17
Indian English Pronunciation

PRAMOD PANDEY

Introduction

Indian English (IndE) represents one of the most prominent new Englishes (Mesthrie and Bhatt 2011). For a majority of its 125 million speakers, it is a second language, learnt at school and through higher education. For a small number of more than 200 thousand, in particular, the Anglo-Indian population, it is the first language, according to the 2001 Census of India figures. The pronunciation of English of Indians varies according to educational medium, level, and region, so that one can evidently speak of its variants such as Hindi English or Tamil English. English medium education as well as higher education has helped reduce the variation to the extent that a more general variety has emerged as an acceptable standard across the subcontinent, which has been given the name General Indian English (GIE).

My goal in this chapter is to illustrate the significant features of GIE and some of its variants. I first address the circumstances in which GIE has emerged as the representative variety of IndE. I then discuss the main features of the segmental and prosodic phonology of Indian English. I end the chapter with a brief discussion of an overview of issues relating to the stability of IndE.

English in India: past and present

GIE was proposed (CIEFL 1972; Bansal and Harrison 1974) as an educational standard for teaching English in India in place of British Received Pronunciation (RP), keeping in view the need to communicate with least interference of the mother-tongue with fellow Indians and foreigners. There has been a clear development from the stage of the introduction of English in India as a transplanted variety by the British rulers as a subject and medium of instruction in schools and colleges to its present stage as an educationally and socially accepted standard. This development, however, has not been without a competition with other varieties in the past, three of which were the most prominent, namely, Standard English, Anglo-Indian English (AIE), as used by the Anglo-Indian community of the pre-independence period, and a common variety popularly known as “Babu English” and “Butler English” (BIE for short) (Yule and Burnell 1996[1886]; Hosali 2000) in its versions in Bengal and Madras presidencies respectively.

An example of AIE is provided in Allardyce (1877: 541) with “translation”:

Im dikk’d to death! The khansamah had got chhutti, and the whole bungla is ulta-pulta.

[I’m bothered to death! The butler has got leave, and the whole house is turned upside down.]

An example of Butler English is given below from Hosali and Aitchison (2006: 57), the context is that of a butler on being invited to England:

One master call for come India … eh England. I say not coming. That master very liking me. I not come. That is like for India – that hot and cold. That England for very cold.

As compared to the contact varieties of IndE illustrated above, there was a more standard variety, the “Indian English” in the early stages. The variety met with two opposite views: the purist and the realist views. The purist view aimed at bringing IndE close to the British standard, as expressed by Whitworth (1907: 5–6):

I have been struck with the wonderful command which Indians – and not only those who have been to England – have obtained over the English language for all practical purposes. At the same time, I have often felt that what a pity it is that men exhibiting this splendid facility should now and then mar their compositions by little errors of idiom which jar upon the ear of the native Englishman.

The realist view, which dispassionately looks at the English produced by Indians with its own linguistic features and acceptable as such, must have existed for a long time, as is apparent from the title of Subba Rao’s (1954) book, but it came to find expression in post-independence India. What has come to be widely accepted today as a representative variety of IndE is neither the Anglo-Indian variety nor the purist variety, but a variety that can function as a pedagogic model for acquisition through formal education. It is also assumed to be socially acceptable “devoid of regional peculiarities that may impair communication with speakers within and from outside the country” (Pandey 1994: 198). The rise of such a variety was possible because of a slow decline in the prestige of British Received Pronunciation (RP) “as a socially acceptable spoken variety of native English (nE), and a concomitant realization that it is too ideal a model for Indian learners of English to acquire”. The wide acceptance of this variety throughout the subcontinent has been of such magnitude that the other contact variants are seen today as aligned to it on a scale of acceptability. It is interesting to observe that Anglo-Indian English has come to converge with GIE, as noted by Coelho (1997) for one of the variants.

Elements of General Indian English Pronunciation: segments

In spite of some regional variation in its pronunciation, there is considerable stability in GIE to bear a description. We try to present such a description below based on existing studies.

We first present the segmental system, as described and discussed in CIEFL (1972) and later work.

Consonant phonemes

The consonant inventory is presented in Table 17.1 with some modifications from the inventories in CIEFL (1972) and Bansal and Harrison (1974).

Table 17.1 Consonant phonemes of GIE.

BilabialLabio-dentalDentalAlveolarPost-alveolarRetr.PalatalVelarGlottal
Plosive P ?
?(b?ʱ)		t h dʈ ɖ
(ɖʱ)		k? ɡ
(ɡʱ)
Fricativef s z? ?ʃh?
Nasal m n? ŋ
Tapɾ
Lat. Approx.l
Approx. υj?
Affricateʧ        ʤ

In Table 17.1, the following points about the segment inventory of GIE may be noted. The labio-dental approximant /υ/ is substituted for two native English phonemes, the labial approximant /w/ (see also Sahgal and Agnihotri 1988) and the labio-dental fricative /v/, both of which are distinguished in restricted environments allophonically. The voiced alveolar fricative /z/ is substituted for both /z/ and /ʒ/, there being no post-alveolar voiced fricative in GIE. The following phonemes have different phonetic qualities from the segments in NE: /tʰ d ʈ ɖ ɾ / in place of /θ ð t d ɹ. /ɾ/ is variously termed as approximant or flap (Bansal 1976) or tap (as here). It has in fact variant pronunciations. The following phonemes with restricted occurrence have been added without corresponding consonants in NE: /bʱ/ as in abhor, /ɖʱ/ as in adhere, and /ɡʱ/ as in ghost. These consonants are based on the orthographic representations of the words in which they occur.

The distribution of the consonant phonemes in general is in accordance with the standard international varieties, with the following peculiarities. / ɾ / optionally does not occur before consonants and word-finally. The optional deletion of /ɾ/ is restricted to the word domain. If dropped finally, it does not surface, even when the following word begins with a vowel, e.g., /də ɾivə iz flo:iŋ/ The river is flowing. Word-medially, /ŋ/ always occurs with a following /ɡ/, e.g., /siŋ/ sing, but /siŋɡiŋ/ singing. Geminate consonants occur within morphemes, e.g., innate /inne:ʈ/, happy /hæppi:/, as well as across morphemes, e.g., illegal /illi:gəl/ unnatural /ˈənnæ?ʃu?əl], when the orthographic word has corresponding double consonants. The occurrence of geminate consonants in this context is, however, not consistent; it does not occur, for example, in attest, rabbit, added, etc.

The distribution of some of the phonemes in morphophonemic alternations (e.g., Bansal 1983) is at variance with native English, in a majority of cases, on account of orthography. The regular past tense allomorph is pronounced /ɖ/ or /ɛɖ/, as in walked /wɔ:kɖ/, robbed /rɔ:bɖ/, laughed /la:fɖ/, wanted /ʋa:nʈɛɖ/. The regular plural morpheme is pronounced /s/ for both /s/ and /z/, and /ɛz/in place of /ɪz/ of native English, e.g., dogs /dɔ:ɡs/, falls /fɔ:ls/, matches /mæʧɛz/.

Consonant allophones

Aspirated plosives and affricate [ pʰ ʈʰ kʰ ʧʰ] < /p ʈ k ʧ/ are occasionally heard in the speech of educated Indians. The retroflex nasal [ɳ] < /n/ occurs before retroflex stops, e.g., [pimageɳʈs] pants. The retroflex stops interestingly have alveolar allophones following alveolar fricatives /s z/, e.g., [best] best, [re:zd] raised. In the variety encountered in the south the aspirated dental plosive [tʰ] (for θ) is often unaspirated (e.g., Nagarajan 1985; Indira 2009) and the alveolar lateral tends to be retroflexed [ɭ] intervocalically (e.g., Indira 2009). Apart from the specific allophones, a general allophonic process of gemination found across Indian languages (Hindi, Bengali, Punjabi, Marathi, Tamil, Telugu, etc.) leads to geminate consonants in the environment between a vowel and /j ʋ r l/, e.g., between [biʈʈwi:n], supreme [suppri:m], secure [sekkjo: ɾ]. These cases of geminates are in addition to the ones on account of the double consonants in the orthographic forms of words, as observed above.

Vowel phonemes

The inventory of monophthong vowel phonemes is presented in Table 17.2.

Table 17.2 Monophthong vowel phonemes of GIE.

FrontCentralBack
Closeɪ i?ːʊ u?ː
Close-mide?/ɛ ?ːəoː
 eː  
Open-mid æɔ (ɔ:)
Opena?:

Wells (1982) illustrates the differences among these vowels in terms of a lexical set – KIT, FLEECE, DRESS, FACE, and TRAP for the front monophthongs, FOOT, GOOSE, GOAT, LOT/CLOTH for the back monophthongs, and STRUT, PALM for the central monophthongs.

The diphthongs that occur on the surface are six in number: /aɪ aʊ ɔɪ ɪə ʊə/, occurring in the following lexical set of Wells (1982): PRICE, MOUTH, CHOICE, NEAR, SQUARE, CURE. For the last word, POOR would be a better example, as in the case of CURE, one can come across variants such as o: /kjo:(r)/. Although, on the surface, all the six diphthongs occur, three of them are more stable, namely, /ai au ɔɪ/.

The following facts of correspondence with a native variety such as RP, as described, for example, in Gimson (1962), may be noted. The monophthongs /e: o:/ correspond to NE diphthongs /e? əu/. The distinction between the long and the short low-mid back vowels /ɔː ɔ/ is neutralized to /ɔː/. A shorter variant /ɔ/ is also found, but does not contrast with the long counterpart. The realizations of the vowel are more restricted in IndE, giving way to the close-mid vowel /o:/ in certain words; e.g., cot /kɔ:ʈ/~ /kɔʈ/, caught /kɔ:ʈ /, call /kɔ:l/, core /ko:r/ (in place of RP /kɔ:(r)/), court /ko:(r)ʈ/, coat /ko:ʈ/. The vowel /o:/ has a wide distribution, occurring in place of the RP /ɔ:/, as mentioned above, as well as the diphthong /əʊ/: go, court, road, force, more, etc. /æ:/ is realized as [ɛ:] in most instances. Where full vowels alternate with schwa in native English varieties in stressed and unstressed positions, there is frequent occurrence of full vowels in GIE, even in those positions that are not stressed in words, such as in the underlined vowels in acid/acidity, photograph/photography, oppose/opposite, basement. Word-finally /a:/ occurs commonly in place of the NE /ə/, /pu:na:/, Poona, /ɪnɖɪa:/, India. Nonfinally, in nonalternating cases, /ə/ tends to occur frequently, e.g., above, driver, etc. /ə/ is optionally deleted in unstressed syllables flanked by a preceding stressed syllable, and followed by another syllable, after a general Schwa Deletion process in Hindi (Pandey 1990), e.g., [miˈlitr?:] military, [sekˈkretr?:] secretary. In regional varieties of IndE, such as Bengali English and Tamil English, the nonalternating /ə/ may be realized as a front vowel /æ/ or /ɛ/, especially since the filter languages (Bengali and Tamil) have word-initial stress.

The distribution of the diphthongs on the surface is for the most part as in native English varieties, with occasional restrictions, such as (see Bansal 1983), /ɪə/ may be realized as a monophthong /i:/, /eə/ as /e:/ and /ʊə/ as /u:/ in certain lexical items, e.g., serious /si:riəs/, period /pi:riəɖ/, area /e:rɪa:/, various /ʋe:rɪəs/, during /ɖju:rɪŋ/, and tour /ʈu:r/. Although, on the surface, these six diphthongs occur in GIE and in most varieties of IndE, it is difficult to establish that they are indeed single vowel phonemes and not a sequence of two vowels. One of the ways to ascertain their diphthongal status is by examining their behavior in some form, such as stress placement. In nE, for instance, the complex words severity /sɪˈverɪti/ and theˈatrical /θɪˈætrɪkl̩/ from severe and theatre provide evidence for the surface diphthongs in the shorter words to be a diphthong in one (severe/severity) but a vowel sequence in the other (theatre/theatrical). Pandey (1980) on the basis of the study of word-stress in Hindi English found that the placement of stress in words reveals that phonologically some of these diphthongs behave like vowel sequences, as is apparent from the following examples for the vowel /ɪə/: severe /ˈsi:ʋɪə(r)/, severity /sɪʋɪˈæriʈi:/, sincere / ˈsɪnsɪə(r)/, sincerity /sɪnsɪˈɛriʈi:/. Most major Indian languages from the Indo-Aryan and Dravidian stocks have limited number of diphthongs, /əɪ/ and /əʊ/ being the commonest. They differ, however, with regard to the presence of hiatus (i.e., occurrence of vowel sequence) in them. Hiatus is permissible in the Indo-Aryan languages, but is absent in some of the Dravidian languages, for example, Tamil. The occurrence of surface diphthongs in most varieties of IndE may in all likelihood be perceived as vowel sequences. It is relevant to recall here the tendency, as noted above, in IndE to substitute diphthongs with monophthongs in certain forms, such as serious, various, tour. In such cases the vowels must be assumed to be perceived as single and not a sequence.

A consideration of the inventory of diphthongs in GIE, with two of the RP diphthongs absent, namely, /eɪ/ and /əʊ/ or /oʊ/, draws one’s attention to a historical common beginning of English in India in the seventeenth to eighteenth centuries. A look at the development of diphthongs in English, as discussed in detail in Dobson (1968), shows that the vowels /eɪ/ and /oʊ/ were the last to develop in the later eighteenth century. When English was transplanted in India, the diphthongs had not emerged. Any explanation other than the one based on historicity, such as universals or markedness, for the absence of the two diphthongs in most varieties of IndE can be as plausible.

Vowel allophones

The vocalic allophones of GIE differ to a much greater extent than the consonant allophones from other varieties of English in terms of their phonetic realization. Almost each vowel is different in quality from RP. Within the phonemic system of GIE, however, there is less allophonic variation. One of the main vocalic allophones is nasal vowels. Vowels are nasalized when they both precede or follow a nasal, e.g., [nõ:] No, [nɔ ˜ʈ] not, [e˜nɪ ˜] any. Nasalization does not take place if a voiced non-nasal consonant follows the vowel, e.g., [nɔ:d] nod, [mo:ɾ] more. Unlike in many varieties of native English, vowel length is insensitive to the voiced/voiceless distinction in the following environment. Thus /aɪ/ in rice and rise or right and ride is not differentiated in terms of length in its allophonic manifestations in the words.

Experimental evidence for GIE

Experimental phonetic studies of IndE sounds are of some standing now. However, a majority of them (e.g., Balasubramanian 1972, 1975; Gupta 1982; Nagarajan 1985; Indira 2009) are of regional varieties. Phonetic studies of a general nature are relatively recent. They are aimed at examining impressionistic as well as experimental observations of phoneticians regarding IndE sounds, in the main vowels and prosodic phenomena of stress and intonation. Wiltshire and Harnesberger (2006) investigate IndE pronunciation of two groups with different first languages, namely Gujarati, an Indo-Aryan language, and Tamil, a Dravidian language, “to evaluate to what extent Indian English (IE) accents are based on a single target phonological-phonetic system (i.e., General Indian English), and/or vary due to transfer from the native language.” The investigation reveals “…both phonetic and phonological influences of IndE speakers’ native language on their accent in IndE, even in proficient speakers; these influences appear to supersede IndE norms and can be found in both the segmental and suprasegmental properties of their speech.”

Wiltshire and Harnesberger find that the observations of Wells (1982) and Nihalani et al. (1979/2004) regarding the low vowel /a/ being “front” in quality is not attested in the IndE of speakers with Tamil and Gujarati as their mother tongue. They use a back vowel /ɑ:/ instead. That result is further confirmed in Wiltshire (2009). The view that the phonemic status of the vowel /ɐ/ (earlier symbolized as /ʌ/), /ɜ:/, and /ə/ in IndE is not clear (e.g., Wells 1982), and that the former often appears even in unstressed syllables (e.g., Nihalani et al. 2004) is examined in Wiltshire (2009) and found to be attested. The vowel in fact occurs commonly in western Hindi and western Indo-Aryan languages such as Haryanvi and Punjabi.

The uncertainty regarding the pronunciation and structure of diphthongs in IndE noted above has confirmation from an acoustic investigation in Maxwell and Fletcher (2010), who base their studies on the L1 speakers of Hindi and of Punjabi. The data show that “none of the speakers produced a full set of diphthong vowels”, with “mother-tongue interference as a relevant factor”. The study, like most studies on diphthongs in IndE, does not discuss the issue of a distinction between diphthongs and sequence of vowels and focuses on surface pronunciation.

Prosodic features

Studies of IndE phonology generally acknowledge the significance of the prosodic phenomena in lending it its character. Bansal (1976) mentions wrong placement of stress/accent in words to be the most significant factor affecting the intelligibility of IndE to speakers of British English. Gumperz (1982) and Pickering (1999) show how intonation in IndE can be the source of misunderstandings at discourse level. However, studies of the prosody of IndE tend to be narrowly focused on individual varieties, for example, Hindi English (Pandey 1980), Malayalee English (Nair 1996), Marathi English (Gokhale 1978), Tamil English (Vijaykrishnan 1978), and Telugu English (Babu 1974). Consequently, for an understanding of prosodic organization in IndE, a specific variety has to be taken as a case of instantiation of GIE.

Word-stress

The word-stress system in native English is significant on many counts. It has been shown to be clearly a lexical phonological phenomenon, interacting with morphology, and having many exceptions. Besides, the realizations of segments are often affected by the syllable being stressed or unstressed. These features are in general not found in IndE. I present below a detailed list of the patterns of word-stress in Hindi English. The asterisk indicates the difference from NE patterns. For ease of discussion, the words are presented in subgroups.

 (1) Verb
eˈmergesuˈrrenderˈdiminish
eˈlectˈdiffer*ˈdevelop
aˈdopt*ˈsolicit
diˈvide
Adjective
seˈcure*siˈnister*ˈterrific
diˈvine*seˈ
mester		*ˈprolific
Noun
aˈlarmuˈtensilˈbenefit
saˈloonaˈsylumAˈmerica
 (2)(i) compeˈ
t[?:]tion		iˈ
r[ɔ:]nic
ecoˈ
nomic
(ii) *eˈxaminee*ˈtattoo
    *ˈdegree*ˈshampoo
    **ˈcassette*ˈcanoe
 (3)(i) *ˈdefer*ˈdeter
   *enˈgin[ɪə]r~ *ˈ
engiˈ
neer		*bioˈl[ɔ:]gy
   *ˈcareer*ˈastroˈnomy (~)
   *ˈcashier*ˈsincere
   *ˈ[i:]vent ~ eˈ
vent		*ˈmed[i]val
   *emˈph[æ]sis*ˈcomforˈtable
(ii) *soˈlitary*seˈcretary ~ ˈsecretary
    *caˈtegory~ ˈ
category
(iii) *ˈphotoˈgraph*ˈphotoˈgraphy
    *ˈphotoˈgraphic*ˈphotoˈgrapher
    *ˈpentaˈmeter*ˈhexaˈgonal
    *ˈmetaˈthesis
(iv) *masˈ
terly		*proˈ
perly
(v)  *ˈmoreover*ˈhowever
 (4)ˈpermitN*ˈpermitV
*exˈportNexˈportV
 (5)*eˈxamiˈnation (~)*ˈinterroˈgate (~)
*aˈ
ttesˈtation (~)		*ˈacclimaˈtize (~)
*ˈciviˈlize (~)*ˈqualiˈfy (~)
 (6)*ˈ
loudspeaker		*ˈ
bad-ˌtempered
*ˈ
second-ˌclass		*ˈ
three-ˌwheeler

The following generalizations hold for word-stress in Hindi English (HE).

 (7)a. Most stress patterns are phonologically predictable. Thus those stress patterns in NE that are phonologically not predictable but lexical, such as caˈ sette, caˈ noe, deˈ gree, etc., are regular in HE: *ˈ cassette, *ˈ canoe, *ˈ degree, etc.
b. There are many instances where the stress patterns appear to be lexical in HE, as in the following: ˈ event, ˈ medieval, etc. Their apparent lexicality in such instances is on account of restructuring in the underlying representations of the words, involving a long vowel being short or vice versa, e.g., ˈ [i:]vent,ˈ med[?]val, etc.
c. There are instances in which the stress patterns in HE are the same as in nE, but which involve a change in the phonemic status, e.g., compeˈ t[i:]tion, iˈ r[ɔ:]nic, etc.
d. Complex words, with two stresses, as in (5), do not have fixed primary stress, following a general pattern in Hindi (e.g., Pandey 1989). Either the first or the second stress may be primary.
e. The compound words, contrary to the general pattern in complex words, have a fixed pattern. The first member of the compound has primary stress. (A source of difficulty, also pointed out in Gopalakrishnan 2011, is that both compound stress and phrasal stress on Modifier + Head constructions alike have primary stress on the first word and secondary stress on the second word, thus the compound ˈwhite ˌhouse and the phrase (a) ˈwhite ˌhouse are pronounced alike.)

Phonetics of word-stress

Phonetic studies of word stress in IndE (e.g., Mohanan 1986; Pickering 1999’ Pickering and Wiltshire 2000; Wiltshire and Moon 2003) agree on one main feature of the realization of stress, namely, fall in pitch on the stressed syllable. Wiltshire and Moon (2003) conducted a production and perception study on phonetic correlates of stress in Hindi and the differences between American English (AmE) and IndE. The speakers, 10 AmE and 20 IndE, were given 60 words to produce in a carrier sentence “I will say X again”. The results show that in addition to a fall in F0, two other correlates, namely, increase in amplitude and duration, go with stressed syllables, but they are not significant. Following Beckman (1996), the authors term IndE as a “pitch accent” language, like Japanese, in which a fall in F0 is the main phonetic correlate, and amplitude and duration do not play any role.

Although the observation regarding a fall in F0 is attested even for the substrate Indic languages, such as Hindi (Dyrud 2001) and Tamil (Keane 2005), a recent study by Féry, Kenntner, and Pandey (2013) offers a different interpretation of the facts. As the latter study is on Focus, it is discussed in a later section below.

Rhythm and intonation

It has been generally held (e.g., Bansal 1969; Wells 1982) that IndE, like its substrates, has a different rhythm and intonation system than the native varieties of English. While this general assumption has been time and again found to be true, the exact nature of the rhythm and intonation of IndE as well as of Indic languages in general is in need of investigation.

The speech rhythm of IndE is generally labeled as “syllable-timed” (e.g., Kachru 1983; Gargesh 2004) compared to native English, which is “stress-timed”. The senses in which the terms are used are that in stress-timed languages the duration between stresses is roughly equal, irrespective of the number of syllables in them, and that in syllable-timed languages, the number of syllables determines the duration of spoken units. As Adams (1979) points out, the duration of the stretches between ˈ ma- and ˈ here in the sentences Theˈ manager is ˈ here and Theˈ man is ˈ here are roughly equal in the speech of a native English speaker, and different in the speech of the speaker of English with a syllable-timed rhythm. While the sense in which the term “stress-timed” is applied to native English is held to be valid, the sense in which the term “syllable-timed” is applied to IndE is not valid on two grounds. One, the definition has been found to be controversial (Roach 1982) and to be inapposite for languages such as French (Wenk and Wioland 1982), Tamil (Balasubramanian 1980), and Telugu (Babu 1971). There has been an attempt at resuscitating the distinction by redefining the terms (e.g., Dauer 1983, 1987; Auer 1993; Schiering, Bickel, and Hildebrandt 2012). For lack of space, we cannot go into the renewed distinction here. It is relevant to note, however, that the general logic on which a distinction between languages in terms of rhythm (Ohala and Gilbert 1979) is needed finds support from studies on speech perception (Auer 1993).

One of the consequences of stress-timed rhythm is that in order to maintain consistency in the duration between stresses, unstressed syllables tend to be reduced, as can be seen in the related forms photo, photograph, and photographer. The underlined vowels are reduced when unstressed. The unstressed vowels are even deleted when not stressed, as in we’ve, they’re, etc. Words such as have and are, known as Function Words, are in general not stressed; they are stressed in restricted contexts. They are thus known to have two forms, strong and weak. In IndE, related forms like photo, photograph, and photographer tend to have full vowels once one of them is stressed and function words tend to have vowels pronounced in full, giving the impression of pronouncing them as strong forms. The need for sufficient and regular pronunciation of weak forms has been expressed by many (Ladefoged 1993; Wells 2000; Roach 2001) in order to avoid miscommunication. Most studies on the varieties of IndE point to the general tendency for pronouncing the function words in their strong forms. Madhavi (2009) reports a reading test of 26 function words and 8 contracted forms pronounced in the positions for their pronunciation as weak forms conducted for 20 students (11 male and 9 female) in the age group 20–23 years pursuing MBA studies through the English medium. The results showed that out of the 34 forms, 10 were pronounced with their weak forms or contracted forms by 5% of subjects and only 2 by 10% of subjects. Of the function words and contracted forms 22 were pronounced in their strong forms by 100% of subjects; 10 by 95% of subjects, and 2 by 90% of subjects.

The intonational studies of IndE usually relate it to the substrate Indic mother tongue for explaining the patterns, and, indeed, there are similarities between them. Studies reported in Latha (1978) and Nair (2004) for Malayalee English, Wiltshire and Hanrserger (2006) for Tamil English and Gujarati English, Babu (1974) and Joseph (1984) for Telugu English, Gokhale (1980) for Marathi English, and Khan (1974) and Shekhar (1993) for All-Indo Radio announcers of IndE in general point to two common features – one, the presence of multiple stresses in an intonational unit and, two, the placement of the nucleus on the last but one word in an intonational unit with Modifier + Head constructions. Some examples for tonal placement patterns in the speech of All India Radio News readers are reproduced in (8) from Shekhar (1993: 50):

 (8) 1. …in ˈlieu of the ˎquestion hour//(nE: … in ˈlieu of the ˈquestion ˎhour//)
2. … and ˈseek a ˎfresh mandate//(nE:… and ˈseek a ˈfresh ˎmandate//)
3. …in the forty-ˋeighth over//(nE:… in the ˈforty-ˈeighth ˎover/…)

The studies on intonation in the varieties of IndE show that while IndE intonation differs from native English intonation and in that sense has a unity and its own identity, there is internal variation among its varieties. One common feature is the occurrence of prominence on function words, as discussed above. The other important feature, as discussed by Wiltshire and Harnsberger (2006), is the occurrence of many more pitch contours assigned to words in an intonational phrase than is normal in native English. In an analysis of read sentences by speakers of Tamil English (TE) and Gujarati English (GE), they found that in both varieties all content words were assigned a pitch accent, with the speakers of the two varieties using different pitch accents. “GE speakers typically use a rising pitch accent transcribed here as LH, while TE speakers use either a falling pitch accent (HL), a high pitch accent (H), or a rising pitch accent (LH)” (Wiltshire and Harnsberger 2006: 101). The assignment of rising patterns in GE is very similar to that observed by Rajendran and Yegnanaraya (1996).

Types of tones

We do not have an exhaustive account of types of tones used in IndE. However, two opposite cases claim our attention, namely, Gokhale (1978) and Latha (1978). One shows tonality to be fairly similar to RP and the other shows it to be fairly different from RP. Gokhale (1978, 1980) mentions the following tones used in Marathi English: three simple tones – Fall, Low-Rise, and High-Rise – and one complex tone – Fall-Rise. The senses in which they are used are fairly similar to the senses in Marathi, and broadly in RP. The High-Rise in Marathi English is especially found in echo questions and yes/no questions. The latter are also said with a Low-Rise. According to Gokhale (1978: 172), “… a speaker of Marathi English does not have much difficulty in acquiring the patterns of tonality in R.P”.

Latha’s (1978) description of Malayalee English posits the following tones: one simple tone – Fall – and four complex tones – Rise-Fall, Fall-Rise, Drop-Rise, and Drop-Rise-Fall. The tonality of Malayalee English is obviously quite different from the tonality of RP. Notice that a simple Rise tone is virtually missing in Malayalee English, in which a Rise begins with a drop.

The use of the nuclear tone in both varieties is stated to be on the last lexical word, except when the clause final NP has a Modifier + Head structure, in which case the tonic is on the penultimate word. This appears to be a general pattern in IndE, as pointed out above.

Information structure: focus

Féry, Pandy, and Kentner (2013) report the results of an experimental study conducted on Hindi and IndE speakers to investigate the prosodic correlates of focus, by eliciting data containing focused and given words. The data were elicited in the form of recordings of semi-spontaneous speech in response to a task of the QUIS questionnaire (Skopeteas et al. 2006), called “Anima”. In the theoretical framework used, prominence and alignment were seen as two separate parameters of focus expressions. The focused elements in the data on IndE showed one or a combination of the following correlates of prominence: higher F0 on Object focus expressed as L*H melody on nonfinal elements and as H*L melody on final elements, a “hammock”-like structure expressed as a dip and a rise back to the level before the dip in the F0, giving an H*LH melody, an increase in amplitude, and an increase in duration. The last two were not significant. More conspicuously, focus was found both in Hindi and IndE to be accompanied by stronger phrasal correlates. Both Hindi and IndE were found to align focus to the left of a phonological phrase (roughly seen as an intermediate phonological constituent between a phonological word and an intonational phrase or unit; see Selkirk 1984).

The following illustration from the data collected for the study (Féry, Pandey, and Kentner Pandey 2013) shows both the aspects of prosody of focus in IndE – prominence and alignment (see Figure 17.1). The intonational phrase (IP), a girl is hitting a boy with Object focus, shows the LH melody on the Subject, with L at the beginning of the phrase a girl and H at the end. The clause is in answer to the question, “In the garden, Is the girl hitting a girl or a boy?”

c17-fig-0001

Figure 17.1 LΦHΦ    HΦLι
                         (A girl is)Φ    (( hitting a) boy)Φ)ι

The IP A girl is hitting a boy, with Object focus, shows that the prosodic alignment on the phrases are different from NE, where the phonological phrases show different groupings among words. There are three phonological groups – a girl is, hitting the, and boy. The pronunciation of IndE is rendered different from NE with the alignment of the LH melodies on the first two groups and the separation of the third group “boy” with focus on it. Studies on other varieties of IndE (e.g., Latha 1978for Malayalee English) show that the phrasing of prominence and focus is a characteristic feature of IndE with major Indian languages (e.g., Féry, Pandey, and Kentner 2013for Hindi, Mahesh 2014 for Malayalam).

Stability

Until recently, approximately around the mid 1970s, the general attitude towards IndE pronunciation was as a deviant variety. It is common to find expressions such as “faulty (location)”, “wrong (placement)”, “deviation”, etc., in the studies of IndE pronunciation until that period. The trend is reversed today, especially from the time of the proposal of the idea of GIE within India and of IndE as an instance of non-native varieties (e.g., Kachru 1982). IndE pronunciation is seen today as a variant of English pronunciation. Along with other features of grammatical and discourse structure, it has even come to be used as a basis for questioning the distinction between “native” and “non-native” varieties of English (e.g., Agnihotri and Singh 2012).

English in India has been seen more as a medium of higher education than as a medium of mass literacy in India. It would appear that for this reason it has not been the focus of language policy in India. The attention of policy makers has been divided between the regional languages, the indigenous languages, and the official languages, Hindi and English. This could well explain the features of IndE as far from the character of a “high” language, even though it functions today on a par with Sanskrit in ancient times (see Dasgupta 1993).

The development of IndE is expected to take place as a natural system and a living force. Its institutionalization is already taking roots, based on a general assumption about many of the common features among its variants, at both segmental and prosodic levels. The common segmental phonological features include the following among those noted above – the presence of retroflex stops in place of alveolar stops (except in the north-eastern variety), dental plosives in place of dental fricatives, neutralization of the vowels back rounded mid and low vowels, and the mid monophthongs /e: o:/ in place of diphthongs /eɪ əʊ/. The following can be mentioned among the common prosodic features – the absence of lexical conditions in word-stress patterns and the predominance of phrasal units in an intonational unit (see, for example, Féry, Pandey, and Kentner 2013) and a greater tendency towards syllable-timing in speech. When we examine closely all these common features, which also function as the acceptable features of pronunciation for the speakers of the regional varieties of Indian English, strongly suggest GIE to be a contact variety (Pandey 2014).

There is evidence for its institutionalization beginning to take place in language technology research that already recognizes IndE pronunciation, e.g., Sen and Samudravijaya (2002), Sen (2003), Kumar, Kataria, and Sofat (2003), Mullick et al. (2004), and Kumar et al. (2007). Studies such as these in the field of automatic generation of IndE speech provide useful insights into the similarities and differences between native English and IndE pronunciation. Thus Kumar et al. (2007) show that automatic generation of Indian pronunciation of English words to the baseline Carnegie Melon University dictionary showed the need for only 26.3% of words needing correction against standard native English pronunciation. Of these, 19.1% differences were at the prosodic level (mainly word-stress) and only 7.2% differences required phoneme substitutions for being usable as IndE Voice. Of these, the most common substitutions included vowels (/a:/ ➔ /ɔ/, e.g., hostilities), as well as consonant substitutions (like /z/ ➔ /s/ and /w/ ➔ /v/, as reported). The /v/ here may be /ʋ/ in all likelihood. The figures described here are for pronunciation lexicon at the word level. It should be obvious by now that the difference is expected to widen at the level of sentence prosody.

Conclusion

In the present chapter, we began with looking at the development of GIE as a well-considered pedagogic choice. The considerations, however, have been found to be explicit on the segmental aspect of pronunciation, but lacking in a definite form on the prosodic aspect. Following this discrepancy in its description, the segmental and the prosodic elements of pronunciation in GIE were presented in separate sections. The current trend towards the stability of IndE was taken up for a brief deliberation in the end. For lack of space it was not possible to delve into certain aspects of IndE pronunciation, such as regional variation in the realization of segments, given the wide variety of the substrata and the organization of the sound system in terms of markedness considerations. These are desiderata for future research.

Acknowledgment

The work reported here was supported by a traveling grant from the School of Language, Literature and Culture Studies of Jawaharlal Nehru University in June 2012, enabling the author to consult libraries for doctoral dissertations on Indian English pronunciation.

REFERENCES

  1. Adams, C. 1979. English Speech Rhythm and the Foreign Learner, The Hague: Mouton.
  2. Agnihotri, R.K. 1991. Sound patterns of Indian English: a sociolinguistic perspective. In: English in India: Issues and Problems, R.S. Gupta and K. Kapoor (eds.), 175–188, Delhi: Academic Foundations.
  3. Agnihotri, R.K. 1999. India: English in India. In: The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics, R. Singh (ed.), 184–198, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
  4. Agnihotri, R.K. and Singh, R. (eds.). 2012. Indian English: Towards a New Paradigm, New Delhi: Orient Black Swan.
  5. Allardyce, A. 1877. The City of Sunshine. A Novel, vol.1, William Blackwood.
  6. Annamalai, E. 2008. Contexts of multilingualism. In: Language in South Asia, B.B. Kachru, Y. Kachru, and S.N. Sridhar (eds.), 223–234, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Appa Rao, M. 1978. Orthography as underlying representation: a study of the vocalic phonology of R.P. and Telugu English within the framework of generative phonology. MLitt Dissertation, CIE&FL, Hyderabad.
  8. Auer, P. 1993. Is a rhythm-based typology possible? A study of the role of prosody in phonological typology. KontRI Working Paper 21, Universität Hamburg.
  9. Babu, P. 1971. Prosodic features in Indian English: stress, rhythm and intonation. Research diploma dissertation, CIE&FL, Hyderabad.
  10. Balasubramanian, T. 1972. The vowels of Tamil and English: a study in contrast. CIE&FL Bulletin 9: 27–34.
  11. Balasubramanian, T. 1975. Aspiration of voiceless stops in Tamil and English: an instrumental investigation. CIE&FL Newsletter 14–18.
  12. Balasubramanian, T. 1980. Timing in Tamil. Journal of Phonetics 8: 449–468.
  13. Balasubramanian, T. 2000. A Textbook of English Phonetics for Indian Students, Bombay: Macmillan Publishers India.
  14. Bansal, R.K. 1976 [1969]. The Intelligibility of Indian English, 2nd edition, Monograph 4, Hyderabad: CIE&FL.
  15. Bansal, R.K. 1983. Studies in Phonetics and Spoken English, Monograph 10, Hyderabad: CIE&FL.
  16. Bansal, R.K. 1990. The pronunciation of English in India. In: Studies in the Pronunciation of English: A Commemorative Volume in Honour of A.C. Gimson, S. Ramsaran (ed.), 219–230, London: Routledge.
  17. Bansal, R.K. and Harrison, J.B. 1974. Spoken English for India, New Delhi: Orient Longman.
  18. Beckman, M. 1996. Stress and Non-stress Accent, Dordrecht: Foris.
  19. Bhatia, T.K. and Baumgardner, R.J. 2008. Language in media and advertising. In: Language in South Asia, B.B. Kachru, Y. Kachru, and S.N. Sridhar (eds.), 377–394, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  20. Bingham, K. 1998. The intonation of Hindi function words. MA thesis, University of Texas, Austin.
  21. Chaudhury, S. 1984. Some aspects of the phonology of Indian English. PhD dissertation, CIE&FL, Hyderabad.
  22. CIEFL. 1972. The Sound System of Indian English, Monograph 7, Hyderabad: CIE&FL.
  23. Coelho, G. 1997. Anglo-Indian English: a nativized variety of Indian English. Language and Society 26, 561–589.
  24. Dauer, R. 1983. Stress-timing and syllable-timing reanalyzed. Journal of Phonetics 11: 51–62.
  25. Dauer, R. 1987. Phonetic and phonological components of language rhythm. Paper presented at The XIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Tallinn.
  26. Dhamija, P.V. 1976. A phonological description of Rajasthani English. M.Litt dissertation, CIE&FL, Hyderabad.
  27. Dobson, E. 1968. English Pronunciation 1500–1700, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  28. Dyrud, L. 2001. Hindi-Urdu: stress-accent or non-stress accent? MA thesis, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks.
  29. Féry, C., Pandey, P., and Kentner, G. 2013. The prosody of focus and givenness in Hindi and Indian English.
  30. Gargesh, R. 2004. Indian English: phonology. In: A Handbook of Varieties of English, vol. 1: Phonology, W. Edgar, E. Schneider, and B. Kortmann (eds.), 993–1002, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  31. Gargesh, R. 2006. Language issues in the context of Higher Education in India. Paper presented at the symposium on Language Issues in English-Medium Universities across Asia, University of Hong Kong, 8–9 June.
  32. Gimson, A.C. 1962. Introduction. In: English Pronouncing Dictionary, London: Edward Arnold.
  33. Goffin, R.C. 1934. Some Notes on Indian English, S.P.E. Tract No.41, 20–32, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  34. Gopalakrishnan, R. 2011 [2008]. Second Language Phonology: Investigating Tamil English, Saarbrücken: LAP Lambert Publishing Company. [MPhil Dissertation, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.]
  35. Gumperz, J.J. 1982. Discourse Strategies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  36. Gupta, K.L. 1982. Dogri English: a phonological study. MLitt dissertation, CIE&FL, Hyderabad.
  37. Harnsberger, J. 1994. Towards an intonational phonology of Hindi. Unpublished dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
  38. Harnsberger, J.D. 1999. The role of metrical structure in Hindi intonation. Paper presented at the South Asian Language Analysis Roundtable, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana.
  39. Hayes, B. 2004. The phonology of rhythm in English. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 33–74.
  40. Hayes, B. and Lahiri, A. 1991. Bengali intonational phonology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 47–96.
  41. Hosali, P. 2000. Butler English: Form and Function, New Delhi: BR Publishing Corporation.
  42. Hosali, P. and Aitchinson, J. 1986. Butler English: a minimal pidgin? Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 1 11: 51–79.
  43. Indira, K. 2009. A spectrographic study using Praat of the phonemic system in the English of educated Yerukula speakers. MPhil dissertation, CIE&FL, Hyderabad.
  44. Joseph, K.G. 1984. Intonation Patterns of Telugu English. MLitt dissertation, CIE&FL, Hyderabad.
  45. Kachru, B.B. 1983. The Indianization of English: the English language in India, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  46. Kachru, B.B. 1996. The Other Tongue: English across Cultures, Delhi: Oxford University Press.
  47. Keane, E. 2005. Prominence in Tamil. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 36: 1–20.
  48. Keane, E. 2007. Investigating the intonational phonology of Tamil. ICPhS 2007 Satellite Workshop. http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/jun/Workshop2007ICPhS/Papers/Keane_handout.pdf.
  49. Khan, N. 1974. A phonological analysis of English spoken by all India Radio newsreaders. Post-Graduate Research Diploma dissertation, CIE&FL, Hyderabad.
  50. Kumar, R., Kataria, A., and Sofat, S. 2003. Building non-native pronunciation lexicon for English using a rule based approach. In: International Conference on NLP, Mysore.
  51. Kumar, R., Gangadharaiah, R., Rao, S., Prahallad, K., Rosé, C.P., and Black, A.W. 2007. Building a better IndEvoice using “More Data”. In: 6th ISCA Workshop on Speech Synthesis, Bonn, Germany.
  52. Ladefoged, P. 1993. A Course in Phonetics, Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
  53. Latha, P. 1978. Intonation of Malayalam and Malayalee English: a study of comparison and contrast. MLitt thesis, CIE&FL, Hyderabad.
  54. Maddieson, I. 1984. Patterns of Sounds, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  55. Madhavi, V. 2009. A phonetic study of strong forms and weak forms in Telugu English. MLitt dissertation, The English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad.
  56. Mahesh, M. 2013. Rhythm and intonation in Malayalam. PhD thesis, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
  57. Maxwell, O. and Fletcher, J. 2009. Acoustic and durational properties of IE vowels. World Englishes 28: 52–70.
  58. Mesthrie, R and Bhatt, R. 2009. The study of new linguistic varieties. In: World Englishes, R. Mesthrie and R. Bhatt (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  59. Mohanan, K.P. and Mohanan, T. 1987. The lexical phonology of Malayali English: structure formation in transplanted second language systems. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.
  60. Mullick, Y.J., Agrawal, S.S., Tayal,S., and Goswami, M. 2004. Text-to-phonemic transcription and parsing into monosyllables of English text. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 115(5): 2544.
  61. Nagarajan, H. 1985. Some Phonetic Features of Tamilian English. MLitt dissertation, CIE&FL, Hyderabad.
  62. Nair, N.G. 1996. Indian English Phonology: A Case Study of Malayalee English, New Delhi: Prestige Books.
  63. Nihalani, P., Tongue, R.K., Hosali, P., and Crowther, J. 2004. Indian and British English. A Handbook of Usage and Pronunciation, 2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  64. Ohala, J.J. and Gilbert, J.B. 1979. Listeners’ ability to identify languages by their prosody. In: Problmes de Prosodie,vol. II, P. Léon and M. Rossi, 123–131, Ottawa: Didier.
  65. Pandey, P. 1980. Stress in Hindustani English: A Generative Phonological Study, Hyderabad: CIE&FL.
  66. Pandey, P. 1981 [1994]. On a description of the phonology of Indian English. CIE&FL Bulletin 17: 11–19. Also in R.K. Agnihotri and A.L. Khanna (eds.), Second Language Acquisition: Socio-cultural and Linguistic Aspects of English in India, 198–207, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
  67. Pandey, P. 1985. Word accentuation in Hindustani English in relation to Hindustani and English. PhD dissertation, University of Poona, Pune.
  68. Pandey, P. 1989. Word accentuation in Hindi. Lingua 77: 37–73.
  69. Pandey, P. 1990. Hindi schwa deletion. Lingua 82: 277–311.
  70. Pandey, P. 2014. Sounds and Their Patterns in Indic Languages, New Delhi: Cambridge University Press India.
  71. Pickering, L. 1999. An analysis of prosodic systems in the classroom discourse of native speaker and nonnative speaker TAs. PhD thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville.
  72. Pickering, L and Wiltshire, C. 2000. Pitch accent in Indian-English teaching discourse. World Englishes 19(2): 173–183.
  73. Prieto, P. 2002. Coarticulation and stability effects in tonal clash contexts in Catalan. In: SP-2002, 587–590.
  74. Rajendran, S. and Yagnanarayana, B. 1996. Word boundary hypothesization for continunous speech in Hindi based on F0 patterns. Speech Communication 18, 21–46.
  75. Rao, K.S.N. 1961. A footnote to the Indian pronunciation of the initial /k,t,p/ and /v/ and /w/ in English. Indian Linguistics 22: 160–163.
  76. Ravisankar, G. 1994. Intonation Patterns in Tamil, Pondicherry: Pondicherry Institute of Linguistics and Culture.
  77. Roach, P. 1982. On the distinction between stress-timed and syllable-timed languages. In: Linguistic Controversies, D. Crystal (ed.), 73–79, London: Edward Arnold.
  78. Sahgal, A. and Agnihotri, R.K. 1988. Indian English phonology: a sociolinguistic perspective. English World-Wide 9: 51–64.
  79. Schiering, R., Bickel, B., and Hildebrandt, K.A. 2012. Stress-timed = word-based? Testing a hypothesis in prosodic typology. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 65(2): 157–168.
  80. Sen, A. 2003. Pronunciation rules for IE Text-to-Speech system. In: ISCA Workshop on Spoken Language Processing, Mumbai.
  81. Sen, A. and Samudravijaya, K. 2002. Indian accent Text-to-Speech system for web browsing. Sadhana 27(Part I): 113–126 (February Issue).
  82. Sethi, J. 1976. English Spoken by Educated Punjabi Speakers in India: A Phonological Study, Chandigarh: Punjabi University.
  83. Sethi, J. 1978. The vowel system in educated Punjabi speakers’ English. Bulletin of the Central Institute of English 14(2): 35–48.
  84. Sethi, J. 1980. Word accent in educated Punjabi speakers’ English. Bulletin of the Central Institute of English 16: 35–48.
  85. Shekhar, G.N. 1993. A study of accent and intonation in all India Radio newsreaders speech. MPhil dissertation, CIE&FL, Hyderabad.
  86. Skopeteas, S., Fiedler, I., Hellmuth, S., Schwarz, A., Stoel, R., Fanselow, G., Féry, C., and Krifka, M. 2006. Questionnaire on information structure. ISIS, 4.
  87. Subbarao, G.1954. Indian Words in English: A Study in Indo-British Cultural and Linguistic Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  88. Verma, D. 2005. Some aspects of the prosodic phonology of narrow and contrastive focus in Hindi and Hindi-English. MPhil dissertation, CIE&FL, Hyderabad.
  89. Vijaykrishnan, K.G. 1978. Stress in Tamilian English: a study within the framework of generative phonology. MLitt dissertation, CIE&FL, Hyderabad.
  90. Wells, J.C. 1982. Accents of English, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  91. Wells, J.C. 2000. Longman Pronouncing Dictionary, London: Longman.
  92. Wenk, B. and Wioland, F. 1982. Is French really syllable-timed? Journal of Phonetics 10: 193–216.
  93. Whitworth, G.C.1907. Indian English: An Examination Made by Indians in Writing English, Letchworth: Garden City Press.
  94. Wiltshire, C.R. 2005. The “Indian English” of Tibeto-Burman language speakers. English World-Wide 26: 275–300.
  95. Wiltshire, C.R. In press. Emergence of the unmarked in Indian Englishes with different substrates. In: The Oxford Handbook of World Englishes, M. Filppula, J. Klemola, and D. Sharma, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  96. Wiltshire, C.R. and Harnsberger, J.D. 2006. The Influence of Gujarati and Tamil L1s on Indian English: a preliminary study. World Englishes 25: 91–104.
  97. Wiltshire, C.R. and Moon, R. 2003. Phonetic stress in IE versus American English. World Englishes 22(3): 291–303.
  98. Yule, H. and Burnell, A.C. 1996 [1886]. Hobson–Jobson: The Anglo-Indian Dictionary, London: Wordsworth Reference.
  99. Zaire, L. and Pandey, P. In press. Koren. In: Sounds and Their Patterns in Indic Languages. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press India.
..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset
3.128.199.210