Hybridisation and Lexical Variation: An In-depth Analysis of The Ministry of Utmost Happiness

Farwa Qazalbash^1*, Humaira Irfan², and Zehra Batool³

¹Department of Applied Linguistics, Kinnaird College for Women, Lahore, Pakistan

²Department of English, University of Education, Lahore, Pakistan

³Riphah Institute of Language and Literature, Riphah International University, Lahore, Pakistan

* Corresponding Author: [email protected]

Abstract

Hybridisation and lexical variation are phenomena that are prevalent in many cultural domains, which as a process define the instances of hybridity in language and culture. The current study aims to investigate the variation English language in Arundhati Roy’s, The Ministry of Utmost Happiness to study the incorporation of code mixing between L1 (Hindi-Urdu) and L2 (English). This research also investigates how code-mixing results in lexical variation and hybridisation in the context of South Asian languages. The findings of this research revealed that) the writer borrowed words, phrases, and sentences from both Hindi and Urdu languages to construct a specific form of hybrid identity. She has frequently used metaphorical language as an organism to convey its social and cultural backgrounds, indicating a linguistic hybridity submerged within a cultural context. Additionally, the findings also indicates that most of the borrowings stem from various sources, such as religion, cuisines, clothing, poetry, caste system, and untranslatable expressions. Roy in particular resists translation of expressions, such as ‘Razai (Quilt), Masjid (Mosque), Baba (Father), and Inqilaab (Revolution) to create nuances of meaning embedded in the South Asian cultural context. Thus, the findings also revealed that the hybrid use of language by South Asian writers is in actual an attempt to reject the normative hegemony of Standard English and promote Hindi-English and Pakistani-English as an idea of celebrating hybrid identity.

Keywords: code-mixing, hybridisation, Hindi-English, lexical variations, South Asian English

Introduction

This research analyses Arundhati Roy’s The Ministry of Utmost Happiness to study how the author has used an indigenised version of English language in her writing.  In the twentieth century, a process of Language Revolution was witnessed (Shneider, 2007), as a result, English attained the status of lingua franca (McArthur, 2001). Several factors encompassing social, historical, cultural, and linguistic features have contributed to establishing a homogeneous status of the English language. Transformation of English into multiple varieties is termed as a shift from English to Englishes/englishness (Ashcroft et al., 2003; Schneider, 2007). There are different ways to identify multiple varieties of English, such as Chinese English (Bolton, 2003), South Asian English (Aggarwal, 1982), and Pakistani English (Baumgardner, 1993; Khan, 2012).

Pakistani English is a non-native variety of the English language. It developed as having  multiple factors, such as language contact, seepage of technology, globalisation, social networking, colonisation, and immigration (Mahboob, 2009). When a language meets any other language there is an exchange of influence, and as a result, new varieties of languages develop (Trudgill, 2003). Kachru (2006a) described Pakistani English variant as a distinct variety of English and postulated that it is a part of Outer Circle of language. He further contended that Pakistani English is institutionalised as a second language variety in Pakistan and the said variety shares common features with other South Asian varieties of English (Kachru, 1986), such as Hindi English, which is also known as Hinglish.

The aim of this study is to explore and analyse the linguistic strategies used by Arundhati Roy to indigenise English within the context of subcontinental language. Moreover, the study also uncovers the ways in which Roy (2017) used language to add sophisticated layers of hybridisation and lexical variation to her work, which makes it globally intelligible and locally resonant. Already existing research, for example, that of Gautam (2001) and Bolton (2003) have touched upon mixing of Hindi and English in various discourses including pop songs and films. Other researchers like Kachru (2006a) focus on the familiarity of English language with the Indian society. Kachru (2006b) contends that English is assimilated into multiple domains of communication. Furthermore, the mixing of English with Hindi is one manifestation in which the process of Englishisation has taken place, a process whereby the interplay between traditional and modern/global forms of language can be witnessed. Many songs in Indian movies are an example of this process of Englishisation.  Moreover, this process consequently leads to the production of blended or mixed linguistic items, which creates a fusion of meaning; it is a combination of elements from both the local language and the foreign language. The subcontinent, which was once colonised by the British has taken the English language from its coloniser, internalised this language, and imbued it with their own sense of culture through its daily use.  English literature expanded with the expansion of English language and resulted in novel productions of the said literature by non-English writers (Talib, 2002).

In this regard, this paper examines the rejection of a standard use of the English language by Arundhati Roy in her novel The Ministry of Utmost Happiness to analyse how she has used language to add a subcontinental flavour of Urdu and English to the English language. Additionally, this research investigates the use of various lexical variations including borrowing, code-mixing, appropriation, compounding, lexical innovations, and hybridisation.

Significance of the Study

Many studies have been carried out to investigate the process of indigenisation of English language. They have focused on different aspects and uses of localisation, indigenisation and hybridisation of language through the tools of code-switching and code-mixing etc. The current study is unique because it is twofold, firstly, it fills a gap in existing literature by carrying out an analysis on the subcontinental use of English to delineate the idea that language South Asia has its own variety. While the previous researchers like Quinto and Santos (2016) examined the Filipino authors’ engagement with English, and Sarfraz (2021) explored variation in lexical patterns in Twilight in Delhi, none has focused on the subcontinental use of English as a South Asian Variety.

Secondly, the current study also aims to analyse the tactful use of language by Roy to show how she uses English as a product of South Asia and localise it to strengthen the identity of subcontinental English. While the previous researches like that of Asghar (2014) in this area have attempted to understand English in South Asian literature as a tool for identity-construction in a globalised world, and Rahman and Rahman have analysed hybridisation in talk shows of Bangladesh, none have focused on the identity of language.  It is also significant to note that the influence of subcontinental languages on English literature has long been addressed by previous scholars, however, none have analysed how the subcontinental writers have infused English-Hindi as the way to indigenizes English within their cultural narratives.

Research Questions

1. How lexical and semantic variations have been introduced by Arundhati Roy’s in The Ministry of Utmost Happiness?
2. How does Roy use hybridity, converging Hindi and English languages to indigenise English language?

Literature Review

The universal recognition and wide use of English language has gained a prestige and dominance; it is a ‘truism’, which is acknowledged universally (Aravamudan, 2006). However, with its growing dominance there is also a recognition of its indigenisation because when a foreign language is introduced in a society it is always exposed to rearrangement in terms of its patterns of syntax, morphology, and some areas of vocabulary (Weinreich, 2011). English in South Asia especially in India and Pakistan is prone to the “consequences of interference” (Weinreich, 2011) This interference can also be observed in terms of language communication (Kachru, 1986). Furthermore, this interference is both linguistically and culturally pluralistic in nature. Kachru (1990) has described the interference of languages as pivotal to indigenisation. Ashcroft et al. (2003) postulated that the language of the centre is replaced because it is not possible to convey certain traditional and ethnic practices without this replacement; hence a divergence is created to form a discourse that is appropriate to the colonised world. Appropriation of language is a tactic used to decolonise the existing form of language to bring forth conceptual differences (Tuck & Yang, 2021). The aim of this appropriation is to build a counter- narrative, which acts as a narrative of resistance against the language of colonists. Furthermore, it is also a response to assimilationist policies of the imperial centres of the world.

Weinreich (2011) contended when two or more than two languages come in contact with each other, it becomes imperative for them to borrow words from each other. Kachru (1985) postulated that language contact fosters bilingual creativity and adds to the enrichment of linguistic diversity. Weinreich et al. (1968) in this regard posited that “Interference phenomena,” (p. 1). is the result of use of languages in contact and involves “those instances of deviation from the norms of either language, which occur in the speech of bilinguals as a result of their familiarity with more than one language”

Thus, the existence of hybridity in English language is due to its prolonged history of connection with multiple languages and the creativity of people who use languages bilingually.  It is also true that this kind of hybridity exists on multiple levels in contact situations. Moag (1992), Kirkpatrick (2007), and the Dynamic Model of Schneider (2007), suggested that nascent multiple hybrid varieties are a result of situations produced by language contact. The situation continues to persist and as long as both language and culture come in contact with other languages and cultures, they keep on producing multiple varieties of hybridity.

Schneider (2016) used Bhabha (2012) and his concept of contact zones to elaborate that overriding presence and usefulness of English in those zones produce new types of hybrid linguistic usage. What Canagarajah (2013) later referred to as “code-meshing” was first postulated by Schneider (2016) who stated that since English was used extensively and had multiple contact zones, it could always produce more hybrid instances than other languages. To this idea, Kachru (2011) added that ‘hybridity’ could be better understood through studying contact linguistic and contact literature. It is also important to know that it is not just the language contact which gives birth to hybridity; the latter is also contributed to by the creativity of the people speaking two or more than two languages. This expresses not only the competence of the speakers but also the blend of various languages and literary traditions providing English language the required expansive context in which it produces hybridity (Kachru, 1987).

When this same context is shifted to South Asian literature, it expresses the innovative uses of languages by those writers who know or speak more than two languages, in which English language is one of those languages (Kachru, 2011). It is this capacity of the bilinguals that they can create new meanings and innovations appropriate to the new cultural contexts. Bhabha (2012) postulated that the reading of English studies mostly tended to portray English language as pure and homogenous as compared to being heterogenous and hybrid in multiple contexts. It was these scholars who problematised this apparent purity of homogeneity of English language and introduced the notion of a hybrid speaker.

She also problematised the category of ‘the other’ and stressed the manufacturing of new, hybrid subjects. It is in this context that hybridity in opposition to purity has become an important part of post-colonial studies, and this notion has also generated the hybrid nature of English language. In his novel Kanthapura, Rao (1938, p. 7) talked about hybridity in these words: “We cannot write like the English. We should not. We cannot write only as the Indians. We have grown to look at the large world as part of us”. This perspective highlighted hybridity as convergence of multiple ideas and visions for English to be used in the pluralistic contexts and a linguistic consequence of this convergence results in formally distinct Indian variety of English (Kachru, 2011).

Research Methodology

The current study deploys a qualitative and interpretative approach to study The Ministry of Utmost Happiness by Arundhati Roy (2017). The researcher chose this text as a representative of postcolonial discourse. For this purpose, the degrees of hybridity as proposed by Nelson (1982) were used to understand the hybridisation in Roy’s novel. The aim was to study how Roy (2017) uses English language and create distinctive linguistic forms by using open-set and closed-systems of language. Additionally, Nelson (1982), identifies four prime degrees of hybridity that depict of Englishness.

1. borrowing lexical items
2. mixing
3. switching between other languages and English
4. forming a distinctive variety of English, which is more or less stable

Using degrees of hybridity (Nelson, 1982) all the Hindi-Urdu words have been analysed manually by reading. The current study analyzed and revealed thatthe use of Hindi and Urdu languages along with the English language is a form of lexical variation and hybridisation that has been vividly used by the writer.

Data Analysis and Findings

Table 1

The Religious Borrowed Vocabulary

Roy (2017) uses an array of words both from Islam and Hinduism to pronounce the identity of her characters, thus, depicting a religious metaphor. These borrowings act as a mode of resistance and identity construction. Here, it can be postulated that although there are translation equivalents available for certain words, Roy does not employ them in her writing and uses a fusion of Hindi and English languages to promote her identity as a Subcontinental writer. There are words such as “Khuda, Masjid, Musalman, and Sahib”, which have equivalents available in English language. However, there are certain words, which cannot be translated due to their cultural restraints, therefore, Roy (2017) intentionally uses them in a great frequency to delineate on this idea that English is not sufficient to convey the South Asian culture. Hence, she emphasized the idea that it is a language, which has to be localised to convey the meaning in totality.

Table 2

Nationalistic Borrowed Vocabulary

Stockwell (2002) postulated that code is a hallmark of nationalism. Language is used in a specific way and in peculiar moments to convey certain meanings. These meanings are a part of specific language, register or shoptalk. Roy (2017) uses language in a manner to promote nationalism. Roy (2017) in this regard uses words that highlight Indian nationalism. Furthermore, the writer used Hindi words in English language because there is a lack of translation equivalents, for instance the phrase “Lathi goli Khaayenge! Andolan Chalaayenge” that cannot be translated in English language. However, there are certain words who have equivalents available in the English language but Roy (2017) does not translate them, because contextually they convey a nationalistic sense. It can, thus, be construed that Roy uses language to convey her meaning embedded in Subcontinental culture. She manipulates the English code and localises it to create a nuanced form of meaning, which is comprehensive enough to convey the intensity of situations. In the examples above words like “Azadi, Jaanbaz, Hindustani” are riddled with nationalism and their available English equivalents like “freedom or daring person” cannot convey their cultural sense, which Roy wanted to convey through her metaphorical idioms.

Table 3

The Borrowing from Indo-Pak Culture of Royalty

Kachru (1983) contented that writers switch codes from one language to another to employ certain markers of attitude, emotional intensity or to form an array of identities through language.The examples above, states the  tactful use of language  to connect to a lost heritage of the pre-colonial past. Throughout her novel Roy makes several references to a few Mughal emperors including Jalal-ud-din Muhammad Akbar (third Mughal Emperor) and Muhammad Shah Rangeela (Thirteenth Mughal Emperor), and fuse them with English-Hindi words to signify the lost past as a loss of language too.

Table 4

The Borrowing of Clothing Terminology

Table 5

Comprising Noun Borrowings

Nouns and verbs require embedding when they are transferred from one language to another. They are the core of a determiner phrases (Alaiyadi, 2021). Roy (2017) uses nouns from Hindi language and mixes them in English language as they have great importance to the culture of any language. Words like Dupatta have a special significance in Subcontinental culture and Roy (2017) uses this metaphorical idiom as it’s English equivalent is available in the other language that is ‘scarf’, however, it does not convey the cultural appropriateness of the word Dupatta. Similarly, words like Chunni, Salwar Kameez, and Sarpanch are all nouns that leave a cultural specific mark on readers.

Table 6

The Borrowing of Kinship Relations

Roy (2017) introduced South Asian idioms and lexical variations   in English language to depict the differencing between the source and target languages. Myers-Scotton (1993) contended that code-switching is a complex phenomenon, which   is used to form social identity and intends to perform a certain social function. Furthermore, it was also identified that code-switching has several functions that can also be used to promote individuality or individual identity. Roy (2017) incorporates culturally specific terms/idioms to identify culturally specific roles or relations through the effective use of language. There are English equivalents available for all the words, however, Roy used different words from Hindi and Urdu languages to indigenise English language and to form a specific identity of her characters. For instance, Roy uses adjectives and nouns to form a specific identity of grandmothers in her novel as Badi Nani “Elder Grandmother” and Choti Nani Younger Grandmother, this specific use of cultural idioms does not convey the actual meaning of Badi and Chooti because they cannot be translated into the target language, due to the lack of cultural knowledge.

Table 7

The Vocabulary for Greetings

Alaiyadi (2021) contended that lexical items of greeting, evaluation, and appreciation are the most common features of code-switching. Contextually, in Roy’s (2017) work this can be corroborated. Greetings are conveyed from one language to another because they are embedded in one’s culture, which cannot be translated same as a targeted language. Here, Roy mixes Hindi-English languages to indicate her hybrid identity, which is a result of hyphenated status of the subcontinental people.

Table 8

The Vocabulary of Abusive Language

Myers-Scotton (1993) posited that codes are switched to express both negative and positive feelings. People tend to switch between codes to display feelings and emotions extensively. Roy (2017) made use of Hindiness and Englishness to corroborate to this idea as her novel is packed with abusive language, which in peculiar depict the globe of social, political, and economic reasons to refer diverse communities. In her character formation, she makes sure that her characters imitate a true sense of Subcontinentalism, depicting renunciation of home. Furthermore, it was also identified that there are no translatable equivalents for abusive language used in Hindi, through this, the writer in true sense intended to depict an involuntary use of Englishness.

Table 9

The Vocabulary Borrowed from Urdu and Hindi Poetry

South Asian writings in English have been struggling to engage in the process of adapting the language of colonisers to befit their needs and to add their own idiomatic and metaphorical touch in the said language. This hybridisation of language emerged from the Indian English poetry that was a prevalent form of Subcontinental writers in the Nineteenth century (Wong & Hassan, 2013). The excerpts above have been used to add Hindi-Urdu poetry into English language. Roy (2017) attempts to establish through this that it is not possible for English to translate all the native expressions into it.  Only a Subcontinental Language can transport the exact emotion and feeling of the situation.

Table 10

The Code-Switching

The above excerpts from Roy novel, code-switching can be identified in both word and sentence levels. Here, she makes a deliberate effort to give authentic Subcontinental touch to the language of her characters. There are translatable equivalents available for many sentences like “bhai bacha kis ka hai” (Brother, whose child is this), however, Roy (2017) deliberately used Hindi repeatedly to remove any chance of ambiguity, and localises English language to promote a sense of Indianism.

Table 11

The Borrowing of Ethnic Words 

Mixing of Hindi sheds light on the semantic limitations of English language because standard English language is incapable to axiologically capture the depth of Subcontinental culture. For instance, the phrase “Gujarat ka Lalla” can be translated as “A boy from Gujarat”, which certainly fails to take into account the connotation that Lalla has, such as a boy who is dearly loved. Roy (2017) translated this phrase in her novel as ‘Gujarat’s beloved’ to clarify the meaning of this phrase, however, her very attempt was to clarify the meaning of this phrase that sheds light on the idea that both the phrases are not equivalents for each other, they are rather two different utterances, having different styles and semantic use.

Table 12

Table comprising the Code-Mixing of Local Cuisine Words

Food is a representative of different cultures because people differ in their food related behaviours just as they do in their language (Gerhardt, 2013). Roy’s (2017) novel is loaded with food imagery and nouns, which are profoundly accessible only in India and Pakistan and their English equivalents are either not found or they fail to grasp the semantic meaning of these local Hindi-Urdu words. For instance, Roy (2017) used the word Chai to refer to tea. The said word is identified in English as Chai-tea (Chai Tea - Definition of Chai Tea by The Free Dictionary), which if translated back to Hindi simply means chai-chai, which makes no sense in Hindi language. Simply, roti if translated in English means Flat bread, which again fails to import the culturalness of the Hindi word roti if translated to English language. In this regard, Roy used language in a hybridised manner because English Language cannot transport the required Indianism or an Indian idiom to itself.

Table 13

The Hybridisation of Verbs in English Sentence

Muthiah (2009) studied the indigenisation of the fictionalised English in South Asian works and found that the writers’ experimented with English lexicon and syntax. In a likewise manner, Sheeraz (2013), stated that indigenisation is a process in which innovations are adapted into a language with the communicative habits of the non-native speakers of the target language. Roy (2017), rigorously used language to signify certain actions through her use of Hindi language. In the light of (Nelson, 1982) it can be postulated that this hybridisation of Hindi verbs in English reflect  the South Asian variations and idioms.

Table 14

The Hybridisation and Collocate Innovations

Pennycook (2006) argued that English language is exposed to a diverse context in which new identities are fashioned, and as a result changes occur where English language is used for local purposes. Thereby, locality of the said language is produced through borrowing, blending, remaking, and returning (Kirkpatrick, 2007). In this regard, Roy (2017) used collocations of Hindi-English words to localise English language. Here, the phrase “I am Mehfil” is not a coincidental collocation. Roy (2017) through her characters revealed her social and cultural identity, a performance fixed in Subcontinentalism. Similarly, other collocations   also exposed English to a local version of its usage. In the light of Nelson, (1982) it can be contended that hybridisation, here leads to the formation of a new variety of English, which is marked with lexical variations rooted in the English culture.

Discussion

The research identified that Roy (2017) subsumed code-switching to construct a specific form of hybrid identity. The characters in the novel negotiate meaning as a product of their South Asian context and add words, expressions and sentences from Hindi and Urdu to convey their social and cultural backgrounds. The suggested findings aligned with Nilep (2006) who contended that code-switching can be seen as an attempt to negotiate meaning and to convey a specific form of identity. This means that when individuals code-switch, they might be using language to express their identities and to convey their social, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds.

Code-switching as a linguistic phenomenon can also be a way for individuals to navigate different social and cultural contexts that helps them to communicate effectively with a diverse range of people. This study’s findings also revealed that there are certain expressions for which translation is possible, however, Roy (2017) did not use English language to denounce the standards set by the normative hegemony of the said language, rather her aim was to depict the hybridisation that exists within Hindi-English language. The findings were also in lined with Trudgill (2002) who postulated that speakers could manipulate and influence situations through their conscious use of language, which conveyed nuances of meaning and personal intentions. This research also identified that the South Asian writers resisted the translation of nouns, which had important cultural and contextual meaning. Certain nouns used in the text indicate both the South Asian culture and experiences. Although the corresponding words were available in the English, the writer use their agency to convey nuances of meanings embedded in their local cultures. These findings were in lined with Parafita Couto and Gullberg (2019) ‘asymmetry constraint’, according to which it is a challenging task to accurately translate important nouns from one language to another, as it may not be possible to fully capture the nuances and connotations of the original word in the target language. Language of Roy (2017) is hybridised because she combined elements of English with Hindi and Urdu languages to create innovative lexical and syntactic patterns in her fictional writings.

Wong and Hassan (2013) contended that the emergence of hybridisation as an Indian English variant reflects the influence of Indian languages and culture on the development of this literary tradition. Roy (2017) carefully incorporated various couplets from famous classical Urdu literature writers, namely Mirza Ghalib and Mir Taqi Mir to create a distinct literary voice and to showcase the diversity and richness of Indian culture and its languages. Moreover, Roy (2017) used various Hindi words to refer to local cuisine, which carry a mark of South Asian identity and retain a specific cultural sense.  According to Counihan (2018), language is a way of construing identity and different social groups have their own foodways, which refers to the ways in which people relate to food and use it to construct their identities. This idea suggested that language and food are closely interconnected and they can both be used as significant tools to express and shape cultural identities.

Roy (2017) challenged what Pennycook (2006) called ‘the homogenous role of English language’ and rejected English as a monolithic language. Thereby, using hybrid forms of language, she also incorporated Pennycook (2006) concept of ‘performativity’ and produced and reproduced social and cultural realities and identities rooted in the cultural context of Indianism and Pakistanism.

Conclusion

The influence of English over other South Asian languages was noy only a result of direct importation or colonisation but more importantly it was the outcome of hybridisation of source languages and blended culture. The current research identified that code-switching, code-mixing, and borrowing was a prominent element in the South Asian writings, particularly in those writing, which were set in the post-colonial settings and had various social purpose. While the obvious purpose of Arundhati Roy’s blending of languages seems appropriation of Standard English to the indigenous context of the characters, the act of borrowing becomes a source of strengthening some of the stereotypes and notions as well. Her use of linguistic varieties through a rich tapestry of religious and nationalistic idioms makes her characters realistic and perfect, with a blend of Hindi language. For non-English and non-Indian writers, their interaction with first Indian language is with Hindi which is the language of majority; this helps the case of hyper-Indian nationalism promoted by BJP, and the need for the whole India to speak one language to express a particular brand of nationalistic unity. In case of religious vocabulary, she uses from the Hindi language, it serves to bring out a certain stereotypical prototype of Muslims and reinforces some of the biased notions harboured against Muslims.  Moreover, to experiment with language and invent novel ways of communication through linguistic variation Roy skilful use of hybridisation added complexity and thought-provoking depth to her characters, making her work more universal for Subcontinental cultural writers.  

References

Aggarwal, N. K. (1982). English in South Asia: A bibliographical survey of resources. Indian Documentation Service.

Alaiyadi, B. (2021). Language transfer and its impact on Arabic-speaking EFL learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 10(1), 186–193.

Aravamudan, S. (2006). Duru English: South Asian religion in a cosmopolitan language. Princeton University Press.

Asghar, J. (2014). Postcolonial South Asian literature and the quest for identity. NUML Journal of Critical Inquiry, 12(2), 57.

Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., & Tiffin, H. (2003). The empire writes back (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Baumgardner, R. J. (1993). The English language in Pakistan. Oxford University Press.

Bhabha, H. K. (2012). The location of culture. Taylor & Francis.

Bolton, K. (2003). Chinese Englishes: A sociolinguistic survey. Cambridge University Press.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. Routledge.

Counihan, C. M. (2018). The anthropology of food and body: Gender, meaning, and power. Routledge.

Gautam, M. R. (2001). The musical heritage of India (2nd ed.). Munshiram Manoharlal.

Gerhardt, C. (2013). Culture and food. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 4–8.

Kachru, B. (1987). The bilingual’s creativity: Discoursal and stylistic strategies in contact literature. In L. Smith (Ed.), Discourse across cultures: Strategies in world Englishes (pp. 125–140). Prentice Hall.

Kachru, B. (2006). Asian Englishes: Beyond the canon. Hong Kong University Press.

Kachru, B. B. (1976). The other tongue: English across cultures. University of Illinois Press.

Kachru, B. B. (1983). Models of new Englishes. In J. Cobarrubias & J. A. Fishman (Eds.), Progress in language planning: International perspective (pp. 145–170). Mouton Publishers.

Kachru, B. B. (1985). The bilinguals' creativity. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 6, 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500003032

Kachru, B. B. (1986). The Hindu view of language and linguistics. Journal of Pragmatics, 10(1), 67–86.

Kachru, B. B. (1990). World Englishes and applied linguistics. World Englishes, 9(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1990. tb00683.x

Kachru, B. B. (1997). Cultural meaning and language use. Oxford University Press.

Kachru, B. B. (2006). World Englishes and culture wars. In B. B. Kachru, Y Kachru, & C. L. Nelson (Eds.), The handbook of world Englishes (pp. 446–471). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757598 

Kachru, Y. (2011). World Englishes: Contexts and relevance for language education. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 155–172). Routledge.

Khan, H. I. (2012). The evolution of Pakistani English as legitimate variety of English. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 1(5), 90–99.

Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes hardback with audio CD: Implications for international communication and English language teaching. Cambridge University Press.

Mahboob, A. (2009). English as an Islamic language: A case study of Pakistani English. World Englishes, 28(2), 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2009.01583.x

McArthur, T. (2001). World English and world Englishes: Trends, tensions, varieties, and standards. Language Teaching, 34(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800016062

Moag, R. F. (1992). The life cycle of non-native Englishes: A case study. In B. B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures (pp. 233–252). University of Illinois Press.

Muthiah, N. (2009). Indigenizing fictionalized English: The case of South Asian writing in English. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 8(3-4), 239–255.

Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Social motivations for codeswitching: Evidence from Africa. Oxford University Press.

Nelson, C. L. (1982). Intelligibility and non-native varieties of English. In B. B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures (pp. 58–71). University of Illinois Press.

Nilep, C. (2006). "Code switching" in sociocultural linguistics. Colorado Research in Linguistics, 19, 1­–22. https://doi.org/10.25810/hnq4-jv62 

Parafita Couto, M. C., & Gullberg, M. (2019). Code-switching within the noun phrase: Evidence from three corpora. International Journal of Bilingualism, 23(2), 695–714. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006917729543

Pennycook, A. (2006). Global Englishes and transcultural flows. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203088807

Quinto, E. J. M., & Santos, J. C. (2016). Abrogation and appropriation in selected pre-war Philippine short stories in English. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 16(1), 157–168.

Rahman, A. M., & Rahman, A. R. M. M. (2021). Linguistic hybridization in a television talk show: A sociolinguistic analysis. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17(2), 767–782.

Rao, R. (1938). Kanthapura. William Heinemann Ltd.

Roy, A. (2017). The ministry of utmost happiness. Penguin Random House.

Sarfraz, M. (2021). Lexical variations in Pakistani English: A case study of the novel Twilight in Delhi. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 4(6), 252–260. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijllt.2021.4.6.30

Schneider, E. W. (2007). Postcolonial English: Varieties around the world. Cambridge University Press.

Schneider, E. W. (2016). English in the contact zones: Hybridity and the emergence of new varieties. World Englishes, 35(2), 191–204.

Sheeraz, M. (2013). Indigenization of English: An exploration. Journal of ELT and Applied Linguistics (JELTAL), 1(1), 1–12.

Stockwell, P. (2002). Sociolinguistics: A resource book for students. Psychology Press.

Talib, I. S. (2002). The language of postcolonial literatures: An introduction. Psychology Press.

Trudgill, P. (2002). Standard English: What it isn’t. In T. Bex & R. J. Watts (Eds.), Standard English (pp. 129–140). Routledge.

Trudgill, P. (2003). A glossary of sociolinguistics. Oxford University Press.

Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2021). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Tabula Rasa, (38), 61–111. https://doi.org/10.25058/20112742.n38.04

Weinreich, U. (2011). Languages in contact: Findings and problems. Mouton Publishers.

Weinreich, U., Labov, W., & Herzog, M. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In W. P. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel (Eds.), Directions for historical linguistics: A symposium (pp. 95–188). University of Texas Press.

Wong, Y. K., & Hassan, R. (2013). Indian English poetry: New perspectives. McFarland.