Zoya Proshina The abc and Controversies of World Englishes ббк 81

Language Identity vs. Intercultural Pragmatics

The use of English as a language of intercultural communication gives rise to one more problem with two facets. On the one hand, a local variety of English is employed to spread an indigenous culture and thus to express and maintain linguacultural identity of its speakers in the face of globalism. “…(A)s English becomes more widely used as a global language, it will become expected that speakers will signal their nationality, and other aspects of their identity, through English” (Graddol 2006: 117). On the other hand, if pragmatics of what is said or written is not clear to other variety communicators (and this often happens with speech items that have an ethnic flavor), the utterance will not be interpreted correctly and the interaction will not be effective and successful. For example, an African-English greeting “I see you’ve put on weight”, implying “You are looking well”, can be met with indignation by a representative of Western culture who is unaware of the cultural background of the greeting (Berns 2006: 720-721).

A good medium to learn “pragmatic ground rules” (Thomas 1983/2006) of a variety of world Englishes is the works of the so called contact literatures, i.e. new literatures of “a symbiotic relationship” (Thumboo 2006: 407), written in English by the so called non-native speakers. Edwin Thumboo (2006), however, criticizes the terms “new literatures in English” and “contact literatures” as interim labels meaning just a historical start and insists on saying Indian Literature in English, Nigerian Literature in English, Singapore Literature in English, etc. Today it is the literature that is negotiating between the demands of two traditions, one inherited from an indigenous culture, the other brought by English and its literature.This bicultural literature has caused quite controversial attitudes as many critics argued that it served only intellectual, not emotional purposes (Thumboo 1982: 272).

The use of English in creative function in the Outer and Expanding Circles has been controversial. The controversy consists in the ability of a localized English to express the ‘nativeness’ and emotions of the so-called non-native speakers. Indigenous writers in English are accused of abandoning their national language and writing in a western “foreign” language. Their “alien” medium is considered inappropriate for expressing culturally and socially determined sensibilities. They are accused of catering to a foreign readership. (Kachru B. 1994/2006: 284).

…The language I speak

…It voices my joys, my longings my

In Sri Lanka English has become “a means of self-expression divorced from the self-consciousness that had accompanied it before” (Wijesinha, quoted in Kachru B. 1994/2006: 283). On the one hand, such literatures in English express national identities; on the other hand, they are components of world literatures in English.

A Chinese linguist Song Li (2007) argues against the necessity to teach native speakers’ pragmatic rules to WE students. Communicating in English, non-native speakers of English, who far exceed native speakers in number, want to express their linguacultural identity. That is why they are apt to follow their culturally rooted pragmatic rules that are used as markers of their in-group and out-group distinction. For example, Chinese speakers, who consider observing hierarchical relations in society to be very important, can use forms of address of the type “Family name + Laoshi (‘Teacher’)” like Li Laoshi as is typical in China. (cf. when addressing Russian seniors, English-speaking Russians use the pattern “first name + patronymic” rather than the native speaker pattern, e.g., Professor + Name.)

Should learners of English study all the pragmatic nuances that might be implied in various world Englishes? No doubt, to know the meanings of both verbal and non-verbal means that might be different from culture to culture is essential but it is impossible to know all cultures. Therefore, we must study the culture and pragmatics of our most virtual communicators. Misunderstanding can result in “pragmatic failure” (Thomas 1983/2006) of communication and cause all sorts of ridiculous situations. A case told by a Russian journalist, expert in Japan studies, Vsevolod Ovchinnikov, and published in Rossiyskaya Gazeta (15 June, 2007, p.22) is a good illustration of such a misunderstanding. Staying in a Japanese-style hotel (ryokan), he was treated with sashimi, made of raw fish, by a Japanese hostess. He was so pleased by the meals that he expressed his admiration by a typical Russian gesture – showed his thumb while making a fist with other fingers of his hand. The gesture took the hostess aback. Slowly, she echoed him by showing her little finger and said, “Did you want to say that?” He shook his head vigorously and again made a gesture with his thumb, which means ‘excellent!” She left and in some minutes was replaced by a big guy, brightly colored and dressed in a woman kimono and a wig. Evidently, in Japanese culture the Russian gesture meant a different thing.

One inference can be drawn from this: when preparing to communicate with people from a different culture, we must get to know that culture, i.e. we must be interculturally literate. The same idea is stressed by Nobuyuki Honna, Professor of Aoyama Gokuin University, Tokyo:
“One important issue is diversity management. Based on the observation that a common language is not a uniform language, but a diverse language, we will argue that a plausible way of managing the multiculturalism of Asian English is not standardization but intercultural literacy.” (Honna 2005: 122)
Acquiring intercultural literacy implies at least three dimensions (McKay 2002: 82-83):

• 
  transfer information about other cultures;
  
• 
  reflection on one’s own culture in relation to another;
  
• 
  consideration of national identities as non-monolithic and diverse as regards age, gender, regional origin, ethnic background, and social class.
  

Margie Berns (2006) insists that intercultural communicative competence as a result of acquiring intercultural literacy relates to appropriateness in language use (what, when, and how to say), which has become “a cornerstone in the theoretical foundation of the new paradigm that is now known as world Englishes” (Berns 2006: 721). The controversy of this issue, like many others of the WE paradigm, is revealed in answer to the question: who is to determine what is appropriate and acceptable in the context of use – a native speaker or local users (Prator, Quirk vs. Kachru). Kachru’s “socially realistic assessment” ties communicative competence directly to choosing a variety by asking questions: Acceptable to whom? Appropriate to whom? Intelligible to whom? Communicative competence is central not only in sociolinguistics but also in pedagogical theory, with the shift of focus in ELT from grammatical correctness to communicative effectiveness. M. Berns argues that the communicative competence is based on learners’ needs for the language, “the actual forms and functions of the speech community with which learners will interact and the attitudes of members of that speech community toward the language and its speakers” (Berns 2006: 726). So it must be taught through a polymodel approach.

On the other hand, there exists a point of view that
“[o]n the pragmatic level, speakers of English as a foreign language can also contribute to liberating the use of English from constraints of individual societies’ norms of language use by promoting culture-free varieties of English use for international communication. By avoiding expressions heavily-laden with beliefs, views and values of a particular society or accommodating silence and non-eye contact in non-verbal skills, the speakers of English as a foreign language may be able to contribute to the promotion of some common denominator-like language use to help create a global English communicative model, which would depend more on the language itself and, therefore, be more suitable for global use and less resisted by the speakers of English as a foreign language because of its neutrality. (Yano 2001: 130)
Yano’s suggestion seems to be in tune with the conception of formal denationalized model of International English discussed in the previous chapters.

Questions to discuss:
47. What causes the controversy between speaker’s identity and intercultural pragmatics?
48. In your opinion, whose pragmatic rules should a learner of English follow? Give your reasons.
49. Using the internet search, find the most prominent authors of Indian Literature in English, Pakistani Literature in English, Nigerian Literature in English, Singapore Literature in English, Chinese Literature in English. Are there any authors creating Russian Literature in English? Report your findings in class.
50. What do you understand by “intercultural literacy”? How can it be acquired?
51. Comment on the terms “appropriateness”, “acceptability”, and “intelligibility”. Give examples to illustrate their meanings.
52. Find English equivalents to the Russian key words stated before the text of the chapter. Discuss the meaning of the terms.