Skip to content

Media

1995 Global Cultural Diversity Conference Proceedings, Sydney

The Intercultural Nature of Modern English

Professor Braj Kachru
Professor of Linguistics and Jubilee Professor of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Illinois, USA

I. Introduction

In his presidential address to the English Association in London in 1975, George Steiner observed that "the linguistic center of English has shifted". Steiner argued that
...this shift of the linguistic center involves more than statistics. It does look as if the principal energies of the English language, as if its genius for acquisition, for innovation, more metaphoric response, has also moved away from England.

What is important here is where the center is shifting to. Steiner was not thinking of the shift to North America or to Australia only, but to East, West, and South Africa, India, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), and the US possessions in the Pacific. He is actually referring to the unprecedented global presence of English, its internationalisation, and its increasing pluralism.

This cross-cultural and pluricentric shift of the language demands that we begin with a distinction between English as a medium and English as a repertoire of cultural pluralism, one referring to the form of the language and the other to its diverse functions. It is the medium the linguistic form that is designed and organized for multiple cultural conventions and meanings. It is in this sense that one uses the concepts "international," "global," "universal," and "multi-canons" with reference to cross-cultural and cross-linguistic uses and users of English. It is in this sense that one can discuss the "intercultural" components of the language. What we share as members of the international English-using speech community is the medium the vehicle for the transmission of the English language. We use the phonetic medium when we speak to each other. We use the graphic medium when we write to each other. The medium per se, however, has no constraints on what message cultural, social, or ideological we transmit through it.

When we call English an international medium, what we mean is that those who use English across cultures in Asia, in Africa and in Europe have a shared code of communication. The medium provides, as it were, shifting "grids" through which we gain access to a variety of Asian, African, European, and North American ideologies, mythologies, philosophies, and other sociocultural contexts. We see this acculturation of the medium in, for example, West African varieties of English. In this region, as Okara says, English is used, "to express our own ideas, thinking and philosophy in our own way" (1963: 15-16).

This language is used and moulded on its users' terms. We indeed share in our uses of English a large inventory of the sound system, the vocabulary, and syntax. The result of this shared competence is that in spite of various types of differences, we believe that we communicate with each other one user of English with the other an Australian with an Indian, a Japanese with a German, and a Singaporean with a North American. It is in this broad sense of intercultural interlocutors that we have one language, one medium, and multiple voices, as C.D. Narasimhaiah says, "English has been an effective aid to thinking globally while choosing to live locally…" (1991: viii).

I have earlier characterized the users of English in terms of the following three concentric circles# (Kachru 1985):

Three Concentric Circles of Englishes

The expanding circle e.g., China-Caribbean Countries-Egypt-Indonesia-Israel-Japan -Korea-Nepal-Saudi Arabia-South Africa-South America-Taiwan -CIS-Zimbabwe

The outer circle, e.g., Bangladesh-Ghana-India-Kenya-Malaysia-Nigeria-Pakistan-Philippines-Singapore-Sri Lanka-Tanzania-Zambia

The inner circle, e.g USA-UK-Canada-Australia-New Zealand

#The concept of circles helps us in understanding the institutionalisation and pluralism of English across cultures and languages.

II. Pluricentricity and Interculturalism

The major implication of this "shift" of English is that like most languages of wider communication (e.g. Chinese, French, Hindi-Urdu, Portuguese, Spanish, Tamil) English has become a PLURICENTRIC language. That is, English has a multiplicity of norms, both endocentric and exocentric, multiple identities in creativity, and distinct sociolinguistic histories and contexts of function. In other words, it is now more apt to use the term "Englishes" than "English."

The speech community of English is, then, of two distinct types.

1. Norm-providing-
(a)-with English as mother tongue-(e.g. the USA, the UK, Australia)
(b)-with English as an additional language-(e.g. India, Kenya, Nigeria, Singapore, the Philippines)

2. Norm-dependent -(e.g. China, Egypt, Iran, South Korea, Taiwan)

What we see here is that there is a "shift" in who provides the norm for language use and creativity. The endocentric norms in the outer circle are not only recognized, but are considered vital for creativity.

The pluricentricity of English, as compared with other languages of wider communication, is unprecedented and overwhelming when compared with the spread and use of other languages- western and eastern. Its spread and intercultural uses raises daunting questions concerning diversification, codification, identity, cross-cultural intelligibility, and power and ideology. The increasing power of English has rightly been equated with the proverbial Aladdin's lamp. It is considered "language for all seasons" and a "universal" language with no regional frontiers, and "the speaking tree" (Kachru 1994a).

That may be true at one level, however in its functions the messages and identities that the medium conveys are essentially regional and culture-specific. These messages, embedded in various varieties of the language, articulate diverse cultural, ethnic and national identities. The medium has thus become a rich repository of pluralism. The language is used internationally, and in that sense it is an international language. But that term is somewhat misleading. These international uses have not resulted in an international variety of English; there is no international English. Rather there are international functions of English with local identities. Thus, the pluralistic vision of English is in its international uses, not in a homogeneous international variety. The earlier proposals for such an international variety of the language structurally simplified and culturally neutral actually did not go very far: the Basic English, Nuclear English and Utilitarian English.

The unprecedented nature of the diffusion of English as compared with other languages of wider communication past and present is in unique global profile. Its major characteristics are:

  • that there are now at least four non-native speakers of English for every native speaker;

  • that, although located in the outer circle, India is the third largest English using country with over 40 million English users using English as an additional language;

  • that in the expanding circle China has between 100 and 200 million EFL users with some competence in English;

  • that extensive creativity in English in various literary genres exists on every continent;

  • that almost every major town in Anglophone Asia and Africa has at least one newspaper in English and a local radio station transmitting news in English;

  • that in various parts of the world English has standard (educated) local varieties (acrolects); and a range of other varieties (mesolects); and "mixed" varieties with specific names (e.g. basilect, Nigerian pidgin, Singlish, Tex-Mex, Bazaar English) ; and

  • that the initiatives in planning, administration, and funding for the spread of bilingualism in English is essentially in the hands of local people.

III. Medium vs. Messages

The increasing pluralism of the language and cross-cultural linguistic experimentation demands a price. In the view of some pundits the diversification of English into Englishes is a heavy price to pay the "shift" is too drastic and dilutes the Judeo-Christian canon. The attitudinal adjustment is thus painful and difficult. There is an articulate group who agonize over the multiculturalism and multiple identities of the language. Their concern is that the language is drifting from its exclusive Eurocentric, Judeo-Christian, and Western identity. Henry Louis Gates Jr. is warning us about such people when he says that cultural pluralism "is not, of course, everyone's cup of tea" (Gates, Jr. 1992: XVI). It certainly is not the cup of tea of "vulgar cultural nationalists" such as Allan Bloom and Leonard Jeffries who "correctly identify it as the enemy." Gates Jr. has more to say:

These polemicists thrive on absolute partitions: between 'civilization' and 'barbarism,' between 'black' and 'white,' between a thousand versions of Us and Them. But they are whistling in the wind.

The "cultural nationalists" are reacting against the variety of the faces the colours of English users from various regions, who use the language with varied competencies and associate it with diverse canons. These faces are not dormant and inarticulate; they are articulate in giving their own meanings to English; they use English in their own socialization processes and with well-defined agendas. These may be, as Gates, Jr. says, "loose canons," but they invoke reactions of various types, and the result is what we see now, "the culture wars."

IV. Dimensions of Pluralism and Expansion of the Canon

The interculturalism of English and its contact and convergence is unique in linguistic history.2 It has altered the traditional resources of contact for English in a very marked way. The infusion of pluralistic linguistic energy into the language does not come only from its traditional linguistic partners French, German, Italian, and a host of Scandinavian languages. The altered circumstances historical, cultural, political, and linguistic have made the language open itself, as it were, to the non-Western world: a world of entirely alien cultural and linguistic contexts. It is here that West Africa, East Africa, South Asia, and the Philippines to name just a handful of regions become relevant to the confluence and its expanding interculturalism. That is how varied streaks of pluralism have been added to the language.

There is, however, nothing intrinsic in the language that made it "intercultural" or "multicultural". That language change was not even on the educational and political agenda of the colonizers. The language acquired the intercultural components from its uses by diverse groups on distant continents, for diverse cultural and interactional needs. With each new context of use English gained new identities. Once these identities were institutionalized, the distance between one canon and another canon of English was increased. Thus the intercultural identities of English are not always the result of conscious planning.

V. Exponents of the Institutionalization of Pluralism

The intercultural identities of English are expressed in many subtle, formal, and attitudinal ways, one overlapping with the other, and each contributing to distinct canons within one shared medium. Major exponents of this distinctness are, for example, the following:

  • Variety-specific nomenclature, e.g. Nigerian English; Sri Lankan English, Singaporean English;
  • Acculturation of the variety as reflected in sociocultural, religious, and interactional contexts;
  • Institutionalized discourse strategies, and speech acts not necessarily shared with the inner circle; and
  • Alteration of textual texture due to use of English in multilingual context.

These strands of intercultural identities have one thing in common. They represent multilingual's creativity. The multilingual's slices of experience are often structured in their dominant language and recreated in English. This creativity differs from traditionally accepted norms of English in many ways. First, the drift of the text is toward another canon. This point has been repeatedly illustrated by the texts of Raja Rao, G.V. Desani, R.K. Narayan, Chinua Achebe, and so on. In Raja Rao's later work we see essentially the Vedantic tradition, and Sanskritization of the style that is consistent with the ideological and metaphysical context of the Sanskritic tradition. Desani's All About H. Hatter (1951) demands comprehensibility of the text within Sanskrit linguistic devices: e.g. compounding (sam„sa) for interpreting constructions such as "Ruler of the firmament: Son of the mighty bird," or "Thy sister my darling, thy name?" And in Naipaul's view, Narayan's novels are "religious books...and intensely Hindu" (1977: 13).

India's Rao and Nigeria's Achebe are two earlier writers from the outer circle who articulated their position about conscious identity-shift in their use of English. In a way they presented their credos for creativity Rao as early as 1938 (see Kachru 1988c).

The second exponent is that of acculturation in interactional contexts. This aspect is evident in culture-specific interactions, in the news media, in matrimonial advertisements, in obituaries, and so on. The matrimonial columns reflect African or Asian sensitivity to colour, caste hierarchy, regional attitudes, and family structure. In matrimonial columns Indians ask "for graduate of Bhardwaja gotram, Astasastram girl, subset no bar, preferably convent-educated," average complexion, and sometimes prefer mutual alliance. Indians invite a cousin-brother, or a cousin-sister to a military hotel with a compound wall situated on a kutcha road where they do not eat on a dining-leaf. A Brahmin in the South of India normally has forehead-marking or a caste mark and a nine-stranded thread. Indians have England returned or America returned relatives such as a co-brother-in-law who has an issue-less sister. And they have strong feelings about intermarriage or interdining due to various communal considerations. Indians use a tiffin-carrier to carry coconut paysam, when they go out of station. And when an Indian particularly in the South is not ready to take a head bath, they may just take a body bath. And finally, death is announced as leaving for heavenly abode, or just sad demise, and arrangements are made for kirtan and ardasa for the peace of the departed soul. These are just a few examples from a socially appropriate and variety-specific lexicon of South Asian English.

The same is, of course, true of African English, or varieties of the Pacific English. What is English-returned in South Asia becomes been-to in African English. May we see ourselves tomorrow, replaces "good night". One has to have long legs ("influence") to secure a job and must have a tight friend ("close friend") to help in securing a job. In order to get married, one must pay a knocking fee ("fee paid by a man to a woman's family"). And, to say that a person has no chest, or has no shadow is equivalent to saying that a person is timid. Okara's (1964: 137) explanation of such innovations in African writers clearly brings out the concept of hybridity; he says, "from a word, a group of words, a sentence and even a name in any African language, one can glean the social norms, attitudes and values of a people". That is the intercultural component. Thumboo (1985: 219) very lucidly puts Okara's point in a larger context of multi-canons and interculturalism:

Okara and others in a similar situation are neither the first nor the last to attempt a language for their tribes. It is not a question of purifying it. English has its history, culture, and environment, a powerful literary tradition from Chaucer to Ted Hughes, with a connotative reach that does not always apply in the Outer Circle. The denotative provides a substantial common base for all Englishes; the connotative will have to be re-constructed to accord with our individual ecosystems.

What we see in these examples is that the processes of acculturation are identical in Indian and Nigerian English, though their lexical manifestations may not be.

A deeper manifestation of this intercultural nature takes us to organization of discourse, speech acts, and styles within the processes involved in bilingual's creativity. Such creativity has been explained within various frameworks: that of translation, transfer, transcreation, and that of relexification (see Kachru 1995 and earlier; Oyeleye 1995; see also Y. Kachru 1987).

The main characteristic of such writing is that of hybridization; both in linguistic innovations and contextualization. It is through this "hybridity" that the text becomes intercultural. In other words, the medium is displaced or recontextualized from its traditional underlying presuppositions literary, cultural, and ideological.

When Soyinka (1993: 88) refers to the "unaccustomed roles" of English in Africa, he is referring to such a "reincarnation" of the language. This, as he says, has turned the language into "a new medium of communication". In the African context, then, English confronts, in Soyinka's words, "a new organic series of mores, social goals, relationships, universal awareness all of which go into the creation of a new culture" (1993: 88). Soyinka's point is put in a larger perspective of a writer and his/her context by Achebe (1992: 34):

Most African writers write out of an African experience and of commitment to an African destiny. For them that destiny does not include a future European identity for which the present is but an apprenticeship.

But context is only the raw material. One has to recreate it into the text, and reshape the medium to reflect it. This takes me to what I have termed "the bilingual's creativity" (1987). A major source for such creativity is the multilingual context in which English functions as an additional language. Ngugi illustrates this point in the context of Kenya, where Swahili is the lingua franca, and there are "national languages" such as Gikuyu and Luo, "by playing with this situation, you can get another level of meaning through the interaction of all three languages" (cited in Jussawalla and Dasenbrock 1992: 34).

On the other hand, Soyinka emphasizes the role experimentation can play in the use of "medium as the weapon". He believes that "black people twisted the linguistic blade in the hands of the traditional cultural castrator and carved new concepts into the flesh of white supremacy." The result, says Soyinka, is "the conversion of the enslaving medium into an insurgent weapon" (1993: 88).

The conversion of the medium into an "insurgent weapon" results in demythologization processes of various types. It takes us into legitimation of the bilingual's creativity and the underlying cultural contexts in the "loose canons" of world Englishes. A number of such "loose canons" of world Englishes are well institutionalized: African-American, West African, South African, South Asian, South-East Asianto name just five.

Next: Global Cultural Diversity Conference proceedings - Intercultural Nature of Modern English 2
Previous: Global Cultural Diversity Conference proceedings - Pluralist Language Policies 2