s Republic of China. In C. L. Nelson, Z. G. Proshina, & D. R. Davis (Eds.), The Handbook of World Englishes (pp. 266–280). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Zhao, Y., & Campbell, K. (1995). English in China. World Englishes, 14(3), 377–390. Zhou, M. (2006). Theorizing language contact, spread, and variation in status planning: A case study of Modern Standard Chinese. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 16(2), 159–174.

9

Features of Japanese English James D’Angelo, Toshiko Yamaguchi and Yasuhiro Fujiwara

9.1 Introduction In this chapter we provide concrete examples of features of Japanese English (JE). That the editors of this volume, in the spirit of the “inclusiveness” of Braj Kachru and Larry Smith (Bolton, 2005; D’Angelo, 2010), have decided to include Expanding Circle varieties among the Englishes of Asia, demonstrates the increasing importance of English in all contexts today. In recent years, international use of English has become more of a research focus than intra-national usage. While Expanding Circle varieties may be less “stable” than those in the Inner or Outer Circle, their users display widely used common features. Hence, a certain “similect” (Mauranen, 2012) of JE can be identified, even if we may not say it is entirely codifiable or in an advanced stage of Schneider’s Dynamic Model (Schneider, 2007; Ike & D’Angelo, 2020). It is this form of JE, with individual variation which Japanese interlocutors will bring to their global interactions, whether inside Japan, overseas, or in cyberspace. The chapter considers phonological and morpho-syntactic features, then moves on to discourse and pragmatic features, and finally, to a short section on lexical creativity. As mentioned below in more detail in each section, there has been a significant body of past work on JE which has focused on phonological features (Smith & Bisazza, 1982; Nihalani, 2010), syntactic features (Suenobu, 1999; Honna, 2008), lexical development (Stanlaw, 2004; Ike, 2010, Honna 2020), discourse characteristics (Fujiwara, 2014) and pragmatic issues (Kondo, 1997; Ike, 2014). But usually, individual studies focus only on one particular area. In this chapter we have attempted to cover a range of features in a relatively comprehensive manner, given the limits of an edited collection. Honna (2008) is a book-length treatment, but did not consider phonology and syntax closely, and is in need of updating. The variety of JE which we look at is difficult to pinpoint, but can perhaps be best described as a hybrid of the mesolectal and acrolectal. Japan is not a context where English is used as actively within the society as it might be in an Outer Circle country such as India, Nigeria or the Philippines. Hence the varietal divisions which are usually associated with socioeconomic and DOI: 10.4324/9780429433467-9

Features of Japanese English  123 educational privilege, or lack thereof, in a widely stratified society where access to English provides opportunity or limits one’s potential for rising within the society, are less relevant. We have gathered features – both spoken and written – that are prominent among those who use English informally or formally for a range of purposes, mainly international, as well as usages seen in domestic domains such as the media. Spoken data for phonology and morphosyntax were gathered outside Japan where speakers had various opportunities to use English. These sources of data include university English or non-English majors, professionals, English newspapers issued in Japan and Japanese electronic media. In any Expanding Circle context, particular varieties will be harder to identify, but we hope to provide here a guide to some of the more widely seen and prevalent features of English used among Japanese nationals.

9.2 Phonological features1 9.2.1 Vowels Thompson (2001) pointed out that /a/, the front vowel, is used for other vowels in JE. This observation is valid in our data, too, as it is substituted for five vowels /æ/, /ə/, /ɜ/, /ʌ/, /ɑ/. Nihalani (2010) further claimed that when this substitution occurs, the two sounds are “conflated” (the phonetic distinctness between the two vowels is lost). Utilising non-parametric statistical tests, Yamaguchi and Chiew (2020) have shown that JE speakers in their corpus do not conflate. That is, they differentiate between the sounds, and thus produce all the vowels distinctly from [a]. Open back vowels, /ɔ/ and /ɑ/, are apparently hard to pronounce for JE speakers, who have a tendency to centralise them, and they are substituted almost exclusively by [o] and [a], respectively (with only a few exceptions, which are included in Table 9.1). Note that the vowel /e/ does not permit substitution, probably because its pronunciation is closer to that of /e/ than /a/ in the Japanese vowel inventory (Vance, 2008). Many, if not all, JE speakers make the distinction between long and short vowels relatively easily. While this tense/lax distinction is reported to be lost in many non-native Englishes (Wiltshire, 2014), its maintenance in JE is unique. Table 9.1 Vowels and their realisations in Japanese English Phoneme

Example

Realisation

Phoneme

Example

Realisation

/i/ /ɪ/ /u/ /ʊ/ /e/ /æ/

she sit stupid book get bank

[i] [ɪ] [u] [ʊ] [e] [æ]/[e] [a]

/ə/ /ɜ/ /ʌ/ /ɔ/ /ɑ/

across her hurried thought hot

[ə] [a] [ɜ] [a] [ʌ] [a] [ɔ] [o] [o] [a]

124  James D’Angelo, Toshiko Yamaguchi and Yasuhiro Fujiwara Addition of vowels Some speakers insert an additional vowel in word-final position in such a way that it creates a CV structure. This epenthetic vowel tends to be [a], [ʊ], [o] or the schwa, though the choice depends on individual speakers and even within a single speaker. Examples include chain as realised as [tʃeɪna] (J28),2 had as [hadʊ] or [hado] (J18), and did as [dɪdə] (J8). Note that this re-syllabification is not as regular and frequent as the innovative realisations of English loan words, as discussed below. Table 9.1 gives a bird’s eye view of how 11 English vowels were realised by JE speakers. The demonstration of [æ]/[e] means that the articulatory quality of the two sounds is very close. Six vowels exhibit their variants.

9.2.2 Consonants Plosives The consonants /p t k/ are realised as voiceless. Their mean voice onset time (VOT) is relatively short, seldom more than 10 milliseconds, and, as a result, they are not perceived to be aspirated. An interesting fact is that the consonants also become voiceless: Their mean VOT is equally short but in most cases does not even exceed 3 milliseconds. While they are both unaspirated, this extremely short VOT makes distinguishable from their counterparts /p t k/. The lack of voicing in /b d g/ is surprising because they are voiced in Japanese (because [pɪkoːz] versus boku [bokʊ] ‘I’); that is, this phenomenon is specific to JE. While few speakers pronounce /b d g/ as voiced sounds (because as [bɪkoːz], J33), the devoicing of plosives can be regarded as a salient phonetic feature of JE.

Fricatives Similar to plosives, the alveolar and post-alveolar fricatives (e.g., was, pleasure, respectively) tend to lose their voiced quality. The dental fricatives in then (voiced) and in think (voiceless) are pronounced following the standard pronunciation. There are only a few examples of substitution through [s] (e.g., thought as [soːt]) and even fewer examples of substitution through the plosive [t] (e.g., think as [tɪŋk]). The normative production of the dental fricatives can be surprising in that these sounds do not exist in Japanese and their pronunciation might be considered difficult. Similarly, most JE speakers are aware of how to pronounce the voiceless labiodental /f/ although it does not exist in Japanese. Some speakers substitute it with a bilabial fricative [ɸ] (e.g., flashed as [ɸlæʃt] or [ɸlaʃt]), which exists in the Japanese inventory. When it comes to the voiced labiodental [v], some speakers substitute it with [b] (e.g., over [oba] or [obə]).

Features of Japanese English  125 Affricates Similar to plosives and fricatives, the voiced quality is often lost in words containing an affricate (e.g., hedge as [heʧ] instead of [hɛʤ]). The intriguing fact is that when this happens at the beginning of the word, the plosive component gets lost in some cases. Some JE speakers pronounce the first sound of Jungle or German as more like [ʃ] than [ʧ]. Although this occurrence (loss of voiced and plosive element) is still sporadic, the disappearance of the plosive element implies that the affricate will become a fricative if this change continues and is accepted among JE speakers. Approximants While the production of two approximants [j] [w] is generally unproblematic, the problem of the substitution of [l] by [r] is well known. The Japanese sound inventory has no [l] but has a flapped [r] with lateral opening. Although the difference between the two is audible to JE speakers, many of them substitute /l/ with [r] (e.g., plan as [præn] or [pran]). When Japanese speakers read a text, however, the substitution is less frequent than in freely spoken text. The substitution occurs in all positions of the word, except the final position (e.g., well, feel). The reverse substitution of [r] with [l] also occurs (e.g., ran becomes [læn] or [lan]) but less frequently. Nasals These sounds are pronounced largely following the standard pronunciation. Although the velar nasal, as in getting [ɡetɪŋ], does not exist in Japanese, JE speakers can pronounce it easily. Addition of [s] Besides vowels and consonants, a feature worthy of mention is the tendency for JE speakers to add the fricative [s] at the final position of the word regardless of its lexical status (e.g., weathers, every days, Japans, yesterdays, tooks) and to pronounce this [s] as voiceless. This [s] is to be distinguished from the [s] added to uncountable nouns such as rain or snow (e.g., rains, snows) and normally realised as half-voiced. This empirical fact is the reason for separating the word-final [s] from the non-native plural [s]. The former [s] can be subsumed within a discourse strategy (e.g., to ease speech), and the devoicing of obstruents, as discussed above, might carry the same function. Table 9.2 tabulates the discussions above. Generally, JE is perceived to be intelligible to many non-native speakers of English. Unless the phonological structure is completely reorganised, ESL/EFL speakers of other languages can accept JE’s foreign accent. This is consistent with Smith and Bisazza’s (1982) now classical, yet original, observation of the comprehensibility of non-native varieties.

Fricatives

Plosives

/p/ /t/ /k/ /b/ /d/ /g/ /f/ /v/ /θ/ /ð/ /s/ /z/

Phoneme

Realisation [p] [t] [k] [b] [p] [d] [t] [g] [k] [f] [ɸ] [v] [b] [θ] [s] [t] [ð] [z] [s] [z] [s]

Example

picture take could beginning day get feet over thought then sister was

Table 9.2 Consonants and their realisations in Japanese English

Nasals

Approximants

Affri-cates

Fricatives

/ʃ/ /ʒ/ /h/ /tʃ/ /dʒ/ /j/ /w/ /l/ /r/ /m/ /n/ /ŋ/

Phoneme she pleasure hot chain hedge yesterday way late ran mind nothing getting

Example

[ʃ] [ʒ] [ʃ] [h] [tʃ] [ʃ] [dʒ] [ʒ] [tʃ] [ʃ] [j] [w] [l] [r] [r] [l] [m] [n] [ŋ]

Realisation

126  James D’Angelo, Toshiko Yamaguchi and Yasuhiro Fujiwara

Features of Japanese English  127

9.3 Morphosyntactic features Past tense While Japanese grammar has a past tense, it is not realised uniformly among JE speakers. The usage of the past tense can be classified into three tendencies. Those belonging to the first tendency use past tense forms following standard usage. For example, Speaker J2 used past tense forms in perfect compliance with the standard norm. Even though she used tenseless forms in L1 when explaining her birthplace and upbringing, her English talk used the past tense. Those belonging to the second tendency dropped the past tense form. Speaker J17, who stayed with a host family in Canada for a short time, used the present tense when explaining a past situation: Canada summer (The summer in Canada) is (was) not hot and so (or) dry. I like (liked) the (this kind of) weather. Those belonging to the third tendency alternate between past and present tense forms. A noteworthy phenomenon presented by many speakers is the lack of temporal sequence: Past tense is used in the first clause but not in the second. In J16’s utterance: I went to a family uh which (who) is (were) very kind to me, the first verb is inflected for the past but not the copula. Plural formation Plural formation appears to be notion-based rather than grammar-based. When the noun is clearly countable, the plural suffix -s is added (e.g., seasons). There are four seasons that one can identify easily. However, when the object is not countable in the same way, there is a tendency to leave the noun without -s. A typical case is the zero-marking of “things in general”. For example, when the speaker refers to cold temperatures in public places, these places tend to be zero-marked (e.g., Then, inside like in shopping mall, restaurant, office or cinema, freezing, J12), the reason being that the countability of these places is not what matters here. As with past tense, JE speakers’ plural formation can be classified into two tendencies. Some speakers drop the plural suffix regardless of the type of the noun. Other speakers alternate between the addition of -s and forms without it. One interesting fact is that when few or lots of, expressions suggestive of plurality, are used, nouns tend to be used without the -s suffix (and there are lots of festival (in) this season, J23). Somewhat similarly, the plural form tends to disappear in the construction “one of N”, such as one of my friend or one of the reason. As noted above, some uncountable nouns in Standard English are pluralised (e.g., rains, snows) when the speaker has in mind events or contexts in which it rains or snows. Indefinite and definite articles Notional knowledge also plays a role in characterising the usage of indefinite and definite articles. What is salient here is that many speakers omit the

128  James D’Angelo, Toshiko Yamaguchi and Yasuhiro Fujiwara indefinite article when introducing themselves (e.g., I am (a) university student) but the indefinite article is retained consistently in certain expressions (e.g., I will try to get a job; I want to have a job). Although these two usages may appear inconsistent at first glance, one explanation might be that the function of the indefinite article in these two cases is different. In the former, the indefinite article is simply disregarded due to its notional insignificance, whereas the latter appears to be a formulaic expression. The definite article, the, is used more frequently than a/an among JE speakers (see also Fujiwara, 2014). Consider the following examples: The plants becomes (become) green and in the autumn the plants becomes (become) uh the colour of the plants are changing (changes); And some people say the Japanese university students don’t doesn’t study hard. The speakers of these utterances (J27 and J29, respectively) are talking about “things/people in general”; that is to say, this semantic category is verbalised either through the use of the, as in these examples, or through zero-marking, as discussed above.

9.4 Discourse and pragmatic features This section summarises discourse and pragmatic features of JE from previous research. Many features can be recognised as a transfer from their L1, but some are perhaps also common, to a certain degree, to other L2 users of English whose L1 has similar characteristics to Japanese. 9.4.1 Discourse The first part below summarises discourse features of JE found in the previous research, mostly with corpus-based empirical data. Topic-comment constructions In a seminal work published in 1976, Li and Thompson proposed a wellknown linguistic typology based on the grammatical relations, (1) subjectpredicate and (2) topic-comment. A subject prominent language (SP) such as English strictly keeps a relation between a subject and a predicate; A subject needs to determine a semantic relation with any verb in a sentence, as in I am really busy today. A topic-prominent (TP) language such as Japanese allows more varied relationships between a subject and a verb, for the role of a subject works rather as a “topic” of a sentence, and that of a predicate is a descriptive “comment” on it, as in “Kyō wa isogashii” (Today is busy). This fundamental difference in discourse construction has a significant impact on the use of English by Japanese. Komiya (2016) states that the difference between SP and TP reflects the difference in their cognitive framework, and that a subject prominent language puts more focus on “agents” or “subjects” (e.g., I), while a topicprominent language focuses more on “settings” or “situations” (e.g., today).

Features of Japanese English  129 She also mentions topic-prominent characteristics can often be found in the English used by Japanese native speakers, and actually they have been well documented by previous SLA research on Japanese learners of English (Sasaki, 1990; Shibata, 2006). Using data from one year of English journals written by Japanese university students, Shibata (2006) examined in detail how a topic-comment structure in Japanese influences their written use of English, and concludes that Japanese EFL learners often put any topicalised noun phrase in a subject position, transferring the topic-prominent feature from L1 to L2. Examples shown in her study (p. 6) are “Today was very tired” and “This restaurant could choose three favourite side dishes”. These are apparently “errors” made by novice learners, but WE scholars proposed similar expressions as a “good” example of JE, and some samples are “Tonight is curry and rice” (Tachibana, 2014) and “That restaurant is delicious” (Honna, 2010). The first example is produced following the topic-comment structure. Tonight is curry and rice. Tonight, we will have curry and rice. Although the second example, “That restaurant is delicious” can be well explained as a type of metonymies (see Honna, 2010), it is also clearly related to a topic-prominent discourse construction as shown below. That restaurant is delicious. As for that restaurant, foods and drinks are delicious. Some might say these are irrelevant because tonight can NOT be curry and rice, but a sentence like “Tonight is the party” is regarded as legitimate in many varieties of English even though tonight is, in a strict sense, NOT a party. Aoyama and Fujiwara (2016) investigated how intelligible and acceptable these two expressions were to English users with different lingua-cultural backgrounds (n=44) and found that around 90–100% of them correctly understood what they mean, and highly rated them as socially acceptable. There-construction This topic-prominent feature of JE with the focus on “settings” and “situations” would lead to the preferred use of there-construction. With the analysis of a spoken corpus of a picture description task, Izumi (2013) found Japanese learners overly relied on the there-construction in developing a

130  James D’Angelo, Toshiko Yamaguchi and Yasuhiro Fujiwara logical discourse. Miyake and Tsushima (2012) looked into a corpus of essays written by Japanese learners of English and English native speakers, finding that Japanese writers prefer to use the following type of there constructions; (1) present tense, (2) plural logical subjects, (3) quantifiers and (4) a relative clause. A typical example is “I think there are many people who work for money” (p. 60). A follow-up analysis on this tendency was done by one of the authors, utilising another written learner corpus called the ICNALE (Ishikawa, 2013) and a “user” corpus called the Japanese User Corpus of English (JUCE), which consists of English news articles written by Japanese professionals (Fujiwara, 2007, 2014). In the ICNALE, the there-construction, there are many/a lot of/some/∅ people who…, is also overwhelmingly often used by Japanese learners, being one of the most preferred chunks with “there”. In the JUCE, a relative clause as a modifier of a logical subject is not added to the there-construction, but Japanese professional writers use the construction “there are (so) many…” more frequently than Inner Circle news writers, and this difference is statistically significant (Log likelihood = 16.50, p ɛ: a: ɒ: o: > ɒ: ʊə ɪ ə ə

Table 11.2 The consonants of IE (Sailaja, 2009, p. 24) IE consonants Plosives Fricatives Affricates Nasals Lateral Approximants Semi-vowels

/p, b, t/ʈ, d/ɖ, t̪, t̪ʰ, d̪, k, g/ /f, v, ʃ, ʒ, h/ / ʧ, ʤ/ /m, n, ŋ/ /l/ /ʋ, r/ /j, w/

Indian English  157 Suprasegmentals For suprasegmental aspects, stress and its acoustic correlates (Fuchs & Maxwell, 2015; Wiltshire & Moon, 2003), and pitch accent (Pickering & Wiltshire, 2000) have been studied. Fuchs (2016) takes up rhythm gathering data from 20 speakers from four different language backgrounds, with an English-medium education. Constructing a multi-dimensional theoretical model of rhythm, Fuchs arrives at many complex sets of results, concluding finally that IE is, acoustically, more syllable-timed than British English (BrE), and is also distinguished from BrE perceptually. Sirsa and Redford (2013) find that L1 does not influence the rhythm of IE, and the patterns are different from those of the two L1s under consideration (Telugu and Hindi), and interestingly, different from BrE as well. Maxwell and Payne (forthcoming) also find evidence of both homogeneity and heterogeneity in IE speech rhythm. In all aspects of prosody, the findings suggest that there is convergence that is distinct from L1 patterns, yet there is some degree of L1 influence (Maxwell & Payne, 2018; Maxwell et al., 2018). Brief reviews of prosodic aspects are given in Grice et al. (2020) and also in Maxwell and Payne (forthcoming). Wiltshire (2020) presents a discussion on the uniformity and variability in the IE accent. Most of the research points to the following: there is substrate influence, there is commonality that goes beyond substrate influence, new categories can be formed, and historical remnants exist. 11.3.2 Syntax Previous research has identified many IE syntactic features. Some examples are given below, although all of them are not standard in IE. Use of progressive forms for statives 1) You are not understanding what I am saying. Invariant tags 2) You are working, isn’t it? Absence of tense concord 3) You said you will do the work. Addition of prepositions 4) discuss about 5) return back Unique use of modals 6) Accommodation would be arranged in the guest house. Indirect questions with inversion 7) They asked me where was I going. Current research is predominantly corpus-based. The corpora used are the Kolhapur Corpus and ICE, and individual researchers have also created their

158  Pingali Sailaja own corpora. Balasubramanian (2009) is able to show that the progressive use of stative verbs is not, in fact, all that pervasive and also that there is registral variation. On the other hand, the invariant tag isn’t it is quite frequent. More Indian features are apparent in informal registers than in formal registers. Sedlatschek (2009), using corpora, shows that there are some differences from standard English patterns, but not too many as implied by impressionistic studies. Nevertheless, there are innovations in syntax as well, for instance, in the use of verb particles: stress on, discuss about, etc. Syntactic research has focused primarily on grammaticalisation processes, especially in verb complementation patterns. Some of the works on this topic are: Bernaisch et al. (2014), Mukherjee and Schilk (2008), Schilk (2011). Lange (2016) examines complementation in the context of intrusive -as constructions in South Asia. Davydova (2016) examines the quotatives in spoken IE and sees a change over a period of time from the earlier (1990s) say (58%) to a much-reduced use of say in later times (2000s, 28%), although still dominating, and the highly increased use of be like (from 0% to 16%). The overall repertoire of quotatives has also expanded. In keeping with findings in the literature on sociolinguistics, she notes that change is brought about by the more prominent groups in society and by females. Among other changes, there is an increased use of okay, a local innovation. Fuchs (2012) compares the focus marker also in IE with BrE, finding many registral variations, a presentational use of the word, and some substrate influence. Lange (2012) compares IE syntactic features with BrE finding differences across age and gender. Some aspects are attributed to substrate influence. 11.3.3 Lexis and word formation In general, morphology is subsumed under morpho-syntax, with inflectional aspects being studied. Such examples as evidences and furnitures are cited to demonstrate that non-count nouns become count nouns in IE (Trudgill & Hannah, 2008). In Lambert (2014) the relative stability of lexical items over a period of time is demonstrated, thus arguing for endonormative stabilisation in IE, at least for lexis. Word formation in IE parallels the processes utilised in other (native) varieties of English. But there are certain preferences as usual. What does bear investigating is the degree of productivity for each of the affixes thus identified. In native varieties, especially BrE, the preference is to construct a word using the suffix -er: Londoner, Hollander, Highlander, etc. While -ite forms exist, they are fewer in number: Sydneyite, Manhattanite, and Tokyoite are some examples. In comparison, the first option in IE is to create words with -ite – Delhiite, Vizagite, Chennai-ite (Sailaja, 2009), mostly attaching to disyllabic names. IE also exercises the option of attaching -(e) an to longer words as in Calcuttan and Bangalorean. In this regard, there seems to be a preference for Latinate suffixes in IE over Germanic suffixes. A

Indian English  159 preference for Latinate prefixes has been observed by Carls (2000), although Sedlatschek (2009), comparing IE, BrE and AmE, states that no such preference is observable in IE. Another suffix that stands out in IE is -ify, also Latinate. This is used extremely productively to make an indigenous word “English”. Examples from Hindi are: pataaofy “to bag”, ghumaaofy “ to swirl”, etc. Based on the phonological conditions to the attachment of -ise and -ify in English, Plag (2003) considers them to be phonologically conditioned allomorphs. However, while the suffix may be used, the phonological conditions do not apply in IE. As processes go, two stand out: reduplication and mixed-code constructions. In a corpus-based study by Kathpalia (2018) on code-mixed IE, an interesting observation is that there are more affixed forms than compounds. However, it must be remembered that code-switching is restricted to those who know both languages, and consequently, the forms cannot be claimed to represent IE in toto. Some examples of reduplication in native varieties are: goody-goody, itsy-bitsy, lovey-dovey, etc. Reduplication in Indian languages exemplifies a range of meanings: distributive, intensification and continuous action among others. Reduplication in IE is also quite productive and some of the senses seen in Indian languages are present in IE as well. Some examples are: little-little (distributive), very-very, hot-hot, sweet-sweet (intensification), running-running, working-working (continuous action). What needs to be investigated is whether the process of reduplication should be considered to be unique to IE, as opposed to other varieties. The range of meanings in IE reduplicated forms still needs to be classified thoroughly.

11.4 IE in the dynamic model While Kachru’s (1985) three circles model describes the situation as exists across the world for “non-native” varieties of English, Schneider’s more current dynamic model (Schneider, 2003, 2007), provides a uniform account of the developmental stages of all the post-colonial varieties of English, considering the historical, political and sociolinguistic factors. Balasubramanian (2009), Mukherjee (2007, 2010) and Schneider (2007) have placed IE in Phase 4 with varying degrees of confidence. Mukherjee states that IE will never reach Phase 5 of differentiation since there are opposing forces pulling the variety in different directions. Mukherjee and Schneider give slightly different time periods for Phase 4 in the case of IE. Apart from historical events, ultimately, the phase division in the dynamic model is about linguistic consequences. The following phases seem appropriate for IE. Phase 1 English reached the people of India directly only after the establishment of schools, the first one being in 1715 in Madras Presidency (Law, 1915). Until

160  Pingali Sailaja then and for some time after, Portuguese was the language for education by Europeans and the lingua franca in European settlements (Sailaja & Müller de Oliveira, 2021). Until English schools were set up, any English that prevailed in India was probably confined to the British, and their trading posts. Foundation, therefore, from 1600 to 1715 or thereabouts is relevant only for the Settler (STL) strand. The indigenous (IDG) strand encounters English decisively only after the schools came into being. The major historical event in this phase is the Battle of Plassey (1757) which established significant British control over India, leading to expanded commerce and contact. Inevitably, this led to increased adoption of English. Phase 2 The consequences of Plassey were immediate. Several events concerning language occurred in the aftermath. Dictionaries were produced, prominently Stockdale’s Indian Vocabulary in 1788, and the first English book by an Indian, the autobiographical The Travels of Dean Mohamed, was published in 1794. As for language policy, while Macaulay’s Minute of 1835 was a major milestone, it only addressed higher education. Wood’s Despatch of 1854 contributed more significantly to wider education, including the establishment of universities. Crucially, it gave importance to all languages and it is certainly not the case that all education was imparted only in English. This phase may be said to end with the Indian Mutiny of 1857 which entrenched the British all over the sub-continent, and effected a separation of British and Indian communities into two different groups and societies, with the boundaries clearly drawn. The later, but better-known Hobson-Jobson of 1886, would be representative of Phase 2 in the dynamic model. The dictionaries were published to aid British readers of Indian English in understanding words that had become a part of Indo-Anglian English, even at that early stage. Phase 3 With the publication of the early “grammars”, or works that point out syntactic errors in IE, the phase of structural nativisation may be said to have started. There is early L1 transfer at the phonological and syntactic levels. Although Whitworth (1907) seems to be the starting point for writing about IE, Baboo English (J, c.1890) is a significant work that compiles the writings of Indians’ English over the previous 25 years. Therefore, from all points of view – political, social and linguistic – 1857 is a turning point. These writings (as do the dictionaries) point to nativisation. As expected, IE constructions of all linguistic levels expanded during this phase. Phase 4 While Mukherjee (2010) gives the 1960s as the turning point towards Phase 4 of endonormativity, it may not be entirely correct to say so. The

Indian English  161 Indian education system continued to emphasise British norms through the 1970s and 80s, explicitly forbidding Indianisms, Americanisms and, most importantly, American spelling. It was not until economic liberalisation in 1991 and the computer software expansion soon after, that IE norms were no longer oriented towards BrE. As the economy expanded exponentially with English as its driving force, it was adopted across all socio-economic strata and ranged from personal spaces to culture and education. In parallel, the emergence of Hinglish (along with Tanglish, Benglish, etc. in different states) as the chosen medium of communication among the youth is indicative of a self-confident nation that uses English on its terms. This aspect of endonormativity can only be better established through larger-scale attitude studies. For now, however, one may compare Kachru’s (1976) study where students and teachers prefer British English over IE, with Bernaisch and Koch’s (2015) work in which, overall, Indians have a positive attitude towards IE. The changes in attitude over time become apparent. Phase 5 As for Phase 5 in the dynamic model, whether differentiation is seen to exist or not depends on the lens through which one looks at IE. To some extent, the perspective is ideologically driven, especially when only variation is the focus. In stating that there is no Phase 5 or that there cannot be one, the assumption is that one must reach a state of homogeneity in order to diversify. On the other hand, the variations that currently exist are a carry-forward of previously constructed forms. There has always been considerable variation internally and that has not changed. Therefore, there is already differentiation in India along all the following trajectories: regional (Telugu English, Hindi English, Dravidian English, etc.), social (standard, non-standard; formal, informal) and ethnic (Anglo-Indian English, etc.), and even translanguaging (Tanglish and other such varieties). Kindersley (1938) painstakingly identifies the region in which a particular usage is common. Transfer from L1 at all linguistic levels has been noticed for IE since early times. Pronunciation has been commented on. While there is no information available on the accents of Indians using English from British times, at least a couple of references suggest that pronunciation was an issue for the early English learners. As early as 1820, Soob Row (1873) observes that learning the pronunciation of a foreign language is difficult. Likewise, an advertisement in 1800 posted by William Carey states that special attention will be paid to pronunciation in teaching English (Sinha, 1978). Therefore, differentiation in terms of pronunciation at least is not a new phenomenon. In fact, Schneider’s model was not suggestive of lack of internal variation before the phase of differentiation (Schneider, 2007, p. 54). But he conceived of differentiation as a more vigorous process. In India, it is more subtle, with successive layers of intra- and interplay between the local and foreign languages. In fact, given the enormous population and geographical

162  Pingali Sailaja Phase

Time span

Foundation

1600-1757

Exonormative

1757-1857

Stabilisation Structural

1857-1991

Nativisation Endonormative 1991-present 

Stabilisation Differentiation

multinormativity

1991-present

Figure 11.1 IE in the dynamic model

spread of the country, and the levels of multilingualism, it is surprising that there is so much homogeneity in IE. Even though specific dates have been identified for each of the phases, overlap between them is more or less accepted in the literature. The first book by an Indian author is an early indicator of a coming later phase. Structural nativisation is an on-going process and continues from the moment it begins. Exonormativity prevails until endonormativity takes over. Differentiation begins when structural nativisation does, and is an ongoing process. This perspective is represented by the arrows in Figure 11.1. However, the date of 1991 is given for differentiation because it marks the time that people of all strata stopped being embarrassed about their own specific variety of IE. Multinormativity Even though endonormativity is accepted by linguists, there are no codified works in India characteristic of Phase 4. There are no dictionaries or grammars of IE for public use. This lack may be attributed to the existence of differentiation, which in turn brings us to the different norms that exist for different contexts, that is multinormativity. Multinormativity is proposed for Trinidadian English (Meer & Deuber, 2020) and this terminology is appropriate for IE as well. Taking accent as an example, the existence of different norms for different contexts is discussed in Sailaja (2013). Multinormativity is regional and also depends on the type of education. There were missionary schools, government schools and private schools right from the beginning. Especially after independence, the overall consequence on IE of each type of school, irrespective of the regions, has been considered to be similar. Missionary schools (read Catholic convents and Anglo-Indian schools) have been known and are still known for their emphasis on English and its “quality” (McArthur, 2002). People educated in such institutions are especially difficult to place in terms of the region they come from, both by way of

Indian English  163 grammar and accent. Other educational institutions are more “Indian” in the English that they impart. It is the pupils of such institutions who are more likely to be identifiable on the basis of their accent and grammar, in comparison to the previous kind. These markers are primarily regional. External influences (not necessarily exonormative), substrate influences, interaction among the people of the sub-continent with ­different L1 backgrounds, and type of education, all contribute to the feature bundle of IE.

11.5 Future directions Research on the features of IE has focused on L1 background considerably. Multinormativity can be established by conducting research that takes into account many factors – the peer group, heterogeneity of the population, the location of the school, and the home background. In order to comment on the vast and varied populations of India, very large-scale corpus-based research is required. Small samples of people will not and cannot provide an overview of the country. In the context of such limited numbers in current research and the complex results that are emerging, ironically, only impressionistic studies will provide a holistic picture. Similarly, nuanced attitude studies are also required. In modern globalised times, it would be interesting to see how IE is developing/has developed with the changes seen across the world, especially with the younger generation and how Schneider’s model can account for these evolving changes. Given the several different influences on IE today, internal and external, there is enormous scope for further research.

References Agnihotri, R. K., & Sahgal, A. (1985). Is Indian English retroflexed and r-full? Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics, X1(1), 97–108. Agnihotri, R. K., Khanna A. L., & Mukherjee, A. (1984). The use of articles in Indian English: Errors and pedagogical implications. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, XXXII(2), 115–128. Agnihotri, R. K., Khanna A. L,. & Mukherjee, A. (1988). Tense in Indian English: A Sociolinguistic Perspective. New Delhi: Bahri Publications Private Limited. Balasubramanian, C. (2009). Register Variation in Indian English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bansal, R. K. (1976). The Intelligibility of Indian English. Monograph No. 4. Hyderabad: Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages. Bernaisch, T., & Koch, C. (2015). Attitudes towards Englishes in India. World Englishes, 35(1), 118–132. doi: 10.1111/weng.12174 Bernaisch, T., Gries, S. Th., & Mukherjee, J. (2014). The dative alternation in South Asian English(es): Modelling predictors and predicting prototypes. English World-Wide, 35(1), 7–31. Bhatt, R. M. (2004). Indian English: Syntax. In B. Kortmann, K. Burridge, R. Mesthrie, E. W. Schneider, & Clive Upton (Eds.), The Handbook of Varieties

164  Pingali Sailaja of English: Vol. 2, Morphology and Syntax (pp. 1016–1030). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Carls, U. (2000). Anti- and pro- in Indian English. In C. Dalton-Puffer & N. Ritt (Eds.), Words: Structure, Meaning, Function: A festschrift for Dieter Kastovsky (pp. 35–43). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Chand, V. (2010). Postvocalic (r) in urban Indian English. English World-Wide, 31(1), 1–39. Chaudhary, S. (1989). Some Aspects of the Phonology of Indian English. Ranchi: Jayaswal Press. CIEFL (1972). The Sound System of Indian English. Monograph No. 7. Hyderabad: Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages. Davydova, J. (2016). Indian English quotatives in a diachronic perspective. In E. Seoane & C. Suarez-Gomez (Eds.), World Englishes: New Theoretical and Methodological Considerations (pp. 173–204). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Domange, R. (2015). A language contact perspective on Indian English phonology. World Englishes, 34(4), 533–556. doi: 10.1111/weng.12162. D’souza, J. (1988). Interactional strategies in South Asian languages: Their implications for teaching English internationally. World Englishes, 7(2), 159–71. Fuchs, R. (2012). Focus marking and semantic transfer in Indian English: The case of also. English World-Wide, 33(1), 27–53. Fuchs, R. (2016). Speech Rhythm in Varieties of English: Evidence from Educated Indian English and British English. Singapore: Springer. Fuchs, R. (2019). Almost [w]anishing: The elusive /v/-/w/ contrast in educated Indian English. In S. Calhoun, P. Escudero, M. Tabain, & P. Warren (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 1382–1386). Canberra, Australia: Australasian Speech Science and Technology Association Inco, Melbourne. Fuchs, R., & Maxwell, O. (2015). The placement and acoustic realisation of primary and secondary stress in Indian English. In The Scottish Consortium for ICPhS 2015 (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Glasgow, UK: University of Glasgow. ISBN 978-0-85261-941-4. Retrieved from http:​/​/www​​.inte​​rnati​​onalp​​honet​​icass​​ociat​​ion​.o​​rg​/ic​​phs​-p​​rocee​​dings​​/ICPh​​S2015​​/ Pape​​rs​​/IC​​PHS10​​41​.pd​​f. Gargesh, R. (2008). Indian English: Phonology. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), Varieties of English: Africa, South and South-East Asia (pp. 231–243). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Goffin, R. C. (1934). Some notes on Indian English. S. P. E. Tract, 41, 20–32. Grice, M., German, J. S., & Warren, P. (2020). Intonation systems across varieties of English. In C. Gussenhoven & A. Chen (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language Prosody (pp. 285–302). doi: 10.31234/osf​.io​/tnv8d​. Gumperz, J. J., Gurinder, A., & Kaltman, H. (1982). Thematic structure and progression in discourse. In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and Social Identity (pp. 22–56). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hawkins, R. E. (1984). Common Indian Words in English. Delhi: Oxford University Press. J, T. W. (Ed.) (c. 1890). ‘Baboo English’ or Our Mother-Tongue as Our Aryan Brethren Understand It. Amusing Specimens of Composition and Style, or, English as Written By Some of Her Majesty’s Indian Subjects. Calcutta: H. P. Kent and Co.

Indian English  165 Kachru, B. B. (1975). Lexical innovations in South Asian English. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 4, 55–74. Kachru, B. B. (1976). Models of English for the third world: White man’s linguistic burden or language pragmatics? TESOL Quarterly, 10(2), 221–239. Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures (pp. 11–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kachru, B. B. (1989). The Alchemy of English: The Spread, Functions and Models of Non-Native Englishes. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Kachru B. B. (1994). English in South Asia, In R. Burchfield (Ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language: Vol. 5, English in Britain and overseas: Origins and Development (pp. 497–553). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kathpalia, S. S. (2018). Neologisms: Word creation processes in Hindi-English codemixed words. English World-Wide, 39(1), 34–59. doi: 10.1075/eww​.00002​.​kat Kindersley, A. F. (1931). Indian English: Its employment and characteristics. Transactions of the Philological Society, 31(1), 82–83. doi:10.1111/j.1467968x.1931.tb00729.x. Kindersley, A. F. (1938). Notes on the Indian idiom of English: Style, syntax, and vocabulary. Transactions of the Philological Society, 37(1), 25–34. doi:10.1111/ j.1467-968x.1938.tb00952.x Lambert, J. (2014). Diachronic stability in Indian English lexis. World Englishes, 33(1), 112–127. Lange, C. (2012). The Syntax of Spoken Indian English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lange, C. (2016). The ‘intrusive –as’ construction in South Asian varieties of English. World Englishes, 35(1), 133–146. doi:10.1111/weng.12173 Law, N. N. (1915). Promotion of Learning in India By Early European Settlers. London: Longmans Green and Co. Maxwell, O., & Payne, E. (2018). Pitch accent types and tonal alignment of the accentual rise in Indian English(es). In Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Speech Prosody 2018 (pp. 942–946). Poznan, Poland. doi: 10.21437/SpeechProsody. 2018-190. Maxwell, O., & Payne, E. (forthcoming). Investigating (rhythm) variation in Indian English: An integrated approach. In R. Fuchs (Ed.), Speech Rhythm in L2 and L3 Varieties of English (pp. TBA). Singapore: Springer. Maxwell, O., Payne, E., & Billington, R. (2018). Homogeneity vs heterogeneity in Indian English: Investigating influences of L1 on f0 range. In Proceedings of Interspeech 2018 (pp. 2191–2195), Hyderabad, India. doi: 10.21437/Interspeech. 2018-1476. McArthur, T. (2002). The Oxford Guide to World English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Meer, P., & Deuber, D. (2020). Standard English in Trinidad: Multinormativity, translocality, and implications for the dynamic model and the EIF model. In S. Buschfeld & A. Kautsch (Eds.), A Joint Approach Towards Postcolonial and Non-Postcolonial Varieties (pp. 274–297). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Mukherjee, J. (2007). Steady states in the evolution of New Englishes: Present-day Indian English as an equilibrium. Journal of English Linguistics, 35(2), 157–87.

166  Pingali Sailaja Mukherjee, J. (2010). The development of the English Language in India. In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes (pp. 167–180). Oxon: Routledge. Mukherjee, J., & Schilk, M. (2008). Verb-complementational profiles across varieties of English: Comparing verb classes in Indian English and British English. In T. Nevalainen, I. Taavitsainen, P. Pahta, & M. Korhonen (Eds.), The Dynamics of Linguistic Variation: Corpus Evidence in English Past and Present (pp. 163–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Muthiah, S. (1991). Words in Indian English: A Reader’s Guide. New Delhi: Indus. Nihalani, P., Tongue, R. K., Hosali, P., & Crowther, J. (2005). Indian and British English: A Handbook of Usage and Pronunciation. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Parasher, S. V. (1983). Indian English: Certain grammatical, lexical and stylistic features. English World-Wide, 4(1), 27–42. Payne, E., Maxwell, O., & Volchok, B. (2019). Tense-lax contrasts in Indian English vowels: Transfer effects from l1 Telugu at the phonetics-phonology interface. In S. Calhoun, P. Escudero, M. Tabain, & P. Warren (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Melbourne, Australia. Canberra, Australia: Australasian Speech Science and Technology Association Inc. Pickering, L., & Wiltshire, C. (2000). Pitch accent in Indian-English teaching discourse. World Englishes, 19, 173–83. Plag, I. (2003). Word-Formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sailaja, P. (2009). Indian English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Sailaja, P. (2012). Indian English: Features and sociolinguistic aspects. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(6), 359–370. doi: 10.1002/lnc3.342 Sailaja, P. (2013). Determining norms for teaching pronunciation. In Z. N. Patil, S. Marathe, & A. Patil (Eds.), Aspects of ELLT: Essays on Theory, Practice and Experimentation in English Language and Literature Teaching in India and Elsewhere (pp. 87–96). Hyderabad: EFLU. Sailaja, P. (2017, February). Accounting for the mid-vowels and (non)rhoticity in Indian English. Paper presented at Dhwanivandanam: Symposium in honour of Professor K. G. Vijayakrishnan, EFLU, Hyderabad. Sailaja, P., & Debashish, M. (2018, September). Variable rhoticity in Indian English. Paper presented at the Interspeech Satellite Workshop on English in India and Indian Englishes: New Horizons in the Study of Phonetics and Phonology (Ph-IndE1), University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad. Sailaja, P., & Müller de Oliveira, Gilvan (2021). Português e inglês na história do multilinguismo indiano: Relações interculturais no contexto das políticas linguísticas educacionais [Portuguese and English in the history of Indian multilingualism: Intercultural relations in the context of educational language policies]. In M.H. Araújo e Sá & C. M. A. Maciel (Eds.), Interculturalidade e plurilinguismo nos discursos e práticas de educação e formação em contextos de língua portuguesa [Interculturality and Plurilingualism in the Discourses and Practices of Education and Training in Post-colonial Portuguese speaking Contexts] (pp. 21–34) Berlin: Peter Lang. Schilk, M. (2011). Structural Nativization in Indian English Lexicogrammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Indian English  167 Schneider, Edgar W. (2003). The dynamics of new Englishes: From identity construction to dialect birth. Language, 79(2), 233–281. Schneider, E. W. (2007). Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge: CUP. Sedlatschek, A. (2009). Contemporary Indian English: Variation and Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sinha, S. P. (1978). English in India: A Historical Study with Particular Reference to English Education in India. Patna: Janaki Prakashan. Sirsa, H., & Redford, M. A. (2013). The effects of native language on Indian English sounds and timing patterns. Journal of Phonetics, 41, 393–406. Soob Row, V. (1873). The Life of Vennelacunty Soob Row, (Native of Ongole), Translator and Interpreter of the Late Sudr Court, Madras, from 1815 to 1829 as Written by Himself. Madras: Vennelacunty Venkata Gopal Row. Stockdale, J. (1788). Indian Vocabulary. London: John Stockdale. Subba Rao, G. (1954). Indian Words in English: A Study in Indo-British Cultural and Linguistic Relations. London: Oxford University Press. Trudgill, P., & Hannah, J. (2008). International English: A Guide to Varieties of Standard English. London: Hodder Arnold. Valentine, T. M. (1991). Getting the message across: Discourse markers in Indian English. World Englishes, 10(3), 325–34. Verma, S. K. (1978). Syntactic irregularities in Indian English. In R. Mohan (Ed.), Indian Writing in English: Papers Read at the Seminar on Indian English Held at CIEFL, Hyderabad, July 1972 (pp. 207–20). Bombay: Orient Longman. Wells, John C. (1982). Accents of English (in 3 Vols). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Whitworth, G. C. (1907). Indian English: An Examination of the Errors of Idiom Made By Indians in Writing English. Lechtworth: Garden City Press. Wiltshire, C., & Moon, R. (2003). Phonetic stress in Indian English vs. American English. World Englishes, 22(3), 291–303. Wiltshire, C. R. (2020). Uniformity and Variability in the Indian English Accent [‘Elements in World Englishes Series’ ed. by E. W. Schneider]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Yule, H., & Burnell, A. C. (1986). Hobson-Jobson: A Glossary of Colloquial AngloIndian Words and Phrases, and of Kindred Terms, Etymological, Historical, Geographical and Discursive. New Delhi: Rupa & Co.

12 Features of Sri Lankan English Tobias Bernaisch

12.1 Introduction Due to its development in language contact settings of various kinds – be that with the indigenous languages of the country, i.e. Sinhala or Tamil, or other varieties of English with which it is related geographically, e.g. Indian English (IndE), or historically, i.e. British English (BrE), the structures of Sri Lankan English (SLE) are intriguing on every level of language organisation. Against the background of the evolution of SLE, which is described in Section 12.2 with the help of prominent models of World Englishes, this chapter provides an overview of SLE particularities with regard to its sound system in Section 12.3.1, its lexis in Section 12.3.2, its lexico-grammar in Section 12.3.3 and its syntax in Section 12.3.4. Two case studies on pragmatic discourse organisation with regard to speaker- vs. hearer-foci in utterances and turn-taking in Section 12.4 complement these relatively formal perspectives. Section 12.5 offers some concluding remarks and an outlook.

12.2 Modelling Sri Lankan English in the World Englishes paradigm The modelling of SLE in the World Englishes paradigm needs to consider the sociolinguistic realities of its speakers as well as the structural development of its linguistic repertoire. With its origins in trade between local Sri Lankans and merchants of the British East India Company, the history of SLE begins at the end of the 18th century (cf. De Silva, 1981, p. 210). Soon after these initial business contacts, Sri Lanka became a British crown colony in 1802 and Christian missionary activities, in the context of which the English language was taught in basic educational structures, started. The Colebrooke-Cameron Commission of 1831/1832 instantiated the effort to spread English in Sri Lanka more systematically and can thus be regarded as a catalyst for the localisation of English and the structural features resulting from it as described in Sections 12.3 and 12.4. In the aftermath of the Sri Lankan independence in 1948, the local government sought to replace English with Sinhala and – notably less prominently – Tamil DOI: 10.4324/9780429433467-12

Features of Sri Lankan English  169 (cf. Kumarasamy, 2007, p. 46), but these attempts notwithstanding, English has continued to enjoy a prominent position in the Sri Lankan linguistic ecology. In terms of Kachru’s (1985) Three Circles model, SLE is thus generally referred to as an Outer Circle variety since (a) SLE is by default acquired as a second language after Sinhala or Tamil, (b) English functions de facto as an official language of the country because it is defined as a link language in the Sri Lankan Constitution and (c) there are natural pockets of English language use in administration, government, the educational sector and others. Still, Mukherjee et al. (2010, p. 65) have referred to SLE as three Kachruvian circles in miniature because – in addition to second language users in Sri Lanka – there is also a privileged elite who speaks English as a first language, but also a large group of speakers for whom – based on their proficiency in the language – English is rather a foreign than a second language. As relates to the evolution of SLE and the encompassing structural nativisation on various levels of language organisation (cf. Schneider, 2007), it has been argued that SLE can be considered to be (on its way towards) an endonormatively stabilised variety, i.e. a variety of English in its own right (cf. Mukherjee, 2008, p. 361; Bernaisch, 2015, p. 221). Table 12.1 depicts the extent to which SLE fulfils the majority of criteria for endonormatively stabilised varieties in Schneider’s (cf. 2007, p. 56) evolutionary framework. Given that Sri Lanka is an independent country with a large number of speakers ethnically identifying themselves as Sri Lankans (as opposed to Sinhalese or Tamil; cf. Bernaisch, 2012, p. 284) with a positive attitude towards SLE, which is also used as a creative vehicle and codified in a dictionary (cf. Meyler, 2007), SLE can undoubtedly be considered an endonormatively stabilised variety. Particularly so because the few criteria for endonormative stabilisation whose status is unclear as regards SLE, i.e. acceptance of local norms, stabilisation of a new variety and relative

Table 12.1 The criteria for endonormative stabilisation (cf. Schneider, 2007, p. 56) and SLE Parameter

Criterion

+/(+)/-/?

History and politics

Post-independence? Self-dependence? Settlers and indigenous population interwoven? New nation with pan-ethnic identity? Acceptance of local norms? Positive attitude to local variety? Literary creativity? Stabilisation of a new variety? Codification (e.g. dictionaries)? Relative homogeneity of local norms?

+ + -

Identity construction Sociolinguistics of contact, use and attitudes Linguistic developments and structural effects

(+) (+) + + ? + ?

170  Tobias Bernaisch homogeneity of local norms, are notoriously difficult to evaluate empirically and arguments can be found in favour or against SLE fulfilling these aspects. As the overview of the features of SLE in Sections 12.3 and 12.4 documents, SLE particularities can be found on all structural levels of language organisation as well as in the cultural patterns of how people do things pragmatically in SLE. Yet, despite these localised forms of SLE communication and the status of SLE as an endonormatively stabilised variety, it should not be overlooked that SLE continues to display many structures shared across other World Englishes, or, to put it differently, that a large part of SLE is still constituted by the common core of English (cf. Quirk et al., 1985, p. 16). From a sociolinguistic point of view, it is consequently most sound to describe SLE as a variety in its own right with a distinctive structural profile (cf. Bernaisch, 2015, p. 205) constituted by elements of the common core as well as localised features on various structural levels with exonormative or endonormative tendencies being more advanced on individual structural levels – or even only individual structures on a given level – than on others.

12.3 The structures of Sri Lankan English 12.3.1 The sound system of Sri Lankan English Although various publications have concerned themselves with the sound system of SLE and identified sets of recurrent articulatory features, Fernando (1985, p. 56) warns that [c]hanges in the phonology of SLE today mirror the following patterns of change in the variety as a whole. SLE today is an uncertain system at many points. A large number of variant forms are acceptable at several of these points, and these variations are sometimes unsystematic, even within the speech of a single speaker. Fernando’s (cf. 1985, p. 56) observation dates back to the 1980s, but it still sets the tone for how the ensuing description of SLE phonology needs to be understood today – characteristics of the SLE sound system can be profiled, but this does not mean to imply that individual speakers or speaker groups necessarily (aspire to) adhere to these features as standards – particularly in the light of outstandingly positive attitudes among Sri Lankans towards BrE with markedly different pronunciation standards (cf. Bernaisch, 2012). In this light, empirical research into the frequencies of use and the spread of the features listed in Table 12.2, which are rooted in first-hand experiences of SLE speakers and researchers, is all the more needed. 12.3.2 The lexis of Sri Lankan English First descriptions of SLE lexis become available in the 1950s. Passé (1950, p. 133) considered SLE lexical items such as child as an ungendered term

Features of Sri Lankan English  171 Table 12.2 The SLE sound system

Vowels

Feature

Description

monophthongisation (cf. Meyler, 2007, p. xx)

diphthongs are replaced

with long monophthongs /bəʊt/ --> /bɔːt/

/leɪn/ --> /le:n/ monophthongs are replaced with diphthongs /məˈriːn/ --> /məˈrʌɪn/ various less systematic vowel production changes alveolar plosives /t/ and /d/ are produced further back interdental fricatives /θ/ and /ð/ are produced as plosives labiodental fricative /v/ and velar approximant /w/ are /ˈwɔːtə/ --> merged to labio-dental /ˈʋɔːtə/ approximant /ʋ/

diphthongisation (cf. Meyler, 2007, p. xxi) misc. Consonants alveolar plosives (cf. Meyler, 2007, p. xxi) interdental fricatives (cf. Meyler, 2007, p. xxi) merger of /v/ and /w/ (cf. Gunesekera, 2005, p. 125; Meyler, 2007, p. xxi) lateral approximant (cf. Senaratne, 2009, p. 55) consonant clusters with /s/ (cf. Gunesekera, 2005, p. 126; Senaratne, 2009, p. 55) bilabial sounds (cf. Gunesekera, 2005, p. 126) rhoticity (cf. Meyler, 2007, p. xxiv) linking /r/ (cf. Meyler, 2007, p. xxiv) two- or three-syllable Stress words (cf. Meyler, 2007, pp. xxii–xxiii) connected speech (cf. Meyler, 2007, p. xxiv)

Example(s) where reasonable

lateral approximant /l/ does not have dark and clear allophones

consonant clusters /sk/, /skuːl/ --> /sp/, /sm/ and /st/ at the /ɪskuːl/ beginning of words are preceded by /ɪ/ bilabial plosive /p/ is replaced by bilabial fricative /f/ SLE is non-rhotic

/ˈprɒfɪt/ --> /ˈfrɒfɪt/

SLE does not employ linking /r/ sounds Some two- or three-syllable words are stressed on the /dɪˈzəːt/ --> first syllable /ˈdezət/

/ˌɑːftəˈnuːn/ --> /ˈɑːftəˌnuːn/ full vowel production in

connected speech /ˈkamrə/ --> /ˈkamərə/

172  Tobias Bernaisch of address or KEEP (e.g. the book in my room) in the sense of LEAVE (e.g. the book in my room) “translation errors […] that are used by quite good speakers and writers, that appear in newspapers and other writing […]; errors of expression that have become more or less fixed in Ceylon English and which the users would be startled and shocked to hear stigmatized as ‘un-English’.” A recurrent set of SLE pieces of vocabulary used and accepted by competent SLE speakers as well as standardised in the form of newspaper writing today seems a clear indication that these words would not vanish from SLE usage; in this light, it is not surprising that the most significant lexicographic work on SLE to date, Michael Meyler’s (2007) A Dictionary of Sri Lankan English, features entries for child and KEEP documenting the very uses Passé (1950) already profiled about 60 years earlier in then contemporary SLE. The continuity and pervasiveness of the usage patterns of child, KEEP and other SLE vocabulary items thus highlight a deeply rooted localised stock of SLE vocabulary items. The contact between English and the local languages of Sri Lanka, i.e. Sinhala and Tamil, also finds reflection in the vocabulary of SLE in the form of a considerable number of borrowings. Fernando (2003) checks how SLE lexis sourced from local languages (e.g. anaconda from Sinhala henakandaya) is documented in the Oxford English Dictionary and Gunesekera (cf. 2005, p. 147) scrutinises hybrid forms consisting of a Sinhala base and English affixes (e.g. thadeying for dancing cheek to cheek from Sinhala thada meaning tight). As the vocabularies of post-colonial Englishes have occasionally also been characterised as bookish and archaic (cf. Mesthrie & Bhatt, 2008, p. 114ff.) and since these characteristics have also been posited to apply to SLE (cf. Meyler, 2007, p. xiv), Bernaisch (2015) shows that lexemes perceived as archaic or overly formal (e.g. rogue, tavern, RESIDE, PURCHASE) by BrE speakers have a higher currency and less stylistic marking in SLE (as well as in IndE) than in BrE. 12.3.3 The lexico-grammar of Sri Lankan English Lexico-grammar has been and continues to be in the limelight of research into SLE – not only because Schneider (2007, p. 46) argues that early traces of structural localisation/indigenisation of a post-colonial English become visible at the interface between lexis and grammar, but also because of the relatively rich body of research for certain lexico-grammatical routines as used also outside the SLE speech community. In parallel to the diachronic persistence of certain localised lexical items in SLE such as child or KEEP (see Section 12.3.2), notable lexico-grammatical structures such as COPE up with (as an alternative to the international standard COPE with) have been in use in SLE for more than 70 years (cf. Passé, 1950, p. 153) with particle verbs occurring more often in SLE than in BrE in general (cf. Mendis, 2010, p. 15; Bernaisch, 2015). While variety-specific constructions such as COPE up with certainly catch linguists’ attention because they are qualitatively

Features of Sri Lankan English  173 different from international standard forms, these novel constructions – although they can be found in corpus data – are quantitatively at best marginal in comparison to the international standard forms (cf. Mukherjee, 2012; Zipp & Bernaisch, 2012; Bernaisch, 2015). Studies of the dative alternation, i.e. the choice between the doubleobject construction (e.g. John gave Mary a book) as opposed to the pre­ positional dative (e.g. John gave a book to Mary), have revealed certain possible dynamics between SLE and other South Asian Englishes. With regard to the dative alternation, it could be shown that (a) SLE is more similar in its use to IndE than to BrE (cf. Mukherjee, 2008), (b) many of the factors influencing the alternation in BrE (e.g. length of constituents, pronominality, etc.) are also at work in South Asian Englishes (cf. Bernaisch et al., 2014) and (c) IndE might function as a linguistic epicentre for South Asian Englishes, meaning that it has the potential to locally provide norms for other varieties of English in South Asia (cf. Gries & Bernaisch, 2016; see also Heller et al., 2017 for similar observations based on the genitive alternation). The variety-specific structural profile of SLE is also evident in studies on light-verb constructions, i.e. the combination of a semantically reduced verb (e.g. GIVE or HAVE) with a noun isomorphic to the simplex verb (e.g. try, laugh, cry) as in GIVE a try or HAVE a laugh, in that the frequencies of said construction, the combinations of light verbs with nouns therein (e.g. TAKE a call in the sense of making a telephone call) and its genre distribution are unique in SLE (cf. Hoffmann et al., 2011; Bernaisch, 2015). Similarly, SLE also exhibits variety-specific preferences with the hypothetical subjunctive in the context of if-clauses (cf. Hundt et al., 2012). 12.3.4 The syntax of Sri Lankan English Gunesekera (2005) provides an introspective account of the syntax of SLE. The features she considers characteristics of spoken and written SLE syntax respectively are documented in Table 12.3, but would certainly merit empirical research to establish to what extent these features occur. The features Meyler (2007) – through the eyes of a British native speaker who has lived in Sri Lanka for decades – identifies and exemplifies in the introduction of his dictionary of SLE are listed in Table 12.4. Similar to Gunesekera’s (2005) observations, it would be important to check whether and how often these structures are attestable in authentic SLE text material. Other variety-specific features identified empirically in SLE syntax include zero copula (e.g. You in trouble (cf. Herat, 2005, p. 181)) as well as substitute one. Substitute one is used as a pronoun to relate to a referent which is not cotextually retrievable: (1) Now when we go to Mihintale I tell that is the first one declared as sanctuary from the whole world. (Herat, 2006, p. 71)

174  Tobias Bernaisch Table 12.3 Features of spoken and written SLE syntax according to Gunesekera (2005) SLE SPOKEN SYNTAX

SLE WRITTEN SYNTAX

Use of tags (e.g. no, isn’t it, men) Transferred Sinhala and Tamil expressions

Non-use of tags Selected Sinhala and Tamil expressions only1 No verb deletion in questions Use of double comparatives Countability of non-count nouns Overuse of prepositions Avoidance of pronoun deletion No topicalisation

Verb deletion in questions Use of double comparatives Countability of non-count nouns Overuse of prepositions Pronoun deletion Topicalisation

Table 12.4 Features of SLE syntax according to Meyler (2007) PHENOMENON VERBS, NOUNS Continuous forms with state verbs Deviant usage of modals Past perfect to express uncertainty Complementational differences Prepositional differences Particle verbs Pluralisation and countability of nouns ARTICLES, PREPOSITIONS, ADVERBIALS Article usage Prepositional usage Adverbial usage WORD ORDER Word order in questions (high level of formality) Positioning of adverbs in statements Miscellaneous word order differences COLLOQUIAL SYNTACTIC FEATURES

EXAMPLE You may be knowing them. We would inform you as soon as we hear. The robbers had escaped in a white van. Do you like? You better refer your dictionary. He gets played out every time. Can you lend me your scissor?

omission of the indefinite article with few He’s three years younger to me. I’ll do it after. To whom did you give it? instead of Who did you give it to? They anyway won’t come. Tomorrow even we’ll be open.

Duplication of words What and what have you been doing? Dropping of redundant grammatical items How to go?

Features of Sri Lankan English  175 In (1), it is difficult for readers to understand what one refers to solely based on the text, which is why the referent of substitute one must be retrievable from the larger context of the statement and this is profiled as a usage pattern specific to SLE.

12.4 The pragmatics of Sri Lankan English While more and more descriptions of the formal structures of SLE – also in comparison to varieties such as its historical input BrE or other South Asian Englishes – have become available in the course of the last decades, the pragmatics of SLE – and the pragmatics of the majority of other World Englishes, as a matter of fact – have so far remained outside or at best at the periphery of academic interest and inquiry. This marginal role of pragmatics in the study of SLE is surprising since this area of research is concerned with “how to do things with words” (Austin, 1962) – as the sociocultural patterns of communication in Sri Lanka are notably different from those for which ample pragmatic descriptions are available, particularly Sri Lankan ways of getting things done with words are highly likely to occur.2 For this reason, the following sections will sketch out central findings regarding the degree of speaker- or hearer-focus of utterances as well as mechanisms of turn-taking to potentially reveal variety-specific principles of discourse organisation in SLE. The degree of speaker- or hearer-focus of an utterance can be operationalised as the relative frequency of forms per utterance that refer to the speaker, i.e. I, me, mine, my and myself, compared to those forms that explicitly address the interlocutor(s), i.e. you, your, yours, yourself – these forms were extracted from the spoken parts of ICE-Great Britain, ICE-India and ICE-Sri Lanka.3 When we subtract the relative frequency of hearerreferences from the relative frequency of self-references per utterance, positive values of the resulting variable ratio i-you show that speakers refer more often to themselves than to their interlocutor(s), while negative values indicate the opposite. With the intention of capturing the complexity behind speaker- vs. hearer-foci when people communicate, the following factors are considered as potentially influencing ratio i-you and added as annotation to the individual speaker ratios: •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

age:

young (≤ 25) vs. old (> 25) formal vs. informal (based on Xiao, 2009) gender: female vs. male interaction: dialogue vs. monologue topic: nine topics, i.e. court, government, humanities, legal, news, personal, politics, research and schooling, one of which is identified for each speakers’ text via LDA topic modelling (cf. Grün & Hornik, 2011)4 ttr: type-token ratio per speaker in per cent variety: Great Britain (GB) vs. India (IND) vs. Sri Lanka (SL) formality:

176  Tobias Bernaisch The sensitivity of the ratio i-you to the topic of the communicative exchange is shown in Figure 12.1 in the form of boxplots. They are organised according to variety and variety-internally according to topic. The dots and boxplots in Figure 12.1 are colour-coded according to the topic of the communicative exchange, the dots represent individual speaker’s ratios and the boxplots summarise them per topic in the individual varieties. Despite certain degrees of variability, some cross-varietal patterns of ratio i-you in relation to topic are notably homogenous: With schooling or humanities as topics, the boxplots display averagely positive ratio i-you values across the varieties indicating that speakers talk more about themselves in these contexts while more interlocutor references are present when research, for example, is being discussed. To adequately identify influential factors on ratio i-you, the nature of the variables studied is relevant. The variable topic illustrated in Figure 12.1 can be treated as a random effect in the sense that not all levels of the variable topic as they exist in the real world are present in the study – in other words, people in the real world talk about more than the nine topics identified for the texts studied. For the remaining factors such as age, gender, etc. all the respective levels as they are observable in the real world, i.e. young vs. old, female vs. male, etc. form part of this study requiring these factors to be modelled as fixed effects. This differentiation is central because fixed effects (here in relation to ratio i-you) will only be maximally informative when the random effects are adequately statistically accounted for as can be done with linear mixed-effects model trees (Fokkema et al., 2018; lmertrees). The visualisation of the results of the lmertree-analysis with regard to topic i-you is provided in Figure 12.2. The results of the lmertree for ratio i-you can be read like a flowchart ending in boxplots for ratio i-you of the factor constellations that have led to the respective boxplots.5 Three central findings should be pointed out here. First, only age, gender, ttr and variety significantly influence ratio i-you while formality and interaction do not.6 Second, three speaker groups produce utterances with stronger hearer- than speaker-foci: (a) Older speakers with a ttr equal to or below 20.486 (node 3), (b) younger Indian speakers (node 6) and (c) younger speakers from Britain or Sri Lanka with a ttr above 64. Third, younger British speakers with a ttr below or equal to 64 (node 9) tend to centre their discourse more strongly around themselves than younger Indian speakers (node 6) or younger Sri Lankan speakers with a ttr equal to or below 64 (nodes 11 and 12). With a focus on variety-internal pragmatic variation in SLE, turn-taking offers relevant insights. In the 90 face-to-face conversations in ICE-Sri Lanka, every interruption was coded for whether this interruption occurred at the end of a grammatically complete unit by the speaker, i.e. a grammatical transition-relevance point (TRP), or at a point where the speaker’s production was not yet grammatically complete (NONTRP). For each interruption, the age and gender of the speaker and interrupter as well as whether

Figure 12.1 ratio i-you by variety and topic summarised in boxplots.

Features of Sri Lankan English  177

178  Tobias Bernaisch

Figure 12.2 lmertree of ratio i-you.

the interrupter was older than the speaker was documented. Figure 12.3 visualises the central results of a random forest analysis (Breiman, 2001; Liaw & Wiener, 2002) of the 3357 instances.7 The central tendencies to be gleaned from Figure 12.3 are that speakers are most often interrupted at NONTRPs when they are female and between 20 and 30 or between 55 and 65 years of age and frequent interrupters at NONTRPs are females between 20 and 30 and less frequently between 30 and 40 years. For NONTRPS, the interrupters are generally not older than the speakers they interrupt. Such a constellation is exemplified in (2), where a 28-year-old female speaker is interrupted by another 28-year-old female at a NONTRP: (2) I called you last night though around ten thirty You didn’t answer you would have been watching Ten thirty eight no you know why In conjunction with other corpus-based research into the pragmatics of SLE (see e.g. Revis & Bernaisch (2020) on pausing; Degenhardt (accepted) on requesting or Funke (2020) on thanking), the results for speakers- vs. hearerfocus and turn-taking provide ample evidence for nativised pragmatic routines in SLE that are notably different from those in other World Englishes. Consequently, empirical research supports the view that SLE has undergone a process of pragmatic nativisation (cf. Bamgbose, 1998; Hoffmann et al., 2017), i.e. a localisation of principles of pragmatic discourse organisation and action.

Features of Sri Lankan English  179

Figure 12.3 Partial dependence plots for NONTRP.

12.5 Conclusion and outlook The structural and pragmatic findings discussed in Sections 12.3 and 12.4 show that SLE boasts many structures that – particularly in combination with one another – make SLE a variety of English clearly distinguishable from others. Still, this picture of SLE is biased in that it is maximally focussed on those features that make SLE – either categorically or quantitatively – different from other World Englishes while the many linguistic commonalities between SLE, its historical input British English and other varieties around the globe have remained in the background. With a view to norms in Sri Lankan English, the only conclusion such a skewed account allows is that SLE has evidently carved out its own norms since its foundation more than 200 years ago and will probably not cease to do so, but each

180  Tobias Bernaisch and every variety-specific norm development also only marks one departure from the many Inner Circle (British) norms that are still very much evident on the island – on the structural, pragmatic, but also the attitudinal level (cf. Bernaisch, 2012). What complicates this matter of norm development as opposed to norm dependence further is that many of the structures claimed to be typically Sri Lankan (see in particular the structures listed in Tables 12.2–12.4) have not yet been researched empirically, implying that there is no statistically reliable documentation covering the frequency of said structures and consequently no empirical basis to evaluate to what extent the structures concerned can be considered typically Sri Lankan in comparison to other varieties or typical in SLE compared to other structures in SLE. In conjunction with the lack of diachronic work on the development of SLE across time, the full (hi-)story of SLE certainly still remains to be told.

Notes 1 Senaratne (cf. 2009, p. 59) exemplifies calques in SLE by showing that the SLE sentence I will go and come is a direct translation of the Sinhala expression gihilla ennan. 2 Consider the address term dude in this context. In the United States, this term of address is prototypically used most frequently in informal male-to-male interactions while empirical research into the address term system of SLE (Bernaisch, 2019; Mendis, 2019) documents that young Sri Lankan females employ dude to address other females of roughly the same age. 3 Yourselves was not considered because of its markedly low frequency in the three ICE components studied. 4 I would like to thank Benedikt Heller for his support in the course of the topicmodelling process. 5 The lmertree has a classification accuracy of 68.88% and is highly significantly better than a baseline model (p