This study examines the extent of the impact of proficiency and language use on sociophonetic variation in Indian English (IE). It is based on an oral corpus using the methods and tools of the PAC project and derived from a pool of South Delhi-based highly proficient speakers. The investigation was conducted using quantitative and qualitative methods and focused on two understudied variables: (1) the fricative realisation of th, and (2) the realisations of the vowels in words of the NORTH and FORCE lexical sets. First, the results demonstrate that a significant amount of variation which cannot be accounted for by the traditional age, gender and social class factors can be explained by the language use parameter. A degree of correlation was found between the volume of use of English in a range of domains, and how speakers take advantage of the sociolinguistic potential of prestigious forms. This offers indications on the location of the leaders of the linguistic change. The second central feature of this study is derived from the investigation of the NORTH versus FORCE distinction. It is argued that the general maintenance of this distinction in IE provides evidence for the endo-normative nature of this variety. In the light of these findings, issues ultimately relating to the debate over nativeness are discussed.

Topicalization refers to the sentence-initial placement of constituents other than the subject and is often listed as a non-canonical construction [cf. Ward, Gregory, Betty J. Birner and Rodney Huddleston (2002). “Information Packaging.” Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum, eds. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1363–1447.]. In this paper, tokens of topicalization in the direct conversations in the International Corpus of English for Hong Kong and India and, for comparison, Great Britain are analysed. In order to find out if topicalization is a contact-induced feature, typological profiles with regard to topic-prominence [Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson (1976). “Subject and Topic: A New Typology of Language.” Charles N. Li, ed. Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, 457–489.] are created for three Indo-Aryan, three Dravidian and two Sinitic languages. I suggest that the low frequencies of topicalization in Hong Kong English and the high frequencies of topicalization in Indian English are primarily due to differences in intensity of contact [Thomason, Sarah G. (2001). Language Contact. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.] and variety development [Schneider, Edgar W. (2007). Postcolonial English. Varieties Around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.]. Typological interference at the level of information structure is assumed to only come to the fore in further developed varieties and after prolonged contact.