1

Master of Arts Thesis ‒ Euroculture

Attitudes towards English and varieties of English in globalising

India

Has globalisation affected Indian identifications with ‘Indian English’ and

generated new interest in British or American varieties of English?

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (Home) Jagiellonian University (Host)

Submitted by:

Annie Padwick

1802445

annie-padwick@hotmail.co.uk

+44 (0) 77983335169

Supervised by:

Dr. Monika S Schmid

Prof. Zdzisŀaw Mach

Newcastle, England Dec 2009

2

MA Programme Euroculture

Declaration

I, Annie Padwick hereby declare that this thesis entitled, ‘Attitudes towards English

and varieties of English in globalising India ‒ Has globalisation affected Indian

identifications with ‘Indian English’ and generated new interest in British or

American varieties of English?’ submitted as partial requirement for the MA

Programme Euroculture, is my own original work and expressed in my own words.

Any uses made within it of works of other authors in any form (i.e. ideas, figures,

texts, table etc.) are properly acknowledged in the text as well as in the List of

References.

I hereby acknowledge that I was informed about the regulations pertaining to the

assessment of the MA Thesis Euroculture and about the general completion rules for

the Master of Arts Programme Euroculture.

Signed:

Date: 15th

December 2010

3

Table of Contents

List of Figures 5

List of Tables 5-6

Preface 7

1. Introduction 8-15

1.1 Effects of globalisation on English 8

1.2 English in India 10

1.3 Effects of globalisation on English in India 11

1.4 Who is in control of globalisation? 12

1.5 Rational, aims and objectives 13

2.Literature Review 16-33

2.1 Attitudes towards language 16

2.2 Attitudes towards English in India 17

2.3 Varieties of English in India 20

2.4 Attitudes towards varieties of English in India 23

2.5 Globalisation and English 28

3. Research Methodology 34-41

3.1 Theoretical framework 34

3.2 Aims and objectives 34

3.3 Methods 36

3.4 Methods of data analysis 40

4. Results 42-52

4.1 Results of descriptive analysis 42

4.2 Results of statistical analysis 50

4

5. Discussion 53-71

5.1 Varieties of English 53

5.2 Attitudes towards English 63

6. Conclusions 72-77

List of References 78-82

Appendices 83-92

Appendix 1 ‒ Sample of survey 84-88

Appendix 2 ‒ Open question responses from survey 89-92

5

Table of Figures

Fig. 1 Distribution of responses to the question ‘What other

languages can you speak?’

42

Fig. 2 Distribution of responses for ‘What age did you first start

learning English?’

43

Fig. 3 Distribution of answers for ‘Which variety do you

speak?’ (Padwick, 2009)

55

Fig. 4 Graduate students ‘self-labelling’ of the variety of their

English (Kachru, 1979)

55

Fig. 5 Variety of English presently spoken by educated

speakers (Shaw, 1981)

55

Fig. 6 What variety do you currently speak? Timeline.

56

Fig. 7 What variety of English do you aspire to speak?

(Padwick, 2009)

58

Fig. 8

Graduate students first preferences for various varieties

of English (Kachru, 1979)

58

Fig. 9

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

58

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

59

List of Tables

Table. 1 Graduate students ‘self-labelling’ of the variety of their

English (Kachru, 1979)

23

Table. 2 Graduate students’ attitude towards various models of

English and ranking of models according to preference

(Kachru, 1979)

24

Table. 3 Faculty preference for models of English for instruction

(Kachru, 1979)

24

Table. 4 Variety of English presently spoken by educated speakers

(Shaw, 1981)

26

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

26

6

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

27

Table. 7 Rotated Component Matrix (a)

41

Table. 8 Table of Results ‘What is you mother tongue?’ and ‘What

languages did you speak at home growing up?’

42

Table. 9 Distribution of responses for questions about the languages

of education

43

Table. 10 ‘Which language/s do you use to communicate with the

following people?’

44

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

following?’

45

Table. 12 Distribution of responses to attitude statements about English

46

Table. 13 Number of responses that agree and disagree with the

attitude statements.

47

Table. 14 Distribution of results for ‘Which language would you

choose as your mother tongue?’ and ‘Which language would

you choose to educate your children in?’

48

Table. 15 Table of results for ‘Do you think English can be used

effectively to represent Indian cultural values and

traditions?’

48

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

English?’

49

Table. 17 Distribution of responses to questions about varieties of

English.

49

Table. 18 Distribution of responses to ‘Which variety of English do

you speak?’ (Native and Non-native)

50

Table. 19 Distribution of responses to ‘Which variety of English do

you aspire to speak?’ (Native and Non-native)

50

Table. 20 Pearson’s correlation

51

7

Preface

I would like to thank my two supervisors for their support and guidance throughout

the process of this thesis. To Prof. Zdzisŀaw Mach for his initial suggestions and idea

development, and for meeting me for a personal thesis supervision held whilst I was

studying in Pune. To Dr. Monika Schmid for working closely with me across

countries and continents on all areas of the research project, but especially for the

much needed advice in methodologies and statistical analysis.

I am also very grateful to Ben Bishop for his help with the data collection.

8

Introduction

The consequences of globalisation are being felt worldwide and on a number of

levels. Along with its widely discussed impact on economic and political spheres,

globalisation has been the catalyst for substantial change within individuals and

societies and the way that people relate to and interact with each other (Giddens,

2003; Castells, 2000). Because English is the language of new technology, of

computers, software and the Internet (Crystal, 2003) its use has become synonymous

with globalisation. Through these media, English is permeating through all

professional and academic sectors worldwide, making it vital for all countries who

want to operate in these fields to be fully immersed in English.

The significance of this has been great, English is now commonly considered to be

‘the’ global language, and ‘the’ language of international communication (De Swaan,

2001). Adoption of English in this way marks a major point of departure, both in

identifying who the users of English are, and in the way that they use English.

However, the changes that globalisation causes to the English language and its users

are in need of further investigation (Phillipson, 2001; Sonntag, 2004). This thesis is a

response to this demand, offering a socio-linguistic study into the effects of

globalisation on English in India.

Effects of globalisation on English

The effects of globalisation on English worldwide have been significant. One effect

has been the dramatic rise in the number of English speakers worldwide (Crystal,

2003). As more and more countries are adjusting their language policies to make more

room for English (Tsui and Tollefson, 2007), linguist David Graddol (1997) estimates

that by 2010-2015, two billion people, that is a third of the entire global population,

will be learning English. The rise in the number of English speakers has an added

affect; in that there is a shift in the users of English (Kachru, 1985). While in the past

English has largely been the property of native English speakers in English speaking

countries, now non-native speakers increasingly use English as a second language or

foreign language. For example ‒ if estimates are to be believed ‒ India alone has an

9

English-using speech community equal to the population of native English-speaking

countries, (Kachru, 1985).

Globalisation has produced a distinction between second language and foreign

language users of English, highlighting the variances in the functions of English. In

countries where English is a second language, the range and depth of its function is

more than a foreign language, as English becomes integral to the workings of a

country (Kachru, 1985, D’Souza, 2001). Graddol (1997) predicts that if trends

continue, the number of speakers of English as a second language will soon exceed

the number of native speakers. Clearly, the functions of English when used as a

foreign language are distinct from the functions of English when used as a second

language.

Foreign language users tend to see English as an international language, as it has

limited usage between two nationals. English is used as a language of communication

between two people who don’t share the same mother tongue. For example, a Swedish

businessman and a Japanese counterpart who do not speak the mother tongue of the

other might conduct business in English, using it as a common language. The English

used in this role needs to be clear, straightforward and easily intelligible as its primary

purpose is to convey and receive meaning (Crystal, 2003). English working in this

way can be seen in the European institutions. English acts in Europe as the major

lingua franca, it is used as a foreign language and has minimal threat to the survival of

other national European languages (De Swaan, 2001). Officials working in EU

institutions largely adopt English as the language of their informal meetings. They use

what is known as ‘Euro-English’, a simplified English, which avoids idioms and

colloquial vocabulary and uses slower speech rates and clearer articulation, with the

aim of reducing the obstacles to communication (Crystal, 2003). While English is the

working language of these Europeans their cultural identities are expressed in their

own national languages.

The function of English as a second language however, is considerably different.

Using English as a second language predominantly derives from postcolonial

countries, where English was retained after Independence (Schneider, 2007). In these

countries English remains vital for the effective functioning of the education and the

10

judicial systems, for the smooth working of government, for public administration and

across the press and broadcast media (Krishnaswamy, 2006). Thus while the English

language has remained, it is not now the English of the British. Through being spoken

by their own communities and amongst each other, the English language has been

moulded, adapted and embellished in order to address their own needs of it, and to

express their own cultures, values, and traditions (Schneider, 2007). As a result we

can see the blossoming of a wide spectrum of non-native varieties of English in these

countries, which have given name to the varieties, African English, Indian English,

Singlish etc. In these contexts, English functions as a language of communication

inside the country, meaning the language contains culture specific words and

references that only someone from that country may understand (Krishnaswamy and

Burde, 2001). English in this situation can employ local accents, grammar and syntax,

that are key functions in the assertion of local and cultural identities.

While a speaker of a foreign language draws their language standards from outside

their country, the users of a second language help to create that language and set the

norms for its use. Globalisation has created three functions of English and groups of

English users (Kachru, 1985): native speakers using English as their main or only

language, second language speakers using English as an important language alongside

their main language within their country and foreign language speakers using English

to communicate with non-nationals and people outside their country.

English in India

India has complex relationship with English, which will briefly be explained here.

English was brought to India by the British, employed as a tool in their civilisation

project, as a medium of their education system and as the backbone of colonial

administration (Krishnaswamy, 2006). The variety put forward in this period was

British English, a norm established by the British overseas (Kachru, 1986; 2005). At

the time of independence, fierce debates ensued about the right of English to remain

an important language for India (Sonntag, 2004). As in many postcolonial countries

however, English was retained in India for the valuable role it played in uniting the

country, and became the co-official language of India in 1965 (Krishnaswamy, 2006).

English has since become a second language in India holding important functions in

nearly all areas of society (De Souza, 2001). According to ‘India Today’ (1997 as in

11

Kachru 1998), almost one in three Indians claims to speak English although less than

twenty percent are confident speaking it.

Since independence, English has undergone great transformation, and in the process

of ‘nativisation’, English has been adapted to meet the linguistic needs of Indian

speakers (Schneider, 2007). English has become an Indian language, because it has

been 'indianized' through its use by Indians (Kachru, 1985). Krishnaswamy and Burde

(2001) call this ‘using English with a touch of India’. Indian English is a term created

to mark a new variety of English, and to distinguish differences in speech, grammar

and syntax as used by Indian speakers from those of British speakers (Kachru, 1985).

Since independence, Indian English has been used as a marker of identity, a code that

removes the sole claim to English from the British and reclaims English as India’s

own (Schneider, 2007).

Effects of globalisation on English in India

India, like the rest of the world is experiencing continual change due to the demands

of globalisation. As India seeks to compete in the global market its technological

industrial infrastructure must grow rapidly in order to meet the challenges and

demands of the high-tech goods and services industry, especially in computers and

software (Scrase, 4). The escalation of opportunities to work in these new industries

means there is an increasing demand for skilled staff to fill roles in the workplace

(Vaish, 2008). As the language that underpins technology, English is vital for workers

in the computer and software industry and particularly in call centres where an

excellent knowledge of English is required to deliver outsourced contracts provided

by native English speaking countries (Cameron and Block in Vaish, 2008). With good

English skills a prerequisite for the industry, the education system must in turn adjust.

As parents from all sectors of society demand education for their children in the

medium of English, so there has been a mushrooming of new English medium

schools. The dual medium schools are now teaching more subjects in English

(Annamalai, 2004). The age at which English is introduced is also being pushed

further and further forward so that there are now nursery schools specialising in

English-medium (Annamalai, 2004). This drive for English recognises a new role for

this language in India, with English recognised as an essential tool for the workplace

and as a language of mobility and career development (Krishnaswamy, 2005).

12

Globalisation has resulted in the development of two distinct uses for English in

contemporary Indian society. The first development can be called a nativised variety

of English. Language in this strand functions at intra-national level and is called

Indian English. Simultaneously, however, a divergent use for English is developing.

This use is heavily influenced by globalisation as India taps into the economic

potential of using its English as a language of international business (Krishnaswamy,

2005). English in this role functions at international level and its purpose is to ensure

globally intelligible communication.

Who is in control of globalisation?

Globalisation has caused a number of changes, but who is responsible for these

changes? Is globalisation an autonomous force or are the forces of globalisation

controlled by the powerful? Does English spread across the globe independently or is

it promoted? Some scholars (Phillipson, 2001; Shome, 2006) do not see globalisation

as an independent worldwide phenomenon but a capitalist cause in the hands of a

number of rich and powerful conglomerates. However Crystal (2003) points out that,

for English to develop such a powerful global status countries have had to accept

English and afford it a special place within their communities. English has to be

allowed to burgeon in a country and to become integrated in the national language

policy. But language policy works in a spiral, as more countries re-plan their language

policy to accommodate English, even more countries seek to follow this trend. Such

countries know it is important that their children become proficient in English as no

one wants to be excluded from the global market where English is a key commodity

(Krishnaswamy, 2005). While countries themselves are setting their own language

policies in regard to English, are they totally free in the decision-making process?

Tsui and Tollefson (2007) maintain that language policy responses to globalisation

have been greatly influenced by the preferences of Western multinational and

transnational corporations, and thus the promotion of English in India is somewhat

determined by the desire of global industries to situate their companies within India.

Rational, aims and objectives

The study topic stems from an innate interest in the force of English as a world

language and the function that English occupies in international settings. As an

13

English speaker in a European degree programme this writer has been able to see

first-hand how English can be employed as a common language with very few

difficulties in all European countries studied in, whether for academic purposes or in

daily life. English occupies the role of foreign language in Europe, and in the writer’s

opinion, it is a language of transactions, a language with a goal, not a language to be

used in personal or intimate situations. The opportunity to study for a semester at the

University of Pune offered an ideal occasion to study the use and role of English in a

country where it is used as a second language. The writer was interested to see how

the function of English as a second language, differed from that of a foreign language.

The aim was to explore these areas by conducting research into the language use and

domains of English in India, as well as into Indian attitudes towards English. Having

identified that previous research into attitudes towards English in India had been

conducted in Indian universities the writer concluded that The University of Pune

would provide the ideal setting for this study. Furthermore, the research population,

‘English speaking Indian students at the University of Pune’, would be easy to target

during a semester there.

The specific interest of this research lies in the power struggle between different

varieties of English in India. It seeks to ascertain the strength the global players hold

over the varieties of English in India and looks to see whether global industries are

influencing the way India identifies with certain varieties of English. This thesis aims

to test and debate a causal relationship between globalisation and language attitudes in

India. A review of relevant literature leads the writer to presume that: globalisation

under the control of the powerful west will promote western language varieties of

English such as American English and British English in countries where English is

being used in the workplace, and thus will have a destructive influence on the

identity-based variety Indian English. The hypothesis is that globalisation is

negatively affecting the acceptance of Indian English as a variety, while increasing the

acceptance of British and American varieties. Previous studies have shown that

attitudes towards English are susceptible to change. Shaw (1981) has shown Indians

are putting less and less emphasis on the colonial background of English and instead

have begun to see English for its economic value. The studies that have looked at

attitudes to English varieties in a university setting are Kachru’s study in 1979 and

Shaw’s study in 1981. Both conclude that there is a changing attitude towards

14

varieties with a decrease in the reliance on British English and an increasing

acceptance of Indian English.

A heavy reliance will be made on these two studies in this research. By comparing the

results of this study with these earlier ones, the plan was to explore and assess if and

how these attitudes have changed. If the assumptions are proved, a reduction of

acceptance towards Indian English and increasing acceptance of American English

and British English varieties will be seen. The principle aims of this study are: to

reproduce previous studies on attitudes to English; to explore current attitudes to the

role and use of English in India; to investigate the acceptance of different varieties of

English (Indian English, British English and American English); to compare previous

studies with the findings of this research; and where possible to analyse statistically

the collected data to provide generalisations about attitudes to English in India. The

objective was set to select a sample of 50-80 students within the research population

who would be willing to take part in the study. The research aims are achievable by

conducting a survey within this sample, posing questions about the respondents’

language backgrounds, language use and domains, and their attitudes to English in

general and more specifically their opinions on language varieties.

The studies of Kachru (1979) and Shaw (1981) will be closely examined, and as far as

possible, the survey will follow a similar methodology and question structure to

facilitate comparison between this study and previous research. Statistical analysis of

this data will indicate trends through the respondents’ answers and offer

generalisations that will be used to form possible explanations for current attitudes

towards English. The research supervisor will help with the statistical analysis of the

data, which will allow the writer to make generalisations about the findings. Chapter 2

of this thesis introduces the literature reviewed in support of the research arguments,

whilst Chapter 3 explains the theoretical background and methodology used in the

study design and the data analysis. The results of the research are presented in Chapter

4 and Chapter 5 analyses these results to provide explanations. Chapter 6 presents the

conclusions to the research.

Due to financial and time restrictions the research has a limited scope in that it was

able only to investigate the attitudes of a sample of students at one particular

15

university in one Indian state. A larger study might be able to ascertain attitudes of a

larger group, compare attitudes between Indian states, or between different users of

English. There is a great need for repetition of previous studies into attitudes towards

English in India, particularly in response to the economic changes that have taken

place in the 1990s. Although other studies have addressed the changing attitudes to

English as a response to globalisation in the environment of a call centre and in the

public sphere, no contemporary studies have examined a university setting. While this

study cannot be used to generalise about attitudes to English in the whole of India, the

research will highlight the lack of contemporary research in this area, and posit the

need for larger scale investigations to address this void.

16

Literature Review

Attitudes towards language

Research into attitudes towards languages has been a relatively new area of interest.

The earliest work concerning language attitudes begun with Gardner and Lambert’s

(1972) research into Canadian bilinguals, where they explored adult’s and children’s

attitudes towards English and French. They devised a model by which to measure

attitude, which still influences research today. According to Gardner attitude has,

“Cognitive, affective and conative components and consists, in broad terms, of an

underlying psychological predisposition to act or to influence behaviour in a

certain way. Attitude is thus linked to a person’s values and beliefs and promotes

or discourages the choices made in all realms of activity, whether academic or

informal.” (Gardner, 1985)

Gardner and Lambert who researched into motivations for language learning,

differentiated between integrative motivation and instrumental motivation. An

integrative motivation is the desire to learn a language to be like and interact with

speakers of the target language, whereas an instrumental motivation is the desire to

learn a language to further academic or career success (Gardner, 1985).

The most comprehensive work on language attitudes is by Baker in 1992. Baker

provides attitude theory and research practice and models to be used when assessing

language, explaining the relevance and importance of attitudinal research for language

policy and language planning,

“In the life of a language, attitudes to that language appear to be important in

language restoration, preservation, decay or death. If a community is grossly

unfavourable to bilingual education or the imposition of a ‘common’ national

language is attempted, language policy implementation is likely to be

unsuccessful.” (Baker, 1992, 9)

Baker’s study contests earlier research where attitude to a language was always

measured against one variable, e.g. age, he argues that language attitude is created

through the combination of a number of different variables, including gender, age and

language background (Baker, 1992). Baker’s research uses the Likert scale for

measuring attitudes. Devised in 1932 and still commonly used today, this is an

attitude scale, which measures agreement to a number of statements in terms of a

fixed range of levels (Payne, 2004).

17

Most scholars working in the area of attitudes and language have looked at attitudes

towards different languages among bilingual speakers. However, Thomas (2004)

points out that attitudes towards language and language use can also focus on attitudes

towards particular varieties of the same language. She highlights the negative

reactions towards non-standard varieties of English in Britain or towards African

American vernacular usage in the United States (Thomas, 2004). There are many

instances when a particular variety is stigmatised and thought to be inferior to another

variety, this usually happens in the direction of standard language speakers towards

speakers of non-standard languages.

Attitudes towards English in India

The attitudes towards English in India are far from straightforward, as the relationship

with English must deal with the colonial history of English in India. There have been

and still are strong reactions to the continued use of English on colonial grounds

(Phillipson, 2001; Dasgupta, 1993). Crystal (2003) argues,

“It is inevitable that, in a post-colonial era, there should be a strong reaction

against continuing to use the language of the former colonial power in favour of

indigenous languages.” (Crystal, 2003, 124)

However, support has also been strong for the retention of English as a functional

necessity. While Gandhi considered English to be an alien language and thought that

keeping it would mark India’s continued slavery (Crystal, 2003), President Nehru

considered English necessary for India’s industrialisation and further development in

science and technology (Sonntag, 2004). Annamalai (2005) highlights the dilemma

with English where the nation’s self-interest falls in two conflicting strands. Firstly,

the need to build national pride and national identity means renouncing associations

with colonial rule and within this, the replacement of English. But the second strand

recognises the need to secure skills and knowledge in the economic sectors, and

requires the retention of English. The split of opinion has been long lasting and how

this has affected the attitudes of general public is worthy of research.

The common view is that attitudes towards English are becoming more favourable

over time (Krishnaswamy, 2006; Kachru, 1999, Shaw, 1981). Shaw’s study (1981)

particularly tackles attitudes towards English and colonialism, in what he describes as

18

a “love-hate relationship between the citizens of the former British colonies and the

English language” (Shaw, 1981, 117). He maintains English is rebuffed as the

language of colonial domination, but is at the same time valued for its usefulness in a

modern world. Shaw’s study shows that 68.1% of Indian students disagreed with the

statement ‘I don’t really like English, but I speak it because it is useful’ and 59.8 % of

Indian students disagreed with the statement ‘If English was NOT taught in our

schools, I would not try and learn it’. The results indicate that students’ attitudes

towards English are now much more positive than negative and English is valued for

something more than its usefulness. English is not seen as an imposed language but

one that students seem willing to learn. Shaw concludes that students have different

attitudes towards English than their forefathers and that,

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

Shaw also questioned students on the future of English and found that a high majority

of students thought English would continue to be a major world language even if the

US and the UK lost economic power and that 89% of respondents would make sure

their children learnt English well. These statistics indicate the belief in English as a

world language and its significance in the future.

This attitudinal change in favour of English has been supported by Annamalai (2005)

and Krishnaswamy (2006), who maintain that in the globalisation era objections to

the imposition of English has been set aside as India realises the economic value of its

English speakers. Annamalai believes Indians now view English in a considerably

more positive light,

“The image of English as the language of oppression in the colonial era has come

to be projected as the language for freedom from poverty in the postcolonial

world.” (Annamalai, 2005, 32).

To what range and depth English has been able to infiltrate Indian society has been a

matter of great debate among scholars. Many think English is only capable of

practical rather than personal functions. Fishman (1992) writes,

“English is viewed as less suitable for military operations, for lying, joking,

cursing, or bargaining (spontaneous emotion and animation are not yet expressed

via English), and for unmediated prayer. On the other hand, English is

recurringly viewed as more suitable than local integrative languages for science,

19

international diplomacy, industry/commerce, high oratory, and pop songs.”

(Fishman, 1992, 23)

Krishnaswamy and Burde (1998), view English as a ‘module’, saying that English has

penetrated into many areas, science, technology, judiciary, mass media, commerce

and administration, however it has not affected ‘the finer realms of life’. That English

has not had any significant impact on social functions in India, in religious and social

customs and ceremonies, festivals, or intimate relationships with family or friends.

Dasgupta sees English as occupying the role of ‘Auntie’ in Indian society, one of

formality and awkwardness and devoid of creativity and emotion (Dasgupta, 1993).

Attendants at the ‘Language and Identity’ conference in Pune (2009) argued that

English is often used to discuss taboo subjects, they noted that the Marathi word for

toilet is actually the English word ‘toilet’ and that students often felt a lot freer to

discuss issues of sexuality in English than their mother tongues. This implies that

English is used as a distancing mechanism.

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

on society,

“English in India is used for a wide range of purposes: political, bureaucratic,

educational, media-related, commercial, intellectual, literary, social, intimate,

religious and so on. It has penetrated all layers of society and though it may be

used with ease and fluency only by the so called elite, it is not alien and

unfamiliar to the masses.” (D’Souza, 2001, 146)

Gokhale (2009) also observes the use of English in personal functions, arguing that

many Indians choose to quarrel in English because the social prestige associated with

English means that someone who argues in English must be right.

Krishnaswamy (2006) sees a number of different functions for English in India, and

argues that attitudes towards English are largely dependent on what function is

assumed for the language. He highlights three different functions that English

performs in the Indian society (Krishnaswamy, 2006). The first is a ‘market-driven

social function’, where English is viewed as being important for mobility, job

prospects and social and economic opportunities. English is seen in this role as an

international language and therefore English should be taught to benefit global

communication (Krishnaswamy, 2006). The second is a ‘welfare-driven social

20

function’, where English is seen as a window to the world and valued because it

enables access to knowledge outside India. By retaining English as a library language,

(reading English to access knowledge but not practising spoken English to the same

extent), India can keep up-to-date with recent findings in science and technology, thus

assisting India’s development and modernization (Krishnaswamy, 2006). In the

welfare-driven social function, English plays a reduced role in the lives of the users,

than with the market-driven social function. The third function is the ‘ideology driven

identity project function’, where English becomes a ‘window on India’ and is used to

talk about Indian identities, cultures, heritage and values so the rest of the world can

understand what India is and what it stands for (Krishnaswamy, 2006). We must

understand the function of English for the users, before we can understand their

attitudes towards it.

Varieties of English in India

Scholars have begun the process of discovery of Indian English over the last fifty

years. While some scholars deny that Indian English is not a real variety of English,

most argue that Indian English is a ‘nativised’ (Schneider, 2007) or ‘indianized’

(Kachru, 1983) variety of English that is spoken in India. They accept Indian English

as new variety, having its own distinct rules of grammar, phonology, syntax and

vocabulary. The most prolific and advanced researcher to date on the theme of Indian

English is Braj Kachru. Much of his work concerns the definition and detailing of the

variety ‘Indian English’, its sociolinguistic profiling and the wider social, political and

pedagogical implications of recognising these new varieties (Kachru, 1979, 1983,

1994, 2005).

While scholars report that Indian English is a variety spoken in India, they also report

that British English has remained the common teaching model for many years after

independence. Kachru (1986) writes that Received Pronunciation (RP) has been the

traditional model of English presented to learners overseas and has,

“…been treated as the main pedagogical norm for the export variety of British

English, especially for tapes, records and pronunciation manuals used in

classrooms.” (Kachru, 1986, 86)

He further explains (2005) that, the British exported their variety of English to India

during the colonial period. He says,

21

“Traditionally for historical reasons, southern British English has been the norm

presented to the South Asians through the BBC, a small percentage of the

English administrators and some teachers. In the written mode the exocentric

norm came in the form of British literature and newspapers.” (Kachru, 2005, 55)

However Kachru (1986) explains, that although British English became the preferred

educational norm in the country, it was frequently not this norm that Indians came

into contact with. In many cases, teachers of English came from outside of Britain

and were not native English speakers or came from Britain but spoke with British

regional dialects. British English and RP set the norm for English speakers in India,

but many learners did not come into contact with RP and more commonly spoke

English with other influences. Kachru explains,

“A frequent usage is not always the usage that is attitudinally or socially accepted.”

(Kachru, 1986, 87)

After independence India has had to answer fundamental questions about which

variety of English should be used in contemporary English teaching. Should British

English remain as the teaching norm or should Indian English be accepted as a

suitable model? Scholars have argued that the British English variety has retained its

grip on the education system despite the removal of the British (Krishnaswamy, 2006;

Hasmi, 1989). Kachru also backed up this point,

“Teaching materials and teacher training programmes do not generally present

a ‘linguistically tolerant’ attitude towards non-native localized varieties, or

towards the speakers of varieties considered different from ‘standard’ ones.”

(Kachru, 1986, 87)

Do Indians then speak British English, or Indian English? Gokhale (1988) makes an

interesting observation. He points out that because the teaching norm is set as British

English, teachers might think that they are teaching British English and students

might think they are learning British English but the reality is that the teaching of

British English to Indian students by Indian teachers is an impossible task. He writes,

“Many teachers of English in India believe even today that they teach BrE to

their students. They fail to realise that even with the best intentions, they do not

and in many cases cannot teach BrE. The model they project is certainly Indian

English.” (Gokhale, 1988, 24)

22

While there are certainly some people in India who speak English like native

speakers, it is an illusion to think that the majority of Indians can be taught to speak

English like the British. Indians do not have frequent contact with British English, as

there are few people around them speaking British English. Indian English however is

much more prevalent and so Indian English is the model that is naturally inherited.

It has also been discussed whether it is possible for Indian speakers to be both

proficient in both Indian English and British English and/or other varieties of English

(Kachru, 1989; Crystal, 2003). Kachru (1989) highlights that language patterns are

subject to change, and that the English language speaker might adapt his/her variety

dependent on to whom they are speaking and in what context,

“An educated Indian English speaker may attempt to approximate a native-

English model while speaking to an Englishman or an American, but switch to

the localized educated variety when talking to a fellow Indian colleague, and

further indianite his English when communicating with a shopkeeper, a bus

conductor, or an office clerk.” (Kachru, 1989, 89-90)

This view corresponds well with Krishnaswamy’s opinion quoted above, that attitudes

towards English are largely dependent on the function that English has for the speaker

(Krishnaswamy, 2006). For example an American or British variety of English may

be preferential for someone who will work in international communication, or who

will communicate with many people from outside India. Alternatively, a native

variety of English might be preferential in an intrastate situation where

communication occurs in local multilinguistic situations. Kachru (1989) points out

that switch from one variety to another, depending on the function of the

communication, however, is only possible for someone with a good competence of

English, who is able to distinguish between varieties. With proficiency of two

varieties however the speaker need not choose only one variety to speak.

Crystal (2003) and Kandiah (1991) believe that the best way to handle English in

postcolonial countries is bidialectal or multidialectal. Many people are already

multidialectal to a certain extent. For example in Britain you might speak a certain

dialect in a local area with your family, yet when in another city you might aim to

speak more like Standard English. When outside the UK you might alter your

23

language again, avoiding culture specific metaphors and phrases that might not be

known to someone outside of Britain. Those who are able to use more than one

dialect/variety have the advantage over people who can only use one. They have a

dialect/variety that can express their own identity and a dialect/variety that can be

used for intelligibility on the international level. Crystal (2003) makes comparisons

with the English language situation in Singapore,

“A bidialectical (or bilingual) policy allows a people to look both ways at once,

and would be the most effective way of the country achieving its aims.” (Crystal,

2003, 176)

Attitudes towards varieties of English in India

How those who come in to contact with a variety perceive it has important

implications for the success of that variety. While many scholars have welcomed the

variety Indian English, traditionally among the general public the view has been that

Indian English is inferior and is in effect speaking English wrong (Kachru, 1983;

Gokhale, 1988). Kachru (1983) remarks that Indian English was often regarded in a

derogatory light,

“Indians normally would not identify themselves as members of the Indian

English speech community, preferring instead to consider themselves speakers

of British English”. (Kachru, 1983, 73)

Kachru (1979) conducted a large survey of attitudes among the teaching faculty and

graduate students of English in Indian universities. The varieties of English chosen for

examination in the survey were American English, British English, and Indian

English. Kachru asked graduates to identify which variety of English they spoke, see

Table 1.

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

Identity-marker %

American English 2.58

British English 29.11

Indian English 55.64

‘Mixture’ of all three 2.99

I don’t know 8.97

‘Good’ English .27

24

Many of the respondents have identified with Indian English, much more than with

British English, however from the next question we can see their aspirations differ

from their current usage. Kachru also asked respondents to rank the varieties in order

of preference. See Table 2 for graduate students’ responses and Table 3 for faculty

member responses.

Table 2 ‒ Graduate students’ attitude towards various models of English and ranking of

models according to preference (Kachru, 1979)

Model Preference 1 Preference 2 Preference 3

American English 5.17 13.19 21.08

British English 67.6 9.65 1.08

Indian English 22.72 17.85 10.74

I don’t care 5.03

‘Good’ English 1.08

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

Model Preference 1 Preference 2 Preference 3

American English 3.07 14.35 25.64

British English 66.66 13.33 1.53

Indian English 26.66 25.64 11.79

I don’t know 5.12

Kachru concludes from his data analysis that “Indians still consider the British model

to be the preferred model” (Kachru, 1979, 8), as 66.66% of faculty, and 67.6% of

graduate students had indicated this as their first choice. In both groups Indian English

was chosen as second choice and American English forms a clear third choice. This

study shows that in 1979 the majority of staff and students considered British English

to be the best model for Indian education.

However when Kachru revisits the data from his 1979 study in 1994, he believes that

attitudes are changing. This work marks a move away from his earlier opinions, and

an assertion that Indian attitudes are now more favourable towards endocentric

varieties like Indian English,

25

“...attitudinally it is a post-1960s phenomenon that identificational modifiers such

as ‘Indian’, ‘Sri Lankan’ and Pakistani’ are used with a localised variety without

necessarily implying a derogatory connotation.” (Kachru, 1994, 526)

Disparity between the spoken standard and the aspired variety, Kachru describes as ‘a

difference between linguistic behaviour and an idealized linguistic norm’ (2005). He

claims this has existed in India for a long time, but maintains that the differences

between behaviour and ideal are narrowing and that people’s linguistic behaviour is

more closely matching their ideal. Ideals are moving in the direction of Indian

English. Krishnaswamy and Burde when reporting on Kachru’s 1979 study remark

that attitudes towards Indian English are far from clear, saying,

“There seems to be an attitudinal minefield, which should be turned into a

research area.” (Krishnaswamy and Burde, 1998, 14)

Other studies into attitudes towards varieties have also noted an attitudinal swing

towards Indian English. Shaw (1981) conducts a similar study to Kachru, yet this time

covering the countries of Singapore, India and Thailand. Shaw conducted a closed

format questionnaire among final-year Bachelor degree students in the three countries,

selecting students from the fields of English literature and teaching, engineering and

business commerce. It was found that Indian students often answered similarly to the

Singaporean students, both treating English as an intrastate language. Respondents

were asked which variety is spoken by educated speakers in their country and they

were asked to choose from British, American, Australian, Unique, or like educated

non-native speakers from other countries. Their results shown in Table 4, indicate that

Indians more than any other group believe they speak a unique variety of English,

however the numbers answering British English confirms for the historical

relationship of these countries.

Respondents were also asked to complete the sentence ‘I think we should learn to

speak English like the …’ and were given a number of different varieties as options,

see Table 5. The results show that Indians although still considering British English

an alternative model also think that speaking their own variety or own way is

preferable. Shaw argues, “A plurality of Indians are definitely behind propagating

their local variety.”

26

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

Model Singaporeans

%

Indians

%

Thai

%

British 40.5 27.4 6.5

American 6.0 3.2 28.1

Australian 0.6 0.0 0.0

Unique 42.3 50.6 40.3

Other 10.6 18.8 25.1

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

Models Singaporeans

%

Indians

%

Thais

%

British 38.3 28.5 49.1

American 14.4 12.0 31.6

Australian 0.6 0.3 0.3

Own way 38.9 47.4 3.5

Others 7.8 11.8 15.5

Shaw’s study suggests that Indians welcome their non-native variety and concludes

that, “There is an increasing acceptance of these educated forms as varieties to be

supported as much if not more than native varieties.” (Shaw, 1981, 121-122)

The most recent study on the attitudes towards different varieties of English, by

Sahgal (2000) confirms the swing towards endocentric varieties. The main area of

investigation in this study is domain analysis, that is when and why and with whom

different available languages are used. As an additional area of research, Sahgal

questions the respondents’ preferences for English varieties. The survey sample is 45

informants taken from three different linguistic communities living in Delhi: Hindi

speakers, Bengali speakers and Tamil speakers. Speakers all belong to the middle or

upper strata of society. This study questions attitudes in the public sphere, whereas

previous studies have questioned attitudes to English in a university setting. Sahgal

attempted to find out which variety of English was favoured by the informants, and

they were given four choices, 1. Ordinary Indian English, 2. AIR/TV English, 3. BBC

English, and 4. American English. In the results of the questionnaire, see Table 6, the

preference for Ordinary Indian English is high at 47%, considerably higher than the

27

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

states that,

“The discrepancy between the two scores suggest that Indian English has become

more respectable and that the prestige associated with native varieties of English

(especially British English) is beginning to fade in a multilingual country like

India.” (Sahgal, 2000, 304)

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

Models of English Number of respondents %

BBC English 11 24

American English 1 2

AIR/TV English 12 27

Ordinary Indian English 21 47

It is worth noting here that Sahgal questioned a different research population than the

other studies, the latter have questioned only students and academics whereas Sahgal

questions the general public. Scholars have often referred to a drag of acceptance of

new varieties within the academic profession (Krishnaswamy, 2006), this is

highlighted by Hashmi in reference to Pakistan but remains relevant for India when he

says, “RP and the British Standard have increasingly gone out of use while remaining

in academic reference” (Hasmi in Kachru, 2005, 55). If the academic world suffers

from a need to retain British English that the rest of the population does not share,

then you would expect Sahgal’s study to be more in favour of Indian English than the

other studies.

The fact that attitudes are changing can be confirmed by the change of policy by

NCERT (The National Council of Education Research and Training) in India, who

recently revised the curriculum framework to show greater acceptance of the Indian

English variety. They write,

“There is substantial evidence available now to show that Indian English as used

by fluent educated Indian speakers does not differ in any significant way from

standard varieties of English in the UK or USA. There is no doubt that there are

significant differences at the phonological and lexical levels. But that is also true

of British and American English within those countries. Indian English can be

28

considered a distinct variety with an identity and status of its own, and should

serve as a model in teaching – learning situations.” (NCF 2005, NCERT)

Globalisation and English

While there is a huge body of work on globalisation and the influences and changes it

is making to society (Castells, 2000; Giddens, 2003), some scholars have noted that

there is insufficient research into the effects of globalisation on languages. Sonntag

notes that the study of language is the most undeveloped in the study of global politics

(Sonntag, 2003) and Phillipson (2001) agrees, commenting that postcolonial

Englishes receive much scholarly attention but there is a lack of research into ‘global

Englishes’ and the power and influence the English language has as part of the

globalising process.

The language that is most often associated with globalisation is English (Crystal,

2003; Fishman, 1992), and so an investigation into globalisation and language is

bound to examine what is happening to English globally. Kayman (2004) explains

how English is seen and used in a globalising world,

“English is, clearly the dominant language of technology. Hence, by the token,

English seems to receive the qualities attributed to the communications

technology; the language itself becomes a technology, a tool, a simple

instrument. In other words, the intimate association of English with the

technological means of communication reinforces its claims as the pre-eminent

medium of globalization: branded, in fact as the language of communication par

excellence.” (Kayman, 2004)

Globalisation is a worldwide process, however its effects can be felt at national,

regional and local levels. As part of the globalising process in 1991, India decided to

open up of its economy allowing outside access and foreign investment into India’s

economy. Outside interest in the Indian economy has been high with many

international companies setting up offices in India, particularly in the I.T. and

technological industries. Bhomik (2004) notes that because of the significant growth

in the software industries over the past decade, numerous companies operating in

outsourcing have emerged creating a significant boom in the call centre industry over

a five-year period. The call centre is inextricably linked to the globalisation of India.

29

Taylor and Bain (2005) argue that offshore call centres in the developing world

embody the ideal of Castells’ informationalism (2000), where the networked

globalised economy marks the ‘death of distance’ removing the ‘space of place’ and

replacing it with ‘the space of flows’. The English proficiency of Indian speakers has

been key to the development of the call centre industry in India. Bhomik argues,

“Call centres have flourished because the operators know English and are

available at much cheaper rates than their counterparts in the USA and UK.”

(Bhomik, 2004, 89)

The development of new industries in India has had social consequences, one of

which is the growing demand for trained and highly-skilled workers in these

industries. Scholars have found that the education system in India is changing as a

result of globalisation, and is increasingly adapting to provide the skills necessary for

these workplaces (Vaish, 2008; Block and Cameron, 2002; Scrase, 2000). Since

employers in these industries require proficiency in English and good communication

skills, there has been a mushrooming of new English-medium schools in India, more

schools offering bilingual classrooms with English as the second language and a

strengthening of the role of communicative skills in the English classroom

(Annamalai, 2004, 184).

A number of scholars have investigated the linguistic training and practice in Indian

call centres and found it to be unjust (Shome, 2006; Taylor and Bain, 2005). In

interviews with employees of call centre staff Taylor and Bain (2005) note that

employees are under particular stress by having to adopt a different persona, name

and accent (usually British or American) in their work,

“Indian agents as they negotiate the contradictions between their culture, identity

and aspirations, and the requirements of service provision for western customers.

The widespread adoption of anglicized pseudonyms, of having to conceal their

Indian locations, and the obligation to speak in ‘neutral’ accents, or even emulate

their customers’ dialects, contribute greatly to a pressurized working experience.”

(Taylor and Bain, 2005, 273)

Because of the rigorous accent and culture training to which employees are subjected,

Taylor and Bain have argued that call centre training should be regarded as an example

of both cultural and linguistic imperialism, they even go so far as to call this practice

30

‘racist’ (Taylor and Bain, 2005, 278). The language of the call centre, and

representations of a ‘global English’, can be linked to the calls of global hegemony and

linguistic imperialism. Call centre operators are not allowed to use their own varieties of

English; they have to imitate the language and culture of an economically more

powerful country in order for Indian firms to secure contracts. Shome (2006) claims call

centres are training staff in ‘global English’, they are dissuaded from using Indian

English varieties, and encouraged to speak what they consider ‘global English’ ‒

English as spoken by a Westerner especially an American or British one. (Shome,

2006). Shome too sees this process as exploitative, where the English language,

“functions as an apparatus of transnational governmentality through which the

voice of the third world subject is literally erased and reconstructed in the servicing

of the global economy.” (Shome, 2006, 110)

Tsui and Tollefson (2007) argue that countries like India have little choice but to set

their language policies in-line with the wishes of these western corporations, arguing

“ … their language policy responses to globalization have been shaped, even

determined, by the linguistic practices of multinational corporations,

transnational organizations and international aid agencies. Asian countries

have had little choice but to legitimize the homogeny of English.” (Tsui and

Tollefson, 2007, 18)

It seems the linguistic practices of call centres is also helping to determine Indian

language policies in regards to English.

Cowie (2007) however does not share these opinions. Her ethnographic study into an

‘accent training’ agency in Bangalore, investigates attitudes towards English among

employees. In the training process, recruits are divided into two groups: those who

will be working for an American client and those who will be working for British

clients. The majority of the batches of groups are trained to work for American

clients, as call centre business in India is primarily American (Cowie, 2007). Some of

the staff are trained in an ‘enhanced accent’ for an American client, which means that

they are expected to use an American accent both in and outside the classroom. This

clearly affects their attitudes towards English varieties. However, most employees are

trained in a ‘neutral’ accent, using training materials trying to ‘neutralise’ the Indian

accent, as most clients of the agency request a ‘neutral’ accent rather than a specific

31

variety (Cowie, 2007). Cowie questions however, whether “neutral is simply a

euphemism, and clients still in essence want agents to use an American accent.”

(Cowie, 2007, 322). When asked to define a ‘neutral’ accent Cowie’s respondents

frequently cited BBC Asia newsreaders – representative of a RP – but others pointed

to readers from Indian channels that are likely to represent educated Indian English. It

seems that respondents view ‘neutral English’ as either British English, or educated

Indian English.

Cowie (2007) finds a generational difference in attitudes to English, older trainers

negatively evaluated American accents and positively evaluated British accents where

as younger employees were more favourable towards the American accent. Cowie

writes the older trainers,

“Reluctance to use or teach an American accent is not simply a rejection of a

business model, but a wider resistance to a wider orientation in Indian society

towards American English. The younger colleagues on the other hand arrive at

Excellence (the agency) with a positive orientation to an American accent,

encouraged by a high-profile, high-status, American-sounding NRI (non-

resident Indian) population.” (Cowie, 2007, 328)

This study seems to refute the claims made by Taylor and Bain, Shome and Phillipson

of linguistic imperialism, as staff are able to consciously and purposefully avoid

American English. However, Cowie claims younger Indians are more positive

towards American accents and this might suggest the younger staff are more

susceptible to American English, which would predict a more positive attitude

towards American influence in the future.

Some scholars have investigated whether there has been a growth of American

English, or growth in the acceptance of American English in India. Kachru (1994)

notes this influence, saying that American English has permeated India through films,

television, newspapers and literature. He describes American English as having

‘significant impact’ on attitudes towards varieties (Kachru in Burchfield, 1994). He

highlights a weakening connection with British English, but suggests that American

English could come to play a more important role in the future. However Sahgal’s

study (2000) contests Kachru’s prediction that American English will become more

influential in India. Only one of Sahgal’s respondents chose American English as the

32

variety they aspired to speak, and so the study concluded that there is no marked

increase in the acceptance of American English.

There are two distinct views on the nature of globalisation. Firstly that globalisation is

the homogenisation of the world (Shome, 2006; Taylor and Bain, 2005; Phillipson

2001). In this view English is seen as the linguistic counterpart to economic

globalisation, and ‘global English’ is the domination of Western varieties of English

and devaluation of other varieties in the global sphere. The second view argues that

globalisation also causes the acquisition of difference. Daniel Dor reasons that the

forces of globalisation are not only working in favour of ‘global English’ but also

“work to strengthen a significant set of other languages – at the expense of English

(Dor, 2004, 98).” Dor maintains that globalisation works to foster new and varied

forms of language, including varieties of English. He explains his reasoning quoting

Warschauer, El Said and Zhory (2002) who write,

“Economic and social globalization, pushed along by the rapid diffusion of the

Internet, creates a strong demand for an international lingua franca, thus

furthering English’s presence as a global language. On the other hand, the same

dynamics that gave rise to globalization, and global English, also give rise to a

backlash against both, and that gets expressed, in one form, through a

strengthened attachment to local dialects and languages.” (in Dor, 2004, 100-

101)

Globalisation can also work to strengthen local culture and language as users reassert

their local identities against the global. This could also work in favour of language

varieties, where identity-based varieties of English such as Indian English are used to

combat the influences of ‘global English’. This has been the certainly been the case

with Singapore, a country whose linguistic situation has often drawn comparisons

with India by scholars (Shaw 1981, Chew 2007). According to a study by Chew

(2007) Singaporeans operate with two varieties of English, Singlish and Standard

English. Singaporeans have remained strongly attached to Singlish (the local identity-

based variety) despite a drive by the government to wipe out Singlish in favour of

Standard English, and the need for Standard English for to enhance employment

prospects. Crystal (2003) further supports this,

33

“There is no intrinsic conflict between Standard English and Singlish in

Singapore, as the reasons for the existence of the former, to permit Singaporeans

of different linguistic backgrounds to communicate with each other and people

abroad, are different from the reasons for the emergence of the latter, to provide a

sense of local identity.” (Crystal, 2003, 176)

Chew (2007) and Crystal (2003) comment that there are two flows to globalisation,

both moving in opposite directions yet existing in a certain equilibrium. Thus, they do

not see the forces of globalisation as threatening the unique varieties of New

Englishes. Crystal writes,

“The pull imposed by the need for identity, which has been making New

Englishes increasingly dissimilar from British English, could be balanced by a

pull imposed by the need for intelligibility, on a world scale, which will make

them increasingly similar through the continued use of Standard English.”

(Crystal, 2003, 178)

Krishnaswamy and Burde (1998) again deny the destructive impact of the force of

globalisation on identity-based forms like Indian English, they write,

“The vast majority (of Indians) seem to know how to handle the cultural osmosis,

how to contain alien languages, how to control invading influences, and how to

absorb and manipulate them to its advantage without any clash.” (Krishnaswamy

and Burde, 1998, 153)

Whether globalisation is homogenising English, or whether it is helping the

development of new and unique uses of English therefore remains a contested issue.

34

Research Methodology

This chapter explains the methods used to collect and analyse data, with a view to

discover whether globalisation is negatively affecting the acceptance of the Indian

English variety in India. The theoretical background will be examined, explaining the

choice of qualitative methods, selection of participants and the decision to model a

survey to seek answers. This approach enables the exploration of language attitudes

and approaches towards English, and employs statistical analysis to make

generalisations about a whole population and provide deeper insights based on

empirical data.

Theoretical framework

This research is situated within a positivist epistemology, believing that knowledge of

the humanly created world can be obtained, as it is systematic, empirical, replicable,

falsifiable and is in many ways objective (Della Porter and Keating, 2008). However the

positivist approach has been somewhat relaxed, borrowing many ideas from the neo-

positivist thinking,

“Neo-positivist approaches have relaxed the assumptions that knowledge is

context free and that the same relationships among variables will hold

everywhere and at all times. Instead there is more emphasis on the particular and

local and on the way in which factors may combine in different circumstances.

To capture the contextual effect, researchers have increasingly resorted to the

idea of institutions as bearers of distinct patterns of incentives and sanctions, and

on the way that decisions taken at one time constrain what can be done later.”

(Della Porter and Keating, 2008)

This allows for the education system of India to be a major player in setting language

norms, and encouraging attitudes and opinions about English. Positivist theory

borrows research methods and analysis from the natural sciences, and so this theory

generally calls for quantitative methods.

Aims and objectives

This research is grounded in the view that a causal relationship between globalisation

and language attitudes and approaches can be investigated by measuring a number of

35

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

knowledge and research.

The previous chapter outlines the arguments in support of the hypothesis, but the

main arguments are recapped here. Kachru (1979; 1985; 1994) and Shaw (1981) have

highlighted that attitudes to English are not fixed, they are determined by external

factors particularly the education system. For example, the norm of English first

projected was British English, as a result of the outside influences of colonialism.

Shaw (1981) and Kachru (1994) have shown the attitudes towards English in India

have changed over the past 30 years, moving away from exonormative models in

favour of endonormative models.

Many scholars have suggested that globalisation is now effecting many unique social

changes (Castells, 2000; Annamalai, 2005; Chew, 2007) and it is highly likely that

globalisation is also effecting change upon language attitudes. Other scholars

(Phillipson, 2001; Shome, 2006) see the forces of globalisation as reproducing the

models of more powerful countries and imposing them on developing countries. In

this way America and Britain are influencing language norms in India by promoting

their own varieties. Kachru (1994) has predicted a rise in the influences of American

English, which coincides with the global influence of America in India. Cowie (2007)

has examined one of the most global industries in India, the call centre, and found that

older staff prefer to use Indian English and that younger staff are more open to

American English standard.

These arguments provide the foundations of the hypothesis: India is becoming

increasingly globalised and changes brought about by globalisation have caused

changes to the acceptance of Indian English as a variety, and to the acceptance of

British and American varieties. This hypothesis will be tested by the research, so that

some generalisations about language attitudes and adoption can be drawn. As

globalisation as a process is very difficult to measure, this study accepts that the

world is becoming more global, and attempts to measure how attitudes have changed

over time. The independent variables used will be language background, and the

language use and domains of the respondents and the dependent variable will be

attitudes towards English. Where the selected variables do not fully explain the

36

attitudes and approaches to English, there is the understanding that with the addition

of more variables eventually all variation can be explained.

Methods

The research for the main part utilizes quantitative methods, but where qualitative

methods are used they follow the same logic as the quantitative methods. To some

extent the study replicates the methods used by previous studies in this area and

allows for some points of comparison.

Survey

A survey was modelled with both open and closed questions (see Appendix 1, pg. 83-

87). Closed questions are used for eliciting information and measuring the responses

and open questions are used to offer greater insight into opinions and attitudes and to

back up the arguments generated from the qualitative analysis. The survey attempted

to uncover information in a number of areas; to determine the language backgrounds

of the participants; the language use and domains of the participants (i.e. which

languages they spoke to whom, and in what contexts); language attitudes elicited by a

number of statements regarding English; and opinions about the use of different

varieties of English.

The language background of the respondents was provided by the use of simple

questions regarding the languages spoken in the home, used at school and at what age

the languages were first learned. The survey was designed with simplicity and clarity

in mind, attempts were made to make questions easily understandable, unambiguous

and to keep the language simple and free from technical jargon. The questions about

language use and domains were modelled on the study of Baker (1992), who looked at

which languages were used to communicate with a number of different people in

different environments, and which languages were used to perform certain tasks. It

was also attempted to find out how often the respondents used a certain language with

a certain person, or for a certain task. However, the majority of participants chose not

to answer this part of the question and this indicated the question was probably badly

designed.

37

To determine language attitudes towards English in general, attitude scales have been

used as this is the most frequently used method for tapping meaning (Payne, 2004).

While it is not as common to investigate meaning using quantitative methods as it is

with qualitative methods, attitude scales explore meanings in an objective framework,

capable of statistical manipulation and provide good reliability. An ‘attitude scale’

asks the respondent to react to a statement in terms of a fixed range of levels (Payne,

2004). The most commonly used scale is the Likert Scale, which measures opinions of

five levels of agreement and disagreement; strongly agree, agree, neither agree or

disagree, disagree and strongly disagree (Likert, 1932 in Baker, 1992). The Likert

Scale calls for 100 statements, although as previous studies have proven that a smaller

number of statements work just as effectively (Payne, 2004). This model has been

adapted using 10 statements, and using only four levels of agreement and

disagreement. The levels in this study are: Strongly agree, agree, disagree and

strongly disagree. Four measurements have been chosen so that generalisations about

agreement or disagreement to a particular statement can be made more easily. Each

statement used in the survey is tied to an issue, e.g. ‘English is a constant reminder of

British occupation’ is linked to the issue of English and colonialism. There is the

claim that attitude scales fail to capture the complexity of meanings as achieved by

qualitative methods (Payne, 2004), which is why the addition of open questions

benefit the investigation.

Questions about attitudes to varieties of English were modelled on previous research,

particularly the studies by (Kachru, 1979 and Shaw, 1981). These studies asked

respondents to self-identify with which variety they spoke, and with which variety

they would like to speak. These studies were chosen as they allow for comparisons

between students in a university setting. The study into attitudes by Sahgal has been

rejected as a model because of the differences in sample group, see Literature review,

pg. 27. Expanding on these surveys, questions have also been introduced that ask the

respondents which variety should be used generally in India and which variety should

be used for international communication.

When the survey was piloted with a group of seven people, it was found that the

survey was slightly too long and thus an inhibition to completion. As a result, a

question was removed from the language use and domains section as it was thought to

38

overlap somewhat with the previous question. This reduced the survey completion

time. The pilot group also queried a number of statements, thought to be slightly

ambiguous and offered suggestions for alternatives. The survey was amended

accordingly. From the pilot it was able to estimate the time it took to complete the

survey, enabling the respondents to be advised of this time correctly.

Sample

The positivist approach to quantitative methods calls for a large number of cases to

maximise generalisability and capture most sources of variation (Della Porter and

Keating, 2008). The more cases that are included in the sample, the better the

researcher can identify the nature of the causal effects, and specify the conditions

under which causal effects are felt. As more cases offer a higher reliability of results

the aim was to investigate as many cases as possible. However there were a number of

constraints upon achieving the desired sample.

The population definition was ‘English-speaking Indian students at The University of

Pune from a variety of Indian states’. The knowledge that the University of Pune

attracts students from many Indian states, led to the belief that students from states

other than Maharashtra would be included in the sample, this turned out to be the

case. The plan for sampling had to be revised after learning that the surveys could not

be sent out to all students. Non-random sampling was initially planned, selecting all

students available on the university’s email network, thus acquiring a large survey

population. There were many Indian bureaucratic regulations that prevented this from

being possible. The course coordinator also advised that an email survey to students in

India might not generate many responses, as most students did not have access to

Internet at home and access at university was limited to half an hour at a time. As a

research student who had only been in India for three months with limited resources

and contacts, it was therefore only possible to use convenience sampling to gather

data. The University campus was used as the area of data collection and students were

approached and asked whether they would be willing to fill in a survey. Using

convenience sampling in the University campus, the target population was easily

accessible, as people could be approached and asked whether they were a student,

whether they were Indian and whether they were comfortable filling in a survey in

English.

39

The finished sample was 50 students, 29 men and 21 women. As predicted, 26% of

the respondents originated from states other than Maharashtra. The sample comprised

students from a range of degree programmes, 20 from arts degrees, 14 from business

degrees and 13 from science degrees, (3 students did not declare their programme of

study). The sampling method was not ideal for this type of research. Probability

sampling would have achieved a statistically representative sample, which would gain

the best results from statistical analysis and allow for very reliable generalisations

beyond the sample. As the chance to conduct probability sample was not possible, the

current sample therefore is not as statistically representative. As a result, it is more

difficult to make reliable generalisations across a whole population. The selected

sample however, can be used to give a good impression of the attitudes and

approaches to English in the University of Pune.

Data collection

It is usual for researchers working in the positivist philosophy to set up complete

separation between the researcher and the participants as the view is that the

researcher may contaminate the research by being a part of it, therefore quantitative

methods, standardised questionnaires, anonymous surveys are used to maintain this

separation. Whilst trying to stay true to this methodology, there have been a number

of practical limitations to this research and it was not always possible to maintain the

separation between researcher and observer. Standardised surveys were produced to

be completed by the respondents, and the respondents do not have to include their

names. However because the surveys could not be sent out by post or email and had to

be given out in person, naturally this separation was not always possible. Leaving the

respondent to fill in the survey alone, and returning to them after about 15mins to

collect it reduced the contact between researcher and participant. During the initial

stages of data collection it was discovered that staying with the person whilst the

survey was completed meant that the respondent often discussed all answers before

writing them down, which was not desirable.

The University of Pune is a large and spread out campus area, and so it can be

difficult to find groups of people. Areas such as parks were targeted, with the

knowledge that that is where many of the students spent their spare time. People who

40

looked like students, as opposed to staff, cleaners and workers around the campus

were selected. The criteria for selection were people that appeared to have some spare

time. The many couples that met in the parks were avoided, as were people who were

eating as interrupting might appear rude. The majority of people asked were willing to

spend the time to complete the survey, in fact many respondents wrote their email

addresses and telephone numbers on the bottom of the survey for use in case of

further questions. Of all the people asked, no one declined the survey because it was

in English.

Ethical considerations

Throughout the study it has been ensured that potential respondents, and selected

respondents have been treated with care, sensitivity and respect. As respondents were

approached to complete a survey, they were given information about the study; about

the researcher; what type of research was being conducted; why the research would be

conducted; and the approximate time it might take to complete. Respondents were

given an opportunity to decline the survey, by saying that they did not have time to

complete it. Information about the nature of the study, and about completing the

survey was also given at the beginning of the survey itself. It was important

respondents were clear about what to do as the researcher would not be with them to

ask questions. The survey stated that the information provided would be treated in the

strictest confidence, and individual respondent details would not be disclosed.

Respondent details were only seen by the data collector, thus ensuring anonymity and

confidentiality.

Methods of data analysis

The data was coded into numbers with 1= Indian languages, 2= Indian languages plus

English and 3=English. A principle component analysis revealed that the responses on

the language use clusters largely fell into four components: language of environment

(language spoken at home + other languages spoken + language of administration +

language of net); language of education (language of primary school + language of

secondary school + language spoken with teacher + language used to read the

newspaper + language used to read novels + language used to read academic books);

language of parents (language spoken with father, language spoken with mother) and

language of social life (language spoken with partner, language spoken with brother

41

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

Table 7.

Table 7 ‒ Rotated Component Matrix (a)

Component

Question 1 2 3 4 5 6

langhome -0.009 0.155 -0.087 0.698 0.409 0.015

othlang 0.250 0.199 -0.279 -0.627 0.057 0.144

langprim 0.669 0.279 0.210 -0.025 0.107 -0.417

langsec 0.785 -0.023 0.063 -0.117 -0.157 -0.153

langfath 0.096 -0.178 0.192 -0.105 0.838 0.150

langmoth 0.175 0.150 0.030 0.212 0.766 -0.253

langpart -0.110 0.195 0.549 0.043 0.464 -0.137

langbros 0.057 -0.119 0.817 -0.042 0.198 -0.064

langfie 0.056 0.216 0.745 0.310 -0.065 0.092

langclas 0.140 0.433 0.622 0.370 -0.006 0.185

langteac 0.436 0.018 0.133 0.352 0.100 -0.185

langadmi 0.353 -0.013 0.034 0.415 0.024 0.225

langnews 0.648 0.357 -0.166 0.193 0.138 0.124

langnov 0.717 0.236 -0.026 0.086 0.198 0.318

langacbo 0.711 -0.339 0.013 0.073 0.160 0.310

langtv 0.041 0.846 0.148 -0.042 -0.018 0.006

langfilm 0.102 0.835 0.052 -0.094 -0.128 0.058

langnet 0.274 -0.147 0.210 0.546 -0.128 0.058

langtext 0.056 0.081 0.039 0.003 -0.074 0.871

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser

Normalization. A Rotation converged in 11 iterations.

This process generated four new variables to be used in the statistical analysis; a

Pearson’s correlation was then conducted on these compound variables (language of

environment, language of education, language of parents and language of social life)

and the attitude statements in the survey.

42

Results

Chapter 3 explained the methods employed to analyse the data produced by the

survey. The purpose of this chapter is to present the results of the survey and to give a

description of these findings. Firstly a descriptive account of the findings will be

provided. This will be followed by a statistical analysis of the data. The analysis and

discussion of the results will constitute the following chapter.

Results of descriptive analysis

Language background

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

at home growing up?’

n Marathi Hindi Other

Indian lang. English

Questions n % n % n % n %

What is your

mother

tongue?

50 29 58 13 26 8 16

What

languages did

you speak at

home growing

up?

50 27 54 16 32 10 20 7 14

Table 8 shows that mother tongue has little variance from languages spoken at home

and therefore the results from mother tongue have been left out of the further

statistical analysis.

Fig. 1 - What other languages can you speak?

42

48

1 1 1

8

1 1 1 1 1 2 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

Hin

di

Englis

h

Guj

erat

i

Sindh

i

Persian

Mar

athi

Bho

jpur

i

Punja

bi

Urd

u

Sansk

ritt

Ass

ames

e

Ger

man

Frenc

h

nu

mb

er o

f re

spo

nd

ents

43

Respondents were also asked to name which other languages they were able to speak,

and the results are shown in graph Fig. 1.

The distribution of results for which language has been the main medium of

instruction at different stage of the respondents’ education are displayed in Table 9.

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

n English Hindi Marathi Bilingual

Questions n % n % n % n %

What was the

main

language of

your primary

education?

49 15 30.6 5 10.2 23 47.9 6 12.3

What was the

main

language of

your

secondary

education?

49 26 53.1 2 4.1 13 26.5 8 16.3

What was the

main

language of

your

university

education?

50 49 98 1 2

Since there was virtually no variance with respect to university education (only one

respondent indicated that the language had not been English) this question was

omitted from further analysis.

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

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

age of respondents

nu

mb

er o

f re

spo

nd

ents

44

The survey asked respondents at what age they began learning English; the

distribution of results have been produced in Fig. 2. This graph shows that there were

two significant periods for starting to learn English, the beginning of primary and the

beginning of secondary school.

'Where did you first start learning English?’

In response to the question ‘Where did you first start learning English?’ 47

respondents (94%) indicated that they first started learning English at school, 2

respondents (4%) indicated that they began learning English at home, and 1 (2%) told

us they started learning English at University. Since there was low variance this

question was omitted from further analysis.

‘Would you consider taking/have you taken any courses outside of University to help you

improve your English skills?’

Out of the 50 respondents who answered the question, 37 said they would not

consider taking any other courses, 6 said that they would maybe consider taking a

course, and 7 said they would consider taking a course. Of those who answered yes,

five said which course they were interested in, three indicated an interest in a spoken

language course, 1 a public speaking course, and 1 an accent training course.

Language use and domains

Respondents were asked to answer which languages they used to communicate with

different people. The relevant questions taken from the survey are given in Table 10.

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

English Hindi Marathi Other People

n

n % n % n % n %

Father 49 12 24.5 21 42.9 26 53.1

Mother 49 7 14.3 16 32.7 28 57.1

Partner 35 22 62.9 21 42.9 13 37.1 3 8.6

Siblings 49 22 44.9 15 30.6 25 51 8 16.3

Friends 50 29 58 26 52 28 58 6 12

Classmates 49 37 75.5 28 57.1 26 53.1

Teachers 49 49 100 13 26.5 13 26.5

Admin staff 41 35 85.4 11 26.8 9 21.9

45

English was used in all cases as a language of communication with teachers, and was

also a frequently cited language for talking to administrative staff.

Respondents were then asked which languages they used for certain tasks, such as,

reading the newspaper, reading academic books, reading novels, watching television,

watching films, surfing the internet and sending text messages. The distribution of

results is shown in Table 11.

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

English Hindi Marathi Other

Activity

n

n % n % n % n %

Read newspapers 50 45 90 4 8 24 48

Read academic books 49 46 93.9 2 4.1 8 16.3

Read novels 45 37 82.2 5 11.1 21 46.7 3 6.7

Watch television 49 31 63.3 45 91.8 21 42.9 8 16.3

Watch films 50 41 82 49 98 22 44 7 14

Surf the Internet 48 47 97.9 4 8.3 2 4.2

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

As there was an overwhelming preference for English in response to the question

about which language was used for sending text messages, there was insufficient

variability on this item to include it in any further analysis.

Attitudes towards English

Table 12 presents the results of the attitude statements in the survey. Respondents

were asked to rate their agreement with the statement, on the scale of strongly agree,

agree, disagree and strongly disagree.

46

Table. 12 – Distribution of responses to attitude statements about English

n Strongly

agree

Agree Disagree Strongly

disagree

Statements n % n % n % n %

English is an Indian

language. 50 5 10 11 22 18 36 16 32

English threatens the

survival of Indian

languages.

50 4 8 19 38 17 34 10 20

I need English to be

able to get a good job. 50 31 62 12 24 2 4 5 10

Mother tongue

instruction should be

given more importance.

48 16 33 20 42 8 17 4 8

English should be the

language of instruction

of all education in

India.

50 13 26 23 46 12 24 2 4

People who speak

English are successful. 50 5 10 17 34 21 42 7 14

English is a constant

reminder of British

occupation.

49 14 28 17 35 15 31 3 6

English is important for

international

communication.

50 29 58 18 36 0 3 6

English should be the

communication

language between

Indian states.

50 4 8 18 36 20 40 8 16

English is necessary to

be accepted in the

community.

50 4 8 29 58 13 26 4 8

The scores for strongly agree and agree, and the scores for disagree and strongly

disagree have been added together to ascertain whether the respondents generally

tended to agree or disagree with a particular statement, see Table 13.

47

Table 13 ‒ Number of responses that agree and disagree with the attitude statements.

n Agree Disagree

Statements n % n %

English is an Indian

language. 50 16 32 34 68

English threatens the

survival of Indian languages 50 23 46 27 54

I need English to be able to

get a good job. 50 43 86 7 14

Mother tongue instruction

should be given more

importance. 48 36 75 12 25

English should be the

language of instruction of all

education in India. 50 36 72 14 28

People who speak English

are successful. 50 22 44 28 56

English is a constant

reminder of British

occupation. 49 31 63 18 37

English is important for

international communication 50 47 94 3 6

English should be the

communication language

between Indian states. 50 22 44 28 56

English is necessary to be

accepted in the community. 50 33 66 17 34

The results show that the majority of the respondents disagreed with the statement

‘English is an Indian Language’. The respondents had a mixed response to the

statement ‘English threatens the survival of Indian languages’. Respondents tended to

agree with the statement ‘I need English to get a good job’. Three quarters of the

respondents agreed that ‘Mother tongue instruction should be given more

importance’. The respondents also agreed with the statement ‘English should be the

language of instruction of all education in India’. ‘People who speak English are

successful’ attracted mixed reactions from the respondents. More respondents agreed

with the statement ‘English is a constant reminder of British occupation’ than

disagreed. Nearly all respondents agreed that ‘English is important for international

communication’, which is a particularly high response in this study. The statement

‘English should be the language of communication between Indian states’ again

48

attracted mixed responses. More respondents agreed with the statement ‘English is

necessary to be accepted by the community’ than disagreed.

Table 14 presents the distribution of results for the questions where respondents were

asked to select which languages they would use given a choice.

Table 14 – Distribution of results for ‘Which language would you choose as your mother

tongue?’ and ‘Which language would you choose to educate your children in?’

n Mother

Tongue

Hindi

(if not MT)

English Bilingual Other

Questions n % n % n % n % n %

Which language

would you choose

as your mother

tongue?

50 27 54 7 14 7 14 6 12 1 2

Which language

would you choose

to educate your

children in?

48 6 12.5 0 0 25 52.1 16 33.3 1 2.1

For the question ‘Which language would you choose as your mother tongue?’ 6

respondents indicated their preference for a bilingual mother tongue. Of these three

chose English and Hindi, one mother tongue and English, one mother tongue and

Hindi, and one respondent chose to be multilingual in their mother tongue, Hindi and

English. For the question ‘Which language would you educate your children in’? 16

respondents supported bilingual education, with eight favouring Hindi and English

education, five mother tongue and English education, one English and French

education, and two a multilingual education of mother tongue, Hindi and English.

Table. 15 – Table of results for ‘Do you think English can be used effectively to represent

Indian cultural values and traditions?’

Response (n=49) Number of People %

Yes 24 48.9

No 23 46.9

Don’t know 2 4.2

The distribution of results for Table 15 shows a mixed response to the question among

respondents.

49

Respondents’ answers to the open questions of this section of the survey have been

displayed in Appendix 2 pg. 89-92 and will be discussed in the following chapter.

Varieties of English

Respondents were asked whether they had heard of Indian English and the majority

answered that they had. Table 16 shows that some respondents were unsure whether

they had heard of the variety or not.

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

Response (n=50) Number of People %

Yes 30 60

No 8 16

Don’t Know 9 18

Respondents were asked to choose which variety they thought they spoke and which

variety they aspired to speak. The distributions of these results are presented in Table.

17.

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

n Indian

English

British

English

American

English

Don’t

know/

mind

Other

Questions n % n % n % n % n %

Which variety of

English do you

speak?

50 26 52 13 26 2 4 8 16 1 2

Which variety of

English do you

aspire to speak?

50 17 34 20 40 6 12 4 8 3 6

Which variety

should be spoken

generally in India?

48 26 55.4 9 19.1 2 4.3 10 21.3

Which variety

should be used for

international

communication?

47 6 12.8 15 31.9 7 14.9 5 10.6 14 29.8

50

The data was then re-examined in terms of non-native varieties (IE) and native

varieties (BrE + AE), to see whether the respondents had a general preference for

exonormative varieties or endonormative varieties, see Table 18 and Table 19.

Table 18 – Distribution of responses to ‘Which variety of English do you speak?’ (Native and

Non-native)

Variety of English Number of People %

Non-native variety (IE) 26 52

Native variety (BrE) (AE) 15 30

Misc 9 18

If we revise the scores for ‘Which variety do you speak?’, we can see that more than

half of the informants identify with a native variety of English.

Table. 19 ‒ Distribution of responses to ‘Which variety of English do you aspire to speak?’

(Native and Non-native)

Variety of English Number of People %

Non-native variety (IE) 17 34

Native variety (BrE) (AE) 26 52

Misc 7 14

If the scores for ‘Which variety do you aspire to speak?’ are revised into native and

non-native varieties, we can see that although 34% of respondents report they aspire

to speak Indian English, native varieties of English come out on top at 52%.

Respondents’ answers to the open questions of this section of the survey have been

presented in Appendix 2, pg. 89-92.

Statistical analysis

Table 20 shows Pearson’s correlations between the language use and the language

attitude factors.

51

Table 20 ‒ Pearson’s correlation

Statements N=50 Language of

environment

Language

of

education

Language

of parents

Language

of social

situations

Pearson corr. -0.194 -0.061 -0.368(**) -0.246

Sig. (2 tailed) 0.177 0.672 0.008 0.085

English is an

Indian language

Pearson corr. -0.161 -0.272 -0.201 0.057

Sig. (2 tailed) 0.264 -0.056 0.161 0.696

English is a

threat to Indian

languages.

Pearson corr. -0.054 -0.034 -0.005 0.085

Sig. (2 tailed) 0.710 0.814 0.972 0.556

I need English to

be able to get a

good job

Pearson corr. 0.002 0.004 0.435 (**) 0.193

Sig. (2 tailed) 0.990 0.976 0.002 0.189

Mother tongue

instru. should be

given more

importance

Pearson corr. -0.194 -0.295 (*) -0.183 -0.352 (*)

Sig. (2 tailed) 0.176 0.037 0.202 0.012

English should

be the language

of all

education...

Pearson corr. -0.061 -0.119 0.141 -0.068

Sig. (2 tailed) 0.674 0.412 0.330 0.673

People who

speak English

are successful

Pearson corr. -0.016 0.002 0.088 -0.007

Sig. (2 tailed) 0.913 0.988 0.549 0.962

English is a

constant

reminder of

British

occupation

Pearson corr. -0.256 -0.229 -0.114 -0.048

Sig. (2 tailed) 0.073 0.110 0.431 0.742

English is

important for

international

communication.

Pearson corr. -0.058 0.123 -0.117 -0.305(*)

Sig. (2 tailed) 0.690 0.394 0.420 0.031

English should

be the lang of

comm. between

all Indian states

Pearson corr. -0.008 0.127 0.077 -0.052

Sig. (2 tailed) 0.954 0.378 0.594 0.720

English is

necessary to be

accepted in the

community.

Pearson corr. -0.191 0.133 0.156 0.332(*)

Sig. (2 tailed) 0.185 0.357 0.278 0.018

Which language

would you

choose as your

mother tongue

Pearson corr. 0.061 0.099 0.099 0.263

Sig. (2 tailed) 0.676 0.492 0.496 0.065

Which language

would you

educate your

children in?

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

52

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The relatively low correlation coefficients produced by the statistical analysis shows,

in the majority of cases that the amount of use people had made of English appears

unrelated to their responses in the attitude statements. However the following

correlations have been found to be interesting.

The analysis found a –368** correlation between the parent language and the

statement ‘English is an Indian language’, which suggests that people who use a lot of

English with their parents, are quite likely to disagree with this statement. A highly

significant 435** correlation was found for parent language and ‘mother tongue

instruction should be given more importance’, implying that people who use a lot of

English with their parents, are likely to agree with this statement. Language of

education and ‘English should be the language of instruction of all education in India’

showed highly significant negative correlation at –295**, making it likely that people

who had a lot of English in their education would disagree with the statement. A

medium strong negative correlation –352* was found between social language and

‘English should be the language of instruction of all education in India’, generalising

that people who used a lot of English in their social lives, would be more likely to

disagree that English should be the sole language of the education system. The

analysis also found that people who use a lot of English in their social life, were more

likely to disagree that ‘English should be the language of communication between

Indian states’, as the Pearson correlation was -305 at 0.05 significance. It can also be

generalised that the more likely you are to use English in your social life, the more

likely you are to choose English as a mother tongue, as the analysis shows a medium

effect positive correlation at .332*, this is significant at p< .05.

53

Discussion

The previous chapter presented the descriptive and statistical findings of this research,

whilst this chapter discusses and analyses these results with reference to the key aims

and interests of the research. The discussion is divided into two sections, the first uses

the descriptive data to make comparisons with previous studies, to see whether

attitudes towards English varieties are changing over time, whilst the second looks at

the statistical findings of the data and analyses whether language background and use

affects attitudes towards English.

Varieties of English

In this section the findings of this research are discussed in relation to the studies of

Kachru (1979) and Shaw (1981). As Shaw and Kachru did not employ statistical

analysis of their data in their research, the comparisons will take place with the

descriptive data. By comparing this research with previous studies it is possible to

identify whether there has been any change in acceptance of varieties over the period

of these studies. Discussion is formulated around the four questions about language

varieties in the survey: ‘What variety of English do you speak?’; ‘What variety of

English do you aspire to speak?’; ‘What variety of English should be used generally

in India?’; and ‘What variety of English should be used for international

communication?’.

The question which asked respondents to identify which variety of English they spoke

from the options Indian English, British English, American English, Don’t know/

don’t mind and other, received a full response. Fig. 3 shows that 52% of respondents

identified that they spoke Indian English, rather than any other English variety. 26%

of respondents thought themselves able to speak British English. 16% indicated their

uncertainty about which variety of English that they spoke. A very small number of

respondents (4%) answered that they spoke American English, and only one

respondent (2%) showed identifications with an ‘other’ variety. The majority response

for Indian English suggests that Indians know about the variety Indian English, are

aware that it is common for Indians to use this variety and accept that how they speak

has distinct differences from other varieties. We can see that a small proportion of the

respondents indicated that they were not sure how to answer the question. This could

54

mean that respondents had not thought about this question before, and therefore were

not equipped to make a decision about which variety they spoke. However, it is more

likely that the uncertainty shown to this question indicates an awareness of changing

language norms. Where many Indians believe the variety they are taught in school is

British English, there is increasing awareness that Indian English is actually the model

that is encountered. See Literature review pg. 21. This uncertainty therefore could

reflect the uncertainty present in the education system, and show that some Indians

are unsure which variety they have actually learnt.

When this question is compared with the corresponding questions from Kachru’s and

Shaw’s studies, interesting patterns are identified. When Kachru (1979) asked his

respondents to identify which variety they spoke, 56% answered that they spoke

Indian English, 29% British English, 3% American English and 9% indicated they

were uncertain which variety they spoke, see Fig. 4. By comparing Fig. 3 and Fig. 4,

pg. 55 we can see that respondents in this study and respondents in the Kachru study

have very similar answering patterns for this question. There have been no significant

changes in responses from 1979 to 2009, this implies that people self-identify with the

same varieties and to similar proportions as they did in 1979. The only significant

difference between the two studies is the number of respondents indicating that they

are unsure about which variety they spoke, which is higher in 2009 than in 1979. This

could imply that students are more uncertain about language varieties now, than they

were in 1979.

When the distribution of answers to this question are compared with the

corresponding question in Shaw’s study (1981), a very similar distribution of answers

can be seen. Shaw found that 51% of the respondents in the survey thought that they

spoke a ‘unique’ variety of English, 27% thought they spoke British English, 3%

thought they spoke American English and 19% answered that they spoke an ‘other’

variety of English, See Fig. 5. Shaw has used a different labelling system than Kachru

and for this study, instead of selecting the standard variety Indian English as one of

the options he has used ‘a unique variety of English’. In the other studies respondents

were able to choose between different standard varieties of English, but this study

introduces the non-standard and undefined term ‘unique’, which is a little ambiguous.

55

Fig. 3 - Distribution of answers 'Which variety of English do you

speak?' (Padwick, 2009)

52%

26%

4%

16%

2%

Indian English

British English

American English

Don’t know/mind

Other

Fig. 4 - Graduate students ‘self-labelling’ of the variety of their English

(Kachru, 1979)

56%29%

3%

9%3%

0%

Indian English

British English

American English

Don’t know

Mixture of all three

Good' English

Fig. 5 - Variety of English presently spoken by educated speakers

(Shaw, 1981)

51%

27%

3%

19%

0%

Unique variety

British English

American English

Other

Australian

56

Kachru (1994) maintains that the term Indian English has in the past generated

negative connotations, and in my opinion, in choosing a different term like ‘unique’

Shaw has ensured more positive reactions. Also, with no category for indicating

uncertainty to the question, respondents might opt for ‘other’ if they didn’t actually

know which variety they spoke. This might account for the high number selecting the

‘other’ variety. While comparisons with Shaw’s study are made more difficult due to

the differences in labelling, for the purposes of comparison ‘unique variety’ has been

equated with Indian English. Shaw’s study when analysed in this way shows similar

answering patterns as the other studies, with near equal proportions answering for

British English, American English and for ‘unique’. If ‘other’ is taken to include both

don’t know, and ‘other’ then again like responses between studies can be observed.

When these studies are examined together to observe changes over time, looking first

at Kachru 1979, then Shaw 1981, and then subsequently at this study in 2009, see Fig.

6, only very slight changes over the period of time can be observed. There is a slight

decrease in the number of respondents choosing British English (29%-27%-26%).

There is also a slight decrease in the number of respondents choosing Indian English

(56%-51%-52%). A very slight increase in the number of respondents choosing

American English can also be seen (3%-3%-4%). However the greatest change seems

to be in the level of uncertainty, with a steep rise from 9% in Kachru’s study (1979) to

16% in this study (2009). Overall self-identification with varieties of English has

remained fairly constant over a thirty-year period.

Fig. 6 - What variety do you currently speak? Timeline

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1979

1986

1993

2000

2007

Res

po

nse

in

per

cen

tag

e

British English

Indian English

American English

57

The question ‘Which variety of English do you aspire to speak?’ produced interesting

results, especially when analysed in relation to the results of ‘What variety of English

do you speak?’ , see Fig. 7 pg. 58. The percentage that answered that they aspired to

speak Indian English was 34%. This is significantly lower number than in the variety

that they currently speak question. This highlights a disparity between what people

think they speak and what they aspire to speak. Many Indian students would rather

speak a different variety than the one they currently use. British English received the

highest number of responses to this question at 40%, meaning that British English is

the favoured English model among this sample. The fact that more respondents

aspired to British English as opposed to Indian English implies a continuation of

traditional views of language varieties and their value. The number who aspire to

speak American English (12%) while not huge, is considerably larger than in the

previous question ‘What variety of English do you speak?’ at 4%. This shows us that

while not many respondents currently think they speak American English, many more

aspire to speak this variety. In a closer examination of endocentric and exocentric

varieties, the majority response was found to aspire to speak an exocentric variety, as

the scores for British English and American English accumulate 52%.

The corresponding question in Kachru’s study investigated graduate preferences for

various varieties of English. See Fig. 8. The results reveal that 71% of the graduates

selected British English, 24% Indian English and 5% American English as their

preferred variety. The aspirations for British English among Indian students in 1979

are particularly high, and aspirations for Indian English quite low in comparison. The

responses indicated a clear preference for Indian English, however Kachru concluded

that the acceptance of Indian English is increasing over time.

Shaw’s study (1981) questions the respondents ‘Which variety should we learn to

speak?’, see Fig. 9. The results show an inclination for speaking their ‘own way’ as

Shaw phrases it, which was selected by 47% of respondent answers. British English

was selected by considerably fewer with 29%. American English was selected by

12%, as was ‘other’ varieties. Shaw’s use of different terminology again creates

problems with comparisons, and in my view this has influenced the high level of

responses to speaking ‘our own way’. The response would not have been so high had

Shaw used the term ‘Indian English’ instead, see Literature review pg. 23.

58

Fig. 7 - Which variety of English do you aspire to speak?

(Padwick, 2009)

34%

40%

12%

8%

6%

Indian English

British English

American English

Don’t know/mind

Other

Fig. 8 - Graduate students first preferences for various language

varieties of English (Kachru, 1979)

24%

71%

0%

0%5%

Indian English

British English

American English

Don't know/mind

Other

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

47%

29%

12%

0%

12%

Own way'

British English

American English

Australian English

Others

59

Looking at the responses over a period of time (Fig. 10), firstly Kachru’s study then

Shaw’s study and then this study, some fluctuations are apparent. The preference for

Indian English moves from 24% to 47% in Shaw’s study but then reduces in this

study to 34%. However, as it can be argued that the especially high response for ‘own

way’ in Shaw’s study can be explained by the differences in terminology, the data

reveals that the acceptance of Indian English among Indian students over the last three

decades has largely increased. There is an overall decrease in the belief that British

English is a superior model over the timeframe of the studies (71%-29%-40%), which

shows a decrease in the reliance on traditional endonormative language varieties.

There is however small increase in the preference for American English as a variety

over the last thirty years (5%-12%-12%), see Fig. 10. American English does not

feature strongly in the ‘what variety of English do you speak?’ question, suggesting

that the influence of American English comes from outside India. Neither does

American English have a high level of positive responses in Kachru’s 1979 study and

this might suggest that American English has only begun to influence attitudes

towards varieties in the last twenty years. The small increase in aspiration to speak

American English, could be explained by the changes to India brought about by

globalisation, and the subsequent promotion of American English in certain

employment sectors. While American English cannot be shown to have drastic

influences, if these global trends continue then we might see an increasing aspiration

for American English in the Indian students of the future.

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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1979

1986

1993

2000

2007

Res

po

nse

in

per

cen

tag

e

British English

Indian English

American English

60

This study asked two questions not included in the previous two studies. These

questions inquired into what variety of English should be used for intra-national

functions, and which variety of English would be appropriate for international

functions. 48 respondents answered the question ‘Which variety of English should

generally be spoken in India?’ and out of these a high percentage (55%) agreed that

Indian English would be the best variety for India. 19% of respondents thought that

British English and 4% thought that American English should be spoken generally in

India. 21% answered that they were unsure what the best variety for India would be.

The addition of these questions provides greater insight into the understanding of

attitudes towards varieties. The majority of respondents answered in favour of Indian

English as the language that should be spoken generally in India, which demonstrates

a high acceptance of Indian English as the best model for India. However the previous

question about English variety aspirations reveals that personal preferences are

predominantly in favour of endocentric varieties. This exposes a discrepancy between

public and personal aspirations. While respondents indicate that Indian English is

acceptable as the commonly used variety in India, they find different varieties

preferable for their own personal communication.

The question ‘Which variety of English should be used for international

communication?’ provides a varied response. Out of the 48 respondents who

answered the question, 13% thought Indian English, 32% British English, and 15%

American English should be used for international communication. 10% answered

that they were unsure which variety would be best, while 30% indicated that they

thought an alternative variety should be used for international communication. These

results reflect the topical academic debate in this area and show that there is no

consensus about what variety should be used internationally. Some respondents who

indicated ‘other’, suggested the varieties “worldly accepted English” and “global

English” as alternative varieties for international communication. The inclusion of

these varieties highlights the attitude that it is not necessary to use only one variety, as

long as all the varieties are intelligible to each other in international settings.

In an attempt to gain a deeper understanding of the opinions and aspirations for

language varieties, respondents were asked to give reasons for choosing the variety

they did, for the question ‘Which variety do you aspire to speak?’. The written

61

responses have highlighted different functions for each variety, with the aspirations

towards a particular variety dependent on the planned use of English. Extracts from

the written responses can be seen in Appendix 2, pg. 88-91. These indicated an

aspiration for British English that tended to be conformist and traditional. Their

comments highlight the historical background of British English, the belief that

British English is the contemporary model in India; and the view that British English

is the most correct model. Some emphasised the traditional nature of British English

as a model, “British English is simple and old” and “from the early stages we have

learnt British English only”, suggesting that British English should be aspired to

because it is the model that has traditionally been aspired to. Other respondents in

favour of British English indicated that British English is the model of current usage;

British English should be aspired for “ because it is widely spoken in India” and “is

the standard variety of English.” Interestingly, one respondent addressed the problem

of English models in the education system, commenting that they aspired to speak

British English “because Indian English is still not part of our school system.” The

respondent aspired to speak the standard defined by the school system, so if the

educational standard changed to Indian English then the respondent would aspire to

speak Indian English. Comments from other respondents highlight the view that

British English is a more superior variety than Indian English, with respondents

having aspirations for British English because “I want to be perfect” and “I believe

Queen’s English is the purest form of English,” and because they believe British

English “is grammatically correct”. These comments hint at derogatory attitudes

towards Indian English: if British English is ‘grammatically correct’, then the

respondent must consider other varieties to be ‘grammatically incorrect’.

When respondents have aspirations towards Indian English it is because of national

pride and practical reasons. A number of respondents emphasised their pride in being

Indian by statements such, “I am Indian and I love my country” and “We are Indians

and we must aspire to speak Indian English”. Other respondents highlighted more

practical reasons for wanting to speak Indian English, they stressed that Indian

English was the easiest variety for Indians because, “the pronunciation is familiar”

and “because I can’t change my voice and accent”. Using the same line of argument,

others indicated that Indian English was the most sensible variety to be used for

someone using English within India, with respondents rationalising with comments

62

such as “I live in India so Indian English is more useful variety than any other for

me”, and I aspire to speak Indian English “ because I will live in India, not abroad or

in a foreign country.” We can see that respondents are aware that English can be used

for different functions, and that those with aspirations to speak Indian English intend

to speak English for intra-national purposes.

Respondents who chose American English again highlighted alternative reasons for

their aspirations. A number of respondents mention the international nature of

American English, “it is acceptable all over the world”, and “I think it is spoken

universally.” Clearly these respondents aspire to speak American English because

they seek to communicate with the rest of the world. Another respondent finds

American English preferable because “it is simple and useful English.” This again

highlights the role of English as a tool in international communication, where the

language should be simple and easy to understand.

These explanations have highlighted that respondents’ desire to speak different

varieties is dependent on the role that they think English will play in their lives. This

corresponds with the view of Krishnaswamy expressed in the literature view

(Krishnaswamay, 2006), that English occupies a number of different functions in

Indian society. English can be seen for its ‘market-driven social function’, or its

‘ideology-driven identity project function’, see Literature review, pg. 19-20. Those

who think that they will use English for their mobility, for their social and economic

opportunities, and in international communication see English for its ‘market-driven

social function’ and would be likely to aspire to an international model of English.

British English is seen as the traditional international model, and American English as

a contemporary international model. This research has shown a decline in the

traditional international model and an increase in the contemporary international

model. Those who believe that English is part of Indian society and feel that they can

express Indian traditions, values, culture and national pride through English, see

English for its ‘ideology driven identity project function’ and are likely to aspire to

use the Indian English variety.

However, English adopts more than one function in Indian society, and so speakers of

English may also use English in its different functions. Someone might normally use

63

English with other Indians to express their Indian cultural identity employing the rules

of Indian English; but might use English for its ‘market-driven social function’ in an

international situation and decide to adopt American English. The speaker is

bidilectal, has two varieties of English available for use and which variety to chosen is

dependent on the appropriateness of a variety to a context. Crystal sees this as the

most suitable approach for a globalising country like India, where speakers of English

could use their own variety to express their own identity and another variety can be

used for international intelligibility. For more on this see Literature review pg. 22.

Whilst this research has not been able to assess how respondents use different

varieties for the different functions of English, the argument could be made for further

research in this respect.

Attitudes towards English

This section of the discussion looks at the correlations between the amount of use of

English and attitudes towards statements about English as produced by statistical

analysis. The independent variable, how much someone uses English, is determined

by the answers to language background and language use and domains in the survey;

and the attitude scales in the survey determine the dependent variable, how much

someone agrees with the statement about English. This process can determine how

much someone is likely to agree with a statement depending on how much English he

or she uses. While this process can demonstrate correlations between variables, it

cannot provide explanations for the relationships, and so this discussion will suggest a

theory by which to make sense of these correlations.

The analysis deduces that, the amount of use people had made of English appears

largely unrelated to their responses in the attitude statements. While this means that

there are few correlations to analyse in this research, it is, a very interesting finding. It

suggests that how much English people use in school, how early they started to learn

English, and how often they used English in their social, family, or academic life has

had little influence on how people related to the statements regarding attitudes to

English; and means it is likely that attitudes towards English are more determined by

other factors than what languages people use in which situations. As the selected

variable does not explain the majority of attitudes and approaches to English, the need

for further research is highlighted. Alternative variables will need to be tested to fully

64

explain how attitudes towards English are established. Alternative independent

variables to research could be the attitudes of parents and family towards English, the

social status of the respondent and their family, or how many generations English had

been used in the family, or how English is used in educational settings, how the roles

of English are defined, how English is taught and to what purposes. If language

attitudes are not determined by personal background and use of English, perhaps

language attitudes are influenced by the family attitudes, and/or by educational values.

The analysis of the data did however produce a few interesting correlations between

language background and use, and language attitudes. The analysis found someone

who had often used English with their parents was likely to disagree that English is an

Indian language. Disagreement with this statement highlights the belief that English

does not belong to Indian society, and is not Indian. Rather than joining the body of

Indian languages, English remains an outside language. This correlation would agree

with Dasgupta’s (1993) and Fishman’s (1992) views, that English is certainly present

in Indian society, but it remains an alien and formal language, and is excluded from

personal spheres. See Literature review pg. 18-19. It is interesting that someone who

uses a lot of English with their parents, i.e. in the family domain, is more likely to

disagree that English is an Indian language. Perhaps English does not act as a

language of personal or family communication, but rather has been introduced by the

parents at an early stage as an ‘other’ or ‘foreign’ language to ensure the child’s

proficiency in later life. This could be the same process as a European parent

introducing French to their young child, to ensure good knowledge of this language in

the future. English is not a personal language whispered to a child to get it off to

sleep, but a tactical language introduced by parents for their child’s future gain.

Disagreement that English is an Indian language, highlights the otherness of English

and therefore reasserts the importance of ‘Indian’ languages in Indian society.

The analysis also found a correlation between the parent language and the statement

that mother tongue instruction should be given more importance. A conclusion

therefore might be that: if someone uses English a lot with their parents, they are

likely to agree that mother tongue instruction should be given more importance. An

agreement with this statement might highlight the belief that English is becoming too

dominant and that there is the need for reassertion of mother tongue instruction in the

65

Indian education system. This assertion seems to agree with the first correlation:

people who have used more English in India are less likely to agree that English is

Indian, and therefore believe in the importance of the traditional Indian languages and

mother tongues. Perhaps increased knowledge and use of English highlights the areas

where English is not suitable in Indian society, marking English as not completely

Indian. The knowledge that English is not suitable in all domains, emphasises the

need for other Indian languages to fill these domains and therefore acknowledges the

need for Indian languages as the medium of instruction.

The analysis of the results in this study has led to the development of a theory that

provides an explanation for the previous assertions. The descriptive analysis of

attitudes and opinions demonstrates that there are a variety of attitudes and opinions to

English present among Indian students. The majority of questions provide no clear

consensus among students, but show mixed responses. As the language backgrounds

of the respondents are as varied as their answers, and the occasions when English is

used is different for all respondents, these differences can help to explain the variation

of attitudes towards English. The more someone has made use of English, the more

likely they are to support the need for bilingual or multilingual futures, and the less

exposure someone has had to English the less likely they are to believe that

bilingualism is the way forward. Those with a bilingual background, i.e. with good

access to both English and Indian languages, are more likely to support the need for

bilingualism. Therefore, whilst they believe in the necessity of English, they also

recognise the need for other Indian languages within the future of India. The more that

someone has been exposed to English, the more likely they are to promote the

continuation of many Indian languages, with English as just one of the important

languages.

This theory is again supported by another correlation in the analysis. The analysis

showed that people who had used a lot of English in their education are more likely to

disagree with the statement ‘English should be the language of instruction of all

education in India’. While the descriptive analysis showed a general agreement with

this statement (72%), statistical analysis showed that those with a greater exposure to

English were more likely to disagree with this statement. This can again be interpreted

in favour of bilingualism, those that disagreed would think that English should not be

66

the language of instruction of all education in India; they think it should be one

important element. More preferable to those with considerable experienced of English

would be a bilingual or multilingual education, with support for both English and

mother tongue instruction. By default those with less exposure to English would be

more likely to agree that English should be the language of instruction of all education

in India. The less someone has used English in their education the more likely they

are to support an education where English is the sole language of instruction.

If a person has had a low exposure to English, then they may be more likely to put

their faith in English as the key to a better future. If you don’t have access to

something you are likely to feel deprived of it and believe that gaining access to the

thing you are deprived will solve all your problems. For example, people with not

much money often play the lottery with the faith that having money will provide them

happiness and success. Those who already have English however, are by now looking

for something else, something more, to help them secure their futures. As

globalisation is supplying well-paid jobs for those proficient in English, those with

low exposure to English might believe that English is essential for access to these

opportunities and want English to be the sole language of education in order to

improve English proficiency. They would place less emphasis on the need for mother

tongue instruction, and not acknowledge mother tongue languages as essential for

these futures. Those with a greater exposure to English however, do not share this

view. While they also believe that English is an important language for Indians to

know, they don’t believe that English alone is the key to a successful future. Other

languages are also seen to be of value, with the result that those who have had greater

exposure to English are dismissive of an all-English education system and are in

support of mother tongue instruction in schools.

Previous research has highlighted an increased demand for English in all social

sectors (Annamalai, 2004) and while the results of this research supports the view that

all groups value English as a language of education, it does find that an important

distinction can be made between the attitudes of different social groups towards

English. There is a divergence of opinion between those who have had considerable

exposure to English, most often the higher classes of society, and those with less

exposure to English. These can be called ‘the haves and the have nots’. People with

67

less experience of English are more likely to rely on English as a fix-all solution, and

would favour English as the sole language of education, perceiving English to be the

key to future success. Whereas people with more experience of English, are more

likely to put their faith in bilingual education systems and bilingual futures. They also

view English as an important language in the education system, but not the only

important language. A bilingual or multilingual education that incorporates the best

from all the available languages is considered preferential. Descriptive analysis has

shown that respondents who started learning English earlier on in life, have also gone

on to learn other languages such as French, German and Sanskrit. People with high

exposure to English are also keen to access the advantages of other languages that

they come into contact with and do not rely so heavily on the presumed upward

mobility brought by English.

The descriptive analysis shows that 56% of respondents disagreed with the statement

‘English should be the language of communication between Indian states’. Statistical

analysis revealed that people who use a lot of English in their social life were also

likely to disagree with this statement. This does not necessarily demonstrate a

negative attitude towards English itself. Rather it could be that people with a high

exposure to English in their social life are more likely to think that English should be

one of the languages of communication between Indian states, not the only language.

It is also possible that the respondents support Hindi as the intrastate language and

English as the international language. Someone who supports the need for

bilingualism is likely to acknowledge the different active roles of languages and feel

that one language is preferable for one function and another language best for another

function. They might feel that Hindi as the national language is best suited to the

function of intrastate language, and for this reason disagree that ‘English should be

the language of communication between Indian states’.

The statistical analysis uncovered a medium correlation, in that the more likely you

are to use English in your social life the more likely you are to choose English as a

mother tongue. This seems to show that the more English you use with your friends

and classmates the more likely you are to think that English would be the best

language for your mother tongue. While other correlations have given support to the

theory the more someone has been exposed to English, the more likely they are to

68

support bilingualism, this correlation, does not seem to fit this patterning. What is also

interesting is that in the results there has often been strong correlations for people who

spoke a lot of English with their parents; and yet with this statement there is an

absence of a strong correlation with this group. This suggests that people who spoke a

lot of English with their parents are not very likely to choose English as a mother

tongue. In the absence of further evidence to support this, only suggestions can be

made as to why the difference in this patterning is apparent. However, this correlation

might suggest that there is a difference in attitudes between people who learnt English

early on in life, i.e. spoke English with their parents, and those who have used English

only later on in life i.e. in their social life. An explanation could be that those with a

high exposure to English from an early age, i.e. with their family and in their primary

education, are more likely to support the need for bilingualism than people who have

had a high exposure to English only later on in their life i.e. in their social life and in

their secondary education. This explanation however requires further investigation.

The respondents’ commentary explanations behind their answers have been examined

to find further support for this theory. Respondents were not asked to explain their

reactions to the attitude scales, but were asked to explain the reasoning behind the

following two questions, ‘what language would you choose as a mother tongue?’ and

‘what language would you choose to educate your children in?’. The majority of

respondents (54%) indicated that they would retain their mother tongue if they were

given a choice, but 14% said they would choose Hindi and 14% said they would

choose English as their mother tongue given the choice. 12% of respondents answered

that they would choose to have two or more languages as mother tongue: three

respondents had a preference for English and Hindi; one mother tongue and English;

one mother tongue and Hindi; and one opted for a multilingual mother tongue with

their mother tongue, Hindi and English. As English does not feature highly in this

question, the responses indicate that the majority of Indians would prefer to have a

traditional Indian language as mother tongue. This suggests that while English is an

increasingly important language in India, the Indian mother tongue still remains

significant for the cultural identity of many Indians.

The reasons given highlight ease, comfort and the need to speak to local people as an

explanation for choosing mother tongue. Respondents justified their answers,

69

“Marathi, it is easy to adjust to the surrounding environment” and “Bengali because I

am used to it”. Another respondent indicated a different reason for preserving the

mother tongue, seeing western influence as a threat to local languages, “Marathi,

because due to the influence of western culture coming in India or Maharashtra,

Marathi language is not spoken widely.” This remark indicates how the mother tongue

language is integral to someone’s cultural identity and sense of belonging, and also

how the mother tongue may be used to combat the homogenising influences of

globalisation. Respondents largely would not change their local or family languages

to anything else, and this highlights the need for a language that fulfils cultural needs

in the bilingual repertoire, a role that English might not be capable of filling.

Descriptive analysis showed that respondents were unsure whether English was

capable of representing Indian cultural values and traditions.

The responses to ‘what language would you educate your children in?’ however show

much higher support for English. The descriptive analysis shows that 52% of

respondents indicated that they would choose to educate their children in English. The

explanations behind the answers to this question prove that many respondents have

faith that knowledge of English can ensure a better future. Some respondents have

written that they would choose to educate their children in English because “it is

necessary to access good education and better jobs, and better training” and “English,

for a good job and international jobs.” English is seen as the important language for

education because it allows access to the best training and jobs and thus ensures

successful career prospects. It is assumed that people who answered in this way have

had less exposure to English and therefore are relying more heavily on the assumed

potential of English. 33% of the respondents, however, indicated a preference for a

bilingual education for their children. The reasoning behind the decision to educate

children bilingually indicates belief in the individual value of different languages, and

that a bilingual education will bring out the best of a child’s potential. Some

respondents have indicated that a bilingual education would best serve their children,

because “[with] English you can study in other countries. Hindi because it is

necessary to communicate with other Indians who do not speak English” and “Hindi

and English, both are necessary for communication in today’s world in India”, “Hindi

and English, so they can be successful inside and outside their country”.

70

Out of the sixteen respondents who supported bilingual education, eight favoured a

Hindi and English education, five a mother tongue and English education, one an

English and French education, and two a multilingual education of mother tongue,

Hindi and English. English appears in every one of these bilingual combinations,

implying that all respondents felt English should be included in the education of their

child. The importance of English in the education system is shown by the descriptive

analysis, which tells us that English was the main language of all respondents

university education, that most respondents read academic books in English, and that

most respondents talked to their teachers in English. This again highlights that English

will be beneficial for the future of Indian children.

The assumption could be drawn that respondents who support bilingual education

have had a bilingual background, and therefore recognise the need for the

development of two or more languages. This reasoning demonstrates the

understanding that different languages perform different functions and thus it is

necessary for Indians to be equipped with more than one language. There is need for a

personal language, which reflects cultural identities and can be used to relate to

friends, family and to the local people and in parallel there is the need for English as a

public or working language, a language that increases educational and training

opportunities and career prospects. While English is useful as one of the languages of

India, knowledge of it alone is not enough to be successful inside India. Those with

more experience of English have realised that English will not be enough and look to

bilingual development, yet those without English feel deprived of this skill and look

to English to provide the bright futures they desire.

This theory suggests that globalisation is not threatening local Indian languages but

rather is reasserting them. As globalisation influences India ever more deeply and

demands that people know English to be successful, we see a backlash from those

with access to English who are reasserting the need for local languages and

bilingualism. Globalisation has not inflicted a take-over but has created proficient

bilinguals and caused a split in the functions and users of English. Those with

aspirations to use their English internationally will use a simplified English with the

aim of reducing obstructions to communication. For example, Cowie (2007) has

shown that the main objectives of call centre training centres, where staff would be

71

working with international customers, was ‘neutralisation’, removing the differences

in the Indian accent and thus improving intelligability, see Literature review pg. 30-

31. However those who plan to use English intra-nationally can use Indian English,

with all the differences from British English with the knowledge that the accent,

vocabulary and idioms etc. will not cause problems to other Indian listeners. As

English is used more in the international sphere there is a move towards the type of

English that is spoken in the EU for example, but this move is not dominating and

does not seem to affect the type of English spoken for intra-national purposes.

72

Conclusions

This thesis has been an investigation into the effects of globalisation on attitudes

towards English and attitudes towards varieties of English in India. It has been argued

that globalisation could be exerting a negative influence on the acceptance of the

identity-based variety Indian English by promoting more dominant varieties already

present in international business, such as British and American English within Indian

firms. This could have the effect of increasing the acceptance of British and American

English generally in India while reducing the acceptance of Indian English.

A review of relevant literature revealed a void of contemporary research into the

effects that English is having as part of the globalising process, and calls for further

research in this area were voiced by Phillipson (2001) and Sonntag (2003). While

previous studies into attitudes towards English and attitudes towards English varieties

had been carried out, there had been a lack of follow up studies, and few studies into

language attitudes had directly addressed the influence of globalisation. This thesis

attempted to highlight the void of research in this area, and with the help of qualitative

research has endeavoured to provide insights into current attitudes towards English,

and to show how these attitudes have changed over time.

A major difficulty experienced in the research process was how to effectively measure

the effects of globalisation. Globalisation is seen as a rather theoretical concept, and

while its effects can be seen locally at a number of levels the thrust of this research

has been to explore in particular how the globalisation of India was affecting language

attitudes more generally. As reducing globalisation to a number of variables that could

be systematically tested proved too difficult, it was decided to measure the effects of

globalisation by reproducing previous studies, which would allow for comparison of

attitudes across a certain time period. If it is accepted that India became more global

as a result of the economic liberalisation of the 1990s, then attitudinal change after

this period can be measured and used to suggest the effects of globalisation. As

English is the language that accompanies the spread of globalisation, it would be

expected that someone who has been affected by globalisation would therefore have a

73

greater exposure to English. Statistical analysis has allowed us to relate the attitudes

towards English with the amount of English that someone has used.

The statistical analysis showed that the tested variables – that is language use and

domains, and language background – which equated to the amount of use someone

had made of English, had very little influence on their responses to the various

attitude statements. This implies that other variables need to be tested to explain what

other factors influence the attitudes towards English. Family background and status,

or educational values are examples of further areas where research would be

beneficial.

The correlations that were found between language use and attitudes, however, were

used to draw a theory about someone’s exposure to English and their inclination

towards bilingualism. Respondents with a high exposure to English expressed both

the importance of English and the need for mother tongue instruction. They disagreed

with statements that provided the view that English should function as the only

language of a certain sector. This thesis has argued that someone who has come into

contact with a considerable amount English is less likely to rely on the assumed

potential of English and is more likely to support the need for bilingualism.

Conversely someone with a lower exposure to English is more likely to believe that

knowledge of English is the key to success and therefore a fix-all solution. However,

the questioned remains as to whether there might also be an attitudinal difference

between those who adopt English use early on and those who make considerable use

of English at a later stage.

This theory was backed up by the knowledge that most respondents would not change

their mother tongue for a different language. Mother tongue is shown to be key in

engaging with the local communities, reflecting cultural differences and identities and

in preserving the language’s use against other influences. The mother tongue is also

an important element in the bilingual repertoire. English was shown to be an

extremely important language within the education system, with the majority of the

respondents choosing to educate their children in English, and those opting for a

bilingual with English as a constituent part. Globalisation has increased access to

English in certain sectors of Indian society, developing a divide between the ‘haves’

74

and the ‘have nots’. Those without English are now demanding their rights for

English proficiency and seeking to enrol their children in English medium schools

(Annamalai, 2004). But those with higher exposure to English who favour bilingual

communication have realised that English alone is insufficient, and are learning

additional languages with the view that bilingual or multilingual capability will best

serve their futures.

The studies of Kachru (1979) and Shaw (1981) were used as models to build the area

of the survey that measured opinions about English varieties. As all three studies

measured responses to equivalent questions, this allowed for comparisons and the

ability to see how opinions have changed over time. The results reveal that

respondents spoke the same varieties and with near equal distributions across the three

studies. This suggests that the recognition of varieties and the proportion of their use

have remained fairly constant over a thirty-year period. However, analysis has shown

that aspirations towards English varieties have not remained constant over this

timeframe. There has been an increase in the acceptance of Indian English over the

period of the last thirty years. This finding agrees with the studies of Kachru (1979)

and Shaw (1981) who also concluded that attitudes were moving away from

exonormative varieties and increasingly favoured endonormative English varieties.

The research also found there to be a decrease in the aspirations towards British

English, and a slight increase in the acceptance of American English.

The presumption that globalisation is negatively effecting the acceptance of Indian

English is therefore disproved. The trend towards increasing acceptance of Indian

English, as noted by Kachru and Shaw, continues despite the influences of

globalisation. However the presumption that globalisation will increase the

acceptance of internationally-used varieties such as British English and American

English – currently used as foreign language models ‒ is more difficult to disprove.

While a decline is apparent in the acceptance of British English, there is a slight

increase in the acceptance of American English. The decline in the aspirations for

British English is directly related to the increase in the aspirations for Indian English,

showing that the more people look towards endonormative models for intra-national

usage, the less relevance traditional exonormative models will have in Indian society.

Indian English is gradually replacing British English as desired model for intra-

75

national usage. This is confirmed by the switch to Indian English as the preferred

variety of education in the school curriculum body’s policy (NCERT, 2007). However

the study also exposes a discrepancy between personal and public aspirations, while

respondents find Indian English acceptable for general use among Indians, their

personal aspirations are likely to be more endonormative.

While Kachru (1994), and Sahgal (2000) found no notable increase of the influence of

American English in their studies, this study does find that American English is on the

increase. The fact that American English did not feature highly in Kachru’s study of

the 1970’s, and few respondents indicated they currently spoke this variety, suggests

that the influence of American English comes from outside India and has only taken

hold in the last twenty years. The increase of American English could be explained by

more exposure to Americans and American culture (T.V., film etc.) in a globalised

India, and by the more frequent use of English in an international context, for example

with call centres where customers are often American. This proposition however

requires further testing. American English currently has only a small affect on variety

aspirations, however if the growth in aspiration for American English continues, then

we could see more American English spoken among Indian students in the future. It

would be interesting to conduct further research into the aspirations for American

English of those working in an international setting, especially within call centres. It

could be that in these environments the influence of globalisation has a more direct

effect on attitudes towards English. Cowie (2007) has noted an increase in the

aspirations towards American English among younger call centre staff, see Literature

review pg. 31. An interesting research area would also be a comparative study

between those who use English internationally and those who use English intra-

nationally in their professional lives, to see whether their planned use of the English

made a difference to individual preferences for English varieties.

Despite the initial assumptions, this research how shown that globalisation is not

having a homogenising effect on the Indian linguistic landscape at this stage. This

research demonstrates the understanding that different languages perform different

functions and that being bilingual or multilingual in India is beneficial, as it enables

access to these different functions. While globalisation is increasing the amount of

English in India, it is not as yet overwhelming other languages, as resistance to

76

globalisation serves to reassert other Indian languages and bilingual movements. In a

multilingual country a monolingual speaker is not able to operate in all spheres but

with English and another language, a speaker can retain the cultural identity and sense

of belonging that is associated with the mother tongue, whilst benefiting from the

education and career opportunities associated with English. While the benefits of

bilingualism are clear, this research also highlights the benefits of bidilectism. While

globalisation can be seen to have increased the numbers of English speakers in India,

it has not had an overpowering impact on the type of English spoken in India. Rather,

globalisation has developed two divergent uses for English that co-exist in

contemporary Indian society. India uses English in a second language function and

also in a foreign language function. The second language function is English as used

with other Indian speakers of English to assert cultural identities; and the foreign

language function is English used with non-Indians for the purpose of intelligible

international communication. A bidilectal person has access to both functions of

English and employs different English varieties for different functions, switching

between Indian English for intra-national and another variety of English for

international purposes. Although it was predicted that these two stands of English

would not be able to share the same linguistic space, and one would over power the

other, this does not seem to be the case. Kandiah agrees with this, saying that English

has,

“…caused significant reallocations or roles and status in the verbal repertoire of

its users, not necessarily in a ‘replacive’ or, even, merely ‘duplicative’ way, but

by equipping speakers with ‘multiple codes’ in certain domains.” (Kandiah,

1999)

Bilingual and bidilectal speakers in India have a wealth of different codes at their

disposal and can choose which is the most appropriate for each context and function.

With hindsight, the research topic selected proved to be too broad and not clearly

enough defined. If this project were to be repeated, it would be preferable to focus on

one of the issues and explore it in greater detail. However, as the research did not

directly intend to measure the effects of globalisation but had set more realistic

measurable goals, it was largely able to meet the study’s aims and objectives. It was

able to: reproduce previous studies on attitudes towards English; to investigate the

acceptance of different varieties of English (Indian English, British English and

77

American English) by comparing previous studies with this study’s findings; to

explore current attitudes to the role and use of English in India, and where possible to

statistically analyse the collected data to provide generalisations about attitudes to

English in India. However, these aims did not enable the most reliable generalisations

to be made, which created problems in theory creation. Explanations as to why

something was the way it was, had to be estimated and could not be proved

conclusively. This study could be improved by accessing a more representative

sample or by including a larger number of respondents in the survey. This would

allow for better generalisations about a larger population, which would in turn lead to

more advanced theory generation.

78

List of References

Annamalai, E (2005) Nation-building in a Globalised World: Language Choice and

Education in India in Lin A and Martin P Decolonisation, Globalisation –

Language-in-Education Policy and Practice, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters,

20-37.

--- (2004) Medium of Power: The Question of English in Education in India in Tsui

and Tollefson Medium of Instruction Policies: Which agenda? Whose agenda?,

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Baker, Colin (1992) Attitudes and Language, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Bhowmik, Sharit (2004) Work in a globalizing Economy: Reflections on Outsourcing

in India, Labour, Capital and Society 37, 76-96.

Block,D. and Cameron, D (Eds) (2002) Globalization and Language Teaching,

London: Routledge.

Castells, M. (2000) The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.

Chew, Phyllis Ghim-Lian, (2007) Remaking Singapore: Language, Culture, and

Identity in a Globalized World in Tsui, Amy and Tollefson, James (Eds)

Language Policy, Culture and Identity in Asian Contexts, New York: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Cowie, Claire (2007) The accents of outsourcing: the meaning of ‘neutral’ in the

Indian call centre industry, World Englishes 26 (3), 316-330.

Crystal, David (2003) English as a Global Language, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

79

Dasgupta, Probal (1993) The Otherness of English – India’s Auntie Tongue

Syndrome, New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Della Porta, Donatella. and Keating, Michael (Eds) (2008) Approaches and

Methodologies in the Social Sciences : A Pluralist Perspective, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

De Swaan, Abram (2001) Words of the World, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Dor, Daniel (2004) From Englishization to imposed Multilingualism: Globalization,

the Internet and the political Economy of the Linguistic Code, Public Culture

16(1), 97-118.

D’Souza, Jean (2001) Conceptualizing range and depth in Indian English, World

Englishes 20(2), 145-159.

Fishman, Joshua (1992) Sociology of English as an Additional Language in Kachru,

Braj. (Ed) The Other Tongue: English across Cultures, Chicago: University of

Illinois Press.

Gardner, Robert (1985) Social psychology and second language acquisition: the role

of attitudes and motivation, London: Erward Arwold.

--- and Lambert, Wallace (1972) Attitudes and Motivation in second-language

learning, Newbury House Publishers.

Giddens, Anthony (2003) Runaway world: how Globalisation is reshaping our lives,

New York: Routledge.

Gokhale, Shridhar (1988) The Grammatical Standardization of Indian English,

Strathclyde Working Papers, 1(1), 22-35.

--- (2009) Class lecture, Indian English. University of Pune, Pune, India. 18th

September, 2009.

80

Graddol, David (1997) The Future of English? – A Guide to forecasting the

popularity of the English language in the 21st century, The British Council.

Heller, Monica (2003) Globalization, the new economy and commodification of

language and identity, Journal of Sociolingustics, 7(4), 473-492.

Kachru, Braj (1979) Models of English for the third world: white man’s linguistic

burden or language pragmatics, TESOL Quarterly 10(2).

--- (1983) The Indianization of English: The English Language in India, Delhi:

Oxford University Press.

--- (1986) The Alchemy of English: The spread, functions and models of non-native

Englishes, Oxford: Pergamon Press.

--- (1994) English in South Asia, in Burchfield, Robert (Ed) The Cambridge History

of the English Language Vol 5, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

--- (1998) English as an Asian Language, Links & Letters (5), 84-108.

--- (2005) Asian Englishes ‒Beyond the Canon, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University

Press.

Kandiah, Thiru (1991) South Asia in Cheshire, Jenny (Ed) English around the world:

sociolinguistic perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kayman, Martin (2004) The state of English as a global language: Communicating

culture, Textual Practice 18(1), 1-22.

Krishnaswamy, N and Krishnaswamy, L (2006) The Story of English in India, New

Delhi: Foundation Books.

81

--- and Burde, A (1998) The politics of Indians’ English ‒ Linguistic colonialism and

the expanding English empire. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

McGroarty, Mary (1996) Language Attitudes, Motivations and Standards in McKay

and Hornberger (Eds) Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Payne, Judy (2004) Key concepts in Social Research, California: Sage publications.

Phillipson, Robert (2001) English for globalisation or for the world’s people?

International Review of Education. 47 (3-4), 185-200.

Sahgal, Anju (2000) Patterns of language use in a bilingual setting in India, in

Cheshire, Jenny (Ed) English around the World ‒ Sociolinguistic perspectives,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 299-307.

Schneider, Edgar (2007) Postcolonial English ‒ Varieties around the World,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Scrase, Timothy (2002) Globalisation and the cultural politics of educational change:

the controversy over the teaching of English in West Bengal, India,

International Review of Education 48(5), 361-375.

Shaw, Willard () Asian Student Attitudes towards English, in Smith, Larry (Ed)

English for Cross Cultural Communication, Wiltshire: Macmillan Press Ltd.

Shome, Raka (2006) Thinking through the Diaspora – Call centres, India, and the

politics of hybridity, International Journal of Cultural Studies, 9, 105-124.

Sonntag, Selma (2004) The Local Politics of Global English: Case studies in

Linguistic Globalisation, Oxford: Lexington.

82

Thomas, Singh, and Peccei (Edts) (2004) Language, Society and Power: an

Introduction, London: Routledge.

Taylor, Phil and Bain, Peter (2005) India calling to the far away towns: the call centre

labour processes and globalization, Work, Employment and Society, 19(2),

261-282.

Tsui, Amy and Tollefson, James (Eds) (2007) Introduction Language Policy, Culture,

and Identity in Asian Contexts, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Vaish, Vinti (2008) Biliteracy and Globalisation – English Language Education in

India, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Warschauer, Mark, Ghada R. El Said, and Ayman Zohry (2002) Language choice

online: Globalization and identity in Egypt. Journal of Computer Mediated

Communication 7(4) (Web publication at www.ascusc.org/jcmc).

National Curriculum Framework 2005, (2007), NCERT.

Language and Identity Conference, (2009) Vlasta, Sandra ‘Neither here nor there.

Issues of language and identity in texts by multilingual writers’, 16th

September, The University of Pune, Pune.

83

Appendices

84

Appendix 1

85

Attitudes towards English

I am an MA student at the University of Groningen, the Netherlands, currently undertaking a research programme here at the University of Pune. I am conducting a survey about current attitudes towards English in India, which will constitute an important body of research for my MA Thesis. I would be very grateful if you could help me with my research by completing this questionnaire. This will take less than 20 minutes of your time.

The contents of this questionnaire are completely confidential. Details of the respondent will not be disclosed under any circumstances, you don’t even have to fill in your name. This is not a test and there are no right or wrong answers, I am interested in your genuine opinions.

1. Personal details

Male Female

Age:

Which state do you come from?

Which city/town?

Which degree programme are you enrolled in?

What profession do you aspire to?

2. Language Abilities

a. What is your mother tongue?

b. What language was spoken at home when you were growing up?

c. Which other languages can you speak? (please list and indicate fluency: fluently– quite well – conversationally - basic)

d. What were the main language/s of instruction in your primary education?

e. What were the main language/s of instruction in your secondary education?

f. What is the main language of your university education?

g. At what age did you begin learning English?

h. Where did you first begin learning English? (Please select one answer only)

at home at school in your locality other ………

86

i. Would you consider taking/ have you taken any courses outside of university to improve your English skills? (Please select one answer only) Yes No Maybe

j. If you answered yes or maybe, which course did you take/ would you consider taking?

3. Language Use

Please indicate which languages you use plus how often you use them, using the scale: ‘all the time’, ‘frequently’, ‘sometimes’, ‘rarely’, ‘never’. (e.g Hindi, sometimes; English, rarely.)

a. In which language/s do you communicate with the following people?

Father: ………………………………………………………………………………………………...

Mother: …………………………………………………………………………………………….….

Wife/husband/Boyfriend/Girlfriend:…………………………………………………………………

Brother/sister:…………………………………………………………………………………………

Friends in your locality: ……………………………………………………………………………...

Colleagues/ classmates: ……………………………………………………………………………

Boss/ Teacher /Professor: ………………………………………………………………………….

Officials, bureaucrats, administrators: ……………………………………………………………..

b. In which languages do you:

Read the newspaper?……………………………………………………………………………….

Read novels?…………………………………………………………………………………………

Read academic books?……………………………………………………………………………...

Watch television programmes?……………………………………………………………………..

Watch films?…………………………………………………………………………………………..

Surf the internet?……………………………………………………………………………………..

Send text messages?………………………………………………………………………………..

4. Language Attitudes

Please indicate your response with a tick in the appropriate box. (SA) strongly agree; (A)

agree; (D) disagree, (SD) strongly disagree. (Please select one answer only)

a. English is an Indian language.

SA A D SD

87

b. English threatens the survival of Indian languages.

SA A D SD

c. I need English to be able to get a good job.

SA A D SD

d. Mother tongue instruction should be given more importance.

SA A D SD e. English should be the language of instruction of all education in India. SA A D SD f. People who speak English are successful. SA A D SD g. English is a constant reminder of British occupation. SA A D SD h. English is important for international communication. SA A D SD i. English should be the language of communication between Indian states. SA A D SD j. English is necessary to be accepted in the community. SA A D SD k. If you were able to choose, what language would you choose for your mother tongue? Please give reason for your choice. l. Given a choice, what language do you/ would you educate your children in? Please give reason for your choice. m. Do you think that English can be used effectively to represent Indian cultural values and traditions? Yes No Please give reasons: 5. Varieties of English a. Have you heard of the variety of English called Indian English? (Please select one answer only) Yes No Don’t know

88

b. If you answered yes, please give a definition for this term? c. Which variety of English do you think you speak? (Please select one answer only) Indian English British English American English Don’t know Other ……… d1. Which variety of English do you aspire to speak? (Please select one answer only) Indian English British English American English Don’t know Other ……… d2. Please give reasons for this choice? e. What variety of English do you think should be spoken generally in India? (Please select one answer only)

British English American English General Indian English/ Educated Indian English Other ………… Don’t know/ don’t mind

f. Which variety of English do you think should be used for global communication? (Please select one answer only)

British English American English General Indian English/ Educated Indian English Other ………… Don’t know/ don’t mind

Thank you very much for completing this survey. I am very grateful that you have taken the time. It would be very nice if you could you return this questionnaire by email to annie-padwick@hotmail.co.uk by the 23rd October 2009.

If you would be willing to share more of your opinions on this subject with me please write your email address or phone number here:

Thanks again for your time, Annie Padwick annie-padwick@hotmail.co.uk

89

Appendix 2

90

If you were able to choose, what language would you choose for your mother

tongue?

2. “Hindi, because my parents are Indian and I cannot change my religion for

anyone.”

3. “Hindi, since childhood I have found it beautiful and convenient.”

5. “Marathi, it is easy to adjust to the surrounding environment.”

13. “Hindi because it is our ancestral language and there is respect in each and every

single word.”

16. “Bengali, because I am used to it. English because I am comfortable speaking it.”

17. “Bengali. It is by default! And is the second sweetest language after French.”

20. “Sanskrit – Because all languages have origin in Sanskrit.”

21. “I would prefer English, because in this modern world English is the international

language of communication.”

24. “Because we like Marathi and understanding is more convenient.”

25. “Marathi, because due to the influence of western culture coming in India or

Maharastra, Marathi language is not spoken widely.”

27. “Hindi – all times because it is the language that all my countrymens know

better.”

30. “Hindi, as an Indian, Hindi is our national language. Most of the past in India

everybody can speak in Hindi.”

33. “English, because that will increase my communication skill internationally also

in this competing market, I can survive speaking English.”

45. “English – because nowadays English has gained so much of importance that

without knowing English one cannot go further.”

47. “Not a specific one, any language which would help me to communicate in the

society. Main function of language is communication.”

Given a choice, what language would you choose to educate your children in?

Please give reasons for your choice.

2. “Hindi and English, because with English you can study in other countries. Hindi

because it is necessary to communicate with other Indians who do not speak English.”

3. “Hindi and English both, as Hindi is the national language and English the

international language.”

6. “English and Hindi, so that they can be successful inside and outside their country.”

8. “Hindi and English, both are necessary for communication in today’s world in

India.”

9. “Since science education is written in English, I prefer English.”

10. “English because it is a global language.”

14. “English because it is an omnipresent language, but Hindi should also be there.”

16. “It is necessary to access good education and better jobs, better training.”

20. “Sanskrit ‒ because after educating in Sanskrit, my children can easily understand

other languages.”

24. “Marathi, there will be no communication gap.”

25. “English, because if one wants to go for education abroad, it is the most important

language one must know.”

30. “English ‒ For good job and for international jobs.”

32. “English and Hindi, to give them international exposure.”

91

40. “Marathi – to preserve our culture.”

47. “English. Nowadays English is more important language in India. It is a kind of

window which helps us look into global world.”

48. “English, Marathi they can easily learn but English they need to learn purposely as

it is a global language now.”

Do you think that English can be used effectively to represent Indian cultural

values and traditions? Please give reasons

6. “Any language can be used for this, because language can’t be a barrier for this.”

8. “English can’t represent Indian cultural values and traditions as they are now.”

12. “Indian culture is so vast, that any one language can’t represent it.”

14. “English and Indian culture we will mix them, then we will be good.” (*)

15. “Language is only a medium to express your culture. English vernacular language

won’t make any difference.”

16. “India is a multilingual country, it needs a common language.”

18. “English is ‘global’.”

20. “Because man texts (Indian) are translated into English language and it brings

unity and harmony in Indian people.”

21. “We can represent our culture in our own language effectively than others.”

25. “Indian culture can be known to people outside India, so that the other people

would come to know our culture.”

27. “No because every language has its own origin and own importance in particular

community and state.”

28. “To represent Indian cultural values we have to use our mother tongue.”

29. “Indian culture can be described only in Indian languages.”

32. “We have to present ourselves to other country’s and English is an international

language.”

33. “I disagree because 70% of Indians are illiterate, an can’t even speak A,B,C,D of

English. So Hindi is the language that Indians can use and communicate with each

other.”

45. “English has become the heart and soul of India. It has become much familiar

compared to other languages. It can be considered one of the important languages of

India.”

47. “In fact any language can be used effectively to represent Indian cultural values

and traditions. Main function of language is communication. As far as my knowledge

is concerned, English is one of the well known languages in the world.”

Please give a definition of Indian English.

2. “When Indians use Hindi words to complete their sentences.”

6. “English language spoken by Indians.”

10. “Phonetics are different.”

15. “Words from Hindi being adopted into daily English.”

16. “Using regional words in a sentence.”

20. “Indian English may be defined as the English language largely communicated

through Indian accent.”

30. “Some people use their mother tongue words in English.”

31. “It is a mix of Hindi and English words.”

92

33. “South Indian speak English using their mother tongue, that defines Indian

English. However Indian English is neutral where all of them around the world can

understand us.”

35. “The English that is spoken by Indians is basically Indian English.”

38. “Because some people don’t speak English fluently, so they mix in mother tongue

in English.”

40. “Because mostly people used mixed, or basic or normal English mixed with their

mother tongue language.”

41. “It is known as Hinglish, Hindi and English.”

42. “Because we are lacking behind British.”

45. “Indian English simply means English spoken in India by Indian people (deviation

from British English).”

47. “Indian English is a self contained system and follows its own set of rules.

Standard patterns of Indian English are those, which reflected the usage of educated

speakers.”

48. “The English language used by Indian people with some deviations to British or

American English.”

What variety of English do you aspire to speak?

1. “Because American English is simple and useful English.”

5. “World English, it will be easy for all the people to communicate properly.”

9. “Indian English ‒ the pronunciation is familiar.”

10. “British English is simple and old.”

13. “For early stages we had learnt British English only.”

15. “I believe Queen’s English is the purest form of English.”

16. “British English – because I want to be perfect.”

17. “Indian English is very easy.”

18. “Indian English – I am Indian and I love my country.”

20. “Indian English – Because I can’t change my voice and accent.”

24. “British English – I think we speak that kind of English more oftenly.”

25. “American English – I think it is spoken universally.”

27. “British English – because it is widely spoken in India.”

28. “Indian English – it is easy.”

30. “Good English – so that I can speak with every people in this world who can

speak in English.”

31. “British English, because it is grammatically correct and every Indian can easily

understand.”

32. “British English, grammatically correct.”

33. “Indian English – because Indian’s speak neutral English which all of them can

understand.”

35. “American English, it is acceptable all over the world.”

40. “Indian English ‒ because I will live in India, not abroad or in foreign country.”

41. “Indian English – easily understandable at any level.”

42. “British English – I want to be known by all international companies in India.”

45. “British English – It is considered the standard variety of English.”

47. “Indian English, because I live in India so Indian English is more useful variety

than any other for me.”

48. “British English, because Indian English is still not part of our education system.”

50. “We are Indians and we must aspire to speak Indian English.”