Search

The theory developed here is that quotations are demonstrations that are component parts of language use. Demonstrations are unlike descriptions in two main ways. They are nonserious rather than serious actions. A person demonstrating a limp isn't actually or really limping. And they depict rather than describe their referents, though they depict only selected aspects of the referents. The demonstrator of the limp depicts some but not all of its aspects. Quotations, we argue, have all the properties of genuine demonstrations. They too are nonserious actions and selective depictions. For evidence we appeal to a wide range of phenomena in spontaneous spoken and written quotations.*

The emergence of a politically sophisticated radical poetry in the United States, a poetry popularly known as "Language Poetry," has been one of the most exciting cultural developments of the past two decades. Not since the thirties has there been such a sense of aesthetics and politics converging in explicit projects, whether poems, publishing, or dialogues with those engaged in other more evidently political struggles. Many of the poets have helped construct a formidable body of theoretical discussion that not only situates the work and its interventions, but provides a form of resistance to its easy consumption as an object in need of external mediation by institutions of interpretative validation. The recent article published here in Social Text' was one more example of the importance these poets attach to the reception of their work, and the commitment of some of them to a socialist politics in the cultural field. Even the calm, measured tone of the article, which distinguishes it from so many of the manifestoes* of earlier avant-gardism, the surrealist claims to new sources of transformative power, or the Dadaist outrage committed on well-presented argument, is characteristic of the seriousness with which these writers approach their potential readers and appropriators. They want their texts to be useful. Yet a doubt remains in the face of this article's good behaviour. Isn't this the statement of a linguistic delinquent who is only pretending to good language use? Or was the linguistic madness only "mad by craft," as Hamlet put it? Are these writers disowning responsibility for vandalising intelligible poetry by saying that the crimes against the state of language were inevitable society was at fault? Take the article's sentence: "For anyone following American poetry over the last decade, it is evident that there has been an intense and contradictory response from enthusiasm and imitation to dismissal and distortion to our work"2. Intensities and contradictions are just what we expect of a modern capitalist society, but this remark, which is designed to draw the reader in to a sympathetic response as the "anyone" who has been keeping up with his or her homework, sets against the contradictions this other space where identity remains intact, where "we" can speak of "our" work to an "anyone." The essay itself recognises the need to elucidate the inclusiveness of the collective pronouns by specifically identifying the poets referred to, but continues on in this friendly mode of one subject addressing another. The experiments of the poets themselves are placed outside this circuit of achieved intersubjectivity

The development of non-native varieties of English in Third World countries (e.g. West Africa, the Philippines, South Asia) is of linguistic, cultural, pedagogical and sociolinguistic interest. The attitude of TESL specialists, among others, toward such varieties of English on the two sides of the Atlantic is evaluated in Prator (1968). One such attitude, endorsed by Prator, and represented by him as typically American, may be termed linguistic purism and linguistic intolerance-a pragmatically unrealistic attitude. If one follows Prator's language, this attitude may be categorized as one of "seven attitudinal sins." These "sins" seem to be the result of a formally and functionally unjustifiable position which some scholars in TESL, following Prator, have adopted. Such views have naturally resulted in various types of "heresies," which are theoretically suspect and without empirical evidence. In linguistically and culturally pluralistic Third World countries, the motivations for the study of English-its social educational and other roles-have to be view in terms of the typical native sociolinguistic parameters. An interrelationship has to be established between the formal and functional aspects of language to understand the pragmatics of the Third World Englishes and their linguistic innovations and "deviations." Data from Indian English is discussed to provide arguments against the attitudinal "sins" and "heresies," and to present the pragmatics of Indian English-one of the Third World Englishes.

1. BILINGUALISM AND BORROWING. As early as 1886, Hermann Paul pointed out that all borrowing by one language from another is predicated on some minimum of bilingual mastery of the two languages.' For any large-scale borrowing a considerable group of bilinguals has to be assumed. The analysis of borrowing must therefore begin with an analysis of the behavior of bilingual speakers. A vast literature has come into being on the subject of borrowing, particularly in the historical studies of individual languages; but there is still room for discussion of the relationship between the observed behavior of bilingual speakers and the results of borrowing as detected by linguists. Any light that can be thrown on the question by a study of bilingual speakers should be welcome to all students interested in borrowing and in the general linguistic problems associated with this process.2 In the present article an effort will be made to define more precisely the terminology used in the linguistic analysis of borrowing, and to set up certain hypotheses concerning the process of borrowing. It should then be possible to test these by their usefulness of application to particular studies of bilingualism and borrowing.3