Sacred Cows of English

You might also like

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3

SACRED COWS OF ENGLISH

The fact that English becomes a global language has challenged the way linguistics

perceive the uses and users of English (Bhatt, 2001, p.538)

Furthermore, the long-term study of world Englishes from non-Western perspectives

had exposed five types of traditional ideas of English, as known as Sacred cows (Bhatt, 2001,

p.538). There are the acquisitional, sociolinguistic, pedagogical, theoretical, and ideological

Sacred cows (Bhatt, 2001, p.538).

Acquisitional Sacred cow refers to the incompetent use of English in outer-circle

countries (Bhatt, 2001, p.539). As in the case of Indian English, speakers do not differ the use

of tag questions, which is a part of their cultural grammar rather than an error in the language

acquisition (Bhatt, 2001, p.539).

Another problem is that traditional linguistic understanding does not perceive the

structure of the interlanguage as its own but view it from the systematic scope of the target

language (Bhatt, 2001, p.539). This false comparison caused consequences to the fossilisation

theory (Bhatt, 2001, p.539). However, there would be no discussion of this theory without

mentioning the target language's structure and native speakers (Bhatt, 2001, p.539). This

idealisation confirms that only native speakers can achieve the competent use of the target

language (Bhatt, 2001, p.539).

Theoretical Sacred cow involves the perceptions of the speech community, the native

speaker, and the ideal speaker-hearer (Bhatt, 2001, p.539). Traditional linguistics believe that

second language acquisition takes place in a native-speaking environment (Bhatt, 2001,

p.539). However, most of the case happens in non-native contexts (Bhatt, 2001, p.539). This

idealisation also states that only the homogenous speech community that includes the ideal

speaker-hearer can own the model of a specific language (Bhatt, 2001, p.539).
As a result, this framework of the mother-tongue acquisition generates “linguistic

communism”, which is an impractical idea indicating the equality of all languages. This

idealisation entitles the language of power by excluding other cultures and languages (Bhatt,

2001, p.539). The difference appears to clarify the inner-circle variety despite its probable

unreality.

As in Pedagogical Sacred cow, a two-decade study states that world Englishes are

distinctive for their own localised varieties (Bhatt, 2001, p.540). However, the pedagogical

paradigm excludes this reality and employ the norm in inner-circle contexts for the English

language teaching (Bhatt, 2001, p.540). Bhatt hopes that the study of the fundamental features

in the classroom would contribute to more suitable ESL pedagogical approaches (Bhatt, 2001,

p.540).

In terms of Sociolinguistic Sacred cow, the "pluricentricity" of English is the multiple

localised versions of English as the contract-based languages nationally and regionally (Bhatt,

2001, p.540). As a crucial result, the "pluricentricity" of English explains the canon of

traditional English and forms that of modern English with their cultural, literacy and linguistic

identities (Bhatt, 2001, p.540).

Ideological Sacred cow concerns with the teaching of English that promotes the

standard English and this idealisation competes with the localised varieties for domination

(Bhatt, 2001, p.540-541). As a part of the promotion, the institutional agency persuades the

public to believe the adoption of standard English will benefit them significantly, such as

increased life quality (Bhatt, 2001, p.541). The English language teaching in outer-circle

contexts continues to employ this strategy to maintain and evolve the ideology and status of

standard English (Bhatt, 2001, p.541). However, the ideological landscape is changing as the

localised varieties are fighting for the functional domains over the standard English (Bhatt,

2001, p.541).
Reference

Bhatt, R. M. (2001). World Englishes. Annual review of anthropology, 30(1), 527-550.

You might also like