'Indian English' writing -- Indian enough?
What constitutes 'real' Indian English? Are Indian-English writers who are educated abroad and write in "propah" English, any less able to reflect the 'real' Indian spirit?
SREELATA MENON joins the debate. Cartoon from clearenglish.in
_150_200.jpg)
Missing articles, mixed up prepositions and muddled tenses are what come immediately to mind today when one hears the term 'Indian English'. Not to mention some verbosity and a certain convoluted style of expression. And because of it, ever since India burst upon the content writing scene in a big way, we've had to continuously defend our right to write the English language the way we used to know it. For the first time much to the chagrin of 'quality' Indian writers, they were being lumped together with non native English writers. 'Indian English' is being held up to scrutiny and found wanting.
Yet according to a news report, a group of English writers from across India who have launched a new e-magazine, say that 'Indian-English' writers including Shashi Tharoor and Arundhati Roy are not writing 'real' Indian-English and many of their works have failed to reflect the culture and feel of the country.
One of the e-magazine's chief editors argues that "African English, American English, Australian English and British English... convey the native culture of respective regions. Peculiar terminology, expressions and writing style, based on each native culture has been coined in those language streams. But unfortunately Indian English cannot claim that credit.... most of those Indian-English writers who do write are those who grew up or were educated abroad and write in American or British English...they cannot reflect the real Indian spirit and write in Indian English...." (TOI 31/5/10).
Might one ask why not and ponder over what exactly are the elements of 'real' Indian English?
If 'peculiar terminology, expressions and writing style' are indicative of a native culture, then so are our article-less sentences(I went to hotel), jumbled up prepositions (sit in the chair) or local terminologies (desi/bazaar/karma) and confused tenses (I am knowing). Aren't they a direct fallout of our 'vernacular' influences? Much like the Spaniard or the French or the Italian, won't the English spoken by a yuppie Punjabi, bhadralok Bengali, or the average Malayali among others, bear traces of the native tongue, or be direct translations? If that is not real 'Indian English' what is?
Corroborating the point that Indians too convey the native culture of our respective regions, Wikipedia tells us that English "...is used across the country, but it may be a speaker's first, second, or third language, and the grammar and phraseology may mimic that of the speaker's Indian language....While Indian speakers of English use idioms peculiar to their homeland, often literal translations of words and phrases from their native language, only standard British English is considered grammatically correct".
So evidently that particular spoken English of ours, cannot be used in written matter and yet be considered 'correct', since our 'Bibles' for all intents and purposes are still Samuel Johnson in tandem with the Oxford or the Longman Dictionary.
While it may well become the norm to speak in 'Indian English', to write in that kind of (Indian) English is perhaps still not an option. While America, Australia and Canada think, speak and write in the same language many in India don't. We tend to think in one language and write in another. And therein one fears lies the difference.
Despite their country specific usage, American, British, Canadian or Australian English having sprung from the same parent, are not very different. But unlike multilingual India, English is their first language --- their mother tongue --- and they do not compromise on the basic construction and grammar rules that form the core of the English language.
Perceptible differences among them -- excluding their respective accents -- are largely in the spellings (color/colour), usage/ slang (Howdy/ how are you /hello) and the pronunciations (Tomaato/Tomaeto) of a large number of terms including some punctuation and idioms which are a fall out of local influences. And when these differences particularly in the spellings were formalized for the first time in the US by Noah Webster who brought out the first American dictionary (1832), American English was born. Likewise the other countries. But in principle they remain faithful to the British English grammar framework.
However with English not being our first language and with our various regional grammatical influences at work, the same language in our hands appears at times grammatically challenged to the rest of the world. And till such time as we have our own formalized linguistic set of rules, we have to necessarily follow those set by the British like many of us -- specially in the media -- are still doing. So even while the term 'Indian English' may be used loosely to denote spoken idiosyncrasies (Indianisms) one cannot give it the same sanction, as any of the other forms of English --- especially not in writing --- till that happens.
It can then be safely said that there can be no real 'Indian English' that is different from British English, except for the usage of certain vocabulary variations like brinjal for aubergine; curd for yoghurt; do the needful; kindly speak etc which are Indian in use but is correct English nevertheless. And other than in the use of native terminologies (desi/dinkum), vocabulary variations (aubergine/eggplant, slough/pond) and spellings (smelled/smelt) which while making it divergent and exciting English in India, America, Canada and Australia -- is nonetheless cut from the same cloth and is hence no different.
Even the definitions are similar. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term British English as English "spoken or written in the British isles". While American English is the form of English used in the United States and Canadian English a combination of American and British English with French influences, Indian English comprises of varieties of English in the Indian subcontinent evolved during the colonial rule of Britain in India.
While geography does influence one's language, it is at best only peripheral. And only in so far as its use of local terminologies is concerned. Yet increasingly when one thinks in one language and writes in another, in that translation of ideas, is perhaps lost the 'feel' and touch of 'real India'. Nevertheless it is a mystery how being 'educated abroad' takes anything away from Shashi Tharoor or Arundhati Roy or why some consider they do not reflect the real 'Indian spirit'. Does The God of Small Things reflect anything other than the spirit of Kerala? Witness the phenomenal success of Chetan Bhagat's books. Is there anything 'phoren' about any of his books? That they may all write in a more fluid version of the language is perhaps due to their foreign sojourns. But aren't those 'influences' akin to our own Indian overtones?
The English language itself is a West Germanic language brought into England by German settlers that merged with various Anglo Saxon dialects to become 'Olde English'. The later Norman Conquest introduced many Normanic influences from which, gradually has evolved our present 'lingua franca'. Although the Queen's English Society, UK is finally setting up an Academy of English to maintain linguistic standards, it is this flexibility and adaptability of the English language to new terms and foreign expressions, that have helped spread its reach.
It is also to its credit that despite its numerous add ons and mutilations, 'Received Pronunciation'(RP) which is the 'educated spoken English of South East England' and regarded as proper English (the Queen's or BBC English), should still continue to hold 'propah' sway. But as it stands today, in the realm of the written word, if Indian culture -- real or otherwise -- is to be reflected in English, it cannot be written in anything other than the Standard English of the British Isles.
Links:
Yet according to a news report, a group of English writers from across India who have launched a new e-magazine, say that 'Indian-English' writers including Shashi Tharoor and Arundhati Roy are not writing 'real' Indian-English and many of their works have failed to reflect the culture and feel of the country.
One of the e-magazine's chief editors argues that "African English, American English, Australian English and British English... convey the native culture of respective regions. Peculiar terminology, expressions and writing style, based on each native culture has been coined in those language streams. But unfortunately Indian English cannot claim that credit.... most of those Indian-English writers who do write are those who grew up or were educated abroad and write in American or British English...they cannot reflect the real Indian spirit and write in Indian English...." (TOI 31/5/10).
Might one ask why not and ponder over what exactly are the elements of 'real' Indian English?
If 'peculiar terminology, expressions and writing style' are indicative of a native culture, then so are our article-less sentences(I went to hotel), jumbled up prepositions (sit in the chair) or local terminologies (desi/bazaar/karma) and confused tenses (I am knowing). Aren't they a direct fallout of our 'vernacular' influences? Much like the Spaniard or the French or the Italian, won't the English spoken by a yuppie Punjabi, bhadralok Bengali, or the average Malayali among others, bear traces of the native tongue, or be direct translations? If that is not real 'Indian English' what is?
Corroborating the point that Indians too convey the native culture of our respective regions, Wikipedia tells us that English "...is used across the country, but it may be a speaker's first, second, or third language, and the grammar and phraseology may mimic that of the speaker's Indian language....While Indian speakers of English use idioms peculiar to their homeland, often literal translations of words and phrases from their native language, only standard British English is considered grammatically correct".
So evidently that particular spoken English of ours, cannot be used in written matter and yet be considered 'correct', since our 'Bibles' for all intents and purposes are still Samuel Johnson in tandem with the Oxford or the Longman Dictionary.
While it may well become the norm to speak in 'Indian English', to write in that kind of (Indian) English is perhaps still not an option. While America, Australia and Canada think, speak and write in the same language many in India don't. We tend to think in one language and write in another. And therein one fears lies the difference.
Despite their country specific usage, American, British, Canadian or Australian English having sprung from the same parent, are not very different. But unlike multilingual India, English is their first language --- their mother tongue --- and they do not compromise on the basic construction and grammar rules that form the core of the English language.
Perceptible differences among them -- excluding their respective accents -- are largely in the spellings (color/colour), usage/ slang (Howdy/ how are you /hello) and the pronunciations (Tomaato/Tomaeto) of a large number of terms including some punctuation and idioms which are a fall out of local influences. And when these differences particularly in the spellings were formalized for the first time in the US by Noah Webster who brought out the first American dictionary (1832), American English was born. Likewise the other countries. But in principle they remain faithful to the British English grammar framework.
However with English not being our first language and with our various regional grammatical influences at work, the same language in our hands appears at times grammatically challenged to the rest of the world. And till such time as we have our own formalized linguistic set of rules, we have to necessarily follow those set by the British like many of us -- specially in the media -- are still doing. So even while the term 'Indian English' may be used loosely to denote spoken idiosyncrasies (Indianisms) one cannot give it the same sanction, as any of the other forms of English --- especially not in writing --- till that happens.
It can then be safely said that there can be no real 'Indian English' that is different from British English, except for the usage of certain vocabulary variations like brinjal for aubergine; curd for yoghurt; do the needful; kindly speak etc which are Indian in use but is correct English nevertheless. And other than in the use of native terminologies (desi/dinkum), vocabulary variations (aubergine/eggplant, slough/pond) and spellings (smelled/smelt) which while making it divergent and exciting English in India, America, Canada and Australia -- is nonetheless cut from the same cloth and is hence no different.
Even the definitions are similar. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term British English as English "spoken or written in the British isles". While American English is the form of English used in the United States and Canadian English a combination of American and British English with French influences, Indian English comprises of varieties of English in the Indian subcontinent evolved during the colonial rule of Britain in India.
While geography does influence one's language, it is at best only peripheral. And only in so far as its use of local terminologies is concerned. Yet increasingly when one thinks in one language and writes in another, in that translation of ideas, is perhaps lost the 'feel' and touch of 'real India'. Nevertheless it is a mystery how being 'educated abroad' takes anything away from Shashi Tharoor or Arundhati Roy or why some consider they do not reflect the real 'Indian spirit'. Does The God of Small Things reflect anything other than the spirit of Kerala? Witness the phenomenal success of Chetan Bhagat's books. Is there anything 'phoren' about any of his books? That they may all write in a more fluid version of the language is perhaps due to their foreign sojourns. But aren't those 'influences' akin to our own Indian overtones?
The English language itself is a West Germanic language brought into England by German settlers that merged with various Anglo Saxon dialects to become 'Olde English'. The later Norman Conquest introduced many Normanic influences from which, gradually has evolved our present 'lingua franca'. Although the Queen's English Society, UK is finally setting up an Academy of English to maintain linguistic standards, it is this flexibility and adaptability of the English language to new terms and foreign expressions, that have helped spread its reach.
It is also to its credit that despite its numerous add ons and mutilations, 'Received Pronunciation'(RP) which is the 'educated spoken English of South East England' and regarded as proper English (the Queen's or BBC English), should still continue to hold 'propah' sway. But as it stands today, in the realm of the written word, if Indian culture -- real or otherwise -- is to be reflected in English, it cannot be written in anything other than the Standard English of the British Isles.
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
http://www.chillibreeze.com/
Copy editor: Pamela D'Mello
Subscribe To The Newsletter