Widyalankara, R. C. (2009b). Kaduwa and the evolution of a theory. Golden Jubilee Commemoration Volume of University of Kelaniya.

Research and Publication Committee, University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka.

Kaduva and the Evolution of a Theory A Sociolinguistic Survey

Rohini Chandrica Widyalankara .

Abstract
The genesis for my study is the Theory of Resistance in/through language (Parakrama, 1995). Two main tenets in the theory are the use of antagonistic descriptors (stage II) and the practice of anti norms (stage III). This paper through empirical evidence identifies that these two tenets have undergone an evolutionary process. kaduwa is symptomatic of the first tenet and was formerly considered as an antagonistic descriptor for English. Some of the key words associated with the lexical item in existing theory and research on Kaduva are- elitists, privileged, language of power, social indicator, rural masses, oppression, subjugation, resistance etc. This paper explores the current sociolinguistic status of the term and theorizes that the usage has undergone a semantic change. The findings of the study are interpreted as reflecting an attitudinal shift which is indicated by the new terminology associated with Kaduva. Yet within a minority of undergraduate respondents the former derogatory associations are still very much alive. Code bashing/ odd mixing which are symptomatic of the second tenet too has undergone an evolutionary process. The anti norms have evolved into a new usage. I bear evidence

that SMS discourse is encroaching formal written genres. I hypothize that this spells pedagogical disaster.

Sociolinguistic dynamics Kaduva Polish Karranna Enna! entreated a poster which sprang up on notice boards in University of Kelaniya on the 6th of December 2006. A week later notices went up stating that the Kadu Polish kireeme 2veni vataya [the second round of polishing Kaduva] will be held on the 18th. (Kaduva in vernacular Sinhala is a sword, kadu, its plural). This double edged usage of the lexical item Kaduwa, as a term of reference for English, which had undergone a semi-dormant period in the linguistic register of the undergraduate communities within the universities of Sri Lanka was regaining currency within the locale of the University of Kelaniya. These posters were put up by a group of undergraduates who were reading English as a subject. This undergraduate population, though bilingual, could broadly be considered to possess a better knowledge in English than their mother tongue Sinhala. These students, for the purpose of classification, approximate and represent the elite users of English within the university undergraduate community. They use Standard Sri Lankan English (SSLE) in discourse. These posters addressed the non-English medium undergraduates of the faculty of Arts who needed polishing the Kaduva. Their L1 is Sinhala and they approximate and represent the less fluent, non-elite users of English. The majority of this population belongs to the lower stratifications in a cline of proficiency and a fairly high percentage would use a nonstandard variety of SLE not pot English (Gunesekera, 2005:36). Gunesekera further identifies the sociolinguistic dichotomy between these two groups as an intrinsic result of

a system of education whose policies, though egalitarian in ideology fail in many aspects, especially within the sphere of English education. According to Gunesekera, The education system of Sri Lanka is largely responsible for spawning two varieties of English. They are class based varieties. Sri Lankans with access to English in their homes are far more familiar with and fluent in the language than their compatriots who study it as a classroom language. (ibid) Gunesekera (ibid) identifies one main non-egalitarian aspect which helps to widen the dichotomy- the dearth of teachers who could teach English who are required to facilitate the latter group who mainly consist of rural masses. It is ironical that the good English teachers are the pride of urban schools where they further enrich and polish the language proficiency of the former group. As a corollary the undergraduates of the Department of English possess the power to address the latter population with an offer to polish their English.1 Through these notices they acknowledge the following: a) All the members of the addressed population possess the kaduwa b) The kadu or English in the possession of a majority of them need polishing.( The imagery created is of a weapon which is rusty ,blunt, lacks vigour and thus cannot be handled with dexterity) c) They, the undergraduates of the Department of English possess a superior proficiency of the language. (a juxtaposed imagery of a polished, sharp, rapier thin weapon handled with finesse)

I wish to commend the valiant effort of these undergraduates but would refrain from embarking on an evaluation on how successful the project was/is.

d) Thus they have the power to polish the swords of the less proficient members of their peer group i.e. improve by correcting, making changes and adding new material. The addressed population could interpret the posters a) As a friendly hand extended attempting to bridge, at least to a certain extent, the linguistic chasm between the two groups. b) Or will it be interpreted as: Kadde venasa danawa an attempt to stress the difference between the swords? A case of us and them. Gunesekera (ibid: 22) in this instance us denoting the creators of the posters who use SSLE and are thereby privileged and rendered linguistically superior. They, a subaltern sociolinguistic community. Before embarking on further analysis of the semantic power-play embedded in the captions on the notices, inquiry into the genealogy and entry of kaduva into the arena of academic discussion is deemed appropriate. Kandiah in 1984 states how the Sinhala lexical item kaduva acquired a new linguistic connotation and identity. About a decade or so ago, the vocabulary of colloquial Sinhala acquired a new term of reference for the English language, namely Kaduva a familiar word which meant, until then, simply sword. No one knows for certain when and where this use of the word originated. It is widely believed, however, that it did so in the speech of some hapless children in rural or semi-urban government schools, as their response to their traumatically frustrating experiences in the well-nigh

English classes they were obliged to attend, and that from there it spread to the universities. (Kandiah, 1984: 117) Though not directly stated by Kandiah, the birth of the lexical usage can be positioned chronologically during or as an aftermath of the JVP insurgency in 1971. Though there may be many reasons for the youth uprising, the socio- linguistic importance of the birth of kaduva during this era cannot be ignored. This emergence of the term kaduwa within the repertoire of non elite users of English as an antagonistic descriptor of the language mark the second stage of the Theory of Resistance in/through language (Parakrama, 1995) which is defined as a de-hegemonization process of language standards. Before discussing the theory I would like to identify the perpetrators of this linguistic anarchy, termed as resistance by Parakrama (ibid), through genealogical evidence. Over the ages, the users of English in Sri Lanka have been classified according to a dichotomy. The following classification bears evidence to the fact that perpetuation of unequal social relationships provides a hierarchical tenet for social stratification where the retention of English is a distinctive part of elite identity. The terminology on record in literature by a plethora of linguists and theorists (table 1) as utilized by Srilankans to identify category B strongly evidence that category B is looked upon by representatives of category A with shall I say, sociolinguistic condescension?

Source Pass, H. A. (1950)2

Classification Ceylon English

Category A

Category B

Purists. Speakers of Users of ignorant English good English (RP) (p. 133) (p. 133) group II: group III:

Fernando Chitra. (1976)

Lankan English

group I: Anglicized native

near- English was a Receiver of Foreign bilinguals. Zero end of

speakers

English. English was Language. their adopted mother Until tongue.

recently bilingual

referred to as cline. not pot users. (p.348) (p.352) (p. 356)

Kandiah, Thiru. (1981) Fernando, Siromi. (1988) Parakrama, Arjuna. (1995)

Lankan English

Habitual speakers of Non elite users of English English (p.104))

Sri Lankan English

SLE users

Learner inter-language users. (p. 153)

Lankan English

Users of educated Users of uneducated English English (p.119)

elite users of English Gunesekera, Manique. (2005) Standard Lankan English SSLE users. (p. 24) Sri Kults* 3- cultured, urban. (p. 22)

non-elite users of English Haras*- uncultured, rural. (p. 22)

Not pot users

(p. 36)

English class

speaking Yakkos (p. 36)

(p. 36)

2 3

Chapter VII of The English language in Ceylon, Ph. D., thesis, August 1948, University of London. Gunesekara identifies that this usage is restricted to the locales of universities.

Theory of Resistance in/through Language The linguistic community represented in category B, the perpetrators of linguistic anarchy, the de-hegemonizers, are identified by Parakrama(1995) as the main force the which activates his Theory of Resistance (ibid: xii) and consists of three broad stages4. 1) Active intervention is near impossible within the language in question due to the systemic lack of access to facilities for basic learning. 2) Intervention in the form of creating different lexical items, borrowing extensively from the native language and using new and antagonistic descriptors of the language context gain wide currency. 3) Direct intervention by non-elite users who confront the hegemonic meanings and norms of standard dialects through alternative meanings and anti norms of the same practice.(ibid:190) Thus to cognize the sociolinguistic and socio-political dynamics behind the Theory of Resistance, I wish to examine a brief historical overview of the evolution of the language English, through nativization and acculturation, within the geological context and linguistic ecology of Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka (then known as Ceylon) had two main vernaculars Sinhala and Tamil before the Maritime Provinces were annexed by the British East India Company in 1796 and English became the official language in these provinces. When the country became a colony of the British Empire in 1802 English was designated the only official language, the language of administration, justice and education. The first stage of the Theory of Resistance dawns with the creation of a minute group of English educated locals who were provided with an education in English by the

Parakrama further states that these phases can operate in the same temporal space as well as being chronological steps.

imperial rulers whereas the masses were deprived facilities for acquiring a basic knowledge of the language. The creation of such a linguistic community was common to all colonized nations. According to Macaulays minute (cited in Kachru, 1986:5), as the president of the Indian Committee of Public Instruction on India [which is equally applicable to the Sri Lankan situation], this linguistic community was, a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions we govern-a class of persons . in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinion, in morals and in intellect. This newly created class in Sri Lanka mainly consisted of the traditional elite- the Kandyan aristocracy and the chieftains and village headmen from the low country. They became steeped in western ideology and culture and were so anglicized that they were labeled brown sahibs. Their power increased proportionately with the degree of westernization and identification with their colonial rulers (Obeyesekara, 1984:73). In 1833 this new social class, according to the Colebrooke-Cameron Commission, was still a minority. It has been stated that the number of children nominally instructed in the public and private schools throughout the island amounts to 12,000 in a population of 900,000; and the number who are taught in the English language does not exceed 800.(Mendis, 1956:73) For the masses still education continued through the traditional pirivena and village schools in Sinhala and Tamil. They were denied the right to learn English as the aim of the colonial masters was to fulfil the requirement for interpreters, not to educate the masses. This linguistic praxis formed a new stratification in the Sri Lankan society that

transcended race and caste- the English educated westernized elites and the Sinhala/ Tamil speaking masses. Thus under the British auspices a new social order was being created. The imperial language became not only a class and social indicator but also a weapon of subjugation, oppression and frustration for the non English educated masses. Yet neither a symbolic linguistic lexical item equivalent to kaduva nor an idiomatic usage gained currency to connote these emotions. It was impossible for the vernacular educated masses to intervene as they lacked the knowledge of English. Sociolinguistically they were still in stage I of the theory of Resistance. Expansion of education and the increase in the number of students in English educational institutions which totalled more than 200,000 in 1900 (Sri Lanka, 2006), reflects the entry of the children of the upwardly mobile bourgeoisie to the English medium schools. Though they were educated in the English medium they possessed some proficiency in the vernaculars unlike the brown sahibs of the previous era. By 1942 with the establishment of the University of Ceylon free education was available for these English educated middle classes from kindergarten through the university level. This created a powerful group of bilingual intelligentsia.1948 brought independence to the country but the power remained in the hands of the westernized, English educated elites and bourgeoisie. The masses dreamed about freedom, equality and release from years of subjugation and oppression. But no fundamental change occurred in the sphere of linguistic hegemony. Still English occupied the position of a class indicator. It was still the official language. Vernaculars were secondary in the linguistic hierarchy. Ironically even at this juncture of de-colonization, from the lower stratifications of society the disillusioned urban and rural masses, did not spring any resistance to this

continued linguistic hegemony in the form of a lexical equivalent to Kaduva. But borrowing extensively from the native language the other feature of stage II of the Theory of Resistance was clearly evidenced due to nativization and acculturation of the language and its use by the bilingual intelligentsia, publications and media. Thus it could be theorized that the stage I of the theory of resistance was receding and stage II of the theory was emerging within the socio-linguistic sphere of the country. Within the contemporary global linguistic sphere a change in the outlook towards the mother tongue as the medium of education was taking place concurrently. A resolution of the United Nations General Assembly in 1949 recognized the mother tongue as the most effective medium of instruction within the institutions of education. According to educationists, adopting the mother tongue as the medium of instruction would be advantageous as it would create individual ease, speed of expression and greater speed in learning subject matter. (UNESCO, 1953) How far this affected the birth of the Sinhala only policy and the changing of the medium of instruction to Sinhala cannot be gauged. But in 1956 as a result of political change and nationalistic euphoria the Official Language Act No 33 of 1956, gave legal sanction to elevate the position of Sinhala as the official language, the language of administration and education. Act 28 of 1958 provided the legislation for the use of the Tamil language without conflicting with the provisions of the Official Language Act, especially with the local authorities of the North and East. Within the government educational institutions the vernaculars- Sinhala and Tamil became the medium of instruction. English was taught as a second language. Though egalitarian in ideology this new system of education did not provide equal opportunities to learn English. It widened

10

the gulf between the urban bilinguals and the Sinhala educated rural masses. English still remained a de facto official language and retained its power as a class indicator. The frustration created is aptly conveyed by the editorial of The Sun on 2nd April 1970 (cited in Gunasekara, 1996:63). There is a continued existence in this country of a powerful, entrenched Englishspeaking oligarchy who may fairly be described as the real rulers of the country. In terms of power and effective political control they continue to remain paramount. The vast majority of people of this country remain powerless and inert. This inertia did not last long. Most youth who joined the armed struggle in 1971 were educated in the Sinhala medium, learned English under protest as a second language without much success and the majority belonged to the rural masses. Many of them were armed with university degrees. Kandiah (1984:140) cites de Silva (1973) who states

the martyrs of 1971 were, indeed, the children of 1956 and it is to these that English first became kaduva. The lexical term reached its pinnacle of usage and gained entry to the repertoire of the Sinhala educated school and university students who witnessed the aspirations of the generation educated in the Sinhala medium before them being shattered. The emergence and the wide spread use of the lexical item kaduva completes the linguistic requisites for the second stage of the Theory of Resistance. Before progressing to stage III, I isolate kaduva and identify it as representative of one of the tenets in stage II of the Theory of Resistance antagonistic descriptors of the language and use it as a key word to trace the evolution of the theory. I examined the existence of such an evolution through a sociolinguistic survey which ascertained the

11

attitude towards the lexical item Kaduwa within the undergraduate population of the Faculty of Arts who register for courses at the English Language Teaching Unit (ELTU), University of Kelaniya. This was done by collecting data through an open attitude question and semantic analysis to obtain the current semantic value of Kaduwa. Kaduva A Sociolinguistic survey Objective to ascertain whether sociolinguistic usage of the term kaduva has undergone a semantic change. Research questions1. What percentage of the participants knows that English is referred to as Kaduwa? 2. Is English still kaduva, a symbol of oppression and subjugation for the participants? 3. Has the attitude towards English of the participants undergone a change? Research method: Questionnaire- (Appendix A) Participants The participants were selected from a short listed population of first year undergraduates who registered for ELTU courses (2007) in the faculty of Arts. A total of 621 out of 1000 undergraduates registered for the course in 2007. The selections were conducted according to the statistical procedure- stratified sampling. They were stratified into distinct sub groups based on their proficiency in English and then a random sample was taken from each stratum. All of them had sat for the G.C.E. Advanced Level examination which is used to select students for university education in Sri Lanka. General English is a compulsory paper at this examination. Its resulting grades ranged from W (fail) to A (distinction pass) but the obtained grade is not is not included in the selection criteria. Thus the failure in General English does not prevent students from gaining entry to the

12

Faculty of Arts whereas disciplines such as Medicine, Engineering and Law have a prerequisite of a S pass or above in General English to qualify for entry. The population was grouped according to the grade they had obtained for General English at the G.C.E. Advanced Level Examination (table 3). Their ages ranged from 21-23 years, language spoken at home and their medium of instruction at the university is Sinhala. Equal gender representation could not be achieved as the majority of the population (73%) consisted of female undergraduates.

A quota sample was used to obtain 100 participants representing the specific percentage of the groups in the main population.

13

Instrument Questions 4, the open ended attitude question 5 and question 6 from the questionnaire component of Appendix A were used to collect data. Question (4) Do you know that English is sometimes called kaduva? Question (5) If your answer is Yes why do you think English is called kaduva? As this was an open ended attitude question the participants were required to produce sentences as responses. To prevent language being a barrier to the obtaining of responses the participants were allowed to use the language of their preference L1(Sinhala) or L2(English). Question (6) Is English, in the sense you have explained in Question 5, kaduva to you? Procedure Sinhala translations for the questions were provided for the low and intermediate proficiency participants. The responses for the open ended attitude question (5) were

divided into four categories. The percentage preference for each category was calculated separately. Due to the difficulty in categorization a panel of five evaluated the data with either unanimous or at least 3/5 agreement being needed for categorization. Interviews were conducted for 31 responses to clarify their categorization. Many responses were in Sinhala and much effort was put in to retain their semantic values during translation. The primary mode for categorization was the key lexical items and their semantic values. Results Research question (4) Do you know that English is sometimes called kaduva?

14

Research question (5) If your answer is Yes why do you think English is called kaduva?

The following responses provide some sample data considered as representative of the category divisions. (*1) indicates a translated version. (*2) a clarified categorization where the first person plural/second person/ third person usages were identified as representing the respondent.. Category I It is an important weapon for me. Gives me power and protection. *1 Kaduva is a Sinhala word and its meanings are for safety, protect etc., like English is safety for our life. Its also protect my life. If you know English well we can go any place and do anything. We wont be afraid. Thats why its called Kaduva. .*1*2 English contributes to your protection and greatly helps to fulfill your ambitions.*1*2 Kaduva is a weapon. We can use English language to cut off every difficulty that we have to face in modern society. *1*2 Category II It is a threat and is to be feared. *1*2 Yes, English is kaduva. Im experiencing it now5. *2

This response came from a student (C for A/L General English) who due to time table clashes had to attend a class where the main body of students consisted of A or B pass holders at A/L General English,.

15

The one who know English cut the other people on his path to go in front. I have been cut.*1

You feel uneasy when you use wrong English. Using English correctly can make the other person uneasy. If you cant use a sword correctly you fall into trouble. English is also like that to me.*1

English is an important language but if not used carefully it will harm you- like a sword. *1*2

Category III - I dont know I cant tell it correctly. So many people calling it kaduva. But I dont know reason.

English as a social indicator Within this categorization I witnessed many references to English as a social indicator. When high class use English people dont have English regret. I am regret (Category II) As a sword helps to conquer a battle field English helps me to win the society.*1 (Category I) In society English can be used to defend yourself or you can make some feel ashamed regarding his or hers knowledge of English. (Category - not decided) Some of v r having the idea of learning English is only for to show off our level of society. .(Category not decided) English is used by urban elitists. It is not used in rural areas. Lack of usage in rural areas such as ours generates my fear towards it. *1 (Category II)

16

Question (6) - Is English, in the sense you have explained in Question 5, kaduva to you?

Table 7: Tabulated responses and the # of participants

Groups

Category I affinity 58 yes no 58 0 0

Category II enmity 12 yes 7 2 no 3

Category III uncertain 7 yes 0 4 no 3

Total # of participants Response # of participants Distribution of participants who did not answer Question (6)

Category IV- not decided 4 yes no 1 0 3

Observations The majority of the participants requested Sinhala translations for the questions and used L1 as a language processing device. They were given the provision of using L1 (Sinhala) or L2 (English) to provide the written feedback for the open ended attitude question 5. This was done as the responses were to be produced within a limited time frame. I feel that the majority of the participants opted to use L1 as such usage activated the necessary schemata and accelerated the processing of the out put.

Analysis This sociolinguistic survey used the statistical procedure quota sampling for selecting the participants as it needed a percentage representation of the English proficiency levels of

17

the participant population. Responding to question 4, 19% of the population denied knowledge that English is sometimes called kaduva. The 81 respondents who said yes to Question 5 consisted of the population short listed to analyze different attitudes towards kaduva. Categorization in Table 5 was done through analysis of semantic indicators in the responses. The highest percentage (72%) of the yes respondents felt that the term kaduva connoted a positive outlook towards English while 15% still associated the term with fear and considered English to be a threat. 9% of the population stated that they knew that the term kaduva was used for English but declared that they had no knowledge of why it was called so. Categorization of 4% was not done due to uncertainty of semantic values of the key lexical items and as the respondents were not unavailable for clarification. . The sociolinguistic importance placed on English was indicated by many responses which either directly or indirectly claimed that English was a class indicator. 69 participants out of a total of 81 who responded to the open ended attitude question 5 opted to use Sinhala to express their views. In sum the findings of the study are interpreted as reflecting an attitudinal shift which is indicated by the new terminology associated with the lexical item kaduva. I recognize it as symptomatic of a evolution of Parakramas theory of Resistance and would, for the purpose of categorization, temporarily slot it into a stage IV and attempt to compile further evidence for the evolution of the Theory of Resistance and to justify the sociolinguistic need to identify a stage IV. According to Parakrama (1995: 190) the elite users of English during stage two of the Theory of Resistance dealt with kaduva through avoidance; For instance the elites can ignore the criticism implied by kaduva by simply not using the word. I recognize

18

evidence of an evolutionary process in 2007. The elite users of SLE within the university community represented by the undergraduates of the Department of English, through using the term kaduva in their posters, have claimed their right to use the lexical item. Anti norms and broadened standards The second tenet of the theory I wish to investigate for evolutionary evidence is the practice of anti norms identified in stage III of the Theory of Resistance (Parakrama, 1995). During this stage, the activators of the theory cognize that kaduva if grasped firmly in his own hands will endow him with the power to be truly free, to be himself and to live in dignity on terms of equality with other men; in someone elses hands, it remained the instrument of his oppression, the means of his subjugation. (Kandiah, 1984:139). This perception would have made the non elite users of English re-think of a strategy to face the danger of grasping a weapon which was increasingly becoming a sociolinguistic necessity. Another factor which pressurized them was the open economic policies introduced in 1978 and the resulting socio-economic changes which made the private sector flourish in Sri Lanka, making English the language of the private sector. The public sector ceased to be the main source of employment and it was here that most Sinhala educated youth found employment. Thus English was becoming an absolute requirement for employment. This made the non elite users of English realize that total resistance will make them continue in the role of the oppressed. Their partial attitudinal change towards the language resulted in the masses making a conscious effort to learn English as a second language in schools and mushrooming tutories and at the same time using the antagonistic term kaduva when referring to the language. Realization that

19

repulsing the global linguistic wave that necessitated the global community to have a universal language English (being the most suitable contender) will be to their disadvantage motivated them further. But most of them were not ready to practice it according to the norms and standards set down by the elite users of SLE .Thus stage III of the Theory of Resistance emerges with the non elite users of SLE resorting to the flout standards through the use of anti norms of the same practice (Parakrama , 1995) The most accessible means of natural resistance to the language- verbal communication, is extensively researched by Parakrama (ibid) and one form of anti norm is labeled as code thrashing/ odd mixing(ibid:119). In one segment of a sample speech context the ratio of word occurrence English: Sinhala is 4:3. Machang my katahanda is very baraarum no? Parakrama(1995) theorizes that a broadened standard, which accommodates the so called uneducated speech such as the above given example of code trashing /odd mixing is linguistically needed. While acknowledging that the language standards need broadening one has to remember that Parakrama states- We are still at the threshold of this third stage. But as the Theory of Resistance passes the threshold level of stage III, I would like to discuss new forms and practices which have emerged and attempt to identify two such current practices. By doing so I wish to question whether these practices could be recognized as acceptable linguistic norms even within the broadened standards which Parakrama recommends. Bursting of the broadened standards

20

The first bears evidence to the fact that the odd mixing/ code thrashing Parakrama identifies as a form of resistance, has evolved into an intelligible discourse being conducted in the following format. Interlocutor B is an undergraduate of the faculty of Humanities who is following an English course at the ELTU and falls within the lower stratification in a cline of proficiency in English. Interlocutor A is a teacher of the ELTU who did not relent under the resistance to the language (in most speech situations A would code shift to Sinhala).

A- You cannot do the speech test if you dont have at least 75% attendance. B- Mata enna beha. veda karanawa [ I cant come. Im working/] A- Then you will lose twenty marks. B - Prashna paththareta liyanna puluwan neda? [I can write for the paper no?] A- Yes. If you have registered for the course. This strong resistance even to the use of code thrashing/odd mixing could be identified as a form of Sinhala chauvinism, as odd mixing is within the linguistic capabilities of all members of this population. Parakrama, in 1995, further states that non standard forms of writing are less prolific. I wish to investigate the validity of this in 2007. Given below is an attempt of a low proficiency user of English to utilize a new anti norm within the genre of formal writing. The extract is from an answer script submitted for English for Communication (2006) which is a two credit issuing first year course evaluated at the end of the academic year. Question 6

21

You are a first year student of the University of Kelaniya boarded in a hostel. Write a letter to your grandmother describing . Extract AAadaraneeya aththamme. Me pradeshaya harima venas. Gedara vage nemei. Goda denekva mama danne nehe. Harima paluy. [Dear grandmother, this place is quite different. Not like home. I do not know most of the people. Its very lonely.] The bold use of the English font to construct sentences in Sinhala, with a non occurrence of English lexical items bears evidence to the fact that this practice goes even beyond the anti norms of the Theory of Resistance. Phonological mapping of the orthographical representations produces Sinhala lexis. It was the unanimous decision of a panel of 12 markers to allot 0/10 for the answer provided. This reflected a rejection of the practice within formal written discourse. Identification of the culprit source as SMS (Short Message Service) discourse6 led to the query, if this was a text message how will you respond? They all agreed that if this was SMS discourse they would have had to recognize it as a discourse variety within a natural form of communication in Sri Lanka text messaging. In an attempt to gauge the rate of usage of the linguistic phenomenon in extract A in SMS discourse I conducted a short survey of text messages sent to a Sri Lankan television channel. My objective is restricted to identifying the extent of the usage in extract A and data was collected at a given point of time from a selected electronic

On interview the student complied with a request for scrutinizing random sent items selected by him from the records in his mobile phone. The samples proved that he was very proficient in this usage within the genre of SMS discourse. His inbox indicated that many responses he received too were in a similar format.

22

media. In a comprehensive empirical research on SMS discourse Mendis (2006:134) concludes SMS discourse therefore appears to defy explanation or categorization. Though pre warned I attempt a broad categorization as I wish to identify the ratio of occurrence between the SMS discourse varieties within the corpus. This broad categorization too has its limitations as the corpus is a narrow representative of variations in SMS discourse. This short survey was done in 2007 when the World Cup fever was at its height due to the fact that the Sri Lankan team had reached the finals. 231 crawlers on Sirasa7, were tabulated on 28th of April, the day of the finals and just before the match commenced, from 10.00 13.00 hours. These crawlers were text messages or SMSes sent to electronic media and this form of text messaging is not restricted to cricket matches. They appear on most of the popular musical and reality shows.8 The crawlers were recorded by a panel of 6. As the speed of the crawlers on the television screen very often prevented a full text from being recorded by one individual one crawler was recorded by two members of the panel. Every third SMS was recorded. Out of the 231 crawlers recorded 25 were rejected due to recording deficiencies and from the remaining sample 100 crawlers were randomly selected for analysis. One limitation of this survey is that though the crawlers carried names no access was possible to categorize the personal information such as the educational background of the senders. Gender could be identified through most of the names but as they were in English font some names were problematic (Tharaka pronounced with the final / / will be a female whereas a final schwa will make it a male). Most of the crawlers were sent by groups

7 8

A popular television channel especially among the young. Though Sinhala as SMS language has been introduced at the time of the survey it was restricted to one mobile service provider and only one brand of phone was compatible. Thus all SMSes used English font.

23

which again defied gender analysis. The data bore clear evidence to justify that the stage III of the Theory of Resistance had reached a point of evolving into a stage IV.
SMS

language is a living, evolving language and has a multitude of discourse variations9.

This study identifies four such varieties in SMS discourse in the crawlers sent to electronic media. According to Mendis (2006: 127) her study included only SMSes where the base language is English. This study identifies a variety where the base language is Sinhala though the font is English (categoryd) The crawlers broadly fell into four categories according to linguistic denominations. a) Good syntactical structure. No spelling mistakes10. Lexis is English. e.g.-Our heroes, u hv da ability to make us proud b) Wobbly syntactical structure. High frequency of what would be considered spelling mistakes in formal writing. Lexis is English. e.g.- 1.Our crikat teem me wish al da bast 2. Wising u todey win c) Code mixing/ code thrashing/ odd mixing. Mapping orthography to phonetic representations results in the production of English and Sinhala lexical items. e.g.- 1. Ape criket kandayama wish u al da best! [Our cricket team] 2. Ohoma yung! Ohoma yung! Ohoma giyoth v wil win![ continue with the success and ] d) Sinhala words written in English font. Mapping orthography to phonology results in the production of Sinhala lexical items. e.g.- 1.Mahela athulu ape teem ekata jaya pathamu. [We wish Mahela and our
I feel that it has its own standard SMS language users who look upon the non use of abbreviation in texting as a pidgin variety. 10 non SMS language lexical items, when compared with formal written discourse.
9

24

team victory] 2. Era! Mahela era!11 [/Smash them Mahela smash them!/ or /Go Mahela go!]12 . The ratio of occurrence for the linguistic categories wasa: b: c: d = 1.1 : 2.0: 2.8 : 4.1 These linguistic usages (categories a, b, c, d) are orthographic productions unlike speech discourse analyzed and identified as code bashing/ odd mixing by Parakarma (1995). As they are orthographic productions they have a strong probability of being converted into extended usage in formal written discourse by low proficiency users of English as evidenced by extract A (which would fall under category d of the above categorization). The high proficiency users of English have the necessary linguistic ability for a smooth transition from SMS language to a formal form of written discourse when the circumstance requires it. Thus I feel that the low proficiency user is granted a false sense of equality during text messaging. Attempting to use the same form of linguistic usage when required to produce formal written discourse, the low proficiency learner of English who would have, for example, been active in usages identified as category c or d within the genre of SMS discourse faces the brutal reality. Furthermore the ratio of occurrence of category (d) bare evidence to the fact that using English font to write in Sinhala during text messaging was gaining currency.This linguistic phenomenon then

11

I being a bilingual read era as the English lexical item /i:ra/ ( a period in history) and construed it as hailing an Era with Mahela at the helm where the Sri Lankan team would be able to regain the glory of 1994 when Sri Lanka won the world cup. But the younger members of the recording team, equally bilingual, had tabulated it under category (d) where the pronunciation was identified as / ra/ not //i:ra/ which changed the semantic connotation of the whole statement. 12 The closest translations to the emotionally packed utterance.

25

provides more evidence that recognition of a stage IV of the Theory of Resistance is timely. Thus in sum I identify the culprit source in extract A as belonging to category d of SMS discourse. In 1995 Parakrama identifying code bashing and odd mixing in verbal discourse had used the imperative encourage!. I suggest that in the hypothesized stage IV of the evolving Theory of Resistance the key tenet should be an equally emphatic control!. I wish to state that a bursting at the seams of the linguistic fabric which enrobes and protects norms and standards of SSLE, which had been stretched to the maximum through the acceptance of code thrashing/odd mixing in speech situations, will be witnessed if SMS discourse is deemed acceptable in formal written discourse. The role of the English teacher kaduva polish karanna enna The English teachers role in this sociolinguistic context is a complex one. Parakrama (1995:191) discussing the threshold level of stage III of his Theory of Resistance states that the onus on those in some tenuous relation to linguistic authority (such as teachers for instance) at such a time is doubly difficult since we need to encourage and nurture such incipient confrontation without pretending we are its bandwagon. As argued by Parakrama such incipient confrontation through code bashing /odd mixing in spoken discourse should be encouraged as it is an attempt at being active in the L2 linguistic context. This grounding for encouragement should be equally applicable SMS discourse. Yet I, as a teacher of English would seek to control the above linguistic acrobatics from infiltrating all genres of language practice. My acquiescence to Parakramas (1995) broadening of standards is based on the fact that in the area of spoken discourse standardization makes elite discourse normative and

26

marginalizes other voices (ibid). I agree that the other voices should not be curbed. But should this type of discoursal resourcefulness of the non elite users be allowed entry into a knowledge structure which requires a standard such as the formal written contexts? According Kandiah (ibid: xxxi) Not to know and control these patterns and conventions is to remain outside the community they define, to be characterized as an other who has neither the entitlement nor the ability to participate actively in it. In controlling the patterns the ESL teacher acquires the role of a chameleon- green signaling go ahead, use it in informal speech contexts, red stop you cannot use it in formal writing. Thus in an avowed personal statement with an attached invitation to dissidence I sketch the following language selection criteria as a suggested mode of controlling code mixing/thrashing and the use of SMS language in written discourse within ESL locales.

A*1 - Writing -classroom The students could be allowed to produce written contexts in free writing exercises where the Sinhala equivalent of a difficult English word could be written in erasable form and substituted with its English equivalent after peer group, dictionary or facilitator consultation. This may be a practice which leads to acknowledging that the final draft should be in English. No SMS language. A*2 Listening -classroom It is argued that the teacher should judiciously decide when to provide verbal Sinhala translations when intuition recommends that such a provision would accelerate comprehension.

27

A*3- Reading lesson material It is hypothyzed that providing Sinhala glosses for difficult English words which occur in comprehension passages within the lesson material will accelerate and increase comprehension in low proficiency groups. No texts with SMS language other than in instances where the subject is SMS discourse. I obtain support for my argument form Kandiah (1995) who in the process of discussing code bashing/ odd mixing states that the tendency to use a version of intelligibility, namely, the ability to get the message across, as a criterion for acceptance raises some discomfort. This was generated as a reaction to verbal discourse. This discomfort will elevate itself to a point of pedagogical disaster if control is not used to prevent SMS language entering formal written discourse and examination contexts (table 9).

Re-entering the discussion on kaduva polish karanna enna!, though what we really do in the classroom is polish the kaduva, I contend that the ELTUs of universities are denied the right to advertise their courses in a format equivalent to kaduva polish karanna enna! While witnessing and acknowledging the catchy, trendy attention gaining usage with great envy, this is what we are struggling to stop infiltrating into formal written contexts of the undergraduate population. If the undergraduate population is denied even code mixing in formal written format it is argued that the ELTUs are forced not to use the denied formats to address the undergraduate community in the written discourse. Furthermore the ESL teacher should posses the deep psycho-sociolinguistic comprehension that stratification as the other will deny you the entitlement of active

28

participation within the speech community of the learners. The semantic power play within the caption in the notices convey a stratification of, we, the elite users of English and you, the subaltern. This is recognized as an arena the ESL teacher facilitating a university undergraduate community should refrain from entering. Discussion The genesis for this study is Parakramas (1995) Theory of Resistance in/through Language in which he identifies a form of linguistic anarchy which is articulated in the form of a resistance towards language norms by non elite users of English. He states that it is a process of de-hegemonizing language standards. Through this study I endeavour to identify an evolutionary process through evidence gathered through sociolinguistic surveys. First I investigated the current status of kaduwa which gained wide currency in the 80s. The impetus for this was created when I witnessed a reemergence of the term kaduwa within the locale of the University of Kelaniya. This reemergence is significant as the term was used by the undergraduates of the Department of English to address their peers who needed polishing the kaduwa. This is symptomatic of a sociolinguistic shift as kaduwa was formerly restricted to the repertoire of the non elite users of English and the elite users of English of that era, according to Parakrama (1995; 190), ignored the usage. The sociolinguistic survey bore empirical evidence to the fact that for a majority of the undergraduate participants the term still did exist in their linguistic repertoire. But an attitudinal change towards English was clearly indicated by the semantic values allocated to the lexical item kaduwa. For a minority of the population kaduwa was still a

29

derogatory usage and bore semantic evidence which conveyed hostility towards the language English. Next I explored the evolution of anti norms in stage III of the Theory of Resistance. Parakrama (ibid) vociferously argues for accepting the alternative practices and anti norms of these non elite users of English specifically the code thrashing and odd mixing in speech contexts. He theorizes that a broadened standard should accommodate such usages. Attention is requested to fact that these alternative practices and anti norms were recorded in 1995 as symptomatic of the threshold level of stage III of Parakramas Theory of Resistance (ibid). I provide sociolinguistic evidence through analysis to build a moot point that in 2007 these anti norms and alternative practices have evolved into linguistic usages which have resulted in these broadened standards reaching its bursting point. The question raised in this paper is: how far can we broaden the standards? The bold use of the English font to produce a written answer for a question paper of a credit issuing subject at a university could be construed as stretching these broadened standards to the very limits. My contention is that at least within the locales of English language teaching, control should be used to prevent SMS language and the use of English font to produce Sinhala lexical items from entering the sphere of written discourse. I again produce support from Kandaih, (1995: xxxi) who states if standards are redefined to accept without control, such criteria has the potential, it appears, not to advance but to seriously weaken the dehegemonizing battle. Discussing the role of the English teacher I point out that it too has to undergo evolution as control is needed at the IV stage of the evolutionary process. I record statistical evidence that the majority of the first year undergraduates (79% in the

30

current study) who register for ELTU courses fall within the lowest range in a cline of proficiency in English. This is evidenced by the low results obtained for General English at the Advanced Level examination. These statistics reflect the brutal reality the teachers of English as a second language, have to confront. As their mission is to achieve linguistic equality for the low level learners they facilitate. But their working environment equates a sociolinguistic and pedagogic interpretation of the brutal vs. prevail paradox. In summation I wish to state that the brutal sociolinguistic reality within the English Language Teaching sphere makes the paving of a path towards linguistic socialism where proficiency in a language, English in this instance, should be equally distributed seems just linguistic utopia. Acknowledging that every individual has the fundamental right for linguistic equality I wish to state that English Language teachers are faced with an arduous task. Confronted with the brutal truth that the majority of the undergraduates belong to the lower levels of a cline of proficiency they have to retain faith that they will prevail in the end and facilitate linguistic equality. Bibliography De Silva, M. 1973. Sri Lanka: The End of Welfare Politics. South Asian Review 62, 91- 109. De Souza, D. 1962. English as a second language some problems. Changing Times, 2. 3. Gunasekera, R. G. G. O. 1996. The implementation of the official language policy, 1956 1970. In National Language Policy in Sri Lanka. (Ed) Dharmadasa, K. N. O., International Centre for Ethnic Studies, Dehiwala. 17-78.

31

Gunesekera, M. 2005. The Post Colonial Identity of Sri Lankan English. Katha Publishers,Colombo. Kandiah, T. 1981. Disinherited Englishes : the case of Lankan English. Navasilu, 5. Sri Lanka. Kandiah, T. 1984. Kaduva: Power and the English language weapon in Sri Lanka. In Colin-Thome, Percy and Halpe, Ashley (Eds.), Honouring E.C.F. Ludowyk: Felicitation Essays. Thisara Prakasakayo. Dehiwala.17-155. Liyanage, U. 2002. Good to Great. CIMA Business Leader Summit-2002, Conference Manual. Colombo. Sri Lanka. 25-34. Mendis, D. 2006. Situating SMS (Short Message Service) Discourse. The Sri Lanka Journal of the Humanities, XXXII, 1&2, 125-134. Mendis, G. C. (Ed.). 1956. The Colebrooke-Cameron Papers. Oxford University Press. 1, 73. Obesekara, R. The bilingual intelligentsia: Their contribution to the intellectual life of Sri Lanka in the twentieth century. In Colin-Thome, Percy and Halpe, Ashley (Eds.), Honouring E.C.F. Ludowyk: Felicitation Essays. Thisara Prakasakayo.Dehiwala. 62-71. Pass, H. A. 1950. Common Errors in Ceylon English. University of Ceylon Review. III, 3. Parakrama, A. 1995. De-Hedgemonizing Language Standards: Learning from (Post) Colonial Englishes about English London: Macmillan Press Ltd. UNESCO (1953). The use of vernacular languages in education, Monographs on Fundamental Education, 8, Paris.

32

Raheem, R. & Gunesekera, M. 1994. Quem Quaeritis? Defining Standards for Spoken Sri Lankan English, ELT: Compendium of University ELT Papers, 19871991. ELTUs of Sri Lankan Universities. U.S. Library of Congress. Sri Lanka. http://country studies.us/sri lanka. ( visited on January 3, 2007 Appendix A - Questionnaire

Name of respondent Student number . . School/s attended District allocation (A/L).. 1. Circle the grade you obtained for English in the following examinations. G.C.E. A/L - General English G.C.E. O/L - English A A B B C C S S W W

2. Do you have any other qualifications in English?

response Yes No

Preference

3. If your answer is Yes write the qualification /s. . .. 4. Do you know that English is sometimes called kaduva? response Yes No Preference

5. If your answer is yes why do you think English is called kaduva? (You can answer in Sinhala).

33

 ..

6. Is English, in the sense you have explained in Question 5, kaduva to you? response Yes No Professor Kumarasinghe, Dean, Faculty of Humanities, Preference

34