World Englishes and the multilingual history of English

World Englishes, Vol. 25, No. 3/4, pp. 381–390, 2006.

0883–2919

World Englishes and the multilingual history of English RAJEND MESTHRIE∗ ABSTRACT: Traditional histories of English (e.g., Baugh and Cable, 1993) present a mostly unilinear account of the language that privileges the standard in Britain and to a lesser extent, the US. Most other varieties (e.g., in Australia, Nigeria or India) are treated as appendages to this history, of interest mainly for their lexical innovations. At the same time, studies of New Englishes (e.g., Platt et al., 1984) have also promulgated this separateness in history. This paper attempts to unify the history of Englishes by highlighting a thread that is downplayed in traditional accounts: that the language has always existed amidst a multilingual ethos in which language contact has been ever-present.

INTRODUCTION

Historiography is of necessity a simplifying and idealizing process. The vagaries of individual events and the multiplicity of background contexts are frequently played down as historians attempt to impose an order on the narratives they deliver. Facts, as Heidegger wrote, were once acts – subject to all the ambiguities of intention, execution and fruition. Writing history is an exercise in interpretation with hindsight; in the past this was often by victors or survivors. Academic historical writing is necessarily performed through the lens of present-day theories that draw on the spectrum of human sciences as they develop. Language historiography is no different. The history of English, for example, has often been cast as the unilinear progress of the standard variety (e.g., Wyld, 1914). This has sometimes been done for practical reasons, as documentation of the language in the past was necessarily written rather than oral. Concentration on the standard has sometimes been necessitated by having to keep the historical task within manageable limits. The colonial history of English within this approach is frequently treated as an appendage, with the main focus on exotic lexis carried home from the colonies. There are, of course, more sophisticated accounts now: Leith’s (1983) approach to the history of the language puts social and political relations in the centre of the history of English. Graddol, Leith and Swann (1996) also put social variation at the centre of their history of English. Trudgill and Watts (2002) factor in a variety of under-represented varieties of English in their alternative history of English; while the five-volume Cambridge History of the English Language (ed. Hogg, 1992–1999) does give a detailed account of the history of colonial Englishes in volume 4. Roger Lass, the editor of volume 3, who once worked within the traditional paradigm of historical phonology, now goes beyond the linear analysis of the varietal detail provided there. Based on his re-examination of the corpus of Middle English manuscripts, Lass (personal communication, 2004) now eschews the idea of a straight-line phonological history of English. For him the textual record is at ∗ Department of English Language and Literature, Private Bag, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, 7701, South Africa. E-mail: [email protected] C 2006 The Author. Journal compilation C 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

382

Rajend Mesthrie

once so complex and riddled with gaps that any general historicization leads not just to oversimplification, but also to erroneous history. The aim of the present paper is somewhat modest: it proposes the idea that a monolingual history of English is an oversimplification, even if it is a necessary one from a systeminternal point of view. This is not to suggest that historians of English have been blind to the significant periods of contact in the Old, Middle and Early Modern periods; but that the striking fact of English being involved from its very inception in complex contact situations has not been put on centre stage. The thrust of this argument has now been addressed by Crystal’s (2004) engaging and comprehensive Stories of English, which appeared two years after the first draft of this article was completed. Crystal accords full respect to ‘new standards, non-standards, informalities and identities . . . the real stories of English, which have never, in their entirety, been told’ (2004: 14). My account is entirely in sympathy with Crystal’s focus, and adds some new nuances. In particular, I prefer to characterize England as one of the many stopping places for a language that started out in Germanic-speaking parts of continental Europe and has now spread almost all over the planet. Of course, this account does not deny that England has been, and remains, the most significant of these stopping points.

THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE COMPLEX

Before I present a multilingual external history of English, it is necessary to outline the different types of English that constitute what I earlier called (Mesthrie, 1992: 1) the ‘English language family’. It must be conceded, though, that from the viewpoint of historical linguistics the term is used in an unorthodox way, since ‘family’ prototypically refers to a group of languages that are relatable by historical and comparative criteria (and which are not related – at the current state of research – to other families). For this reason I now adopt McArthur’s (2003: 56) term ‘English language complex’, henceforth ELC. The ELC may be said to comprise a number of subtypes distinguishable according to some combination of their history, status, form and functions. In the following list of subtypes, which takes a largely historical point of departure, only categories that are not well known within sociolinguistics will be delineated:

(a) Metropolitan standard varieties: The term metropolitan (literally ‘mother city/city-state’) is an old one, going back to Ancient Greece, denoting the relation between a state and its colonies. The term would have once been applicable only to standard English of England. However, it is uncontroversial today, long after US independence and the subsequent espousal of distinctly American English norms, to acknowledge the existence of at least two metropolitan standard varieties, whose spoken formal models are those provided by the radio and television networks based largely in London and US cities like Washington, Los Angeles, New York and (for CNN) Atlanta. (b) Colonial standard varieties: The colonial history of English has made it an important language in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa and Northern and Southern Rhodesia (now Zambia and Zimbabwe, respectively). A fairly large number of English speakers formed an influential group of speakers in the early history of these ‘Dominion’ territories. The varieties spoken there are accordingly referred to in historical dialectology as ‘extraterritorial’ Englishes. It is possible to speak of ‘colonial standards’ since informal and (to a lesser extent) formal varieties have arisen in these territories that may be considered ‘standard’. These standards are, however, not fully accepted within the territories, since the metropolitan standards exert a counter-influence. At a more contemporary level, the rise C

C 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2006 The Author. Journal compilation

World Englishes and the multilingual history of English

383

of Euro-Englishes and their use in the global media might also contribute to the growth of new post-colonial or global standard varieties. (c) Regional L1 dialects: e.g., Northern British English dialects, Southern US English. (d) Social L1 dialects: e.g., Cockney in England, African-American English in the US.

Groups (a) to (d) are frequently labelled as a special group (‘mother tongue’ or ‘L1 English’ or ‘English as a Native Language’ (ENL) or, in Kachru’s (1988) terminology, ‘Inner Circle’ varieties). Of equal interest in modern sociolinguistics are the other members of the English language complex: (e) Pidgin Englishes: e.g., West African Pidgin English. (f) Creole Englishes: e.g., Jamaican Creole. (g) English as a Second Language (ESL): e.g., Nigerian L2 English. This category has been largely replaced by the term ‘Outer Circle’ in this journal, but is retained here to cater for the early history of English as treated in this paper. (h) English as a Foreign Language (EFL): e.g., English in Korea. Again although a more viable term, ‘Expanding Circle’, exists in the context of world Englishes studies, the older label ‘EFL’ is necessary for some of the purposes of the paper. The two terms are to be considered near-synonyms here, with different historical and ideological nuances. (i) Immigrant Englishes: In the context of migration to an English-dominant country, varieties of English which may have originated as EFLs or ESLs often retain their distinctiveness, though they may eventually merge with the regional English of their territory, depending on a host of social and economic factors. Thus whilst English in Mexico is of the EFL variety, Chicano English of the US shows greater affinity with general US English. However, Chicano English is still a distinct variety amongst many speakers, which we classify as an ‘immigrant English’. My main reason for differentiating ‘immigrant English’ from ESL is in the degree of influence of metropolitan English over the former, since it is readily available in the local environment. (j) Language-shift Englishes: These are varieties that develop when English replaces the erstwhile primary language(s) of a community. There is, nevertheless, frequently a sense of continuity with the ancestral language(s) and culture(s) in the shifting community. The difference between ‘languageshift English’ and ‘social dialect’ is one of degree; the former can, in time, shade into a social dialect. Essentially, a language-shift English has adult and child L1 and L2 speakers forming one speech community, whereas a social dialect is typically conceived of synchronically as having only L1 speakers. Thus Hiberno English is probably best classified as a social dialect in most areas of Ireland today; not so long ago it would have counted as a language-shift variety, with L1 and L2 speakers of the dialect closely interacting with each other. (k) Jargon Englishes: Whereas a pidgin is a well-defined (if rudimentary) variety, with norms that are tacitly agreed upon by its speakers, a jargon is characterized by great individual variation and instability (hence also described as a pre-pidgin), e.g., ‘Broken English’ as used in the old Calabar area of Africa, described by Görlach (1994). (l) Hybrid Englishes: Also called ‘bilingual mixed languages’, these are versions of English which occur in code-mixing, and are sometimes given (derogatory) names like Tex-Mex (for the hybrid English-Spanish of the areas bordering Texas and Mexico).

A sketch typology like the one we propose brings as much controversy as clarity. Many issues raised in the characterization of the ELC are worthy of closer scrutiny and debate. For example: 1. Do jargons, pidgins, English creoles and hybrids belong here? 2. Do some of the categories not overlap considerably? 3. Does the category ‘language-shift English’ have any phenomenological status? C


384

Rajend Mesthrie

A consideration of points such as these will sharpen our characterization of the ELC, and possibly open up new dimensions in the history of English. In the first place I advocate a ‘prototype’ definition of the term ‘English’, with some varieties considered clear-cut examples (e.g., middle-class English in Edinburgh, the L2 English of teachers in Nigeria, rural people’s English in the Appalachian region of the US). I also accept that the boundaries of terms are fuzzy, so that some Englishes may have overlapping memberships. The following are examples of phenomena with multiple memberships: (a) English hybrids – e.g., the mixed variety of English and Malay, described by Baskaran (1994); (b) decreolizing English creoles – e.g., the continuum between Creole and Caribbean English in Jamaica, described by de Camp (1971); (c) underworld slang – e.g., the grafting of an antilanguage onto English grammar in Elizabethan cant, as described by Halliday (1978).

Secondly, my characterization suffers from focusing on ‘products’ rather than ‘processes’. Sociolinguists generally try to avoid the bias of conceiving of language in terms of already codified forms (as in grammars and dictionaries) or written norms (as in literature or the print media). They argue that language is constantly being made and remade by speakers in terms of their situation, need, interlocutor, audience, knowledge of other ‘languages’, general strategies of communication, etc. The classic account is perhaps that of focusing and diffusion – Le Page and Tabouret-Keller (1985); it is implicit in Bakhtin’s (1981) idea of dialogism; it also finds favour in the work of some creolists (e.g., Baker, 2000; Mufwene, 2001). An analogy might help to make this more concrete. Although we think of fluent adult speech as the prototype of English, the developing capacity of a 3year-old child is also ‘English’; and it is not possible to draw a strict line as to when exactly ‘child language’ turns into ‘English proper’. The same principle applies to the transitions shown by adults in moving from a minimal ability in English (as sometimes eventually manifested in jargons, pidgins or fossilized interlanguages) to increasing development towards an accepted community norm of ‘English’. That is, jargons and early interlanguages have the same ambiguous status within the ELC as a very young child’s developing variety of L1 English. This issue goes to the heart of conceptions of English and of the ‘native speaker of English’, which are still debated in sociolinguistics (see Singh, 1998). To return to question 2, overlaps certainly develop amongst some categories identified within the ELC as English spreads geographically and enters new domains of use. The distinction between ESL and EFL is cast in terms of the presence or absence of a ‘sizeable number’ of L1 English speakers in a territory. As it is not possible to specify such a critical mass, this must be taken as a soft boundary. Even if a critical mass were roughly specifiable, it would have to be tempered by factoring in more sociolinguistic concepts like interaction between speakers, the accessibility of L1 speakers and speakers’ attitudes (see Schneider, 2003). Much of South Africa counts as an ESL rather than EFL territory (leaving aside the L1 speakers). Yet, in the apartheid era, Black people were rigidly segregated from Whites, with obvious consequences for the acquisition of English. Although ESL is the general outcome of contact in South Africa, it is a moot question whether in some parts of the country English is still virtually a foreign language. In their description of English in East Africa, Hancock and Agogo (1982: 307–8) differentiate between non-native English spoken fluently as a second language and non-native English spoken imperfectly as a C



385

foreign language within the same territory. This shows that the apartheid South African case is perhaps not all that special. It also shows the overlapping nature of the categories. Should we then change our definitions to allow ESL to operate even in EFL territories (to describe the competence of, say, a few speakers who have been to an English speaking country) and to allow EFL pockets in an ESL territory? In this vein, Kachru’s (1983: 38–9) distinction between ‘institutionalized’ and ‘performance’ varieties is a useful one. Briefly, an institutionalized English is one that is introduced formally in a territory via education, and is used in some civil, administrative and governmental functions. A performance variety is one which does not have this backing; and is reliant on ad hoc skills of communication that individuals may pick up via EFL education or via brief contacts with tourists, traders, etc. Performance varieties include EFLs, jargons, rudimentary pidgins and so forth. Another indication of overlapping memberships concerns the intermediate status of ‘protectorates’ in the former British empire – territories that were not fully colonized, but did receive educational and other infrastructural support from Britain to wrest them away from the influence of rival imperialists. Territories such as Egypt and the southern African kingdom of Lesotho may well have a status intermediate between ESL and EFL territories. The spread of English in Europe in more recent times calls into question whether territories like Holland and Scandinavia are still EFL or whether they are moving towards ESL. Phillipson (1992: 24–5) suggests that ‘in the Nordic countries (Scandinavia and Finland), a shift is under way from EFL to ESL, and this has implications for school teaching and for society as a whole’. The balance between English and the mother tongue in an immigrant English context is not as clearly defined as in an ESL territory. The L2 status of an immigrant English may change within a generation or more, if conditions promoting assimilation to a superstrate form of English exist. Special conditions like the intention to return to the homeland or a heightened sense of ethnicity may run counter to this tendency. ESL is essentially an abbreviation for the acquisition of English under conditions of additive bilingualism (Lambert, 1978), that is the addition of a socially relevant language to a community’s repertoire. Immigrant Englishes (and language-shift Englishes) are frequently implicated in subtractive bilingualism, i.e., unstable bilingualism, resulting in the gradual loss of a community’s erstwhile language. Finally, regarding question 3, there are indeed overlaps between a language-shift English and a social dialect. Yesterday’s language-shift English may become tomorrow’s social dialect (often an ethnic dialect or ethnolect). The former term is desirable and necessary if one is interested in the process of shift and acquisition, rather than the ultimate ‘social dialect’ product. We leave it open as to whether language shift is reversible (Fishman, 1991) – that is, in the above typology, if a language-shift English could revert to ESL, under changing demographic or socio-political conditions.

LANGUAGE SPREAD – INTEGRATING NEW ENGLISHES INTO THE HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE COMPLEX

The typology outlined above makes it possible to broaden the history of English to take into account multilingual developments. It also makes it possible to see New Englishes as less dissimilar from L1 varieties, in terms of their historical development. C


386

Rajend Mesthrie

The Old English period English ultimately derives from a number of Germanic dialects, three of which – those of the Angles, Jutes and Saxons, as is well known – crossed the North Sea from north-western Europe in c.450 AD. We might term this migration-cum-invasion ‘the first crossing’, which ultimately resulted in a merger producing what linguists now label ‘Anglo Saxon’ or ‘Old English’.1 In this period (450 AD to 1100 AD) a number of phenomena existed that we might mistakenly think of as post-colonial and post-modern: English was fragmented, had multiple norms, varied considerably, was used in multilingual settings and evinced a fair degree of borrowing in contact with other languages. That is, traditional histories testify to the koinéization of the Germanic dialects on English soil, thus yielding ‘English’ – on koinés and koinéization see Siegel (1985). English existed in a multilingual setting amidst Celtic languages (forerunners of Cornish, Welsh, Irish, Manx and Scots Gaelic). There may well have been cases of bilingualism as English gradually spread amongst the Celtic populace, though there is no clear textual evidence for this. There was also in all likelihood contact with Latin, which enjoyed prestige in British cities during the Roman period (starting in 43 AD), and later in the context of the Roman Catholic Church. Extensive influence from Old Norse (forerunner of Danish and Norwegian) occurred with the Viking invasions and settlement of the 8th to the 11th centuries AD. Fisiak (1995: 58) suggests that towards 1000 AD there were signs of a written standard emerging out of the monasteries in and around Winchester ‘which was written and read from Canterbury to York’. In the light of Crystal’s (2004: 54–6) account, entitled ‘The rise and fall of West Saxon’, it is tempting to characterize the fate of West Saxon as ‘the first decline’ (of a standard English variety). In terms of our ELC typology, the following phenomena already existed in the Old English period: regional dialects, ethnic dialects (initially amongst the different Germanic tribes), social dialects (presumably between kings and lords as against the serfs), and an incipient standard. The extent of bilingualism (Celtic–English and English–Norse) in this period is unclear, and can best be described as incipient. However, in subsequent centuries gradual bilingualism and shift did occur. We may therefore speak of languageshift Englishes (with Celtic or Scandinavian substrates) in the post-Old English period. These would have involved a degree of ESL in generations prior to shift. The notion of EFL would not have made sense at the time (Latin being the real language of status and power in Europe) and there is no evidence of pidgin and creole Englishes in this period. The Middle English period The early part of this period (c.1100 AD to 1500 AD) was dominated by the linguistic consequences of the Norman conquest, with French being the language of the new upper classes and English being associated with their subjects. In the course of time there was convergence between the two languages, one assumes after a period of bilingualism, amongst segments of the populace (see Crystal, 2004: 124–5). This convergence, admittedly, shows up much more in English than in Anglo-Norman. The radical differences between Old and Middle English has given rise to considerable debate over the reasons for this change. One line of reasoning holds that Middle English could be said to be a creole (Bailey and Maroldt, 1977; Domingue, 1975), insofar as a former Germanic language emerged in the post-Conquest period as a Germanic-Romance hybrid. Whilst the consensus these days seems to be that it is not a creole on most conceptions of creoleness (see Thomason and Kaufmann, 1988: 306–15), we could just as well ask whether Middle English at some stage C



387

involved convergence between Old English and a language-shift variety (Norman English). The ongoing bilingualism, with incipient shift from Celtic languages to English, made the contact situation fairly complex. This is also the period of the ‘second crossing’ of English with the conquest of Ireland by Henry II in 1164. This brought French (of the nobility) and English (of their soldiers and retainers) to Ireland. However, English did not really spread in Ireland at this time; rather the colonizers became bilingual (and eventually shifted to Irish). Early modern English In this period (c.1500–1700) a new standard English emerged. In considering a variety of views on the topic, Fisiak (1995: 81–7) concludes that a written standard arose in the 15th century but that this had no spoken correlate. The standardization of the pronunciation of English began in the 16th century but was not completed until the 18th (Dobson, 1956; Strang, 1970: 161). The growth of a standard (written and oral) was a slow and unplanned event. English was after all – like many vernacular languages of Europe – still vying for status with French and Latin at the time. However, once the ideology of a standard (see Milroy and Milroy, 1991: 22–8) came into force, and with the increasing role of print and (much later) radio broadcasting, standard English has almost come to have a life and power of its own. Once based on spoken (regional) dialects, the ideology of standardization has overturned that relationship, presenting the standard as the primordial entity from which other dialects deviate. This centralizing ideology has important ramifications for the status of new varieties of English that developed or were developing beyond the south of England and beyond the British Isles. However, as Crystal (2004: 514–34) stresses, the technological and cultural practices of the post-modern era seem to support an opposing tendency towards decentralizing the norms of English. Modern English, exploration and colonization: the period of spread (1500– ) Within the United Kingdom, English spread further by conquest (a kind of internal colonization) into Wales, Scotland and (for a second time) Ireland. In Ireland, English became entrenched in the 17th century with new English migrations and economic control that displaced the Irish from three provinces. Initially a form of ESL, Irish English (aka Hiberno-English) gradually became a language-shift English, from the 18th century on (see Hickey, 2004). It is an important language in English studies for structural and historical reasons. It furnishes us with a clear-cut example of a language-shift English, in which a host of substrate features has survived, some to become part of an informal standard. Moreover, in the age of empire, many Irish citizens (speaking Irish and/or Hiberno-English) went abroad in search of work, forming, in many instances, a more accessible informal model of English than that of the colonial masters. The imposition of English in Wales was begun in the Norman period in the 12th century and was formalized by the Tudors in the 16th century. However, it was only in the 19th century that English really spread, with industrialization and the immigration of English speakers. English in Scotland also has a two-pronged history. By the 7th century, Northumbrian English was taken up north by the Anglo-Saxons, giving rise to Scots, an L1 variety. Scots was once a national language but, after union with England in 1707, was reduced in status to a social and regional dialect of English. There are still vigorous movements aimed C


388

Rajend Mesthrie

at recognizing and promoting it as a separate language. By contrast, English in the Scottish Highlands started off as an L2, introduced from England around the middle of the 18th century, which gradually replaced Gaelic. It was apparently more influenced by standard varieties of Scottish English, introduced through books and imported schoolteachers, than by the Scots and Scots English of the neighbouring territory (Romaine, 1982: 67). In the last 500 years, voyages of exploration have taken European languages to all corners of the earth. Political and military encounters resulted in the spread of Portuguese, Spanish, English, French and German. As far as English is concerned we might refer to this as the ‘third crossing’. US English has, of course, since undergone a substantial rise, to occupy the position of co-standard with southern British English. The reluctant admission of a co-partner in the standard stakes makes it only a slight exaggeration to conceive of this process as a ‘second decline’ (of a standard variety, southern British English). This time, unlike the ‘first decline’ (of West Saxon in the 10th century), the standard variety is not given up (in fact it continues to prosper). The decline is in its potential sovereignty over a large territory, the US. Furthermore, globalization seems to be propelling US English into a position as a potential rival to standard southern British English over other EFL territories like Japan and China. The historians’ distinction between ‘colonies of settlement’ and ‘colonies of exploitation’ is of some significance in the history of Englishes (Mufwene, 2001: 8, 204–6). The former resulted in what are sometimes called ‘transplanted varieties’ of English in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and islands like St Helena and the Falklands. Colonies of exploitation frequently started off as trading outposts with small numbers of traders who did not have the intention of long-term settlement, as in parts of Africa and Asia. In such situations, ‘fort pidgins’ frequently arose. These colonies were typically appropriated in the second half of the 19th century and expanded into exploitation colonies. It was in these colonies that the prototypical Outer Circle Englishes emerged. A related factor is whether large-scale population displacements occurred, with the dispersal or decimation of indigenous peoples and the re-peopling of colonies with multilingual slave or indentured forms of labour. In these circumstances, new (creole) languages emerged, based only partly on the colonial language. A problem with the distinction between ‘colony of settlement’ and ‘colony of exploitation’ is that it is unclear what constitutes a critical mass before a colony can be said to be ‘settled’. Moreover, as happened in some Caribbean islands, an initial European settlement could be disrupted for one reason or another and move elsewhere or back to Europe. But their linguistic legacies could remain. Finally, there were territories that were never formally colonized but had ‘protectorate’ status within the empire. Such protectorates included African countries like Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland and Egypt, and Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq. In these countries English plays a role in administration and education that is reminiscent of the colonies. As suggested earlier, there is a case for considering the English of these territories as intermediate between prototypical ESL and prototypical EFL. As far as Expanding Circle territories are concerned, it is customary to cite them as cases where the English language spread, rather than its speakers. In a globalizing world, with countries like China and those of the former Soviet Union embracing English influence and teachers from the West, we are witnessing a ‘fourth crossing’ of a post-colonial type.

C



389

CONCLUSION

In this article, I have foregrounded the multilingual background that English has enjoyed since its very inception as a language. The languages of Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians was first koinéised and indigenized in England, then taken to the ‘Dominions’, and eventually spread further into the Outer Circle. In this process English has had to perform a continual balancing act in response to what Bakhtin (1981) described as centrifugal and centripetal tendencies in language. That is, standard Englishes arise and thrive, complementary to the spoken varieties, which show opposing tendencies towards diffuseness. In the global era we are likely to witness the birth of new standards, as is happening, inter alia, in Australia, Europe and South Asia. At the same time informal Englishes continue to spread and thrive in these same contexts. As far as ‘Germanic’-speaking Europe is concerned, the ongoing spread of English to form potential Euro-Englishes (McArthur, 2003) is an interesting one. In a sense, ‘AngloSaxon’ is returning home as an L2, much changed for its initial koinéisation in England and Scotland, its long romance with Latin, Norman French and Parisian French, and after multiple crossings around the world. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank David Crystal and the two anonymous readers for the journal for their extremely helpful comments. NOTE 1. The early presence of the Jutes (inhabitants of Jutland) is now in doubt; and the invasions may have included Franks and Frisians (Fisiak, 1995: 38).

REFERENCES Bailey, Charles J. N. and Maroldt, Karl (1977) The French lineage of English. In Langues en Contact – Pidgins – Creoles – Languages in Contact. Edited by Jurgen M. Meisel. Tübingen: TBL Verlag, pp. 21–53. Baker, Philip (2000) Theories of creolization and degree and nature of restructuring. In Degrees of Restructuring in Creole Languages. Edited by Ingrid Neumann-Holzschuh and Edgar W. Schneider. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 41–63. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981) The Dialogic Imagination (translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, edited by Michael Holquist). Austin: University of Texas Press. Baskaran, Loga (1994) The Malaysian English mosaic. English Today, 37, 27–32. Baugh, Albert C. and Cable, Thomas (1993) A History of the English Language. 2nd edition. Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall (1st edition 1978). Crystal, David (2004) The Stories of English. New York: Overlook Press. de Camp, David (1971) Toward a generative analysis of a post-creole speech continuum. In Pidginization and Creolization of Languages. Edited by Dell Hymes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 349–370. Dobson, Eric J. (1956) English Pronunciation 1500–1700 (2 vols.). Oxford: Clarendon. Domingue, Nicole Z. (1975) Another creole: Middle English. Paper presented at the 1975 International Conference on Pidgins and Creoles, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. Fishman, Joshua (1991) Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Fisiak, Jacek (1995) An Outline History of English. Vol 1: External History. Poznan: Kantor Wydawniczy Saww. Görlach, Manfred (1994) Broken English from Old Calabar. English World Wide, 15, 249–52. Graddol, David, Leith, Dick and Swann, Joan (1996) English: History, Diversity and Change. London: Routledge. Halliday, Michael A. K. (1978) Language as a Social Semiotic. London: Arnold. Hancock, Ian and Agogo, Rachel (1982) English in East Africa. In English as a World Language. Edited by Richard Bailey and Manfred Görlach. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 306–23. C


390

Rajend Mesthrie

Hickey, Raymond (2004) Development and diffusion of Irish English. In Legacies of Colonial English: Studies in Transported Dialects. Edited by Raymond Hickey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 82–120. Hogg, Richard (ed.) (1992–1999) The Cambridge History of the English Language (2 vols.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kachru, Braj B. (1983) Models for non-native Englishes. In The Other Tongue – English across Cultures. Edited by Braj B. Kachru. Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 31–57. Kachru, Braj B. (1988) The sacred cows of English. English Today, 4(4), 3–8. Lambert, Wallace E. (1978) Some cognitive and sociocultural consequences of being bilingual. In Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Edited by James E. Alatis. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 214–29. Lass, Roger (ed.) (1999) Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 3: 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leith, Dick (1983) A Social History of English. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Le Page, Robert and Tabouret-Keller, Andrée (1985) Acts of Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McArthur, Tom (2003) World English, Euro-English, Nordic English. English Today, 19(1), 54–8. Mesthrie, Rajend (1992) English in Language Shift: The History, Structure and Sociolinguistics of South African Indian English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Milroy, Lesley and Milroy, James (1991) Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescription and Standardization. 2nd edition. London: Routledge. Mufwene, Salikoko (2001) The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Phillipson, Robert (1992) Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Platt, John T., Weber, Heidi and Ho, Mian L. (1984) The New Englishes. London: Routledge. Romaine, Suzanne (1982) English in Scotland. In English as a World Language. Edited by Richard Bailey and Manfred Görlach. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 56–83. Schneider, Edgar W. (2003) The dynamics of New Englishes: From identity construction to dialect birth. Language, 79(2), 233–81. Siegel, Jeff (1985) Koines and koineization. Language in Society, 14, 357–78. Singh, Rajendra (ed.) (1998) The Native Speaker: Multilingual Perspectives. New Delhi: Sage. Strang, Barbara (1970) A History of English. London: Methuen. Thomason, Sarah G. and Kaufman, Thomas (1988) Language Contact, Creolization and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Trudgill, Peter and Watts, Richard (2002) The History of English: Alternative Perspectives. London: Routledge. Wyld, Henry C. (1914) A Short History of English. London: John Murray. (Received 19 October 2005.)

C
