Asian Englishes: History, Identity, and Power

Asian Englishes: History, Identity, and Power

Janpha Thadphoothon

No other languages, in the known history of mankind, have been widely used, investigated, and welcomed as English. As an important international language, English has been used by many societies; it has been adjusted to suit each local context. Unlike constructed international auxiliary languages such as Esperato and Interlingual, English has its historical reality. Historically, English came to Asia with confidence of its bearers, it came with power. After WW II, it transformed itself from being an important colonial language to an international one, from the language of the few to the language of the mass.

On becoming the world language, English has become flexible, accommodating diversity and embracing differences, no longer the language owned by a few cultures. Many countries in Asia, e.g. Singapore, in fact, use it to express their own cultural heritage, in addition to communicative purposes. English, in this sense, has another important function, that is, the voice-enabling function. It has the potential to give voices to some left-behind societies and minorities, enabling them to better negotiate their cultural identities with other dominant cultures.

This article centers around three topics: history, power, and identity, emphasizing the role of English as a global language; it highlights the need for every Asian country has, more or less, appropriated English to suit its own culture. It presents salient examples of English use in Thailand and Singapore. Firstly, it gives the historical background of English in Asia, discussing its journey and how it has attained its present status, followed by the discussion on its old and new identities in relation to the issues of power. As language constructs society and culture, the new and dynamic discourse created by each Asian society redefines its own construction. The issues of identities are discussed in two aspects, the new identity of English and the identity each Asian society is forming to position itself within the universe of English as a global language. As identity and power are interlinked, this article discusses the link in terms of the power of the users of English and the power created by forming their own identities of English use.  The conclusion highlights the need of every Asian culture to be pro-active users of this global language, moving away from being a text consumer to a text producer.

1.           Introduction

As posited by the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, language constructs society and culture, what represents people’s thought and feelings reflects their worldview and social construction. It defines who they are, revealing their identity. A Thai person is a person who speaks Thai.  The word ‘English’ denotes a person as well as a language. One may recall the story of Shibboleth, where the identity of a person can be determined from a single phonemic difference (/-ʃ / or /-s/). Native speakers of Thai, for example, can easily identify an Akha or a Burmese who speaks Thai. It is also said that life and death are under the power of language. For Samuel Johnson, a language is the pedigree of a nation. Language, as Pierre Bourdieu (1991) has said, is not just about communication, but symbolic power. It may be said that language itself is power. Only Head of State can declare the games open or war. People use languages to do things.

Like other languages, English has its own history. The Romans once called the Germanic tribes, including the Angles, Saxons and Jutes barbarians. When they reached Britania in the 5th century AD, they were regarded as invaders by the native Celtic inhabitants (Bragg, 2004). During the Norman Conquest, English was not a language suitable for the ruling class. Before the Reformation, unlike Latin which was an elite language, English and other vernacular European languages were considered ill-suited as the languages of religion and education (Bragg, 2004). The beginning of English, lime many other languages, was humble. However, it has evolved as a global language.

Since it arrival in Britania from the mainland Europe in the fifth century, English has been influenced by other languages. English adopted the Latin alphabet, influenced by Greek, Latin, French, Hindi, among others. During the Normal era, the transformation of English, from Old English to Middle English took place. English was heavily influenced by the Norman French, the language of the ruling class. After the 15th century, English re-emerged, mixing with Norman French and assumed a new identity as the language for all English people. It was the colonial language during the 18th- the first half of the 20th centuries.

English is now perceived to be an important world language. Being a world language means more users of the language; more users result in more varieties. Unlike French or some other languages, no institute or organization looks after the use of English. David Crystal (1997) states that the English language has already grown to be independent of any form of social control (139). It is no longer the sole property of its native speakers. While it can be viewed as a threat, this phenomenon allows identify formation and negotiation leverage among Asian countries.

The following sections discuss three related aspects: historical reality, identity, and power. English use and perceptions in two contexts, Singapore and Thailand, are discussed to exemplify an argument for Asian Engishes.

2.            Historical Background of Asian Englishes

Linguistically, English is part of the west-Germanic branch of the Indo-European language family like Danish and German. English has a strong affinity with the low variety of German. Through centuries of culture-mixing process, English has evolved to its present form, look, and use. By the time of the Norman Conquest, English was the name was the name for all inhabitants of England, regardless of backgrounds (McArthur, 1998).

The English people were not the first group of Europeans to contact Asians. Prior to their domination in Asia, the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, and French, among others, made their presence in many parts of Asia (Ferguson, 2003). Throughout the antiquity and the Middle Ages, there were numerous contacts between the two continents. The Silk Road was the route of cultural and trade contact between the two continents. Around 330 BC, Alexander the Great conquered many parts of Central Asia and parts of northwestern India. His invasion brought the two cultures in contact. One may recall the story of Marco Polo in Asia.

After the end of the Roman Empire, the Portuguese and Spanish were the first people to colonize other parts of the world. However, their main interests were in the South and North America. The Portuguese colonization began in the 15th century. During the late 15th century, the Portuguese Vasco da Gama was the first European to reach India by an all-sea route from Europe. His achievement paved the way for subsequent sea voyages by Europeans and trade links between Europe and Asia. After colonizing some parts of Africa and South America, the Portuguese colonized parts of the Indian subcontinent in the early 16th century, followed by the Dutch, the French, and the English.

The first contact between Thailand and the West began during the early Ayudthaya kingdom. Right from the beginning of the contact, Siam was affected by the power of the West, as history has recorded that Siam lost the control of Melecca to the Portuguese. Duarte Fernandes was sent in a diplomatic mission to the court of King of Siam Ramathibodi II (1473–1529). Thus, he was, officially, recognized as the first European to arrive in Thailand (Lach and Van Kley, 1994). The Spanish, the Dutch, and the French were the next line of unavoidable guests. The Dutch, the French, and the British vied for domination over the Indian Ocean in the early 17th century.  English traders frequently engaged in hostilities with their Dutch and Portuguese. The British emerged as the winner. The power of the British Empire gradually established in Asia, especially the Indian subcontinent. It colonized Penang in 1786.

During the 18th century, Britain and France became bitter rivals, vying for control of colonial possessions. The war between 1756 and 1763, known as the Seven Years' War, lessened the power of France (Bowen, 1998). Over a hundred years after that The English gradually harmonized the region, replacing the predecessors. They made their presence known to Thailand during the reign of King Narai the Great when the king (in 1681 or 1682) attempted to reduce Dutch and English influence (Ahmad and Tan, 2003). During the reign of king Rama I of the Rattanakosin Era, it was told that in 1785, an English officer, Francis Light, sent a message to Phuket warning a possible Burmese attack. During the reign of King Rama II (1809-1824) of the Bangkok Era there was a formal contact between Siam and the British Empire. The Siamese also closely followed the conflicts between the British and Burmese Empires during the reign of King Rama III (1787-1851). In 1826, the Treaty of Yandabo was signed, limiting the power of Burma, signaling the supremacy of the British Empire over Asia (Allot, 1994).

In East Asia, China lost the Opium War (1840-1842) with Britain; it lost another was called the Arrow War (1856-1860) with Britain and France. By the end of the 19th century, the power of the British Empire in Asia was at its zenith. English was the colonial language, the language of the ruler. While many countries were colonized, it is recognized that Thailand was among the few kingdoms managed to retain its independence.  In the 20th centuries, the power gradually shifted to American, Britain’s former colony. America emerged after two global conflicts, WW I and WW II.  After WW II, the United States of America, along with Britain and commonwealth countries began spreading English throughout the world. At present, some even claim that American English, not British English, is a true global language. In addition to an argument for British imperialism, Niall Ferguson (2003) implies that the United States has already taken the role of a new empire, albeit reluctantly. He wrote, “(The US) is an empire, in short, that dare not speak its name…an empire in denial (p. 381).” In 2005, David William Fall, British Ambassador to Thailand, was less diplomatic about the power of the US, saying “The United Sates is the world’s only super power…” (p. 9). This implies, among other things, that the US would continue to export English to the world. With regard to English, he is less diplomatic in his language, declaring that ‘English’ is perhaps ‘the most important single export in the last 300 years’ (p. 366).

Empirical evidence seems to support Ferguson’s assertion. By the end of the 1990s, the notion of a world English has been reaffirmed. In the later 20th century, there were more non-native users of English than the native ones (Lee McKay, 2002). The trend continues until today. However, English as an export is no longer an export of ready made products; it’s gradually become an export of raw materials. English has a lot of derivatives, dialects and varieties. Today, there is not only English or American literature, but the literary works written in English by authors of other countries. The English language is perhaps the most studied subject in the world. As the first decade of the 21st century is coming to a close, more and more people use English as English has reaffirmed its new identity as a global language. The Internet continues to fuel its spread and use. In Thailand and many parts of the world, more and more educational institutions start to use English as a medium of instruction. However, the growth of English may be far from being the solution to the Babel problem.

Before closing this section, it would be useful to note the historical reality of the English language in Asia. After managing to survive the conquest of the Danes and the Norman French, they underwent social reform, especially, after the Glorious Revolution in 1688. The English people came to Asia and competed with other Europeans such as the Spanish, the French, the Portuguese, and the Dutch to establish their territorial influence. After the conclusion of the Seven Years' War in 1763, in which Britain was the winning side, the presence of English in Asia was affirmed when it conquered India and China. The presence of English is not without resistance and challenges, even today.

3.           Identity and Power

Due mainly to its colonial history, English has been perceived negatively and positively. The spread of English is perceived as a form of conspiracy to dominate the world. From this perspective, English is seen as a tool to control, ‘a neoimperial language’ (Phillipson, 2009: p. 103). The negative attitude towards English is real, especially among those who do not view it as a global one. For some, it is a threat to one’s national stability. It is powerful, sometimes, it threatens the establishment.

The positive view is that it is a world language for mutual understanding and international cooperation (Crystal, 1997), an answer to the problem of Babel. In homogenous-oriented Japan, at present, English, like in many parts of the world, is a world language responds well to the practical needs of the business community (Fujimoto-Adamson, 2006). In heterogeneous Singapore, it is a means to unify and pacify its multilingual society, an educational tool, and a vehicle of trade communication. In India, as Rama Lakshmi (2008) has reported, English has a tool for upwards social mobility. In Thailand and Vietnam, English is an important foreign language.

There is also a case, however, between the need to foster its own identity and necessity. India is a good example. After gaining the independence, India, a country of over 200 ethnic groups and languages, planned to have an official language of the union by choosing Hindi to replace English, considered the imperial tongue. However, the prospect of the changeover led to much alarm in the non Hindi-speaking areas of India, especially among those whose languages were not related to Hindi. As a result, India continues using English for official purposes along with Hindi (as stated in the Constitution of India). Namibia, colonized by Germany, is another example where English is selected to solve national conflicts. The country gives official status to English after its independence, as there are too many African languages, and picking one as an official language would create unnecessary racial tension (Putz, 1992, cited in Clyne, 1997, p. 305). Both countries welcome English as it brings some benefits, equality and communication ability with the rest of the world, and, yet, they use English with their own characteristics.

Like it or hate it, English has been declared the de facto of ASEAN nations. It is stated that English will enhance the well-being and livelihood of the peoples of ASEAN by:

Support the citizens of Member States to become proficient in the English language, so that the citizens of the ASEAN region are able to communicate directly with one another and participate in the broader international community.

(ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community Blueprint, 2009, p. 3)

The statement implies that English is recognized as an international language and there should be many voices of English or Asian Englishes. One may ask whether English varieties hinder intelligibility. It may or may not, depending on a specific context. But people do adjust their language accordingly. As it is natural that people are interactive when they have a verbal exchange, so the meaning is negotiated. Interactivity allows interpersonality. It is said that the world is a richer place when English is spoken or written with many voices.

English, as discussed above, brings initial power to its users, the power to be heard, to be accepted. It empowers those who use it, as they can negotiate their identity. It also alters the identity of those who use it. It empowers those who use it, as it allows access to knowledge (if one believes that knowledge is power.) and social membership.

The initial relationship between Siam and the British Empire was asymmetrical in terms of power. The power of the British Empire was first felt in Thailand during the reign of King Rama II. In 1785 the British occupied Penang, and in 1819 they founded Singapore. Soon the British displaced the Dutch and Portuguese as the main western economic and political influence in Siam (Bruce, 1969). In 1821, five years before the Treaty of Yandabo, the government of British India sent a mission, led by John Morgan and later by John Crawfurd, to ask Siam to lift its trade restrictions. At the close of the first Anglo-Burmese War, King Rama II ended his throne in 1824. Siam, under the reign of King Rama III, felt the foreign threat resulted from The British rule of Burma. In 1842, the result of the first opium war signaled Siam that the pendulum of power has shifted from the east to the west. King Mongkut, Rama IV, and His successors responded to such the change accordingly and prudently, evidenced by the signing of Bowring Treaty in 1855.

After the gradual disintegration of the British Empire after WWII, the rise of the US has been marred by terrorism and challenged by the rise of many Asian nations, especially China. The notion of Asian Englishes may be discursively explained in terms of the changing power relationship between the East and the West. The rise of China and India as new economic powers, addition to Japan, Taiwan, and Korea has leveraged the bargaining power of Asia in general. An article by a distinguished international scholar Peter Drysdale titled Preparing for the Rise of Asia on the official website of the East Asia Forum (www.eastasiaforum.org) discusses how the rise of China and India might affect global balance of power. His question reflects the recognition the emergence power of Asia: “How can we manage the transition of power, from the established power of North America and Europe to the emerging power of China and Asia?” Greater economic power brings political power. Although the issue of English is not on top of the agenda, it surely will be affected by the transition. With more power, Asian countries may question the hegemony of English and negotiate for the adstratum relationship between their own languages and English as a global language, among other things.

Identity is what makes the members of a society recognizably the same. Being able to maintain one’s identity as a distinct race among the umbrella of humanity is perhaps the greatest achievement a single country could aim for. Identity brings power, to power to exist and negotiate power. Identity allows one to take charge of one’s own destiny. The next section presents two examples where English use is closely related to the issues of identity.

4.           Englishes in Singapore and Thailand

Singapore English

By the 14th century, Singapore was known as Temasek, ruled by the Srivijayan kingdom. In the beginning of the 17th century it was ruled by the Portuguese. The modern history of Singapore began in 1819 when Englishman Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles established a British port on the island. Under British colonial rule, it grew in importance as a major port city.

Today Singapore is a small nation state, roughly the size as Phuket, with the population, excluding migrant workers, of about 5 million. It is a multiethnic society, and the three main ethnic groups are the Chinese, the Malays, and the Indians. English has been declared the first language. But English in Singapore has its unique characters.

Broadly speaking, there are three kinds of Singapore English: Standard, Singlish, and and Colloquial Singlish. While Standard English is official and encouraged, the majority of Singaporeans turn to their own English styles when talking to each other or visitors. They use colloquial Singapore English, also known as Singlish, considered another variety of the English language. Singlish is a fusion of local dialects with English, it allows Singaporeans to communicate with one another in a much faster way as compared to English as well as express feelings that many English words cannot fully carry.  ‘Okay lah’ is a good example.  The particle ‘lah’ conveys or emphasizes a sense of agreement. Singlish is a variety (mesolect), but colloquial English is a crude form of English variety (basolect).

Due to its unique language policy, in Singapore, the Chinese would use English when speaking to other Chinese of a different dialect. English is a lingua franca. The following is an excerpt of the transcript of the interview Seth Mydans had with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, for the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune ( 1 September 2010).

But don’t play race, language, religion.  We’ve got here, we’ve become cohesive, keep it that .  We’ve not used Chinese as a majority language because it will split the population.  We have English as our working language, it’s equal for everybody, and it’s given us the progress because we’re connected to the world.  If you want to keep your Malay, or your Chinese, or your Tamil, Urdu or whatever, do that as a second language, not equal to your first language.  It’s up to you, how high a standard you want to achieve.

The quote reveals the heart of the language policy of Singapore. Singapore embraces and promotes the concept and practice of multicultural and multilingual, for its own benefits, harnessing the strengths of English, Chinese, Malay, and Tamil. Through its language policy, English is the language of instruction; every student, however, is required to take up a second language in school. In other words, English is the first language, but the mother tongue is the second. A student whose mother tongue is Malay often takes Malay as his or her second language.

English in Singapore has its own characters.  What is obvious is the presence of local languages, Chinese, Malay, and Tamil in their English use.  One may hear a sentence like ‘You kena big smack if you don’t be quiet’, where ‘kena’ refers to receiving something unpleasant.  There are several particles to add emotion and moods. Among the commonly use particles are ya, wat, meh, and lah.  Appending a particle ‘ya’ to a statement, a speaker (weakly) boosts the illocutionary force of that statement, and also signals that this is a statement that the speaker considers to be uncontroversial in nature. The dialog below is a good example.

S: Are you looking for a specific model?

C: The Phantom

S: We do not have stock, ya

C: OK, thanks

(Wee, 2010, p. 46)

There are two views on Singlish. The majority of Singaporeans prefer to maintain their unique voice. But the authority and some say it is something to be avoided, especially its basolect or the colloquial Singlish. There are many who argue that without colloquial Singlish, Singapore may lose its unique culture. But too much of such basolect is a worry for the establishment. The Singapore Government is getting worried about the wide spread of colloquial Singlish, so it has set up a campaign to encourage its citizens to use proper English and Singlish (See http://www.goodenglish.org.sg/). Its central message is to ensure Singaporeans recognize the importance of speaking Standard English and encourage Singaporeans to speak Standard English. But, as one can imagine, this move has caused an up roar.

Many Singaporeans disagree with the new policy and dislike the depiction of Singlish speakers as poorly educated and unintelligent people. For them, it is unacceptable for the gahmen (government) to convey the message that if you don’t speak proper English and persist with Singlish, you will have no future and everyone will laugh at you. The controversy over Singlish continues, as more academics and policy makers, and concerned citizens have expressed their opinions and stories.

A study was conducted to investigate the use of Singlish in schools and how it can be used as a pedagogic resource (Rubdy, 2007). It was found that both teachers and pupils code-switched based on the situation. The study suggests tat Singlish has its salient place in Singapore education and it should be allowed to exist alongside Standard English, as long as pupils are able to make a distinction between the two Englishes and code-switch appropriately. In fact, Singlish is not only spoken by ordinary folks, it is also spoken by many Singaporean professionals too. These people are well-educated; they know well how, when, and where to use standard English, and when and where using Singlish is more appropriate (Harada, 2009).

Action creates reaction. In response to the establishment’s initiative, many Singaporeans counter the movement with the movement known as Speak Good Singlish. The movement has created a website to counter the establishment. The main argument[1] of the social community is worth quoting at some length:

We are not against the Speak Good English Movement in Singapore. But we believe that we should get it right with speaking English as well as Singlish. We are tired of people confusing Singlish with broken English. We are tired of people pretending to speak Singlish by speaking bad English. We are tired of people caricaturizing Singlish speakers as uncouth and unintelligent. If you don't bother to learn the subtle rules of a natural evolving language, then please don't conclude that it is simple, shallow, and useless! Singlish is full of cultural nuances and wordplay, and it pulls together the best in the grammar, syntax, and vocabulary of many languages.

What involves one’s use of language often invokes one’s motional response, as language and identity go together. But it must be admitted that there are plenty of people who speak Singlish but are able to speak proper English as well. Speaking different dialects in different situations is what constitutes a true multicultural society. This happens everywhere there are dialects of different prestige. In Singapore, Singlish is the low prestige dialect, and standard English is the high prestige dialect. In reality, Singlish is often used at home and at play, with family and friends, and to inject humor into stuffy or pointless discourses. As has already been mentioned, they code-switch according to situations and know which variety of English to use in a certain situation. The debate on Singlish and standard English reflects the battle between the normative regime and the descriptive one as well as the need to keep and appreciate one’s identity.

Thai English

The first European language reaching Siam was not English; it was Portuguese. During the reign of King Ramathibodi II, (around A.D. 1511), the Siamese Kingdom of Ayuthaya received a diplomatic mission from the Portuguese. These were probably the first Europeans to visit the country. Five years after that initial contact, Ayutthaya and Portugal concluded a treaty granting the Portuguese permission to trade in the kingdom. Other European countries followed suit, the Dutch, the Spanish, and the French.

The initial relationship between Siam and the British Empire was asymmetrical in terms of power. The first real threat from the British Empire was first felt in Thailand during the reign of King Rama II. In 1785 the British occupied Penang, and in 1819 they founded Singapore. Soon the British displaced the French, the Dutch, and the Portuguese as the main western economic and political influence in Siam (Bruce, 1969). The British Empire, perceiving themselves as the champion of free trade civil liberty, objected to the Siamese economic system. They argued that the trading monopolies held by royal princes and businesses were unfair and criticized the Siamese taxation as ‘arbitrary’. In 1821 the government of British India sent a mission to demand that Siam lift restrictions on free trade — the first sign of an issue which was to dominate 19th century Siamese politics. After the Anglo-Burmese Wars, King Rama II ended his throne in 1824. Siam felt the foreign threat resulted from the British’s victory over Burma. In 1842, the result of the first opium war signaled Siam that the pendulum of power has shifted from the east to the west.

The arrival of English made Siam nervous, as it came with imperial power orientation. Thailand struggled to survive the English power during the reign of King Chulalongkorn the Great. King Rama III, in particular, was perhaps the first Thai ruler who had to deal with the presence of Great Britain as a colonial power. At its first introduction, English was the language learned only by the ruling class. King Mongkut (Rama IV), for example, was probably the first Thai leader who used English to exchange knowledge between Thai and the Western countries. Publications in English and Thai came into existence during his reign. In 1871, a school was set up within the royal compound; in 1894, Siam managed to produce its own English teachers. In 1890, it is recorded that the English curriculum was divided into up to six levels. The access to the English instruction, however, was limited. After the revolution of 1932, more Thais had access to English instruction. After World War II, English has become a language learned by the ruling class as well as the general public. Thais started learning English as a means to modernize its country, a way to deal with the threat of Western imperialism.

Siam managed to survive Western imperialism by being flexible and adjusting herself. The Thais regard their ability to adjust to a changing environment positively. Likhit Dhiravegin (2005), Fellow of the Royal Institute, wrote an article titled The ability to adjust and survive reminding Thais that their society is eclectic and in the process of changing.

The Thai society and the Thai people are unique in the sense that the nation is multi-racial; and multi-ethnical. Although the word Thai has its root from the T'ai tribe, the term has changed into an identity for whoever has embraced the Thai culture [emphasis added]. The Thai society is thus a society of a mixed race and ethnicity. The culture is eclectic. In essence the Thai people are a new species of four main cultures: the native culture of the village, and the Indian, Chinese and Western cultures.

Indeed, even the term ‘Thai’ has a new identity. The renaming of the country from Siam to Thailand in 1939 was an attempt to redefine its construction, an attempt to find a new identity. Before Thailand has been westernized in the 20th century, it has been Sinicized, Indianized, and Siamized. The result of the acculturation can be observed from the Thai language. Thai academics, in addition to good knowledge of Sanskritized Thai, are required to have English language skills. Having sound English ability is one of the most important requirements for most Thai academics (Janpha Thadphoothon, 2009).  Nowadays, it is observed that English has permeated into all fabrics of the Thai society and culture, as evidenced by the greater amount of English words mixed with Thai words or phrases in Thai media.

In 1992, a new organization was set up by the Thai government ---- the English Language Development Center, aiming to provide English language training for almost all professions in the kingdom. The following quote shows the main function of English perceived by a state authority, that is, English as a means for national development. The mission statement, in particular, reflects the many roles of English in the development of the country; it goes:

To promote the use of English in various professional fields, so that Thai professionals are equipped with skills and knowledge of English for the national development in various areas such as education, economy, and society.[2] 

The official website of Thailand’s Ministry of Foreign Affaires states that the population of Thailand is approximately 62 million, and of that number around 6 million live in Bangkok. The national and official language is Thai while English is widely spoken and understood in major cities, particularly in Bangkok and in business circles (http://www.mfa.go.th/web/2634.php). However, the increasing use of English affects the Thai identity; it needs rethinking.

The relationship between English and Thai has been asymmetrical; it has been almost unidirectional. While more and more English words are being introduced into Thai language, very few Thai words such as Thai, vasana, baramee, Songkran, Baht, Siam, and Tom Yum Koong have gained currency in the world of English. It is a challenge to help make the two languages share an adstratal relationship, but it should be done. The best approach is not to champion the nationalism doctrine or to sit in idle and do noting, but to engage the world prudently. On one hand, the influences of English are welcome as a sign of creative growth and development; on the other hand, as voiced by many conservative academics, the influences are a threat to the purity and development of the Thai language. Some Thais express a grave concern on the English code-switching/mixing by some Thais, especially the youngsters, arguing that such practice would water down the values and purity of the Thai language.

Despite concerns and criticisms, the influx of English-mediated cultures into Thailand seems unstoppable; more Thais are learning English; more and more English is being used. Evidence is not too hard to spot. For example, many billboards, including TV ads and magazines mix English with Thai. A study investigating signs and billboards provides evidence of English-Thai code-mixing practice in many parts of Bangkok, especially tourist spots (Huebner, 2006). This reflects the influence of English in Thailand’s big cities.

As English has become a dominant global language, it opens the way for its various users to alter the language to suit their environments; English is the property of no single culture or nation. Thai users, like users in many other cultures, have gradually Siamized their use of English. Some Thai words have been Romanized and used in the English newspaper, The Nation. More Thai literature has been translated into English. More theses have been translated or written in English.

Adding particles to convey Thainess is a common practice among Thais or even expats who have been living in Thailand for a while. The use of Thai particles in English sentences such as krup (ครับ), nakrup (นะครับ), na (นะ), , kha (คะ), or nakha (นะคะ). Its use entails both speech and writing. Below is an email message between two Thais who communicate in English.

Dear Chanchai,

Do you have description in Thai version kha?

Thank you kha

Miew

In an operational situation, adding Thai particles helps make communication successful. Other commonly heard are Wa (วะ), ja (จะ), lah(หล่ะ), lor(หรอ). Adding these particles would create Thainess.

When Thais use English When Thais use English among themselves or with foreigners who are familiar with the Thais, the use of such English is smooth with very few problems. However, when Thais use English with Thai accent with native speakers or those who are not familiar with Thais, communication problems may arise. This might have made some feel insecure and hesitate to deviate from the normative regime of English use.

Like in Singapore, there are, broadly speaking, two views of Thai-English: positive and negative. The positive view, expounded by progressive educationists, welcomes the use. The negative view, however, regards such unique usage as an imperfect form of English or the ‘weird, if not wrong, English’, something to be avoided, errors to be corrected.

Based on the positive view, Thai English or English with Thai characteristics could be added into the universe of  English  varieties. It has gradually developed to some extent its own norm and usage, similar to the ‘outer circle’ countries, as suggested by Kachru (2005), like the Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines, or India, albeit at a much lesser degree. Some glimpses of Thai characteristics are embedded in Thai literature written in English, for example, the use of Thai words derived from Buddhism such as Karma.

In Thailand, the mere learning of English for communicative purposes renders little to the development of our identity and leverage power. We have experienced what is called ‘linguistic deficit.’ We borrow more than we earn. We consume and have few stories to tell. Our identity seems to have been lost in the ocean of globalization. This does not look good in our ‘linguistic balance’.  One way to leverage our power is to be creative in our use of English. It means we control it, rather than allows it to manipulate or even dictate our thinking and behavior. In addition to consuming English or American literati, we also need to produce the literature in English. It is a real challenge. This gives us a unique voice, and redefines our place in the world, our identity. Noam Chomsky has shown us that language is has the creative potential by writing “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.”  Creative writing, poetry and literature, creates space and potentiality for cultural identify formation. Thais need to also have stories to tell the world.

The development of Thai English is sandwiched by two giant walls: Thai and English walls. The Thai wall tends to dissuade Thais, especially the youth, from mixing English with Thai. It is common among Thai teens to mix Thai with English, e.g. “ฮัลโลๆ แวร์ อาร์ ยู นาว ตอนนี้มาถึงหน้ามอแล้ว (Hi, where’re you now? I’m in front of the university.). If a Thai writes “สุนีย์เป็นคน easy easy”, he or she may be accused of committing a linguistic crime.  The teacher will likely to correct her sentence as สุนีย์เป็นคนง่ายๆ. The English wall is equally deadly. When a Thai says or writes, ‘I can speak English snake snake fish fish’ or ‘My English is snake snake fish fish’, in addition to being laughed at, he or she will be corrected, despite the fact that these two utterances are understood by general Thais. In short, creative use of language by Thais seems have been blocked and any innovative linguistic idea will often be eradicated by the establishment. It must be noted here that Thai language itself (obviously its script) has been adapted and modified from other pre-existing scripts. The English script too is not indigenous; it is derived from the Roman script. Maybe, it’s time we loosen up the use of languages in Thailand.

As mentioned above, the positive view of Thai English breeds a sense of being Thai in the use of English, an important stepping stone for forming one’s identity. This constructive and proactive view would help foster Thainess in English and handle the spread of English prudently.  Thai concepts embedded in the words should be directly used in the discourse. Words or concepts such as ‘kreng jai’ (เกรงใจ), ‘phooyai’ (ผู้ใหญ่), ‘khai na’ (ขายหน้า), or ‘kum (กรรม)’. To enable this, the shift in the Thai ethos needs a revamp. They should be relax with English and recognize that forming one’s English use identity is as important as having the correct pronunciation or ‘good’ grammar. What’s the point of having ‘good’ English, judged arbitrary by others and losing one’s identity?  What we need to do is to move from the mentality of “English for Thais 101” to “Thai English for Foreigners 101”. This is a picture or scenario that goes along with the concept of ‘English Department’ and ‘Department of Englishes’. This does not necessary mean that each country devices its own secret codes as barriers for confusing each other; rather, it is a means to voice one’s ‘soil and soul’ properly. How can one communicate the concept of ‘kreng jai’ in English? Kreng Jai is more than being considerate. Even the expression ‘mai pen rai’ is not at all a simple concept to do the translation.

On reflection, Thailand is rich in her cultural heritage with many ethnic minorities. In terms of cultural diversity, Thailand is second to none. In fact, the kingdom comprises of more than 30 ethnic groups varying in history, language, religion, appearance, and patterns of livelihood. The number of individual languages listed for Thailand is 74, all of which are living languages (Lewis, 2009). There are perhaps a million of Mon descendants in Thailand, most of them cannot speak their mother tongue. Promoting dialects such as Mon (มอญ) and Suay (ส่วย) is important as it is one of the best ways to enhance the Thai identity. This is not, however, a call to de-globalize Thai society, but to prudently deal with the changing global environment. The more we look after our cultural heritage, the better we can deal with the impacts of globalization. Diversity breeds diversity. David Crystal (2006) states how foreign words add greatly to the expressive richness of English. “A language which can question (from French) and interrogate (from Latin as well as ask (Old English) is three times more expressive in that respect than a language which can only ‘ask’. (p. 41). The use of English loanwords does not always have to be something negative; it can be constructive. It is said that the use of the word ‘corruption’ in Thai conveys something different from its mother tongue ‘kong (โกง).

There is a Thai proverb that says “One’s accent reveals one’s language; one’s action reflects one’s family and upbringing,” reflecting the strong link between language and identity. English with Thai characteristics e.g. Thai accent, Thai particles, Thai stories in English, Thai words or expressions may be a way to maintain and strengthen the Thai identity. Engaging the globalized world is a way to go.

In sum, it is obvious that the greater sense of identity in terms of English use is manifested in Singapore English. In other words, the identity of English use is salient. In this sense, Singlish may be regarded as having a form of national heritage and a linguistic treasure in its own right. Even though English in Thailand is still regarded as a foreign language, but more and more elements of Thainess have emerged.

The language of business and management is recognized as being English; it is a vehicle to deliver the message and knowledge of business and management. The United States is still the greatest exporter of management and management education. English, as Doreen Carvajal (2007) has reported is the language of business education. The medium, as posited by Marshall McLuhan, is also the message. The salient message seems to suggest that business requires English; and, as English is a global language, what it really requires is not the English language, but Englishes. The rise of Asia in the 21st century may move the skewed relationship to the more balanced one. It should be noted that several elements of Asianess have been included in modern business theories and practices (e.g. Theory Z by William G. Ouchi). From the linguistic perspective, if Asia were to really come up with its unique ways of doing business, it should also address the proliferation of English use in business and deal with the medium prudently.

5.            Conclusion

Friend or foe, the spread of English is the product of its historical reality. The view of English as a representative power of the West, and therefore to be rejected is less relevant, if not destructive. While it is alarming for some to witness the spread of English and its status as a global language, there is also an opportunity for many to form their unique identities and reap the benefits derived from what a language has to offer. It is better for every Asian country to be a pro-active user of English; this may result in creolization such as Singlish. Pro-active users take control of their use of English; they view English as a world/international language, a language that belongs to no one in particular, a language for understanding and communication.  Users of English should function as builders, designers, and negotiators, rather than simply text consumers.

In the Thai case, its history has recorded that, after realizing the rise of the Western powers and the fall of the Eastern ones, King Rama III (1824–1851) has been quoted as stating that the wars with Burma and Vietnam were over, the only threat was the one from the Westerners. He urged Thais to study their innovations for their own benefits but not to the degree of obsession or worship.  Heeding His wise words of wisdom, Thais should deal with the hegemony of English as prudently as possible. For their own benefits, Thais should worship neither written nor spoken texts, but use them to facilitate and enhance their emotional, spiritual, and intellectual capacity.

References

Ahmad, Abu Talib, and Tan Liok Ee, (2003). New Terrains in Southeast Asian History. Southeast Asia Series No. 107. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.

Allot, Anna (1994). The End of the First Anglo-Burmese War: The Burmese Chronicle Account of How the 1826 Treaty of Yandabo Was Negotiated. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.

ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community Blueprint. (2009) Jakarta. Available inline at: http://www.aseansec.org/5187-19.pdf [28 September 2010]

Bruce, R. (1969). King Mongkut of Siam and His Treaty with Britain. Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. 9, pp 82-100. Available online at http://sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/44/4401151.pdf

Bourdieu, Pierre (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Harvard University Press.

Bowen, H. V. (1998) War and British Society 1688-1815. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crystal, David. (1997). English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crystal, David. (2006). The Fight for English: How language pundits ate, shot, and left. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Clyne, Michael (1997). Multilingualism in The Handbook of Sociolinguistics (Florian Coulmas, ed.) Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 301-343.

Doreen Carvajal. “In many business schools, the bottom line is in English”. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/world/europe/10iht-engbiz.2.5212499.html

Ferguson, Niall (2003). Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World.  Penguin Books.

Fujimoto-Adamson, Naoki (2006). Globalization and History of English Education in Japan. Asian EFL Journal. 8 (3). Available online at: http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/Sept_06_nfa.php [12 September 2010]

Harada, Shinichi (2009). The Roles of Singapore Standard English and Singlish. In Information and Communication Studies. (40), pp. 69-82. Available online at: http://www.bunkyo.ac.jp/faculty/lib/slib/kiyo/Inf/if40/if4006.pdf [22 September 2010]

Huebner, Thom (2006). Bangkok's Linguistic Landscapes: Environmental Print, Codemixing and  Language Change in  International Journal of Multilingualism. 3 (1), pp. 31-51.

Janpha Thadphoothon (2009). Characteristics of the Use of English by the Thai Academics: A Preliminary Investigation. Suthiparitat Journal, 71, pp. 107-132.

Kachru, Braj B. (2005). Asian Englishes: Beyond the Canon. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Lee McKay, Sandra (2002) Teaching English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lach, Donald F.; and Van Kley, Edwin J. (1994). Asia in the making of Europe, p. 520-521, University of Chicago Press.

Likhit Dhiravegin (2005). The ability to adjust and survive. Available online at: http://wessandorn.blogspot.com/

Lewis, M. Paul (ed.), 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Sixteenth edition. Dallas, Tex.: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com/.

Bragg, Melvyn (2004). The Adventure of English: The Biography of a Language.  Sceptre.

McArthur, Tom (1998). Oxford Concise Companion to the English Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Phillipson, Robert (2009. Linguistic Imperialism Continued. New York: Routledge.

Rubdy, Rani (2007) Singlish in the School: An Impediment or a Resource? In Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 28 ( 4), pp. 308 – 324.

Wee, Lionel (2010b). The particle ya in Colloquial Singapore English. World Englishes. 29 (1), pp. 45-58. Available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2009.01624.x/pdf [10 September 2010]

Rama Lakshmi. In India, Dreams Unfold in English: Boom Is Driving Language Classes Sunday, April 6, 2008 Available Online at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/05/AR2008040502585.html

About the author

Janpha Thadphoothon graduated with a bachelor’s degree, First-Class Honors, in Education from Chulalongkorn University in 1992. In 2000, he obtained a Master’s degree in Industrial and Organizational Psychology from Thammasat University, Bangkok. In 1999, he also received an advanced certificate in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) from RELC, Singapore. He holds a Doctorate in Education from the University of Canberra, Australia. He currently works as a lecturer at the Language Institute, Dhurakij Pundit University.

Mailing Address:

 Dhurakij Pundit University

Language Institute

110/1-4, Prachachuen Road

Laksi, Bangkok

10210, Thailand

Email: janpha.tha@dpu.ac.th

[1] Source: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Speak-Good-Singlish-Movement/152213451475413 [23/10/2010]

[2] Source: http://www.eldc.go.th/eldc3/page/general/about_us.jsp [20 November 2009]