Plus

Books

"What for English?"
A smart'un in Grade 07 asked me once, when I was an English teacher a long time ago, "Sir, panthiye 'kie-veniyada' kiyala Ingreesiyen ahanne kohomada ?" This I guess, has still not been sorted out even within Postcolonial Sri Lankan English. The closest one could get to, is to ask "what's your position (thathvaya) in the class ?" That, in Sinhala, was not the exact 'pointer' in the question.

This little episode came to mind when I was reading Manique Gunasekera's painstaking contribution in understanding the "English we live with", under the title "The Postcolonial Identity of Sri Lankan English". Apart from establishing that there is a home grown form of English in Sri Lanka that should be recognised as Sri Lankan English, just as much as "Indian, Singaporean and also African American Vernacular" English is recognised, Manique has definitely opened up a very serious discussion that was long neglected in our society.
This discussion I believe, should have been the basis for any decision on English teaching in schools. Unfortunately, a decision had been taken by the Ministry of Education in 2002, to introduce English language as the medium of instruction and learning for G.C.E. A/L exams and where possible, in other grades too.

This discussion I would leave open, in concluding this review.Manique has set aside about half her book to explain and provide ample examples on Sri Lankan English 'syntax' and 'morphology'. She very rightly assumes that in our society, there is a difference between the English that is 'spoken' and the one that is 'written'. And also, the written English is more closer to the Standard British English (SBE). Or else, the effort in written English is to keep as close to SBE, as possible. She suggests that in teaching, it is the SBE that's kept as 'the' model.

That I think is because, in schools, teaching is wholly based on the written language. Oral practice in these English classes is also based on written sentences. There is no "opportunity creation" in teaching, for pupils to try out what they have learnt, free from pre-designed structures proposed by the teacher. And the quality of the English teacher too adds on.
Again, although Manique has not paid much attention to all those "English scholars" who run "academies" in most road kerbs, they would also claim if asked, they teach the most "perfect" British English. While there is this very natural growth of a "native" or Sri Lankan English in the domain of speech, the social status is accepted as that which is based on SBE, focused more on pronunciation.

Therefore, while in the semi-conscious society, English like any other living language grows on its own within a subordinate and expanding social culture, the conscious elite society is still making an effort to stay with the 'tested and proved' English that provided social mobility, social respect and status. It seems, most have forgotten that this British English they want to adhere to for social status, has also undergone much evolution or change in their own mother society.

Meanwhile over the past decade and a half, IT, is a totally new phenomenon that's influencing the direction of growth of the English language. Use of computers and mobile phones is making a stunning impact in kicking off a new variation in English. The new generation that grows within these IT facilities, watches American TV entertainment, plays TV games and listens to FM (channel) English, would be wholly influenced with this new English, which is neither SBE, nor Native Sri Lankan English. Manique should have paid some attention to this aspect in English language growth in our semi and urban society. And this is one area, unlike in the past, where the not so elite also has laid their claim to, by now.

But as Manique has identified, within these differences and extensions, there is also a classist nature in the use of English language. Those fluent and using 'closer to British English' feel superior and more secure in society than others who may also speak English, but, not "good" English or speak "sinhalised" English. Manique has tried to trace each category's class roots and assumes that "as long as it remains a language learned at home" (Chapter - Sri Lankan English / no.9 Conclusions ; p/44) that English would remain the language of the elite. Which also implies that English learned at school is not the English of the elite. Conversely, those who cannot claim English as their language of day to day life, their first language at home, would not have access to the elite world. So, Manique says, "the link between English and identity is strong and political".

Here, I would beg to disagree with Manique. Today elitism is not that simple and straightforward. It would be too far off for the traditionally secluded, conservative elite who frequent the Barefoot, Paradise Road and the British Council to claim that home grown Sri Lankan English is theirs and is cradled in their homes as the first language. Social mobility through other economic and socio-cultural paths has led to a semi urban and rural middle class too, who were never the urban elite, to drive into the domain of Sri Lankan English in Pajeros and Prados through International Schools affording London O/L and A/L exams for their children.

This new social milieu that has taken over city life and influences the middle class culture in turn, needs to be considered for they have added a considerable number or more of the morphemes than the elite, to make Sri Lankan English truly home grown. "Eating drinking people, Machan, Maara talk, that kukula, leda case, sili sili (more often) bag, kota uda" etc are all that have found their way from the lower strata of society and not necessarily because the elite had to communicate with "ayahs and ayammas" or "dhobis and thottekarans".

Another disagreement I have with Manique is her favour for switching to English as the medium of education. This has not been argued straight and clear. Nevertheless, the first two chapters have been devoted to argue the importance of English and a lapse of development without English, implying that we Sri Lankans are where we are, embattled in a prolonged ethnic war, as we dropped English out of its cherished position.

This would need a long discourse, but let me add quickly that no nation or society has ever achieved great development in modern human history through a second or borrowed language. The Germans and the Japanese are two good models for that, having stood on their own after the devastation they faced with WW II and then in the late 60s and after, the South Koreans. So let me note very clearly that ethnic conflict is not about dropping English, but about not accommodating Tamil on par with Sinhala. The ethnic conflict is not only about Sinhala being made the official language, but also about the right of the Tamil people to share power and participate in decision making with all others, as equals.

This brings about other issues like distribution of social capital and wealth for rural development, equitable improvement of infrastructure, availability of equal opportunities and more.

Therefore, I would raise the question, "is it nationally important and worthwhile for Sri Lanka to waste billions of rupees to teach English in schools from lower grades? Is it not enough to have English as a library language at specialised levels to access and acquire new knowledge, concepts, information without delay and have a system to transfer that knowledge, concepts and information accurately and in detail to the education system and other technical bodies in the vernacular?" Development is not mere transfer of knowledge and technology for consumption. Development is acquiring new knowledge and technology in a form they could be assimilated into our own culture, to create new knowledge and new technology.

Knowledge of English for the Sri Lankan society should be nothing but a tool for such authentic development. And for that, we don't have to waste time, energy and resources to make every single future citizen a "Native Sri Lankan English Speaker". Thus my disagreement with Manique on her implied necessity of English. Nevertheless it was interesting reading her contribution under that title and it is important that the book gets adequate fora for discussion.

Back to Plus