The nature of indigenized Englishes: Interference — Creativity — Universals

Abstract

The concept of indigenized or “New” Englishes is first examined and a comparison is made with pidgins and creoles. Brief mention is also made of differences in the functional range of indigenized varieties of English in various countries. Because these varieties exhibit differences from “native” varieties in syntax, semantics, lexicon and phonology, they have naturally been considered as products of L1 interference. In many respects this is so. For example, the basilectal English of some members of the majority of the Chinese community of Singapore is often typologically closer to Chinese than to English. There have been some objections that these “New” varieties are not merely fossilized interlanguages but display creativity. The evidence provided is usually of a lexical nature. Many of these varieties do display interesting creativity but it is often difficult to determine whether innovations are genuinely creative or the result of mishearing, calques from local languages, official terms or relics from the colonial past. In any case, creativity cannot explain phonological and syntactic differences. Recently, it has been found that some, if not all, indigenized varieties of English also show evidence of language universals, not merely universal learning strategies but universals of a deeper semantic type. The evidence presented does not necessarily support Bickerton's “bioprogram” nor his claims about the development of creoles (Bickerton 1981 : Roots of Language, Ann Arbor: Karoma). However, the data on past tense marking in Singaporean English cannot easily be explained by L1 interference, universal learning strategies or by creativity. Research on “New Englishes” requires a complex paradigm combining different viewpoints, comparison across varieties and joint projects by speakers of “native” and indigenized varieties.