Asian Englishes: Beyond the Canon

1. Introduction: Anglophone Asia

1 Introduction: Anglophone Asia The volume, Asian Englishes: Beyond the Canon, contextualizes selected dimensions of world Englishes in Asia’s Anglophone societies. The ten chapters that follow bring together various perspectives on functions, creativity, canonicity, attitudes and pedagogy. The term ‘Asian English’ warrants an explanation. This regional identification marker for the varieties of English used by the region’s Anglophone societies is understandably somewhat problematic. But, then, that is true of such other terms that designate regional boundaries such as ‘Pacific Rim’, ‘South Asia’, and ‘East Asia’. In their discussion of Pacific Rim, Lim, Smith and Dissanayake rightly refer to this dilemma: In the production of cultural discourse, there is no “Pacific Rim” that is an “objective” given. Rather, a competing set of ideational constructs projects upon that location on the globe the interest, power, and vision of these historically produced relationships, one of the most crucial being constituted through the Asia Pacific region’s participation in geoeconomic system in which capitalism is dominant. (1999: 3) In constructs of Asia’s Anglophone societies it is these shared ideational — and not necessarily objective — characteristics that are under focus, as outlined in Chapter 2. The functional dynamics of Asian Englishes — as indeed of other Asian languages — are in constant change. We witness this in each region of Asia through the dynamics of language policies and thus the evolving identities of English, particularly in the post-1950s. The recognition of nativized creativity in English has gradually become yet another marker for establishing such identity in various genres of English, which until recently was considered essentially a ‘colonial’ linguistic remnant to be discarded with disdain. We see the evolving role of English as integral to national identity now in such places as Malaysia, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. There is 2 Asian Englishes: Beyond the canon an articulation of altered constructs of English, a redefined functional, pragmatic and ideological location of the language. In Singapore, as in other states of the regions, the English language has now become a potent — and cherished — medium of youth culture. And, to the utter dismay of some, English has almost acquired the status of first or primary language. What Lick observes about Singapore certainly is true of segments of societies in other regions too: For the younger generation family members, English is the/a home language and the ‘first language’ in school; they are, stereotypically, very ‘Westernized’, being fed on a daily dosage of Western pop music, American sitcoms, etc. Generational difference in the cultural grounding in the use of Singapore English can thus be expected. (2001: 105) In South Asia, to add yet another example, in a variety of linguistic interactions ranging from ZTV or Star TV channels to the language of youth culture in metropolitan areas, it is not easy to distinguish if the interlocutors are actually interacting in Hindi, Hindustani, or in English. In such interactions there are minimal clues indicating which is the ‘receiver’ language and which is the ‘giver’ language. The blending and hybridization of two or more linguistic systems is accomplished with dexterity and immense effect: A metropolitan variety of language has thus already been institutionalized in which English is a major partner and initiator of convergence. The intent of this volume is to motivate a theoretical and methodological shift towards functionally relevant constructs of Asian Englishes within a broader conceptualization of world Englishes. This conceptual shift is of three types: First, it locates the bilinguals’ creativity within the contexts of linguistic and cultural pluralism that characterize the Asian English SPEECH COMMUNITY; second, it treats linguistic construction of a text in any genre as a cohesive text representing structural, discoursal and cultural hybridity; and third, it distinguishes the bilingual’s competence in terms of its appropriateness within the local contexts of function. It is with reference to these conceptual points that adoption and adaptation of Asian Englishes within Anglophone Asian societies — or other societies — becomes meaningful. In recent literature, it has, however, been shown that there still continues to be a resistance to this shift. The result is that there are now two diametrically distinct approaches to Anglophone Englishes: The SACRED COW MODEL that perpetuates the age-old mythology of linguistic purity while what has been characterized as a LINGUISTIC LIBERATION MODEL, believed to follow the LIBERATION THEOLOGY MODEL, invites such Sacred Cows to the slaughter. The liberation linguistics views these theoretical and methodological sacred cows as unable to represent contexts in which Asian Englishes — and, indeed, other Englishes...