The Indigenization of English to Language Varieties
Nativization and indigenization of a language is an aspect of language change, and study of this phenomenon can be linked to a tradition of scholarly research into the norms of language use in bilingual or multilingual societies, and in particular to the effects of language migration on linguistic change (Richards 1980). Such is the case of the English language that became a second tongue to many countries like the Philippines.
Haugen (1938) was one of the first linguists to locate such phenomenon within the domain of descriptive linguistics. Thus in his studies of language ecology, particularly with reference to the gradual assimilation of Scandinavian immigrant communities into North America, he documented the gradual divergence of the immigrant’s linguistic norms from the language norms of the homelands. Haugen was able to construct a typological account of the processes involved. As a result, code switching, interference and borrowing entered the terminology of bilingual studies.
Another development of research was further expounded by Kachru (1969) when he conducted a linguistic study of the Indian English. Findings of his study had proved useful not only in understanding the formal feature of the texts but also in relating these to typically Indian contexts that has brought into the realization on the study of register variation, style variation, collocational deviation, semantic shifts, and lexical range. His study has proven useful in describing the “Indianness” of Indian English in terms of linguistic manifestations at the level of phonology, lexis, grammar and semantics, of distinct cultural, affective, and situational aspects of Indian society and culture.
This marks the interest of other linguists to study the distinctiveness of the indigenized forms of English in almost all corners of the world like India, Nigeria, Canada, Singapore, Malaysia, and the Philippines.
Development of English in Philippine Literature
Tuazon and Medina’s (1974) study on Philippine Literature revealed that Filipino writing may still be truly national although written in different languages. They stated that language does truly its purpose of communication, for no matter what language is used, the Filipino writer produces a strong and rich literature.
In 1951, Jamias, as cited by Gonzales and Alberca (1978), identified a new variety of English by depicting the language of Philippine literature in English as a
…living language…on the lips and minds of an ever growing
number of users, with a modified vocabulary and diction, idiom,
and the sentence structure, and a new cadence … [It] has all the
promise of a new way of thought and talk. Upon this new
or rather newest, English, Filipino writers will ‘erect’ the literary language.
Llamzon (1969) focused on the spoken characteristics of this English variety to explore its nature. He postulated that there is a Standard Filipino English (SFE) which he defined as the type of English spoken by and acceptable to educated Filipinos. His study revealed that there is a considerable number o f native speakers of English and a number who can speak it with near-native control in the Philippines. His various experiments reflected a remarkable Filipino accents, usages, and structures in the use of English. Consequently, both Filipinos and native speakers of English observed the local variety to be discernible.
Similarly, Hosillos (1969) noted that the problem of using a foreign language could be solved by developing a language usage congruous with native experience and material. After some time, Gonzales and Alberca (1978) researched on the use of English in the mass media in the Philippines. They took precise sampling of both spoken and written English to come up with operational criteria on the frequency of a feature’s appearance to embody as a characteristic of Philippine English. Llamzon’s study was confirmed by the findings of his investigation.
According to Llamzon, generally, Philippine English of the mass media is monophasal, i.e., the same variety is used both in speaking and writing, and monostylistic, i.e., the stylistic range for casual and careful/informal and formal is narrow, with the latter prevailing. The value of his work lies in an attempt at systematic corpus gathering and sampling. Data from his study, may be gleaned the characteristic features of an evolving standardized variety.
Development of English in other Languages
Correspondingly, Wong and Yong (1983) examined the status of English in Malaysian fiction. They tried to show Malaysianness in the earlier poet’s use of English – “ a conscious effort to evolve a localized idiom in English called Engmachin (English, Malay, Chinese)”. In drama, they broached Eduard Dorall’s play “A Tiger is Loose in our Community” for its extensive use of the localized English variety. They pointed out the use of particles ah and lah, the exclusion of minor constituents and some colloquial Malaysianisms. In addition, the localized idioms were restricted to the dialogue section while Standard English is done in narration.
Moag (1982) formulated a theoretical construct of the life cycle for non-native varieties based on his research and observation of the ESL situations in the South Pacific and other societies. Four processes were propounded as significant constituents of the life cycle: transportation, involving bringing English to a new environment for purposes of a more or less permanent nature, such as colonial administration in which locals are required to learn English; indigenization, whereby the new variety of English becomes distinct from the parent imported variety and other indigenized varieties elsewhere; expansion in use and function, when English use extends to new domains particularly education, the media, and government services; and institutionalization of the new variety, when local and literary activity becomes regenerative and when the teaching staff as well as the media is localized. The displacement of English by a local official language through processes of language planning in the domains of government activities, education and the media is the fifth process which is not apparent in the South Pacific but which is imminent in the Philippines. English reverts to the status of a foreign language studied and used by a small elite. The language process has come full circle, which suggest that there is both a beginning and an end to the process.
The Indian socio-cultural and linguistic setting has affected features of the English language in India as shown by Kachru (1966). He contemplated, selected and restricted formal and/or contextual aspects of Indian English (IE) collected from English texts written by Indians to show how it has acquired an Indian characteristic which manifests itself aside from the phonetic or the phonological levels.
Bailey and Robinson (1973) quoted Indian novelist Mulj Raj Anand as hypothesizing that all Indian writers using English have more or less to translate from their mother tongue into English and that the intrusion of the idiom and metaphor of the Indian languages makes their writing different from the various styles of English writing in Britain and America.
Accordingly, Indian English (IE) refers to the variety of English spoken by ‘educated’ Indians whose proficiency in the language ranks between the central and ambilingual points in the arbitrary scale of bilingualism that he drew up. He made use of ‘wider situation’ and ‘immediate situation’ as the main criteria for his study.
The wider situation includes the general cultural factors while the individual or personal factors are referred to as the immediate situation. The general cultural factors comprise three investigations. First, the two dimensions of the social status of the individual in the group namely, his/her position in the hierarchy of caste, and his/her political status and economic position. Second, was in religion. In the Indian setting, it is important to know whether a participant is a Hindu, Muslim, and others. The third investigation is the speaker/addressee relationship. Meanwhile, the individual or personal factors are the sex and age of the participants, their educational background – whether or not they have received a formal education or a university education. Finally, some characteristics which localize them such as the linguistic domain like their accent and other language traits, and the non-linguistic domain like their food habits, dress, and the like.
A part of the study accounted the features of three restricted languages of IE use in Indian socio-cultural context: i.e., speech functions, the Indian caste system, and social roles. Kachru revealed that all these yield one or more of the four types of contextual data about which linguistic statements can be made. First, the text of attitudes like modes of address, reference, blessings, flattery, and the like. Second, the text of status and social position such as superiority/inferiority, caste system, among others. Third, the text of social roles, rituals, ceremonies, and others. Fourth, the text of individual habits which of course are not socially determined. He concluded that this Indianness of IE helps maintain appropriate Indian patterns of life, culture, and education. Above all these studies, Richards (1980) explicitly described the linguistic innovations that fall under the process of language change and how one’s culture affects the process as well. (continued)
