(function(doc, html, url) { var widget = doc.createElement("div"); widget.innerHTML = html; var script = doc.currentScript; // e = a.currentScript; if (!script) { var scripts = doc.scripts; for (var i = 0; i < scripts.length; ++i) { script = scripts[i]; if (script.src && script.src.indexOf(url) != -1) break; } } script.parentElement.replaceChild(widget, script); }(document, '

The need for a comprehensive scholarly dictionary of Indian English

What is it about?

Although Indian English is one of the most widely-spoken varieties of English, at present the best dictionary available is the vastly out of date 1903 edition of "Hobson-Jobson". Other varieties of English (not only British and American, but also Australian, Canadian, New Zealand, South African) have up-to-date dictionaries, so why must Indian English have to put up with a dictionary over a century old? More recent lexicographical works for Indian English do exist (e.g. Hawkins 1984, Lewis 1991, Hankin 2003), but these have multiple deficiencies. It is argued that only a project for a full scholarly dictionary on historical principles could possibly produce a lexicographical work that would overcome these deficiencies. It is further argued that the perspective which views Indian English merely in terms of how it differs or deviates from 'core' English (i.e. British/American English) needs to be dispensed with in order to lexicographically (and otherwise) treat Indian English as a valid variety in its own right.

Why is it important?

Braj B. Kachru's World Englishes approach has for decades preached a pluricentric view of Englishes and this perspective is now a well-accepted paradigm. However, judging from published dictionaries, the field of lexicography appears to be well entrenched in the previous perspective that privileges the Englishes of the Inner Circle.

Read more on Kudos…
The following have contributed to this page:
James Lambert
' ,"url"));