Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of World Englishes
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of World Englishes
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Maps
- Tables
- Notes on Contributors
- 1 World Englishes: An Introduction
- Part I The Making of Englishes
- 2 The Colonial and Postcolonial Expansion of English
- 3 Theoretical Models of English as a World Language
- 4 The Contribution of Language Contact to the Emergence of World Englishes
- 5 Population Structure and the Emergence of World Englishes
- 6 World Englishes, Migration, and Diaspora
- Part II World Englishes Old and New
- Part III Linguistics and World Englishes
- Part IV Current Challenges
- Index
- References
4 - The Contribution of Language Contact to the Emergence of World Englishes
from Part I - The Making of Englishes
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 December 2019
By
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of World Englishes
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of World Englishes
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Maps
- Tables
- Notes on Contributors
- 1 World Englishes: An Introduction
- Part I The Making of Englishes
- 2 The Colonial and Postcolonial Expansion of English
- 3 Theoretical Models of English as a World Language
- 4 The Contribution of Language Contact to the Emergence of World Englishes
- 5 Population Structure and the Emergence of World Englishes
- 6 World Englishes, Migration, and Diaspora
- Part II World Englishes Old and New
- Part III Linguistics and World Englishes
- Part IV Current Challenges
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter outlines the evolution of Englishes outside of the British Isles, with particular attention to exploitation colonies. It looks at contact between the English-speaking and indigenous language communities during Britain’s trade and colonization ventures from the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries but also highlights circumstances predating British colonization often overlooked in the field, comprising a larger group of players, in a chain of contact, such as that among various Asian communities, and with the Portuguese. Features such as tone, particles, and mixed codes are discussed; although traditionally regarded as the outcome of imperfect learning, such restructuring illustrates how, with diverse ecologies and typologies, there are no constraints on the typology of the emergent World Englishes (WEs) varieties. Also underscored is the fact that the dynamics and outcomes of contact in WEs are not distinct from those observed in scenarios in which creole languages evolve. The chapter concludes by evaluating the current and future evolution of English from contemporary contact ecologies, including computer-mediated communication, the language teaching industry, and trade.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of World Englishes , pp. 72 - 98Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Annamalai, E. 2001. Managing Multilingualism in India: Political and Linguistic Manifestations. New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
Ansaldo, Umberto. 2009. Contact Languages: Ecology and Evolution in Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Colin. 2011. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (5th ed.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Baskaran, Loga. 1994. The Malaysian English mosaic. English Today 37(10): 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baskaran, Loga. 2008. Malaysian English: Phonology. In Mesthrie, Rajend, ed. Varieties of English, Vol. 4: Africa, South and Southeast Asia. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 278–291.Google Scholar
Bautista, M. Lourdes, S. and Gonzalez, Andrew B.. 2009. Southeast Asian Englishes. In Kachru, Braj B., Kachru, Yamuna and Nelson, Cecil L, eds. Handbook of World Englishes. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 130–144.Google Scholar
Blench, Roger. 2006. Archaeology, Language, and the African Past. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
Blommaert, Jan. 2010. The Sociolinguistics of Globalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, David. 1986. The English language and Singapore: A critical survey. In Kapur, Basant K., ed. Singapore Studies. Singapore: Singapore University Press, 337−458.Google Scholar
Bolton, Kingsley. 2003. Chinese Englishes: A Sociolinguistic History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bodomo, Adam. 2010. The African trading community in Guangzhou: An emerging bridge for Africa–China relations. China Quarterly 203: 693–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canagarajah, A. Suresh. 1995. The political-economy of code choice in a revolutionary society: Tamil/English bilingualism in Jaffna. Language in Society 24(2): 187–212.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, A. Suresh. 2006. The place of World Englishes in composition: Pluralization continued. College Composition and Communication 57: 586–619.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, A. Suresh. 2009. The plurilingual tradition and the English language in South Asia. In Lim, Lisa and Low, Ee-Ling, eds. Multilingual, Globalising Asia: Implications for Policy and Education, AILA Review 22: 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canagarajah, Suresh. 2013. Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Creese, Angela and Blackledge, Adrian. 2010. Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching. Modern Language Journal 94: 103–115.Google Scholar
Cummins, Jim. 2008. Teaching for transfer: Challenging the two solitudes assumption in bilingual education. In Cummins, Jim and Hornberger, Nancy, eds. Encyclopaedia of Language and Education (2nd ed). New York: Springer, 65–76.Google Scholar
Filppula, Markku. 2008. The Celtic hypothesis hasn’t gone away: New perspectives on old debates. In Dossena, Marina, Dury, Richard and Gotti, Maurizio, eds. English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 153–170.Google Scholar
García, Ofelia. 2009. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
García, Ofelia and Wei, Li. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzales, Wilkinson Wong, Daniel. 2017. Language contact in the Philippines: The history and ecology from a Chinese Filipino perspective. Language Ecology 1(2): 185–212.Google Scholar
Good, Jeff. 2004a. Tone and accent in Saramaccan: Charting a deep split in the phonology of a language. Lingua 114: 575–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Good, Jeff. 2004b. Split prosody and creole simplicity: The case of Saramaccan. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 3: 11–30.Google Scholar
Good, Jeff. 2006. The phonetics of tone in Saramaccan. In Deumert, Ana and Durrleman, Stephanie, eds. Structure and Variation in Language Contact. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 9–28.Google Scholar
Gupta, Anthea Fraser. 1992. The pragmatic particles of Singapore Colloquial English. Journal of Pragmatics 18: 31−57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, Anthea Fraser. 1994. The Step-Tongue: Children’s English in Singapore. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Gut, Ulrike. 2005. Nigerian English prosody. English World-Wide 26(2): 153−177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 2005. Englishes in Asia and Africa: Origins and structure. In Hickey, Raymond, ed. Legacies of Colonial English: Studies in Transported Dialects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 503–535.Google Scholar
Holm, John. 1988. Pidgins and Creoles, Vol. 1: Theory and Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horner, Bruce, Min-Zhan, Lu, Jones Royster, Jacqueline and Trimbur, John. 2011. Language difference in writing: Toward a translingual approach. Faculty Scholarship, Paper No. 67. http://ir.library.louisville.edu/faculty/67Google Scholar
Huber, Magnus. 1999. Ghanaian Pidgin English in Its West African Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
James, Gregory. 2001. Cantonese particles in Hong Kong students’ emails. English Today 17(3): 9–16.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, J. N. 2008. Polylingual languaging around and among children and adolescents. International Journal of Multilingualism 5(3): 161–176.Google Scholar
Kachru, Braj B., ed. 1992. The Other Tongues: English across Cultures (2nd ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Kachru, Braj B. 1994. English in South Asia. In Burchfield, Robert, ed. The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. 5: English in Britain and Overseas: Origins and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 497–553.Google Scholar
Kachru, Yamuna and Nelson, Cecil L.. 2006. World Englishes in Asian Contexts: Asian Englishes Today. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
Kouwenberg, Silvia. 2004. The grammatical function of Papiamentu tone. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 3: 55–69.Google Scholar
Lange, Claudia. 2009. Discourse particles in Indian English. In Hoffmann, Thomas and Siebers, Lucia, eds. World Englishes: Problems, Properties, Prospects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Jerry Won and Jenks, Christopher. 2016, Doing translingual dispositions. College Composition and Communication 68(2): 317–344.Google Scholar
Ler, Vivien Soon Lay. 2006. A relevance-theoretic approach to discourse particles in Singapore English. In Fischer, Kerstin, ed. Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Li, Wei. 1998. The “why” and “how” questions in the analysis of conversational code-switching. In Auer, Peter, ed. Code-Switching in Conversation: Language, Interaction and Identity. London: Routledge, 156–179.Google Scholar
Lim, JooHyuk and Borlongan, Ariane M.. 2011. Tagalog particles in Philippine English: The cases of ba, na, no, and pa. Philippine Journal of Linguistics 42: 59–74.Google Scholar
Lim, Lisa. 2004. Sounding Singaporean. In Lim, Lisa, ed. Singapore English: A Grammatical Description (Varieties of English Around the World G33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 19–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, Lisa. 2007. Mergers and acquisitions: On the ages and origins of Singapore English particles. World Englishes 27(4): 446–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, Lisa. 2008. Dynamic multilingual ecologies of Asian Englishes. Asian Englishes 11(1): 52–55.Google Scholar
Lim, Lisa. 2009a. Revisiting English prosody: (Some) New Englishes as tone languages? The typology of Asian Englishes, Special Issue. English World-Wide 30(2): 218–239.Google Scholar
Lim, Lisa. 2009b. Beyond fear and loathing in SG: The real mother tongues and language policies in multilingual Singapore. In Lim, Lisa and Low, Ee-Ling, eds. Multilingual, Globalising Asia: Implications for Policy and Education, AILA Review 22: 52–71.Google Scholar
Lim, Lisa. 2010a. Migrants and “mother tongues”: Extralinguistic forces in the ecology of English in Singapore. In Lim, Lisa, Pakir, Anne, and Wee, Lionel, eds. English in Singapore: Modernity and Management (Asian Englishes Today) Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 19–54.Google Scholar
Lim, Lisa. 2010b. Peranakan English in Singapore. In Schreier, Daniel, Trudgill, Peter, Schneider, Edgar W., and Williams, Jeffrey P., eds. The Lesser-Known Varieties of English: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 327–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, Lisa. 2011. Revisiting English prosody: (Some) New Englishes as tone languages? In Lim, Lisa and Gisborne, Nikolas, eds., The Typology of Asian Englishes, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 97–118.Google Scholar
Lim, Lisa. 2015. Catalysts for change: On the evolution of contact varieties in the multilingual knowledge economy. Unpublished manuscript. The University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Lim, Lisa. 2017a. Money minded. Language Matters. Post Magazine, South China Morning Post. March 19. (Online version: Where the word “shroff” came from, and its many meanings. Post Magazine, 17 March. www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/short-reads/article/2079497/where-word-shroff-came-and-its-many-meanings)Google Scholar
Lim, Lisa. 2017b. Boiling point. Language Matters. Post Magazine, South China Morning Post. November 1. (Online version: Where the word congee comes from – the answer may surprise you, Post Magazine, November 10. www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/article/2119163/where-word-congee-comes-answer-may-surprise-you)Google Scholar
Lim, Lisa and Ansaldo, Umberto. 2012. Contact in the Asian arena. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, eds. The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. New York: Oxford University Press, 560–571.Google Scholar
Lim, Lisa and Ansaldo, Umberto. 2016. Languages in Contact. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lim, Lisa and Foley, Joseph A. 2004. English in Singapore and Singapore English: Background and methodology. In Lim, Lisa, ed. Singapore English: A Grammatical Description (Varieties of English Around the World G33.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–18.Google Scholar
Lim, Lisa and Gisborne, Nikolas. 2009. The typology of Asian Englishes: Setting the agenda (The Typology of Asian Englishes, Special Issue). English World-Wide 30(2): 123–132.Google Scholar
Lim, Lisa, Pakir, Anne and Wee, Lionel. 2010. English in Singapore: Policy and prospects. In Lim, Lisa, Pakir, Anne and Wee, Lionel, eds. English in Singapore: Modernity and Management. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 3–18.Google Scholar
Lin, Angel M.Y. 2005. New youth digital literacies and mobile connectivity: Text messaging among Hong Kong college students. Fibreculture, Issue 6. http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue6/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Liu, Yucong. 2013. Marketplace communication between Africans and Chinese in Guangzhou: An emerging pidgin? Unpublished master’s dissertation, University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 2000. How predictable is contact-induced change in grammar? Renfrew, In Colin, McMahon, April and Trask, Larry, eds. Time Depth in Historical Linguistics, Vol. 2. Oxford: MacDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 563−583.Google Scholar
McFarland, Curtis D. 2008. Linguistic diversity and English in the Philippines. In Maria Lourdes, S. Bautista and Bolton, Kingsley, eds. Philippine English: Linguistic and Literary Perspectives. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 131–155.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, Rajend and Bhatt, Rakesh M.. 2008. World Englishes: The Study of New Linguistic Varieties. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Onysko, Alexander. 2016. Language contact and World Englishes. World Englishes 35(2): 191–195.Google Scholar
Otsuji, Emi and Pennycook, Alastair. 2010. Metrolingualism: Fixity, fluidity and language in flux. International Journal of Multilingualism 7(3): 240–254.Google Scholar
Pennycook, Alastair. 2010. Popular cultures, popular languages, and global identities. In Coupland, Nikolas, ed. Handbook of Language and Globalisation. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 592–607.Google Scholar
Pennycook, Alastair and Otsuji, Emi. 2015. Metrolingualism: Language in the City. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Platt, John. 1987. Communicative functions of particles in Singapore English. In Steele, Ross and Threadgold, Terry, ed. Language Topics: Essays in Honour of Michael Halliday, Vol.1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 391−401.Google Scholar
Platt, John and Weber, Heidi. 1980. English in Singapore and Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Remijsen, Bert and Vincent, van Heuven. 2005. Stress, tone and discourse prominence in Curacao Papiamentu. Unpublished manuscript. Leiden University.Google Scholar
Rivera-Castillo, Yolanda and Pickering, Lucy. 2004. Phonetic correlates of stress and tone in a mixed system. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 19: 261–284.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar. 2007. Postcolonial Englishes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar. 2013. English as a contact language: The “New Englishes.” In Schreier, Daniel and Hundt, Marianne, eds. English as a Contact Language. Cambridge University Press, 131–148.Google Scholar
Schreier, Daniel and Hundt, Marianne, eds. 2013. English as a Contact Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schreier, Daniel, Trudgill, Peter, Schneider, Edgar W. and Williams, Jeffrey P., eds. 2010. The Lesser Known Varieties of English: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sultana, Shaila, Dovchin, Sender and Pennycook, Alastair. 2015. Transglossic language practices of young adults in Bangladesh and Mongolia. International Journal of Multilingualism 12(1): 93–108.Google Scholar
Tordesillas, Ellen. 2013. Gazmin makes the Philippines look pathetic. Yahoo! News Philippines, July 1. http://ph.news.yahoo.com/blogs/the-inbox/gazmin-makes-philippines-look-pathetic-163745294.htmlGoogle Scholar
Venneman, Theo. 2011. English as a contact language: Typology and comparison. Anglia 129(3–4): 217–257.Google Scholar
Wee, Lian-hee. 2008. More or less English? Two phonological patterns in the Englishes of Singapore and Hong Kong. World Englishes 27: 480–501.Google Scholar
Wong, Y.T. 2009. The linguistic function of Cantonese discourse particles in the English medium online chat of Cantonese speakers. Unpublished master’s dissertation, University of Wollongong.Google Scholar
Young, Vershawn. 2004. Your average Nigga. College Composition and Communication 55: 693–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2
- Cited by