The last two decades have writnessed a growing scholarly interest in literacy. Research in the area of literacy has involved three primary parameters: language, society and cognition. Focussing on one or the other of these parameters, scholars have studied different dimensions of literacy. Srivastava and Gupta (1983) have identified these dimensions as: (a) literacy as a skill involving the ability to control the visual (graphic medium of language, and to use it for involving written language to achieve certain sociocultural ends, (b) literacy as an instance of mass-upsruge and a call for the participation of the socially deprived and the economically disadvantaged illiterate masses in the heritage of written culture, and (c) literacy as an enabling factor which, through syllogistic reasoning accumulation of knowledge, creates conditions conducive to linguistic innovation and imaginative creativity.
As evident from the above, the research that has gone on in the area of literacy has been truly multifaceted, and different foci have been established for the study of literacy. An important fact that has emerged from these researches is that literacy is by no means a unified or monolithic concept, and that different people perceive and experience its nature, value and relevance differently (Heath, 1980; Graff, 1982; Pattison, 1982 and Raymond, 1982). Literacy studies also reveal that the perception of literacy and its attendant benefits across societies is conditioned, to a large extent, by their socio-economic reality (Cressy, 1980; Slaughter, 1982 and Neustupny, 1984).
While a great deal of attention has been focussed on the study of literacy in close nexus with the socio-economic ecology of various societies at different points of time, the close relationship that exists between language ecology and literacy has received little or no attention. For instance, a recent study on education and development conducted by the National Institute of Educational Planning an Administration, has discussed the problem of illiteracy within the scenario of educational development. The study shows a close relationship between literacy and deprivation and socio-economic underdevelopment in different states of India, and says:
State of Kerala has the highest literacy, as well as female literacy. it also has the distinction of having the lowest infant mortality rate, the lowest proportion of married females in the age-group 15- 19, very low death rate and the highest agricultural productivity (in Rs/Hectare). As against their, Uttar Pradesh with literacy rate of only 27.16 per cent and female literacy of 14.00 per cent, is characterised by the highest infant mortality rate, high death and birth rate, high proportion of married females in the age-group 15- 19, and low couple protection rate (Bhushan, 1987 : 2 - for a detailed table of figures, see, Appendix-1).This admirably compiled work completely neglects the relationship between literacy and the configuration of languages in a multilingual society. We believe that literacy cannot be studied meaningfully in isolation from the language ecology that obtains in a given society.
Haugen has discussed the concept of language ecology, albeit in the context of language planning. Ecology, in biology, refers to the study of natural environments as a branch of science that is concerned primarily with the inter-relationship of the organisms and their environments "especially as manifested by natural cycles and rhythms, community development and structure, interaction between different kinds of organisms, geographic distribution and population alteration" (Haugen, 1979 : 243). The same kind of definition applies to language ecology which provides us with the conditions that emerge out of the totality or pattern of relationships between languages and their environments. It is this view of language ecology that makes it imperative to study the differences between monolingual and multilingual societies, as well as between individual and societal bilingualism while discussing issues related to literacy.
A lack of proper understanding of the nature of multilingualism (as distinct from monolingualism), and of the relationship between multilingualism and literacy has led scholars to advance very generalised claims that are open to serious question. A classic example of such generalised claims is provided by Gudschinsky (1982) who asserts that the phenomenon of monolingualism has a feeding relationship with literacy, whereas multilingualism induces a bleeding relationship. Such claims stem from the fact that there has been a lack of understanding of multilingualism, as well as of the inter-relationship between different languages in a multilingual society. This lack of proper understanding has generated several myths about bi- and multilingualism. Srivastava attributes these myths to the scholars' disagreeably predominant preoccupation with multilingualism with a negative interpretation, and enumerates them as follows:
1) Linguistic homogeneity is currently related to many more desirable characteristics of polities than linguistic heterogeneity.
2) Bilingualism is a source of educational disadvantage and intellectual impoverishment.
3) Bilingualism cripples the creative abilities of the human mind.4) Bilingualism is a rather anomalous state of language behaviour involved in social group communication
5) Bilingualism is an obstacle per se in the linguistic communication within a speech community (Srivastava, 1977 : 59-67).
Scholars like Pandit (1972), Pattanayak (1981), Khubchandani (1983), Srivastava and Gupta (1983) and Srivastava (1984a) have convincingly shown that these are mere myths, and have described how, despite mass illiteracy, a societal type of bilingualism was able to cut deep into the soil of India and provided life and vitality to its verbal behaviour.
As a matter of fact sociolinguists now believe that it is monolingualism that is a myth, in the sense that no society is truly homogeneous and free of variation. Multilingualism has now become a norm even for those societies that had hitherto been labelled and monolingual. According to Fishman (1978) "societal multilingualism will not only 'linger on' in 'backward' corners of the globe but it will defend itself by modern methods (rather than merely give in to such methods) and will do so within the very heartland of modernity per se". Multilingualism, thus, is not only a characteristic feature of South Asian, African and Latin American societies but a global phenomenon. It is practically impossible to locate a truly monolingual country in which there are no minority groups using both the majority and the minority languages (Grosjean, 1982). While discussing literacy in monolingual countries, Bhatia has used the term monolingual in two restricted context: (a) the dominant relationship of one language over another in a speech community, i.e., predominantly monolingual speech communities, and (b) attitudinally considered monolingualism despite dialectal, stylistic and 'high-low' type fo intralanguage variation. Under the first condition he has charaterised the U.S.A., Great Britain, China, Japan and Iceland and monolingual societies, whereas Arabic-speaking countries have been labelled as monolingual under the second condition. He has gone on to characterise countries such as India "as a set of ML (monolingual) societies where various societies may be classified in relation to one or the other of the two types" (Bhatia, 1984 : 24). This is a patently erroneous view and does not take into account either the multilingual ethos of countries like India or the language ecology that obtains in such countries.
Srivastava and Gupta (1983), Pattanayak (1980) and Srivastava (1984b) have discussed the problems of literacy within the framework of the plural character of India, as well as in the context of the functional configuration of languages in its multilingual setting. The language ecology of multilingual societies clearly exhibits intralanguage functional allocation of different languages in the total network of communication system in a polity. In this sense, than, language ecology may be classified as internal and external. As pointed out by Srivastava (1987), in the case of internal ecology the environments are internal to language itself, such as regional and sociolectal varieties. A language, in this sense, may be viewed as a polylectal system which operates partly in harmony and partly in conflict. Most of the scholars working in the field of South Asian linguistics have accepted this polylectal view of language (Ferguson, 1961; Ferguson and Gumperz, 1960; and Gumperz and Naim, 1961). Scholars have also shown that in the case of a language like Hindi microlects such as High Hindi, High Urdu and Hindustani are there as coexistent systems in the verbal repertoire of Hindi speakers (Kelkar, 1968 and Srivastava, 1969). The recognition of the existence of microlects raises an interesting question in relation to literacy : 'Which microlect is to be used for initiating literacy?'
While the polylectal view of language, based on the internal ecology of language, raises one set of questions related to literacy, another set of questions is raised by the external ecology of languages in a multilingual setting. External ecology refers to environments external to language and shapes the attitudes that the speakers of a language have towards other languages used within and across speech communities in a given polity. The institutional view of language has extended the meaning of the term language to cover even those codes of the verbal repertoire that have distinct grammatical structures. For instance, Hindi as a language extends its coverage to include regionally circumscribed dialects such as Braj, Avadhi, Maithili, etc. Linguistically these are different from one another, as well as from Standard Hindi which functions as a superposed norm for the different members of the Hindi speech community. However, an average dialect speaker is attitudinally disposed to identify himself as a Hindi-speaker and declares Hindi as his mother tongue at the time of the Census. This raises a very interesting question as to whether literacy should be initiated in the dialect (mother tongue) and the extended to the superposed variety, or should it be initiated in Standard Hindi and then extended to the dialects, some of which happen to possess a great literary tradition of their own.
External ecology, considered in terms of attitudes and relationships, becomes all the more pertinent when seen with regard to minor languages which have yet to evolve a writing system of their own. This aspect of language ecology, in as regards literacy initiation. Some of these questions are: Do we initiate literacy in the mother tongue (minority language) or in the dominant major language of the region in which the mother tongue speakers are located, or do we initiate literacy in pan-Indian Hindi, or in pan-Indian English? Even if it is decided to initiate literacy through the mother tongue, the question of script-choice for non-literate languages becomes problematic - should one choose Devanagari (the script used for Hindi) or Roman (the script used for English)?
It is worth mentioning here that language ecology is not a static concept, nor are the elements that enter into relationship with one another, at a stand still. Changing social conditions and perceptions being about a corresponding change in language ecology. The educational perspective in per-Independence India was centred round elitism that promoted elite bilingulism on the one hand, and standard language literacy, on the other. Literacy was imparted not merely by accepting the standard written norm of a language institutionally recognized to sustain and promote elements of written culture, but it also forced the initiators of literacy to opt for a language other than the learners' mother tongue. Thus, we find at least three different situations in India in which literacy programmes promoted a second language in the field of formal literacy education. Most of the people living in tribal zones accepted either English or a regional standard languages for literacy education. In the Hindi region, despite the fact that the average speaker employed one or the other dialect in day-to-day communication, literacy was initiated through primers written in standard Hindi of which the speakers had only a passive command. In urban settings all over India, English-medium schools promoted literacy in English which had a limited functionality for the learner as compared with his native language. In all such cases initiating Standard Language literacy through a second language created a gulf between two sections of the society - the status-oriented literates and the stigmatized illiterates. It also gave rise to a dichotomy between a 'high variety' based on the stylistic accretions of literary achievement, and a 'low variety' based on vernaculars grounded in oral communication. In turn it promoted a value judgement that asserted that while literates live in a written culture with several intellectual resources, the illiterates live basically within the matrix of oral culture which does not concern itself with abstract categorisation, syllogistic reasoning and formal logical thinking. Without going further into these issues it should suffice at this point to state briefly some of the negative consequences of initiating literacy through a second language.
-- It leaves many learners at the level of semi-literacy.
-- Creates intellectual imbalance between standard language literacy and mass illiteracy,
-- Downgrades the learners' mother tongue,
-- Interferes with the channel for cross-cultural communication that would serve as a bridge between oral culture and written culture, and
-- it generates disharmonious relationship between functions of literacy (i.e., what literacy does for learners) and uses of literacy (i.e., what learners do with literacy skills. (Srivastave, 1984a : 35).With the rediscovery of the importance of indigenous languages, and a shift of policy away from elitism in education, in post-Independence India the movement for mass literacy was given a new theoretical and operational basis. At a meeting of langauge Education Experts (UNESCO, 1987) serious concern was expressed for the promotion of the cause of mass literacy which, according to these experts, could not be achieved without making the learners' mother tongue central to all literacy programmes. It was agreed that there are several positive gains that accrue from the promotion of mass literacy through the mother tongue, at least during the initial stages of literacy education. The reasons given for favouring mother tongue were:
1) This is the language in which a child first of all finds expression of his self and that of his immediate environment.
2) Mother tongue allows every one an equal access to educational opportunities and makes education broad based.
3) It enables the educational facilities to be made available in the largest possible manner.
4) It meets the psychological needs of the people.
5) It provides means of identifying oneself with the culture.
6) It helps in bridging the gap between the home language and the school language. This gap is always the source of educational disadvantage to the children of the minority communities. It also saves the young learner from the cultural shock that he undergoes in the process of entering the school system of education.
7) The educational value inherent in learning through the mother tongue is well-known because the learner learns through the language already known with more ease and facility than through an unfamiliar linguistic medium (Srivastava, 1978 : 41-42).It needs to be noted at this point that in multilingual countries languages configurate their functional roles in relationship with each other, and that language used in literacy as means and as an end are not necessarily one and same. It is because of this reason that we find in the literature on literacy tow conflicting claims:
a) Literacy as a skill is most effectively achieved in the mother tongue because of our assumption that literacy presupposes control of oral skills, i.e., literacy is nothing but an extension of language skills in the domain of reading and writing for the code in which one has already acquired the skills of listening and speaking; and
b) Literacy as a function is most effectively achieved in the language which is most appropriate for written communication, and which has a rich literary heritage.It should be mentioned here that in India there are several indigenous languages which have extremely limited functional load, and that are several mother tongues which have never entered the arena of written literary tradition. There are still other mother tongues which are yet to evolve a script of their own. The functionality criterion of literacy demands that in such circumstances mother tongue literacy, after the initial phase, should give way to Standard Language literacy through the Transfer Model of literacy education. This model proposes that while initial education. This model proposes that while initial literacy may be imparted through the mother tongue, at some stage or the other subsequently, the learner must be made literate in the language in which is contextually appropriate (Pattanayak, 1980). However, care has to be taken to see that Standard Language literacy (i) does not create a discontinuity between oral culture and written culture, and (ii) does not lead to the creation of 'high' and 'low' codes. According to Srivastava precisely in those areas where there is a wide gap between standard language and the local vernacular. In order to bridge such a gap it is desirable to 'tone down' the high-flown literary variety in order to bring it closer to the colloquial norm. Literary languages in India tend to show a wide cleavage between the high literary variety and the relatively low colloquial code. At extreme points these two are in complementary distribution, with a limited zone of overlap. Thus we have :
However, with the emergence of prose as a powerful medium of written culture, and the rise of prose fiction (as opposed to poetry) as a literary genre, and with mass education, the language ecology has further changed, bringing about a shift favouring the variety that was hitherto labelled as 'low'. This has tended to neutralise the 'high-low' dichotomy to some extent. This attitudinal change, coupled with the motivation for mass literacy programmes, could lead to a resolution of the conflicting claims of language for literacy in the multilingual setting of India.
The proposed transfer model, when seen in the context of India multilingual reality, raises several issues about the very nature of literacy, as well as, about its operational aspects. Literacy, once it has been acquired as a functional skill, can be extended indefinitely. The script-system being only a device for the representation of the functional units of language and not being constrained by any intrinisic properties of a given language, one can peel off, in a manner of speaking, the script fro its institutionalised usage as a medium to represent a given language, and extend its use to visually represent another language. For instance, though the Roman script, in the Indian context, is conventionally used to represent the English language, it has also been used to represent Sanskrit, and has even been promoted several hitherto unwritten tribal languages. Keeping this in mind, and also not forgetting that literacy is a continuous process, one can identify three types of literacy in a multilingual setting, viz., monoliteracy, biliteracy and bisystemacy. In cases where the use of the writing system (script) of the mother tongue is extended so as to provide a medium of visual representation for another language, we have instances of monoliteracy. For example, Devanagari which is used as a script for Hindi, may also be used to represent spoken English. Contrary to his, when one employs the writing system (script) institutionally employed for the second language, we have biliteracy, because such a user starts controlling two writing systems for two distinct languages. For example, a learner may use Devanagari for Hindi and Roman for English. Bisystemacy is found in situations where two styles of one and the same language call for the use fo two different writing systems. For instance, the Sanskritised variant of Hindi is requires the use of Devanagari, while the Perso-Arabic script is required by Urdu (the Perso-Arabic variant).
We would like to suggest that despite these distinctions literacy, in a deeper sense, is acquired only once. We must remember that language in its oral form is acquired in response to a language faculty which is intrinsically given to all humans as a biologically endowed property. The same, however, is not true of the visual (written) from of language. Culturally it is a learned activity. Literacy, in this sense, is related to all those manual and visual modalities which are involved in reading and writing skills. Once literacy as a sill has been achieved, it can be extended across writing systems, with the need for some extra knowledge of new writing systems, as in the case of biliteracy.
Another issue that the proposed transfer model raises is related to the categorisation of literacy on the basis of its functionality in terms of the range of application. Scholars agree the literacy is a progressively continuous process and that it can range from 'sounding out' of words and sentences to the skill of reading difficult texts with total understanding and comprehension. Generally, in a multilingual setting, two languages are not learnt with the same degree of competence, and there always exist different degrees of control in their usage. So is the case with literacy. Thus, one can make a distinction between initial literacy which is concerned with control of the wortten language for ordinary day-to-day activities such as writing letters, filling up o forms, etc., and progressive literacy which is concerned with the aesthetic and intellectual dimensions of written language (De Silva, 1976), with the two forming a sort of continuum. It is possible, however, that literacy in the mother tongue is restricted to initial literacy, while literacy in the other language, especially those languages which are employed in higher education, is extended to progressive literacy. As a matter of fact, the transfer model presupposes such a functional movement from one language to another, as well as, from one degree of literacy competence to another degree.
The functionality of literacy in a miltilingual setting also makes one recognise a tripartite distinction between pre-literacy, non-literacy and illiteracy. Pre-literacy refers to a stage where a child, living in a literate society, has already acquaired the oracy skills but has not yet reached the take-off point, in terms of age, for learning literacy skills. It should be noted that in the life cycle of individual literacy skills always come as a later development than oracy skills. Pre-literacy refers to the gap or interregnum between the two take-off points for oracy and literacy within the overall context of linguacy. Non-literacy is a condition of a society in which the skill of literacy is of non consequence at all, because it neither marginalises those who live exclusively in oral culture, nor does it treat non-acquisition of literacy skills as a hindrance to the achievement of social status and prestige. Illiteracy, as a condition, pertains to an individual or a group "that has failed to master the generally accepted skills of the culture and is thus cut off from the cultural heritage of contemporaries" (Finnegan, 1972). It is obvious from the foregoing that while pre-literacy and non-literacy are value-neutral telrms, illiteracy is a value-sensitive term and the condition known as illiteracy is generally viewed as a social malaise or as a serious individual handicap.
We would like to suggest that in the multilingual and pluricultural context of India non-literacy and illiteracy form a cline in a special way. Studies have shown that literacy enters the life of a given society at a particular stage of its development, and that too after it has gone through certain socio-economic transformations. The uneven development of the Indian society has given rise to uneven attitudes towards that social functionality of literacy. This, in turn, ahs promoted the concept of functional literacy, which is the major thrust of the literacy movement in India.
