Linguistic Discrimination, Elitism, and the Need for a Communicative Turn in English Language Teaching

This article critiques linguistic elitism and prescriptivism in English Language Teaching (ELT), especially in multilingual contexts like India. Drawing on sociolinguistic theory and real-life examples from Marathi, Hindi, Indian English, and African American Vernacular English (AAVE), it argues that enforcing standardized norms marginalizes learners and reinforces colonial ideologies. The paper advocates for a communicative, corpus-driven approach that reflects actual language use and empowers learners. Through classroom examples, historical insight, and critical discourse analysis, the paper demonstrates how prescriptive norms hinder inclusive pedagogy and proposes a shift towards contextualized, meaningful language education.

Language, as a tool for communication, identity, and social inclusion, often becomes a gatekeeping mechanism through linguistic elitism. In the Indian ELT context, prescriptive approaches continue to dominate, emphasizing rigid grammar rules and ‘native-like’ pronunciation while overlooking the multilingual realities of learners. This paper contends that such practices constitute linguistic discrimination, perpetuating socio-economic and cultural marginalization (Lippi-Green, 2012; Canagarajah, 1999).

Linguistic Discrimination and Everyday Elitism

Language discrimination manifests not only in formal institutions but in everyday conversations. In the Marathi film Timepass, the protagonist is mocked for speaking an ‘impure’ Marathi, illustrating how dialect variation is equated with lack of education or lower class (Naik, 2024). In Hindi, a Bundelkhandi speaker saying “ka kare ho?” may be seen as inferior to someone using “kya kar rahe ho?”, reflecting the prescriptive privileging of urbanized, Sanskritized Hindi over regional varieties.

Similarly, Indian English speakers saying “He didn’t came” or “I am having a fever” are often judged for incorrectness, despite these structures being intelligible and widespread in Indian English corpora (Mukherjee, 2020). These examples underscore that prescriptivism in language is less about clarity and more about power and conformity.

Prescriptivism and the Colonial Legacy

Prescriptivism in ELT is a colonial artifact. The imposition of British Standard English as the ‘correct’ form alienates speakers of local Englishes and dialects. As Phillipson (1992) argues, such linguistic hierarchies are a form of linguistic imperialism. In colonial India, English was used as a marker of elite status, while native languages and non-standard Englishes were deemed inferior. This legacy persists in today’s classrooms, job markets, and public discourse.

Interestingly, the so-called ‘standard’ forms of English are themselves constructs. Shakespeare’s works, now considered classical, were written in the vernacular of his time and were looked down upon by the elite (Crystal, 2003). The British Received Pronunciation (RP), often taught in Indian ELT classrooms, was only standardized in the 20th century and is spoken by less than 3% of the UK population (Wells, 1982).

Language and Identity: The Case of AAVE and Indian English

African American Vernacular English (AAVE) has long been stigmatized in the United States, even though it has consistent grammar and phonological rules (Labov, 1972). Words like “ask” pronounced as “ax” were historically common in Early Modern English and were only later stigmatized (Rickford & Rickford, 2000). Similarly, Indianisms such as “do the needful” or “prepone” are often mocked, yet they reflect the innovative, context-sensitive evolution of Indian English (Kachru, 1983).

This stigmatization can lead to institutional discrimination. For instance, students or job applicants speaking with regional accents or local English varieties may be perceived as less competent, despite possessing the required knowledge or skills (Tollefson, 2007).

Real-Life Examples and Classroom Implications

In ELT classrooms, prescriptivism often translates into punitive feedback. A student saying “He is giving exam tomorrow” may be corrected to “He is taking an exam tomorrow”, even though the former reflects a direct translation from Hindi (“woh exam de raha hai”). While feedback is necessary, framing such usage as wholly incorrect disregards the learner’s linguistic background and hinders confidence.

Corpus studies (e.g., the Indian component of the International Corpus of English, ICE-India) have shown that expressions like “pass out from college”, “revert back”, and “cope up with” are widely used in educated Indian English (Mukherjee & Gries, 2009). Prescriptive norms must thus be balanced with descriptive awareness in pedagogy.

From Prescription to Communication: A Pedagogical Shift

The communicative approach to ELT, grounded in real-life use, offers a viable alternative. Rather than prioritizing grammatical purity, it emphasizes meaning-making, fluency, and interaction (Littlewood, 2004). Teachers can draw from corpus data to inform their practice, helping learners understand not only standard norms but also acceptable local variations.

Moreover, task-based learning (Willis, 1996) and lexical approaches (Lewis, 1993) allow for language learning through authentic contexts, reducing dependence on prescriptive grammar drills. Such approaches make classrooms inclusive and reflective of the linguistic diversity that learners bring.

Linguistic discrimination thrives on prescriptivist ideology. In multilingual contexts like India, where English is a second or third language for most learners, it is imperative that ELT practices shift toward communicative, context-sensitive, and inclusive pedagogy. By validating local varieties and real-life usage, we not only improve learner engagement but also dismantle the elitist structures that exclude the majority. As educators and researchers, our goal should not be to teach conformity but to cultivate confidence and competence through real, meaningful language.