ESL or Not? Matters Not
by Bhaswati on May 23, 2006
I first heard the term ESL when I joined a mostly-American online writing community three years ago. One day while chatting one of my (American) friends from the board remarked, “Your English is very good for an ESL.” I had to ask her to translate the mysterious abbreviation for me, and only when she told me it was English Second Language, did I understand the full import of her compliment. Subsequently, I received praise for my grasp of English from a lot of board members. As much as I appreciated their kind words, I didn’t let it all get to my head. For, I still stood hapless and flustered when it came to deciphering everyday American-speak.
After spending about a year with this accommodating community, I joined another writing group--this time a British one. Here, I was reminded of my ESL identity once again. This time though, the compliments were more backhanded than those of the American writing board. As a member of a critique group in the new community, I was required to submit a new short story every month and review the ones submitted by other members. On more than one occasion, my stories would get such notes as “I found the sentence structure a bit awkward. I know it’s difficult to tackle that, and given your ESL background, it was a good effort.” I swallowed the remarks since my primary focus was to improve my writing. But now that I can share it with you, let me vent a bit on that perception. No, those views didn’t hurt me. They angered me.
Such a perception made me angry not because I think too highly of my English proficiency. Far from that. As far as I am concerned, learning--especially that related to writing--is a lifelong endeavour. The idea of me being an ESL, and therefore, only the second best ruffled my nerves because of the sympathetic undertone to it. Yes, English is not my first language. So what? Should that make editors take a lenient approach while reading my work? NO! When I am writing in a given language, I should be rated alongside all others who write in that language, regardless of whether they speak that in their daily lives or not.
For the record, I studied British English in school. The legacy of our colonial rulers is still in place as far as India’s education system is concerned. English happens to be the language of instruction in a lot of schools (including mine) here. So I am not a latecomer to the learn-English club. I started scribbling A, B, C as a toddler, just like any American or British would. Therefore, if I am to be credited for a reasonably okay grasp of the language, I should also be the one to take the onus for any slips and slides I make.
At the same time, readers need to be conscious of what to expect from writers of different geographical backgrounds. As an Indian, whose first language isn’t English, I am not likely to use it like an American, British, or Australian (or those whose native tongue is English) would. Just like the language itself, the slang that cultures using English as their first language have made up, are foreign to me. If my Indian characters start speaking like that, my story will end up being a ridiculously phony disaster. You won’t even buy into the characters, would you? Another point that comes to mind is when I write about rural Indians, I am mostly translating their words into English. For, they would never speak in English; most don’t know the language apart from some basic words. All these factor into my writing of this immensely universal language.
Are those points excuses for making weak prose acceptable to the Western audience? Never. More than one non-native, or should I say ESL, writer has proved how much English belongs to the whole world and not just to pockets where people speak it.
Want proof?
1. Amitav Ghosh
2. Joseph Conrad
3. Salman Rushdie
4. Ayn Rand
5. Rohinton Mistry
6. Arundhati Roy
7. Vikram Seth
I am sure there are more. And the world of words is only richer because of them.
This post has been viewed (on this page) 264 times .
PEN World Voices Festival at MetaxuCafé
Related Discussions
Comments
Thanks for the comment, Gawain
All upper class Indians are not native speakers of English. Yes, they speak English quite often, but also converse in their respective mother tongues. As far as Amitav Ghosh is concerned, he is a typical homebred Bengali, who grew up talking in Bengali (not English) in his daily life.
– Bhaswati (05/24 at 24-May 22:04 -05:00)
Apologies, you are certainly correct.
What I said came as a sort of knee-jerk reaction: most upper class indians *I know* (and what do I know? i may know hundreds of Indians, that makes —what 0.0000035% of the population?) grow up being fully bilingual—speaking at home both English and one—or two—“native” languages. there is also a large group who are pretty much monolingual: even *I* wince when I hear their miserable efforts at Hindustani. ("Shankar! air-con on karo!” and “Shankar! time kya hain?")
That anyway is he situation that seems quite common in Bombay and Delhi, anyhow.
What I really wanted to say, I guess, and €at which of course I miserably failed, is that English is now one of the many Indian languages, as much as Tamil is Indian; and it is no less Indian than it is American.
one of my favorite stories is about a Delhi friend in a class in London speaking to his teacher:
“How long have you been studying here, Mr Kapil?”
“3 months”.
“Your English is remarkable”.
“I am a fast learner”.
br
Sir G
– Gawain (05/24 at 24-May 22:38 -05:00)
Hi Sir G,
Great hearing from you. I completely agree with you in so far as recognising English as one of the Indian languages is concerned. Perhaps this was the very reason why I would get irked when someone pointed out a flaw in my writing, then automatically associated that with me being an ESL person. I just don’t see the connection (I am not a fast learner, I guess. LOL). Like many of the examples you know of, I, too, grew up speaking Bengali and English and, of course, Hindi. So if I falter in my usage of English, it is a shortcoming I need to address just because it’s a weakness I need to overcome. Just like a sportsperson would be required to work in her development area, I suppose.
Now, I am glad, though, that you posted the initial comment. If not for it, I would have missed stumbling upon your wonderful blog. May I link it to mine? Your discussions on the subjects you cover are impressive to say the least. Please let me know if I can link the blog to my links section.
Thanks.
– Bhaswati (05/24 at 24-May 23:21 -05:00)
In fact, English should be compulsory in Indian schools, from primary school. It is the only truly national language that can unite people from different regions. I also think that it is a great asset to the Indian people, as it allows them to easily enter the service industries in foreign countries, like Australia, where I live.
In fact, I met two new employees in my unit today. Both of them are named Hermant—although one of them has a silent ‘h’ at the end of his name. One is from the north of the country and one is from the south. But they both speak English.
– Dean (05/25 at 25-May 05:04 -05:00)
Thanks for the comment, Dean.
English is not only compulsory, but also the medium of instruction across many schools in India. As a result, we don’t just learn it as a language; we learn every subject in English.
The point you make about English being an asset for Indians serving abroad is a reality today. Studies have shown Indians hold a distinct advantage when working in western countries precisely because of their knowledge of English.
– Bhaswati (05/26 at 26-May 22:57 -05:00)
This is rather specious. I wish columnists would step peddling half-baked ideas even ironically. First, it posits a kind of uniform norm of English that Indians depart from. Irish English, Australian English, US English and Canadian English are dialects as much as Indian English or even English English. The dominance of Oxbridge-London upper-class speech as Received Pronunciation (RP) — what you call British English — as the correct form of a language ossified in period grammars is also ridiculous as it imagines languages to be static. Within English English itself there are various dialects. The history of English is a history of dominant influences which are reflected in the word stock and expressions (Latin, Germanic, Norman, South Asian, African. Caribbean). Remember the saying “a language is a dialect with an army and a navy.” Just look at what’s happening in the US which has declared English to be the national langauge as if there were simply one register of the language without variants. One of the crazier idiolect has to be their president’s.
Secondly, many Indians in India have EFL (English as first language) just as most West Indians do and they think, talk an dream and write in English. In addition, there are many writers who are second-generation Canadian etc. who are still thought of that way, as non-native speakers and ESL. I am a writer who was born in Canada but lived in India. This week I had the experience of having a prizewinning story read on national radio rendered by the actor no doubt on the producer’s instruction in a Peter Sellers voice (as if folks have never heard Rushdie speak etc.) At a PEN Canada event, I had someone come up to me and ask if my story had been translated. So, please stop peddling half-truths even ironically or do your research before airing views. they can be hurtful and lead to marginalization, etc.
– ahmad (05/27 at 27-May 09:37 -05:00)
Thanks for joining the discussion, Ahmad.
Please allow me to clarify myself. I never intended to “peddle” any ideas, half-baked or otherwise in that post. I am aware of, if not an expert in, the regional variations of English you talk about. I hope you didn’t miss reading this part of my post:
“...Readers need to be conscious of what to expect from writers of different geographical backgrounds. As an Indian, whose first language isn’t English, I am not likely to use it like an American, British, or Australian (or those whose native tongue is English) would. Just like the language itself, the slang that cultures using English as their first language have made up, are foreign to me. If my Indian characters start speaking like that, my story will end up being a ridiculously phony disaster. You won’t even buy into the characters, would you? Another point that comes to mind is when I write about rural Indians, I am mostly translating their words into English. For, they would never speak in English; most don’t know the language apart from some basic words.”
I think I echo your views there. As for the other points raised in the post, I wrote it as a rejoinder to the comments I received on my writing at a British-dominated forum. The reviewers often saw it fit to link any weaknesses in my work (mostly syntax issues) to English not being my first language. And yes, I do have an issue with that perception. All I am saying is if my English writing is flawed in some way, take me apart for that, as you would put to scrutiny any other writer writing in the language. Especially, when the flaws are grammatical in nature. I don’t think the pointing out of the fact that English is not my native tongue is warranted in such a situation. My post was a personal reaction to those comments, not a scholarly discussion entailing extensive research.
I would be glad if you explained what aspect of my post “can be hurtful and lead to marginalization.” I wrote that post precisely against the patronizing mentality of certain EFL reviewers. I never knew it would end up being perceived the other way round.
– Bhaswati (05/27 at 27-May 10:11 -05:00)
Australian English is not a dialect of English. There may be some words that are peculiar to Australia, just as there are words that are peculiar to New Zealand, but it is definitely English with a capital E.
Orthography and grammar is identical to English as spoken and written by the English and punctuation is very similar. In the U.S., by contrast, the orthography is very different and they have different words for the same things: ‘cookie’ for ‘biscuit’ and ‘sidewalk’ for ‘footpath’. They will also say ‘a hundred ten’ instead of ‘a hundred and ten’, as both the U.K. and Australian Englishes require. U.S. English is a dialect of English, but not the English spoken in Australia.
If you read The Australian newspaper, which is owned, like The Times, by News Corporation, you will often find stories syndicated from The Times. There is no discernible difference between the language of these stories and those that surround them.
The accent, however, is very different. But, then, you have many different accents even within the United Kingdom. English as spoken by Australians is, in fact, closer to the English of the south-east of that island than are the real English dialects of those parts in its north. Within Australia, in fact, you have both broad and educated accents, which are often predicated on the income level or ‘class’ of the family.
– Dean (05/29 at 29-May 07:22 -05:00)
Page 1 of 1 pages of comments
1. Amitav Ghosh
3. Salman Rushdie
6. Arundhati Roy
7. Vikram Seth
These are bad examples. These people—like all upper class Indians—are native speakers of English. They speak with an Indian accent, because thats how native English speakers speak English in India.
Br
Gawain
– Gawain (05/24 at 24-May 18:30 -05:00)