A Snooty English Speaker’s reply
[Editor's note: The following article is a riposte to Malinda Seneviratne's article, published in the Sunday Observer on the 23rd of May 2010.]
One of the points I made in my article “Sri Lankan English: the state of the debate” was that the level of debate on the issue in the public forum remains simplistic. For this reason I welcome the fact that Malinda Seneviratne has entered the fray (“Sri Lankan English: another Snooty English speakers’ project?” Sunday Observer 23/05/2010). The fact that he has put the opposition case so forcefully can only be a good thing for “the state of the debate”. But unfortunately, he couches his argument in language so unwieldy (dare I say, snooty?) as to be impenetrable to many who might agree with his ideas.
Malinda’s article addresses what he sees as an elitist agenda to introduce something called Sri Lankan English for the masses while the Colombo elite continue to speak what he labels “Snooty English”. I have only one personal grudge, but it is perhaps central to understanding my own position on the subject. Malinda has written that “Michael Meyler … argues against the notion of language standards.” The passage he quotes in this context is in relation to the validity of a “non-standard” style in literature. But elsewhere in the article I have argued strongly in favour of the notion of language standards. Indeed, establishing “standards” in the local variety of English is precisely the reason for codifying Sri Lankan English.
Now I have to confess to being on dangerous ground here. As a non-Sri Lankan English speaker myself, and as a citizen of the former colonial power, I am obviously a prime example of what Malinda terms “Snooty English speakers”. I am not sure that this term is very constructive, but I believe that the point he is making is a valid one. If I may paraphrase it in my own terms, it is that language is a class-ridden animal, and none more so than English (and nowhere more so than in my own country, where we have recently returned to the earlier norm of having an Old Etonian as prime minister!).
Here in Sri Lanka language also defines class divisions to a great extent. The English spoken by the stereotype “Colombo 7” Sri Lankan is scarcely distinguishable from the English of an upper-middle-class Brit. Further “down” the social cline, the influence of Sinhala and Tamil becomes more pronounced, and at some undefinable point it becomes “broken English”: messy grammar, “not-pot” accent, misspelt menus, etc. And we laugh.
The problem is, where do you draw the line between “acceptable standard Sri Lankan English” and the rest? Option 1: You say that there is no such thing. The only standard is the British one. We’ll allow you to talk about poya days and stringhoppers and to drop the funny English diphthongs, but apart from that, no variation is deemed necessary or desirable. Option 2: a free-for-all in which the messy grammar and the misspelt menus become the norm.
No prizes for guessing that I’m voting for Option 3: a compromise (always a difficult thing to achieve) in which it is acknowledged that a significant number of Sri Lankans speak English as their first language, and many others are bilingual in English and Sinhala or Tamil, and that these people don’t all talk like Rohan Ponniah. They speak a variety of English which reflects the local culture, environment, history and linguistic context, and which (crucially) adheres to certain (as yet hazily defined) standards.
And no discussion of standards can ignore the distinction between speaking and writing. The written Sri Lankan standard remains close to the established British/international norm (remarkably close, it seems to me); it is in the informal, colloquial language that the greatest number of variations from the established standard are found. Recognizing the validity of these variations in a colloquial context democratizes the language, giving people the confidence to speak in a way that comes naturally to them, without having to feel inferior or stigmatized. Surely anyone who opposes elitism would approve of that?
A couple of confessions. I entered this arena as the author?/compiler? of a “dictionary” of Sri Lankan English. But in truth it is not really a dictionary, because it focuses only on the differences between “standard” British English and “standard” Sri Lankan English. And of course in reality there are infinitely more similarities than differences. A standard Sri Lankan English speaker will read this paragraph with as much ease as any other English speaker. A true “dictionary” of Sri Lankan English would also include all the words and expressions which are common to every variety of English (cat, love, biscuit, whatever), and the distinctively Sri Lankan bits would suddenly become an insignificant part of the whole.
Second confession. I have used the term “World Englishes” in the context of legitimising Sri Lankan English as one of those “Englishes”. But in truth I am not that comfortable with the term. For the same reasons outlined in the previous paragraph, I prefer to think of Sri Lankan English as one of many varieties (plural) of English (singular).
Malinda Seneviratne’s article ends with a challenge which I believe (if you strip away the sarcasm and the double negatives) makes a valid point:
“Here’s a reality check: are there any standard-bearers for ‘Sri Lankan English’ who are neither Snooty English Speakers nor loath to speak or ‘work’ Sri Lankan English in non-Orientalist and snooty ways?”
I confess. I am a “Snooty English Speaker”. And it is true that many of the people promoting the Sri Lankan English agenda are speakers of a standard Sri Lankan English which is at the upper end of the class cline referred to earlier. Many learners of English (lower down the cline) are in no doubt that what they want to learn is “British English”, and many Sri Lankan teachers would agree. But I believe it is worth raising awareness that the unreconstructed British model is outdated, irrelevant and unrealistic in the current Sri Lankan context.
29 Comments
Leave a Reply
Subscribe to Content Updates
iPhone app
Good one, Michael. Thank you for this
I’m inclined to agree,
Machang, don’t get worried about these Colombo buggers who are putting parts because a sudda is giving support to Sri Lankan English. Our achcharu English is unique and should be protected from those people like David Miliband, who must be rustifying somewhere after the election results, no?
This may be a digression from the pain point of the argument but there are good economic reasons to stick to British Standard English in teaching and use as this is internationally accepted and would give the average Sri Lankan English Speaker an edge over lets say a speaker of X type of English, which is far less likely to be internationally understood or used in professional discourse.
Not speaking the Queen’s English has not prevented the Sri Lankan diaspora from bettering themselves. They have booming businesses and their children are doing well and entering elite universities and excelling in the fields of higher education.
During my school days I used to be a downright snob laughing at those who could not pronounce English words ‘properly’.
When I look back on those days I feel so ahamed of myself.
My landlord can’t speak English for toffee but he has own building construction company employing English, Indian, Irish, Polish and Chinese and he is many times richer and knowledgeable than those who profess to have mastered English.
I have learnt a lot from the diaspora. Who gives a hoot if I am unable to use paradigm and polity in every sentence?
Many people who write to GV, for example, write a near perfect English – often better than “native” speakers in the UK or US. In public speaking they will also express themselves in standard “British English” However, in our everyday interactions with friends and family, many of us speak Sri Lankan English, including code switching between English and Sinhalese/Tamil.
These variations can all be explained by the distinction between langue and parole in linguistics – langue as the social, impersonal phenomenon of language as a system of signs, based on an underlying “grammar”, and parole as the individual, personal phenomenon of language as a series of speech acts by an individual speaker. Parole always changes, according to the specific context that the speaker finds him/herself but also according to the idiosyncracies of the speaker. What is interesting is the dynamic process by which the language spoken by individuals and groups can eventually change some of the structures of language.
I don’t think that the Sri Lankan English we speak needs to be standardized as such because it is a dynamic, living language. I think Sri Lankans should be taught “standard” global English (keeping in mind that this is evolving) in school and made aware how Sri Lankan English might deviate from this standard and point out in which contexts it is most appropriate to speak which English. Michael Meyler’s effort to produce a dictionary is commendable and a step in the right direction because it helps to raise awareness about these differences. If more and more Sri Lankan authors starting writing in Sri Lankan English, some kind of discussion might emerge about what is “standard” Sri Lankan English.
People make do with what they have. Those who are smart in worldly ways, achieve material success with little English – or even no English at all. But is it reason enough for us to imply that people don’t need to learn it as well as they can? Why settle for something sub-standard if what is recognized as the standard is within reach?
It goes without saying that the British standard no longer dominates the world the way it did sometime back. The American influence is more and more to be seen in international usage. I remember, for example, that the famous author Dr. Arthur C. Clarke had a kind of hybrid accent, a certain mix of British and American patterns. But when something is neither British or American – or at least Canadian or Australian – it just tends to be considered something quaint rather than standard.
I have all the respect for the regional varieties of English, including our own, and don’t hesitate to use ours with our own people. But at the same time I consider it misleading when people who themselves have mastered ‘proper (or should I say Snooty?)’ English give today’s younger generation the impression that there is no need for them to learn it that way too.
Malinda Seneviratne may have been a little too hard on Michael Meyler, but some points he makes do have validity. Do we want our next generation to speak a kind of pidgin that would just amuse the rest of the world? Wouldn’t it be a bit like the orang utan’s role at the zoo? People certainly enjoy watching its antics – so it’s very popular too – but how many of them have a modicum of respect for the poor animal? Or how many of them would consider behaving like that for a day?
here’s an article that’s related to this issue: http://www.nation.lk/2010/06/06/newsfe9.htm
Another, in the Lakbima News of May 30, 2010 cannot be accessed on the internet for some reason. I don’t want to copy-paste here, but will email it to anyone interested. The title: On the ‘Snooty’ and ‘Yak’ in language and politics
Dear Malinda,
“He’s been vilified, unfairly, for his Language policy, mostly by Eelamists and by those who have an axe to grind with Sinhalese and Buddhists,”
Awww… the great hero of Sinhala nationalism has been vilified unfairly for putting those Tamils in their proper place. Tears are streaming out of my eyes.
Of course the above begs the question: why did Chelvanayagam congratulate SWRD for passing the Sinhala-Only policy, if this policy truly was the bane of Tamil separatism?
The question to what extent Sri Lankan English could empower the speakers and users of “non-standard” English in Sri Lanka has emerged once again. In my opinion, Sri Lankan English is promoted in Sri Lanka as a means of constructing an alternative (English) linguistic identity for Sri Lanka or as a token of postcolonial resistance to Standard British English. It does not seem to move beyond the discursive space of identity politics. If we want to promote Sri Lankan English with a view to empowering the non-elite, we should incorporate it into the curricula and text books, and use it in classroom teaching and public lectures. I think we have not done much in this respect. Though we have a variety of English which we call our own, its use in formal and academic contexts has continuously been discouraged. It is deplorable that users of Sri Lankan English who come from the remote villages of Sri Lanka are penalized in examinations for not being competent in using the English language according to the grammatical and idiomatic conventions of Standard British English. If the language standards by which a student’s competency in English in Sri Lanka is measured reinforce the hegemony of Standard British English, Sri Lankan English will never be able to empower the non-elite.
If we tried to empower Sri Lankan English to the extent that it would replace what is considered Standard British English in the school curriculum (God forbid!), it might end up as another local language like Sinhala and Tamil, and fail in its foremost role as a gateway to the world?
In Mr. D. B. Nihalsingha’s article yesterday about one aspect of the IIFA event (http://transcurrents.com/tc/2010/06/sinhala_film_industry_given_sh.html), he mentions a possible “fear” among the organizers “that Sri Lankan film people could not speak English worth their salt and thus be no match for the fluent English of the Bollywoodians”. Do we want our people to be kept on the sidelines because of their poor English in the next generation too, which is most probably what would happen if they learned only Sri Lankan English?
Dear Sujeewa,
Sri Lankan English would not replace standard British English. But we have to recognise that we are living in a global village and what is most important is that we communicate.
My niece’s generation interpret ‘wicked’ as brilliant and not something evil.
Sri lankans have their own quirks and they are quite delicious particularly when those of us who have migrated for whatever reasons yearn for everything Sri Lankan.
Carl Muller, a diehard Burgher, is an inspiration to all of us who long for the days we could not be arsed with syntax and those rigid grammar instilled into us by the off-shoots of our colonial British teachers.
I relish Sri Lankan English like I do pol sambol and I am not unanimous in this.
I desire freedom of expression without hang-ups.
Dear Sujeewa,
It’s going to rain, isn’t it?
It’s going to rain, no?
I want to have a cup of tea.
I want to have a tea.
By using the second question/statement in each of these pairs, would the user close his entry into the world?? I cant understand your point.
Dear Pearl,
I understand your nostalgia for things Sri Lankan. As I have mentioned before, I myself use accepted forms of Sri Lankan English (like using ‘no?’ instead of tag questions) without any hesitation when interacting with our own people (and that means everyday as I live here). But I wouldn’t dream of saying things like ‘iskool’ even in such situations. And when it comes to occasions that are more formal – or with the participation of foreigners – I invariably switch to the internationally accepted forms as best I can. That’s the way most educated Sri Lankans with a good knowledge of English go about it here (though their level of competence in these matters may vary) and that’s exactly what all of us are doing right here at this forum.
So we’ve got to realize that we have no moral right to tell the average Sri Lankan (who unfortunately is rather weak in English) that they need not learn international standards and it’s enough for them to learn it ‘Our Way’, while we ourselves happily make use of ‘proper’ English whenever we feel it’s appropriate. Why don’t we encourage others to learn both these ways themselves (OK, if they hate the old colonizer, let them learn American English) and have the ability and freedom to choose between the two according to the context just like we do?
Dear Sujeewa,
You are absolutely right. When I comment it is only my opinion. I do understand that those of us who have had the privilege of learning English with all its correctness should strive to educate others paricularly who went to govt. schools without English teachers (I know many from the Sri Lankan diaspora who told me they never had English as a subject in schools!).
Before I became a journalist I must have given tuition to at least 75 students from Grade 1 to A/L and many have entered universities and Law College thanks to learning English.
Nevertheless my point is that I enjoy Annesley, Bertie and Rodrigo on Youtube which I watch very often because they make me laugh. Also, I do not deride and offend those who cannot speak proper English because here in the West if you spoke with a French accent you are considered quaint and sweet.
So why should we not accept it is difficult for some to pronounce or speak properly and that we also speak in a way they understand. By the way, my mother who only studied until Grade 8 could read newspapers and write cannot comfortably speak English. How we children and my father used to laugh at her.
Dear Thiruvarangan,
I am not a language purist. I freely use such common Sri Lankan patterns in informal situations here and enjoy using them too. Though they would be understood quite well in the international arena as well, we know they are not part of what is considered educated English usage in international circles. That’s why all of us here tend to use ‘Standard (Snooty?)’ English even at forums like this. (There is only one comment here that uses Sri Lankan English patterns – that is, the second one – and it is obviously written in jest.)
Others might find it amusing to hear what they consider sub-standard English but the speaker wouldn’t gain any plus points for his or her language competency with it. (That may be all right if all you want to do is work as a waiter for them, but I feel that future Sri Lankans should set themselves higher goals than that.)
I readily agree that the primary purpose of learning a language is to be able to communicate. So I also encourage those Sri Lankans who are learning English to start practising whatever they have learned without any fears about possible mistakes. But I just can’t agree that we tell them to limit themselves to our Sri Lankan ways. Why not let them learn both varieties like we did – or even multiple varieties if they are so inclined – and have the best of both worlds.
Dear Pearl,
I agree with you 100% that the poor English of those who haven’t got the chance to learn it well should never be laughed at, though some Sri Lankans with good (Snooty?) English do exactly that. However, what today’s youngsters need, in my view, is the chance and encouragement to learn better English than their parents did. That way they won’t need our pity in the future as their parents do today.
I don’t think we should purposely downgrade our own English when talking to those who are not so good at it. It’s a good thing to avoid complicated language (which is probably commendable in any context) but I believe those who have a good command of English should rather set an example for the others to follow. Sri Lanka today would do well to have a few local role models that the language learners could emulate. (Our generation had some like Ravi John and Richard de Zoysa but I don’t think their influence reached very far, as English was being neglected even more in those days.)
You have done something great by teaching English to all those people while you were here. That, I think, is the way to go.
Yes Sujeewa. We can offer them both. Those who find it difficult to master the first will be able to master the second. Let us call those who use the second English speakers too.
Language is a means of communication, isn’t it. Even when one speaks English which is not up to the standards and is not grammatical, if one could understand what he is trying to say, is it not enough to say that such a person knows English or can communicate in English. I am sure a pure bred English speaker will certainly understand what a person fluent in Sri Lankan English is trying to say, even though it might sound queer !
@Thiruvarangan
Agreed.
@MCM Iqbal
You are absolutely right in that the primary purpose of language is to communicate. If someone can make himself (or herself) understood, that person has definitely acquired the basic competence in using that language.
But then there are higher levels of competence. Whether we like it or not, society judges us by the way we use language. And this is especially so when it comes to English, which is widely considered a mark of social class. My contention is not that we should discriminate against those who speak sub-standard English, but that we shouldn’t discourage others who might otherwise have a chance to acquire what is generally considered Standard English.
A whole generation of Sri Lankans were misled by those who told them that they didn’t need to learn English at all. Let’s not make the mistake of telling today’s younger generation that they don’t need to learn anything but Sri Lankan English. Why not let them learn both varieties – Sri Lankan and international – if they can do so? In case a certain section of society fails to go beyond what is Sri Lankan even then, we’ll still treat them with respect and try to help them make the best of what they’ve got (though I’m not sure that everybody would actually do so).
Those of us who have seen and appreciated the film My Fair Lady will remember that English spoken in various parts of London are different. That includes the accents, dropping of prepositions, etc. Professor Higgins in that film took a girl from the slums of London and took a challenge that he can make her speaks Queen’s English in six months.
I can remember an Englishman who commented on my English during my younger days telling me one day that I spoke English like reading a book ! He added that Englishmen do not speak grammatical English and that it is confined only to plays and speeches from the stage. In the circumstances we should not discourage Sri Lankan for the way they speak English. Of course that does not mean they should be discouraged from learning good English.
I agree with Sujeewa. He has very good intentions and I agree with Iqbal, an enlightened individual. But as Alice in Wonderland would say let’s begin at the beginning.
Michael Mahler’s argument in this blog is that Sri Lankan English should not be relegated to the back shelves in the library. It exists and it communicates with larger population and not just the English purists.
The Japanese remain a super-power without speaking English in their relations with the international community.
English is but one language and the days of the British Empire are long gone.
We, as Sri Lankans, should be proud of how we communicate whether through our own version of British English, or a mixture of vernacular and English. Even the British are evolving when it comes to terminology.
It would be to our merit if as Mahler advocates Sri Lankan English and that our usage becomes incorporated into the OED which is updated every year.
I agree with Sujeewa about the whole generation who were misled into not learning English at all. This was a misguided episode of Sri Lanka’s history and we have suffered economically because of that – compared to our neighbour, India, for example.
I think it is not good to be patronising and make choices for people. It is better to make people understand the differences between various kinds of English (at least British, American and Sri Lankan) and give them the choice of what they want to learn to speak. It is no longer so hard for young people to learn English as in my generation for example, because they are exposed to TV and can easily pick up the more “global” forms of English, if they are encouraged to do so at a very young age.
The story of My Fair Lady shows very clearly that the way a language is spoken has long been considered a symbol of social standing. Whether we think Prof. Henry Higgins did something good for that girl Eliza by teaching her cultured speech (though Higgins was obviously a bit overzealous sometimes) or he should have left her with her own ‘lover-ly’ type of English, there’s no denying that she wouldn’t have been able to present herself to the Queen with the latter option.
However, I agree with Pearl that Sri Lankan English usage should be documented. Michael Meyler has done something commendable by compiling ‘A dictionary of Sri Lankan English’. The best thing he does in it is comparing local usage with British (and sometimes American) usage. (I would have preferred it if he had made comparisons with both British and American usage all the time since American English also plays a dominant role in the global sphere today.)
I personally have added two sections (i.e. ‘Comparison of some Sri Lankan usage patterns with international usage’ and ‘Detailed description of pronunciation differences’) to the Wikipedia page on Sri Lankan English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_English), adapting what I had already written in my blog on English (http://ingirisi.blogspot.com/).
The views Humanist has expressed definitely strike a chord with me. Rather than decide in a condescending manner what type of English the ‘ordinary’ people should learn, we had better make them aware of the choices they have and let them decide for themselves. This is what I’ve been trying to do with my blog too.
As Humanist rightly points out, more opportunities are available today with all these media around, unlike in our time. Growing up in the countryside in the 70s, I even had trouble listening to the English Service of the SLBC sometimes. When TV made its entry into the country, we had to set up an antenna at the top of a coconut tree to receice ITN! Today all this (and more) is available pretty much throughout the country.
The argument behind proposing Sri Lankan English for the ‘masses’ seems to be the misconception that ‘those’ people probably are incapable of learning anything else. The truth of the matter is that lots of bright rural people didn’t learn it in the past because they were given the impression that it was the in thing not to learn the oppressor’s tongue (and that came at a time opportunities were really opening up with the Central Schools and all that).
Another thing we have to remember is that Sri Lankan English is not somthing spoken by the majority of Sri Lankans today (that is, considering the whole country, not just Colombo and Kandy). Unlike in India, most Sri Lankans don’t speak any English at all – unless of course Singlish is counted as a form of Sri Lankan English too. This is a point Michael Meyler himself has made, talking about standard and non-standard Sri Lankan English. Since these Sri Lankans have to learn it anyway now, I think they themselves can make the choice as to what sort of English they want to settle for. (I run a poll about this on my blog. Although only 90 people have responded so far, 64% of them say they want to go for an internationaally accepted variety.)
I think people should be allowed to choose the variety they want to use.
My response to Meyler appears here:
http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2010/06/20/mon05.asp
Also interesting and related to the discussion, Teaching dialects of Sri Lankan English by Manique Gunesekera – University of Kelaniya.
The article claims: “The English spoken by the stereotype ‘Colombo 7′ Sri Lankan is scarcely distinguishable from the English of an upper-middle-class Brit.”
I do not think so. Perhaps a few in Colombo 7 like to think so.