Perspectives on the role of English

5
Language in the maintenance of society and culture
So far, I have showed that EIL can be used to develop Periphery societies through
modernisation and improved work and leisure opportunities, and to develop Periphery
cultures through additional ‘attitudinal’, linguistic and literary resources. This section
presents the view that, while EIL certainly has a role to play in developing the Periphery,
it is the local languages that are best suited to the task of maintenance. The reason for this
is quite straight-forward. The purpose of language is to reflect both the society that uses it
and that society's culture. When a society and/or culture has undergone change, it's
language has generally adapted in step with those changes, so that it can continue to serve
that purpose.
In his article on English in India, Tully writes:

---

11
But what I do not want.....is English on top of Indian languages. I want to see the
other languages flourish, and I do not believe that Indian culture and Indian
civilization can survive healthily and flourish unless the original languages of the
country flourish too.
(Tully, 1997: 158).
Though he states clearly that he is in favour of English for all the benefits it can
bring (ibid.), he strongly believes that India and its cultures will thrive only if Indian
languages reassert themselves.
The renowned African writer Chinua Achebe has expressed his hope that those
writing in the local languages will continue to do so, so that the 'ethnic literature will
flourish side-by-side with the national ones' (1975, cited by Bisong, 1995: 129). More
generally, Strevens (1980: 62) says that local languages can perform the same functions
at the intranational level or among native-speakers, that EIL does in the international
context, (for example in science and mass media). Further, that in many (though not all)
cases, they can do so just as 'adequately and even elegantly' as EIL (ibid.: 73). Where this
is the case, given that local languages are already optimally attuned to the local culture
and the society’s linguistic needs, clearly it is the local language that it best suited to the
maintenance of that society and its culture.
To close this section, it is interesting to note Master’s (1998: 723) observation that
Cantonese is actually displacing English in Hong Kong. To explain this, he cites
Fishman:
..when non-English-speaking countries that currently rely on English for modernization
......become strong enough to continue that progress in their own vernacular languages,
for example, by inventing new technology, English will be displaced, as will all those
in the population who identify with it, and power will shift to those who know (and
identify with) the vernacular.
(Fishman, 1973: 93, cited in Master, 1998: 723-724).
He sees English as a transient medium through which a society can import new
technologies, then, when it has taken what it wants, the indigenous language is allowed to
reassert itself. This leaves the society in a technologically stronger position than before,
but able to maintain its culture through its own language. In Hong Kong’s case this might
be an oddity caused by the rapid and substantial shift in political systems that occurred

---

12
with its return to China. However, if other societies follow this example, the implication
for EIL is that its long-term future as the dominant language in some countries is far from
assured.