Whose Language? What English?

(Notes on Language and Communications)

John Samuel

There are different notions about the effective use of a particular language. While many of the puritans would insist on ‘prescriptive’ use of a particular accent, pronunciation and grammar, many of the linguists would say the use of language needs to be seen in terms of ‘descriptive’ validity. The standardisation of language and ordering of ‘appropriate’ grammar is an exercise of power. There is a grammar of power in all communications. The power of communication also depends on the power of the communicator- in terms of ‘power-status’, knowledge and communicative skills.

Though English was introduced as a colonial language, now there are more people speaking in English outside the United Kingdom. So there is no more only ONE English language; there are many types of English- with variations in the accent, pronunciations, spellings and even grammatical preferences. The prevalence of a particular use of language has a lot to do with the power connotations of that language in a particular context of time and space. So today American accent or spellings and grammar may be more accepted than it was a hundred year ago. The power of Hollywood films and Internet provided relatively more acceptance to the American English which was considered as a ‘corrupt’ English by many. There are better known writers in English in India or former colonies than in the Anglo-Saxon world. Though there may be still few who are preoccupied with the RP (Received Pronunciation) accent, effective communicators are often less concerned about the ‘the RP accent’ and more focused on the communicative competence to convey an idea or connect with the audience. Communication is both about the competence and performance of language and message. It also means a sense of clarity about the message, audience and the purpose of communication.

Osho might be one of the most well known Indian communicators in the world. His books, audio and video presentations are sold across the world. His English had a very clear and evident Marwari accent. I had a chance to listen to his discourse. He was indeed a master of the art of communication. There was pindrop silence when he commenced his discourse. Every single word, interspersed with silence, straight went in like a ripple with a rare vibrance. The way he delivered his discourse- slowly and steadily- like a soothing wind, earned him millions of audience across the world. Often it is not the accent, it is the substance and the manner of delivery that make communication effective. Nelson Mandela- another inspiring communicator – too spoke in his own accent. Gandhi did have his Gujarati accent. Quite often the accent and pronunciation of English would be influenced by the mother-tounge of the a person. And for large number of people in the erstwhile colonies, English is only a second language. However, English is also the most effective lingua-franca in many countries and the world. The proficiency in English language gives a distinctive comparative advantage to effectively communicate to a world-wide audience.


It is one thing to have proficiency in a language and it is a different thing to have the ability to communicate effectively. Many people who may have excellent proficiency in a particular language may not be effective communicators. And when it comes to new modes of communications and broad casting, it is important to have special skills to communicate, using a particular medium- whether it is radio, TV, new media or social networks.

The issue of language and communication became crucial after the advent of TV. The name of the game changed after the TV became the direct medium of instant delivery. Here language and body language -looks, movement of eyes, posture – play a crucial role. It is a 'performance'- with an element of 'theatre'. In many parts of the world, people are 'trained' for days to 'perform' an interview. When I was the spoke person of an international organisation, and then global campaigns, I always had trouble with my communication staff. They would insist that I do a 'rehearsal' before I went to BBC, CNN or some other international channel for an interview or to deliver a specific message. They wanted to do trail run- with script. And they insisted on sticking to the 'script'- and I never stuck to the 'script': I did most of them on the 'instinct' of the moment, with one or two lines. And the feedback proved that the communication was effective. There is a difference between the communicative strategies in a long TV interview and short and crisp point on an issue or event. If one is a spoke person, one needs to choose few sentence carefully - and deliver it very clearly; all within a minute or two. It is a bit like visual twitter. The message has to be ABC- Accurate, Brief and Clear- and of course 'sexy'!

Even when we speak one language, there are different variations of the same language for different audiences. And the communicative strategies and the manner of delivery would differ based on the context, audience and the purpose of such communication. Some of us speak four or five kinds of English, depending on the audience, context and medium. The accent, choice of words, the speed too may change! For a successful politician who would like to be a statesman/woman, the skills to speak in different 'registers' of the same language and the proficiency in different languages do matter.

The communicative strategy of a politician to his/her constituency would depend not only on the use of language. It will depend on the use of body language, the attitude of communication, and 'speech-act'. It is a cumulative link between the person, promises, language and delivery. So in spite of his 'stammering' , EMS emerged as a good communicator - due to this cumulative effect of a communication strategy- and in his case that included writing as well. Pranab Mukarjee speaks English like a Bengali! In all such cases (including AK Antony) it is the cumulative communicative competence - not a particular- delivery that matters.

In the age of TV, expectations have changed. The mike used by the TV crew is called 'the gun-mike'- where a politician is the 'target'- he/she has to choose every word; and timing and manner of delivery is very important. One blunder can cost him/her the job!

So in the age of telegenic communications, the 'communicative' expectations changed dramatically. That is why the telegenic politicians also began to get prominence in the media discourse: Pramod Mahajan, Arun Jaitly. Kapil Sibal, Chidambaram, Jayaram. Murasoli maran, etc. None of them have the mass base of Shard Pawar or AK Antony. In fact, anyone of the got hardly any mass-base, and to a large extent their telegenic performance played role in giving them a space in the power-network. Sashi Tharoor too belongs to this 'telegenic' category- and he has the advantage of the ability to speak in four or five languages. However, telegenic performance- and networking capability alone are not good enough to make one's political sustainability.


Many well known leaders would insist speaking in his/her language in the international stage. Most of the leaders from Europe, China, Russia or Japan would prefer to speak in their mother-tounge, in spite of their proficiency in English, in the international stage. President Lula of Brazil hardly speaks in English- though he can understand few sentences. But Lula is one of the most effective communicators that I have come across. The man is amazing, and his communication (language and body language) is charismatic with a magnetic effect to attract the attention of the audience. In spite of not speaking English, he proved to a leader with a range of communicative strategies and skills.