Title: Deliberation on Schneider’s Dynamic Model: A Study of Indian English.

Author Note: Kandharaja K M C is a Ph.D. researcher at the University of Hyderabad,

Hyderabad.

1. Introduction

Schneider’s (2003 & 2007) dynamic model has redefined our perspectives of looking at new
varieties of Englishes in postcolonial countries and countries around the globe. The five
phases of dynamic model include foundation, exonormative stabilization, nativization,
endonormative stabilization, and differentiation. These five phases show how speech
communities in a country undergo these five stages to develop a new variety of English. Each
phase is heavily influenced by the local politics, economic factors and education system of
the time. The key components of Schnieder’s (2003 & 2007) model are language contact
situations and identity construction. The language contact situations vary from country to
country and the identity construction is achieved through mutual accommodation and
resistance by the indigenous population and immigrant population.

In this paper, the political, economic and educational factors that influence the development
of Indian English will be discussed. This paper will also review the debate of current position
of Indian English. Schneider (2003 & 2007) places Indian English in the beginning stage of
endonormative phase and Mukherjee (2007 & 2010) places Indian English in the final phase
of endonormative phase. Mukherjee points out that transition from endonormative phase to
differential phase is a complex and contradictory process in postcolonial countries. The
contradiction in placing Indian English in the endonormative phase of the dynamic model is
because Schneider (2003 & 2007) and Mukherjee (2007 & 2010) have given prominence to
different historical and political events in Indian history. This paper believes that there are
multiple unexplored historical, political and economic factors that can explain this
contradiction. This paper attempts to explore the other historical, political and economic
reasons that can explain the dichotomous position of Indian English in the dynamic model.

2. British India

2.1. Foundation
India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh share a common history till the year 1947. The spread of
English starts with the arrival of East India Company and the spread of the language also
coincides with the spread of East India Company throughout India at different phases
(Gargesh & Sailaja, 2014). In the foundation phase (1600-1757), English was widely used for
military and business transactions. The rapid raise of East India Company further fostered the
spread of English. The other important agencies which helped the spread of English are the
missionaries and their religious activities. Missionaries started English medium schools as
early as 1698 but the relationship between the East India Company and the missionaries were
oscillatory in nature (Gargesh & Sailaja, 2014). Eventually, East India Company established
three presidencies in Bengal, Bombay, and Madras (Nelson & Kachru, 2006).

In the foundation stage, the spread of English was (Kachru & Nelson, 2006) not uniform
throughout the country and a larger section of the country never came in contact with the
English language. The people who came to India were mostly uneducated labour class
Englishmen. Only a few sections of the indigenous population had business transactions with
the immigrants and the others did not have any contact with the immigrants. The contact
zones in the phase were very limited and they were utilitarian in nature. Both the groups
maintained their identities intact so the identity construction did not take place at this stage.
One notable point was that bilingualism started gaining roots among the indigenous
population because they desired to do business transactions with the settlers.

2.2. Exonormative stabilization

Schneider (2003 & 2007) considers the battle of Plassey (1757) as the beginning of next
phase. During this phase East India Company started gaining more and more territories; this
also indicates the beginning of their political dominance. The other significant event that took
place during this age was the establishment of Governor Generalship in India by the British
government in the year 1773 followed by the Indian act of 1784 which enabled the British
crown to take joint responsibility with East India Company (Nelson & Kachru, 2006). This
was the act which set the phase for the institutionalization of English in spheres like the law,
education, and governance. Between the years 1784 to 1857 many significant events took
place: Charles Grants’ initiatives to garner support for western education in India, charter
renewal in 1813, Macaulay’s minutes 1853 and Wood’s dispatch 1854. All these incidents
strengthened the institutional presence of English in Indian schools and higher education
institutes. During this period, the first language debate in education started and it is popularly
called the Anglicist-Orientalist divide (Gargesh & Sailaja, 2014). In 1857, Indian sepoy
mutiny had started and it is also popularly called the first war of Indian Independence. After
Indian sepoy mutiny, British crown took direct control over the country and dissolved the
East India Company. During this period, the British brought most part of the Indian sub-
continent under their control through different treaties and annexations.

In this phase, English has occupied a predominant position in most of the institutional
domains. During this phase, Indian schools started teaching English as a second language.
Universities were started in Calcutta, Bombay and Madras with English as the medium of
instruction. From then English started gaining strong roots in Indian society through most of
the public spheres like education, administration, judiciary, and media. In the exonormative
stabilization phase, the presence of English got strengthened and these developments also
indirectly accelerated the quest for Indian Independence. Introduction to English education
created a new generation of leaders who were educated in the western education system and
led the fight for Indian Independence and social struggles in different parts of the country.

In this phase, a number of permanent residents of Britain came to settle in India. In India, the
upper class and the upper middle class started embracing English. During this stage, English
knowledge was essential for social mobility because most of the competitive exams
demanded high proficiency in English (Mukherjee, 2009). During this phase, the contact
between English and the Indigenous languages increased and bilingualism spread rapidly.
Indigenous people started code-mixing and code-switching in their conversation. This period
was marked with heavy lexical borrowing from Indian languages into English, mostly the
indigenous flora and fauna (Kachru, 1983). This phase saw some phraseological and
grammatical innovations and phonological changes in IDG (indigenous) strand. For example,
‘England-returned’ and ‘blessings message’ are used in IDG strand and monophthongization
of diphthongs such as /eI/ and /U/ happened in IDG strand (Mukherjee, 2007). It can be
interpreted that educated Indian variety started picking up its pace. In Schneider’s dynamic
model (2003 & 2007) exonormative stabilization for Indian English is extended till 1905 but
Mukherjee’s (2007) model believes that India English’s exonormative stabilization period
ends by 1835. Using different historical events to mark the beginning of nativization phase
results in the difference between these models. Mukherjee (2007) believes that India entered
nativization phase with the implementation of Macaulay’s minutes in 1835.
3. India
3.1. Nativization

Nativization is an important phase for any variety because it decides the future of any variety
of English. In this stage, both STL and IDG strands construct a new identity and get more
intertwined leading to the formation of a new local identity. During this phase, the Indian
independence movements were going on in a full swing. In the early twentieth century, the
debate of national language surfaced the Indian political scene. Indian National Congress was
the political party which spearheaded the Indian independence movement. Its members had
divided opinions about retaining the English language after Independence. Liberal leaders
like Nehru felt the need for retaining the English language after Independence. Nehru’s
intention to retain English was evident in his decisions. On 13th September 1949, the
constitution assembly debated national language and arrived at a temporary solution to the
problem by allowing English to continue as the additional official language for next fifteen
years from 1950. Anticipating the deadline, the debate of national language began again in
1963, which was temporarily put off only when the prime minister, Nehru, gave his personal
reassurance that there would be imposition of Hindi on non-Hindi states. But after his death
in 1964, the debate flared up again. G.L.Nanda was sworn in as the transition prime minister
for less than three weeks. While congress was busy in finding a replacement for Nehru, G.L.
Nanda, a vehement Hindi supporter, brought back the issue of making Hindi as the only
national language. This gave rise to a series of anti-Hindi agitations in the southern states and
riots in Tamil Nadu. During that time Congress party which had a huge majority in the
Parliament was completely divided on this issue. Congress leaders from the non-Hindi
speaking states: P.C Ghosh (West Bengal), S. Nijalingappa (Karnataka), Neelam Sanjiva
Reddy (Andhra Pradesh) and K.Kamaraj (Tamil Nadu) formed a formidable group within
congress. The leaders from Hindi speaking states grouped under the leadership of Morarji
Desai. To end the dispute in the party and to stop the unrest in the southern states then Prime
Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri promised that Hindi will not be forced on non-Hindi speaking
states (Brass, 1994). Formally, Official Languages Act was passed in the year 1967. This was
a significant act in the post-independence India which made English as an additional official
language for all purposes of the union. This Act further consolidates the position of English
Language in India. In this case, English is used as the tool by the Union of India to strengthen
the federal structure of Indian governance and to keep all the Indian states under its
sovereignty. English is the only linguistic tool available for the Union Government to keep
the country united till date.
3.1.1. Structural nativization of Indian English

During nativization phase varieties start developing new phonological, grammatical and
lexical features different from the native varieties. These structural innovations are very
important for the growth of the variety. The structural nativization takes place at the level of
phonology, grammar, lexicon, and syntax. In this section, the most significant structural
changes found in literature pertaining to Indian English at the level of phonology and lexis
are reported.

3.1.1.1. Phonology

The common phonological patterns found in Indian variety of English are:

1) The retroflex stop consonants ([t]) and ([d]) are used instead of the alveolar consonants
/t/, /d/ of inner-circle varieties.
2) Voiceless plosives /p/, /t/, and /k/ are not aspirated in the initial position.
3) The distinction between clear and dark / ɭ / is not distinct.
4) The distinction between /v/ and /w/ are not clearly pronounced (Kachru, 1983)
5) The fricative / θ / and / ð / are pronouned with aspirated voiceless alveolar plosive /th/
and /d / (Gargesh & Sailaja, 2014).
6) Consonant clusters sp-st- and sk- are not articulated properly in the word-initial position,
an epithetic frond high short vowel /i/ occurs at the beginning of the word (Gargesh &
Sailaja, 2014)
7) Simplification of the word-final clusters by dropping the final consonant in words.

3.1.1.2. Lexis

Loan words are the most common phenomenon in Indian English and there are three types of
loan words. In the first type, individual words are borrowed from the local languages into
English. In the second type, English words undergo a meaning change and they acquire a
reduced or extended meaning in Indian English. The last type refers to the compound words
which are formed by compounding two words.
Examples for each of the category:
1) Ahima, dhansoo and jugaar.
2) Stir and shift (Gargesh & Sailaja, 2014)
3) Cousin-brother, cow-worship, cheater cock, blouse piece, charge sheet, inside water,
upliftment, and maid-runner (Kachru, 1986 & 2006).

3.2. Endonormative stabilization

In Schneider's (2003 & 2007) dynamic model there is always an ‘Event X’, usually a political
event, that marks the transformation of English from a foreign language to local language. In
the case of India, English gained constitutional status through Official Language Act, 1967
and the role of English in Indian education was further strengthened by the adoption of
“Three Language Policy” in 1968. These two events mark the beginning of endonormative
stabilization for Indian English. “Three Language Policy” advocates education in Hindi, a
regional language and English. The implementation of “Three Language Policy” varies from
one state to another. Even after entering endonormative phase, the process of nativization did
not stop and it continues even till date because after independence more number of people
from different disadvantages sections of the society started entering mainstream education.
The number of students enrolling for English language education in India steadily increases
every year. This education scenario implies that nativization is an ongoing process in the
Indian context. In postcolonial countries, clear demarcation of the phases is not possible and
moreover imposing a clear demarcation will undermine the dynamic nature of the varieties.
The afore-mentioned political events accelerated the rapid nativization or Indianization of
English after Independence. On the economic front, India initiated the economic
liberalization in 1991 and this further accelerated the demand for English education.

In this phase, the identity construction of the English speakers in India is compartmentalized.
The STL strand’s identity still remains British but it is markedly different from the standard
English variety. At present, STL strands have vanished because the immigrants have
integrated with the local culture or they have relocated to other English-speaking countries.
The IDG strands both resisted and accommodated the influence of native varieties according
to the socioeconomic needs. During this phase, English also created a section of social elites
based on their proficiency in English.
In Schneider’s (2003 & 2007) dynamic model Indian English exhibits early symptoms of
endonormative stabilization phase but it hasn’t completely moved into the final stages of
endonormative stabilization. In India, young generation treats English as part of their modern
Indian lifestyle (Shagal, 1991; Agnihotri & Khanna, 1997). This attitudinal shift establishes
the fact that Indian English has entered endonormative phase. At the same time, it is
important to note that Indian English has not taken the new local identity which is essential to
complete the endonormative phase. Mukherjee (2007) states that Indian English is constantly
shaped by the progressive (linguistic innovations) and conservative (self-critical attitude
towards Indian English) forces which aid and hinder the development of a local identity for
Indian English. Digital contact zones have increased rapidly and provided space for using
English in different digital contact situations. Despite the diversity, studies have shown that
there are pan-Indian features which are common to Indian English across the country. In
brief, it can be said that Indian English has many points of convergence at the national level
and many points of divergence at regional and sub-regional levels. It is widely believed that
these two processes are simultaneously happening in Indian English.

3.3. Mukherjee’s Analysis of Endonormative stabilization Phase

Mukherjee (2007) has used Schnieder’s dynamic model to analyze Indian English and found
that there are many contradictions in endonormative stabilization phase of Indian English. He
disagrees with Schneider's placing of Indian English in the beginning stage of endonormative
phase. He asserts that Indian English is well within the endonormative phase and this phase
encompasses lots of complexities within it. He explains this phenomenon by stating that
present-day Indian English is caught between the progressive and conservative forces conflict
in India. Each of these forces act at three levels: a) structural level, b) functional level and c)
attitudinal level. At the structural level, progressive forces are responsible for innovative
features and these keep the Indian English diverge from the native varieties of English. At the
functional level, progressive forces keep expanding the domains and functions of Indian
English in India. At the attitudinal level, progressive forces have a high amount of tolerance
for the use of India English in the written and spoken medium. Sustained strength of these
progressive forces will be instrumental in making Indian English enter the differentiation
phase.
On the other hand, conservative forces hold back Indian English in its evolutionary process.
At the structural level innovations are not encouraged and adherence to native varieties norms
are advocated. Restrictions to structural innovations operate through Institutions like schools,
universities, and courts. At the functional level, forces of conservativism restrict the use of
English to certain domains. At the attitudinal level, conservative forces advocate the complete
rejection of English and they see English as a residual of the colonial legacy which had to be
done away with or they see it as a language which reduces the importance of their mother
tongue. These two forces work simultaneously in shaping the future of Indian English. In
addition, it should be noted that they are many types of progressive and conservative forces
which are specific to each state or each region and some exhibit the traits of both progressive
and conservative forces. For example, language ideology of the Paatali Makkal Katchi
(PMK), the regional political party in the state of Tamil Nadu, exhibits the operation of
progressive and conservative forces at the same time. PMK is a political party with
strongholds in rural areas of north Tamil Nadu. This party constantly voices its concern for
improving the standards of Tamil language and education. They also fight for the
implementation of compulsory Tamil medium education at school level. On the contrary, the
party decided to use English and Tamil for advertising in cities like Chennai and Coimbatore
to attract urban voters. This example clearly shows how the same organization can act as a
progressive and conservative force in the Indian situation. In addition, there are many other
historical, political and policy reasons that can contribute to the understand the contradictions
in endonormative stabilization phase of Indian English.

4. Exploring the additional reasons for dichotomous placing of Indian English

Lesser known historical, political and policy decisions have to be discussed in detail to
understand the difference of opinion in placing Indian English in different stages of
endonormative phase. Reasons for this dichotomous situation is explored in the points below.

1) Historically, British India never had a uniform system of governance. Some provinces till
independence were ruled by the local rulers and in some provinces, the British government
granted certain power to the provincial rulers.

2) The spread of English through institutional setup like education and through missionary
activities was uneven across the country.
3) After Independence, India adopted a federal model of governance. The federal model
shares certain powers with the local state government. Till 1976, education was under the
control of state government. The Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 includes
education under the concurrent list which permits both the central and state government to
take decisions on educational issues.

4) Regional, linguistic and ethnic identity politics became stronger after independence which
gave rise to multiple opinions about English in the political scenario (Brass, 1996)

5) Majority of the common population does not object to the use of English in their day to
day life but they refuse to accept it as an Indian language.

6) After Independence, educational policy documents on English language education do not

clearly state the role of English in Indian education (Sailaja, 2011)

7) Schooling in India is also diverse as the country. People get educated from different type
of schooling and this gets reflected in their attitude.

These reasons explain the dichotomous situation of India English. There could be many more
factors adding to this dichotomous situation. Most scholars agree that Indian English has not
entered the stage of differentiation (Mukherjee, 2007; Schneider, 2007). Firstly, Indian
English to enter the differentiation phase a representative Indian English corpus has to be
built to encourage more research projects. Followed by the codification of Indian English to
encourage the use of India English in different mediums. Finally, a strong intellectual and
political backing is also essential for Indian English to enter the differentiation phase.

References
Schneider, E. W. (2007). Postcolonial English: Varieties of English around the world. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Mukherjee, J. (2010). The development of English in India. In A. Kirkpatrick, The Routledge
Handbook of World Englishes (pp. 167-180). London: Routledge.
Mukherjee, J. (2007). Steady states in the evolution of New Englishes: present-day Indian
English as an equilibrium. Journal of English Linguistics, 35(2), 157-187.
Gargesh, R., & Pingali, S. (2014). South Asia. In M. Filppula, J. Klemola, & D. Sharma, The
Oxford Handbook of World Englishes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schneider, E. W. (2003). The dynamics of new Englishes: From identity construction to
dialect birth. Language, 79(2), 233-281.
Kachru, Y., & Nelson, C. (2006). World Englishes in Asian Contexts. Hong Kong: Hong
Kong University Press.
Mukherjee, A. (2009). This Gift of English: English Education and the Formation of
Alternative Hegemonies in India. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan.
Kachru, B. (1983). The Indianization of English: the English language in India. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Brass, P. R. (1994). The Politics of India Since Independence. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kachru, B. B. (2006). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English
language in the outer circle. In B. B. Kingsley Bolton, World Englishes: Critical Concepts in
Linguistics, Volume 3 (pp. 241-256). Oxon, OX: Routledge.
Kachru, B. B. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions, and models of non-
native Englishes. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
Sahgal, A. (1991). Patterns of language use in a bilingual setting in India. In J. Cheshire,
English Around the World: Sociolinguistic Perspectives (pp. 299-310). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rama Kant Agnihotri, A. L. (1997). Problematizing English in India. New Delhi: Sage
Publication.
Sailaja, P. (2011). Policy document on English in India and their Implications. In U. N.
Lesley Farrell, English Language Education in South Asia: From Policy to Pedagogy (pp. 61-
72). New Delhi: Cambridge University Press.