Prof. Martina Ghosh-Schellorn represents the Saarland University, Germany in Prof. M. B. Emeneau Centenary International Conference on South Asian Linguistics. The paper presented by her is titled "Central Peripheries, Peripheral Centers : Contextualizing Indian English".

          She begins with a look at bilingualism (Hindi-English) with regard to English in India and goes on to define center and periphery . According to her, within the colonial context the term periphery is being applies to those regions far distant not only in location from the centre ( Britain ), necessarily signifies the subordination, and cultural estrangement from the centres of these colonies. In demonstrating a Trans-cultural Anglophone Studies -based approach, she discusses the concrete examples of the status of English, the language of the former centre in India . Quoting Tove Skutnabb-Kanga, she puts forward the argument that English is one of the "killer languages", as it stands all the more to reason to consider bilingualism in an Indian context.

          Giving the of lift mat dena (don't try to be fresh) what she appears to explain is that the English lift, is here used in an uniquely Indian sense or an attempt to impress someone of the opposite sex, with a view to initiating romantic relations. Prof. Martina describing Hinglish focuses on her desire to know what exactly is English EL, from which transfers are affected, comprised of. She cites examples from The Hyderabad Times "Pilgrims visiting the city ( Vijayawada ) for a pushkaram dip in the Krishna won't have to bear any police zulum for the men in khaki won't enter the bathing ghats. Moreover, in India , basolectal masti comes increasingly to replace standard English/ acrolectal fun.

           Supporting Kamal Sridhar's point that code-mixing has a long history in Indian literature she maintains that code-mixing with English suggests modernization, Westernization, authority, prestige, and knowledgeablility. Both Hindi and English occupy contesting, if equally matched, positions with regard to dominance: at times the syntax is English-based, at others Hindi. Specially located in advertising and mass-media, such as popular TV shows, MTV, Bollywood films, the language of the upwardly mobile urban middle class, this bilingual code-switching is highly pertinent example of the contestation for centrality in the linguistics sphere. Obviously, there are fears to be found in both camps about Hindi and English loosing their Matrix Language positions.

           She further delves into strategies of L2 language acquisition, the mesolect, rather than the acrolect, eventually becomes the standard medium of communication. Quoting J. Williams's proposal of a "frozen 'interlanguage' (Selinger 1972)" is particular pertinent to the English-Hindi bilingual linguistic situation that obtains in India . Indian English belongs to NIVEs (Non-native Institutionalized Varieties of English), which strongly resemble forms which are found in learner languages and at one time may have been the result individual language acquisition. Yet these varieties, according to Williams's claims, have spread throughout the population and become institutionalized, thus becoming "regional standards"; moreover these NIVEs are now themselves the target of second language acquisitions.

           The real life counterpart to the contention to the centrality by English and Hindi is the information technology-enabled services (ITES) situation which has evolved from the British and specifically American outsourcing policies, like call centers, medical transcriptions and business-process outsourcing (BPO). What the call center phenomenon implies, she says, is simple: it is a form of 'translating' Indians, to borrow Susan Sontag's term, into "Nancy" and "Bill". The call center workers have British/American regional accents imposed on them, they work shifts, they earn far less than their US counterparts. Prof. Martina questions whether this can be compared with colonization, as Harish Trivedi's retort to Sontag in the TLS proposes.

          Mr. Ranjit Singh Rangila opened the deliberations in the discussion that followed the session, chaired by Prof. Venkat Rao, by commenting that we should not relate the $60 in the US and the $6 in India , because the two economic systems are different with great disparities between them. Prof. Martina replied that her points and informations were valid. Prof. Ramakant Agnihotri enquired as to whose fear had been referred in the paper and since Indian English was not the only variety in the world why Selinkar uses the concept of inter-language in Indian context, to which Prof. Martina replied that the central periphery exists in Indian context. Prof. D. P. Pattanayak remarked the relation between English in India and the English of the world cannot be compared to central peripheries. Prof. Rajendra Singh observed that he speaks standard Indian English with some interference from RP. Prof. Pabitra Sarkar queried as to the use of mesolate for both English and Hindi.

          The chairperson of the seminar Prof. Venkat Rao, summarized by saying that a new phenomena called English-so far as India as a linguistic area is concerned- is jetting in.