Prev | Home | Next

Language Profile of India and the Nature of Societal Bilingualism

India has been for several millenia a multilingual and pluricultural country. There is not a single State in the country which is completely unilingual (Appendix-II, Table-1); not a single major modern Indian language whose speakers don not employ at least three contact language (Appendix-II, Tabl-2); and not a single speech-community which has less than at least three distinct linguistic odes in its verbal repertoire. We find all major languages of India existing beyond their home-territory; almost all regions like cosmopolitan cities, show a culturally mixed population1. With 550 million population, 1652 mother tongues and 67 educational languages2 , India is obviously considered by linguists as a multilingual giant.

Looking at the different Tables (Appendix-II, Table-1 to 4) related to the different aspects of language profile of India, one can easily draw the following conclusions:

(1) Different vernaculars of India fall under four distinct families - Indio-Aryan, Dravidian, Austro-Asiatic and Sino-Tibetan.

(2) Indian linguistic scene is dominated by two family groups - Indo-Aryan and Dravidian with a population covering 97.7% (429 million) of its total population.

(3) Major language (i.e., Languages specified in the VIII Schedule of the Indian Constitution) cover 88% speakers of the total population.

(4) There are only 240 dialects (i.e., 12%) which have ten thousand and above speakers; dialects having less than a thousand speakers are 1248 in number (i.e., 75%).

This indicates that numerous dialects and pockets of tribal inhabitants exits with distinct identities and ethnic background and that they have not been integrated to form a larger super-ordinate group.

(5) All major languages of India exist beyond their home-territory. As such speakers maintain their native (home) languages and also speak the dominant local language, providing an clear case of grass-root bi-lingualism.

(6) Different states might have been declared uni- or bilingual for administrative convenience but basically each of them is a multilingual and pluricultural complexentity.

(7) Border areas of almost al the States offer a diffusion belt, emerging out of contact patterns with languages belonging to different; families.
The nature of language mixing and code-switching in such border areas throughout India has been such that "even if the State boundaries were drawn rightly on the principles of unilingual or bilingual States, there would still be a number of areas with mixed population even within unilingual States" (Government of India, 1973 : 1).

Different vernaculars of India have coexisted since pro-historic times. It is the consequence of this coexistence and language contact that India not only offers a rich example of diffusion of linguistic traits across genetic boundaries (Emeneau, 1956, 962, 1974; Kuiper, 1976, 1974; Gumperz, 1971; Bendix, 1974), but has become in itself an exemplary instance of stable type of societal two or more languages take on full range of responsibilities that a so-called single language takes for a unilingual society. A bilingual selects one language over the other in a specific social situation for much the same reasons that motivate monolinguals to choose from lexical alternates or from functional variants of a single language (Rubin, 1961; Fishman, 1965 ; Gumperz, 1968).

The most relevant characteristic of Indian bilingualism has been its allocation of social roles to different languages falling within the range of non-competing nature of these roles sustained the non-conflicting and socially stable pattern of bilingualism. It is to be noted that in India, bilingualism is rather a natural state of language behaviour. Thus, a Gujarati spice merchant settled in Bombay is competent to control simultaneously five or six languages. The functional allocation of the nexus of these languages are well ascertained by the practical needs and necessity of interlingual switchover. For example, such a merchant speaks Gujarati in his family domain, uses Marathi in a vegetables market, communicates with milkman in Hindi and employs Kacchi and Konkani in trading circles, and he can be observed talking in English on formal occasions. For his implicit knowledge of linguistic rules of a given language such a person may be poorly rated (Pandit, 1972), but in terms of overall linguistic ability, he can easily be labelled as a multilingual, well proficient in controlling different life-situations with ease and skill.

It can be seen that a person may attain a higher score in Discrete Point Proficiency Tests but still be poorly rated for the linguistic control situations, and vice-versa. It is for this reason that Spolsky (1968) proposes "not to test how much language someone knows but his ability to operate in a specified socio-linguistic situation with specified ease or effect. After all, it would not be expected to lead to statements like 'He knows 60% of English', but 'He knows enough English to shop in Super Market'."

Bilingualism of the type which South Asian speech-communities attest is not an obstacle per se in linguistic communication. Indian speech community never felt serious difficulties in operating in more than one language in their speech inter action. At the level of face to face interaction it was the inherent social need that tutored Indians in the principle of grass-root bilingualism without taking recourse to any formal educational training. It is for this reason that in spite of mass illiteracy, bilingualism was able to cut deep into the social life of India.

This grass-root bilingualism is not to be confused with the situation generally existing in some parts of the western world, as noticed by Ferguson (1968): "the acculturating immigrant and his offspring, the westernising native, the struggling foreign language student, the downtrodden but dedicated minority group patriot". Because of the fact that in western countries researches in the area were primarily based on these atypical bilingual subjects, we find there many deluisions about bilingualism still being perpetuated in the field of scholarship. It has been shown (Srivastava, 1977) how a disagreeably dominant preoccupation with bilingualism with negative interpretations has given a pejorative value to a phenomenon which is functionally vital to a pluralistic society.

Neither has language learning been at any time a burden nor language maintenance created any serious problem for the members of Indian speech community. There is little evidence for non-reciprocal intelligibility between speakers of bilingual context. An Indian speech-community regulates the use of various dialects and languages through code-switching and code-mixing, and over and above, by simplifying and assimilating the differential structures. It is for this reason that in spite of an intricate system of multilingualism, Indian speakers do not suffer from mutual incomprehensibility. On horizontal axis, dialects in India form "a continuous chain from Sind to Assam, with mutual intelligibility between adjacent areas"(Gumperz, 1964). Similarly on vertical axis of speech interaction, "there is continuous chain from the most illiterate variety of local village dialect to the highly specialized English language (with regional dialects, state and national languages serving as media of supra-local communication) with the reciprocal intelligibility between hierarchically adjacent areas" (Ssrivastava, 1977).

This is not suggest that Indian speech communities do not suffer from the cases of reciprocal non-intelligibility. Language has become a problem and a barrier to speech communication but in a different sense. In Indian society, where social mobility across classes is slow and mass communication media are not highly developed one would expect a wide range of regionally localised dialects and socially-conditioned speech variation. As speech differences increase in proportion to geographical and social distance, the problem of mutual intelligibility becomes relevant during the speech interaction between people located at more distant areas - geographical or social.

That code-switching is an integral component of social interaction and that it bridges the communication gaps across different strata can be seen if we take the legal institution; for example, from bottom to the top, we find law-courts integrated in a following hierarchical order - (1) Village Panchayat, (2) Civil Court, (3) District Court, (4) High Court, and (5) the Supreme Court. The code matrix, within the verbal repertoire of a speech community, say of Hindi, consists of the following: (a) local village dialect (VD), (b) regional dialect (RD), (c) regional language of wider communication, i.e., Hindi (HL) and (d) non-regional language of wider communication, i.e., English (EL). The nature of code-switching operative between matrix language (i.e., the language in which the judgment is pronounced) and embedded language (i.e., language commonly used during cross examination and arguments) can be seen from the following chart:

chart

Similar is the pattern of languages used in education system - literacy programmes are being encouraged through mother tongues, primary education employs mother tongues or regional languages, secondary stage makes Hindi the medium of instruction with English as a subject-language, college stage provides instructions for humanities primarily through Hindi and secondarily through English for science subjects it provides instruction primarily through English and secondarily through Hindi, and the higher studies in the field of science and technology are possible exclusively through English.

Code-switching as a linguistic phenomenon has some vital implications for language dynamics and language change. Researches in the field attest that wherever code-switching occurs as a systematic behaviour, it re-orients in the process the codes employed in multiple way. The following effects are worth noting:

(1) It evolves a common semiological and semantic component;

(2) It develops a simplified version of linguistic structures;

(3) It leads to the diffusion of linguistic traits across genetic boundaries;

(4) It makes code-mixing a reality;

(5) It creates an ability in sentence-for-sentence translatability;

(6) It promotes a sense of mutual adaptability;

(7) It increases the power of mutual comprehensibility.

In addition, it has some other sociolinguistic implications, viz.,

(a) in contact situations with local and regional dialects, it enriches the language with distinctive and colourful traits expressive of local environments, and

(b) in contact situations with non-cognate languages like English it modrnises the language in a natural and effortless way.

While code-switching (that makes code-mixing a reality) and convergence of languages (that leads to substantive and salient types of pidginisation are salient features of societal type of Indian bilingualism, they have been considered by educationists and planners as primary source of degeneration and adulteration of inner quality of language. It is surprising that creative writers tend to seen the significance of the phenomenon and employ the language style real to the social context; nevertheless scholar-managers of the educational system hold the view the code-switching is a marker of our undeveloped language and code-mixing is a sing of poor control of one's own linguistic and literary heritage. It is for this reason that instead of standardising the colloquial variety and promoting it to the status of media of education, these scholar-managers try to standardise the superimposed high variety of a language and that too with the entrenched elitist interest.

In a pluricultural stratified society like Indian one notices at each stratum a defined subculture and at the cross (inter-) level, a variable adaptive subculture. Functionally parallel to this one finds in a multilingual set-up, a system of language choice (i.e., each stratified subculture selecting a linguistic code) - and a system of variable linguistic structure - (i.e., each intersecting zone evolving a case of code-selection and code-mixing ). The variable adoptive subculture, or code-switching as a linguistic variable, eliminates the structural gap existing between tow subcultures or between tow distinct linguistic codes. This can be diagrammatically represented as follows:

chart

This brings forth the concept of languages Continuum. In a monolingual society, this pluricultural setting is maintained through intra-lingual stylistic networks of language organisation. Multilingual societies maintain the language continuum through code-selection and code-switching. It is sub-culture to another by switching. It is quite possible in this set up to move fro one sub-culture to another by switching one's linguistic code. Scholars working on English-speaking Caribbean societies have shown that there is a continuum of language: creole at the one end and Standard zone of linguistic mixing (Le Page, 1964; De Camp, 1968; Bailey, 1964; Bickerton, 1971). This linear aspect of language continuum in the context of Indian situation exhibits the following characteristics:

(a) The socio-cultural context of the language continuum reorients the notion of 'cultural pluralism within a framework of multilingualism' in the light of the question of unification versus differentiation in language behaviour, i.e., the problem of unity in diversity;

(b) The language continuum in its inward manifestation has tow dimensions:

(i) Code-selection and code-mixing (i.e., a continuum with a segment of dialect at one end and a segment of English language at the other end with a middle area of identified language having two intersecting zones of linguistic mixing and variation), and
(ii) style-choice and style-mixing (i.e., continuum with a segment of pidgin variety at the one end and a segment of standard variety at the other, with a middle zone of linguistic variation and mixing).
(c) The language continuum at the apex is characterised by two tendencies:

(i) classical (revivalist), which at the highest sub-culture makes the style classical in orientation by Sanskritization of the language; and
(ii) modernistic, which at the highest subculture makes the style modern by Anglicizing the language, i.e., by constant transfer of linguistic units of all sizes and levels from English to the regional language.

(d) The language continuum invokes the notion of differential competence which takes the following two contexts for its explication;

(i) context of longitudinal realization, so that there may be different sections or strata of society which exhibit different degrees of control of different codes employed in the verbal repertoire of a speech community, i.e., speakers of one stratum are competent to control only their dialect, the other along with their dialect have access to vernacular variety of language, the third have control of English but not the literary variety of language, etc.
(ii) context of lateral realixation, so that the speakers of the same stratum learn different elements of a second language with different kinds of control, i.e., some linguistic structures which are actively known, some passively known and some which are not known at all, this can be seen as manifested in a cline of bilingualism; for example, from pidigin to educated English

A Critique of National Policy: The Three-Language Formula

Organizing language teaching in a multilingual and pluricultural context is concern of language policy. Underlying language policy, there remain always the wider principles of national policy. The national policy recommended measures:

(a) for strengthening the Constitutional safeguards for linguistic minorities through its Art. 29(1) which states:
"Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same".

(b) for promoting modern Indian languages mentioned in the Eight Schedule of the Constitution to official status.

(c) for integrating India through an All-India language which, according to Art. 343(1) is Hindi in Devanagari script. Provision was made to continue English as such a medium for some time to come3 .

The recognition of the right of the linguistic minorities to have instruction in their mother tongue at the primary stage of education, the promotion of regional languages in the domains of administration, education and operational fields of prestigious vocations and the emphasis or integrating different speech communities through two All-India (Official) Language - Hindi and English, led our national language policy makers to evolve the Three-language Formula for the School stage education. As recommended by the Education Commission and accepted by the Government of India, this formula lays down following language subjects for teaching:

(a) The regional language and mother tongue when the latter is different from the regional language;

(b) Hindi or in Hindi-speaking areas, another Indian language; and

(c) English or any other modern European language.

The Education Commission (1964-66) tried to encapsulate the notion of language continuum and while examining the implementation of the Formula in different states, recommended a modified graduated Three-Language Formula. The details of school stages at which language are to be introduced in respect of intensified programme are given in Table-6 (Appendix-11).

The evidence so far suggests that the Three-Language Formula in spite of promoting the notion of language continuum and upholding the cause of national integration, is not quite successful in execution and effect. As a socio-educational policy, it has become self-defeating because it is neither based on the view of the functional needs of the community nor takes into account the attitudes of the people towards their mother tongue. It was forgotten that in modern societies people hold more tenaciously to language than ever to be an important factor for political cleavage, or for that reason, wide-spread riots. Educational policy, therefore, must manipulate "both the structure and functional allocation of codes within a polity" (Fishman, 1969 : 186).

To take an example, the promotion of regional and standard languages in the domains of administration, education, and operational fields of prestigious vocations can be called legitimization of languages. We are all aware that throughout India, English has been the language of use in these domains of social activities. In fact, English, as Mahatma Gandhi told in 1921, "has usurped the dearest place in our hearts and dethroned our mother tongues". He further observed in 1948 the "this slavery to an alien language has kept our millions deprived of a great deal of necessary knowledge for many long years". English might have played a significant role in integrating the country through its administrative goals into a political and economic unity, or it may have a function of modernising our regional languages and society, but in our democratic set up it cannot exist as an autocratic language of a small ruling elite. For the logic of mass participation in affairs of society and social mobilization for national resources, regional languages have to be legitimatized throughout the country.

Legitimatization of regional languages simultaneously calls for modernization, standardization, and vernacularization processes. Modernization of a language means making it competent for full expressions in the new proliferating domains of social activities. it is a process required for language elaboration. Regional languages have to be equipped with new vocables, terminologies and phrasal expression in the areas of mass media, educational processes, scientific thought, technological operation, legal documentation public administration, etc. - areas in which English hitherto enjoyed the sole privilege. Standardization prescribes authentic variant of a language if face of multiple variations - regional (dialectal as well as social (sociolectal) through writing systems, dictionary, grammars and spelling manuals. Vernacularizaion aims at bringing the modernized and standardized variant of a language nearer to the speech variety for mass participation. It is a process that makes a language situation-bound, event-centred and communication-oriented. It is the vernacularization process that keeps language true to its internal structure and makes it functionally a living force for social activities.

Language engineers of India have created out of regional languages a new style. If fact, the standardization without vernacularization has been in a direction that tends to make the new variant of regional language a compartmentalized preserve of their literary elite. "Their logic of language development seems to go contrary to the logic of mass literacy, affective access of new groups to the educated communication arena and to socialization of maximum human resources in general (Das Gupta, 1969 : 590).

Indian system of communication patterns has been in the direction of changing the bilingual setting into diaglossic relationship. The difference between the bilingual and the diglosic relationship. The difference between the bilingual and the diglosic relationship is obvious: "bilingualism is essentially a characterization of individual linguistic behaviour whereas diglossia is a characterization of linguistic organization at the socio-cultural level (Fishman, 1967: 34). Diglossia as conceived first by Ferguson (1959 : 236) leads invariably to relatively stable language situation when there is a superimposed high variety (H) over the primary dialect as the low variety (L). A language (Inter-lingually) or a speech variety (intra-lingually) conventionalized as a superimposed (H) variety has been officially promoted and educationally inculcated. Whether the social system allocated hierarchical features as to prestigigous vs. rustic (Sanskrit/English vs. regional languages/dialects), or high vs. low speech styles, they invariably created a deep gulf between educated elite and the illiterate masses. One of the principal causes of mass illiterate masses. One of the principal causes of mass illiteracy has been the practice of promoting the book language (prestigious, high speech style) which "is twice removed from the lower working class or rural child: he has to cope, first with the school oriented communication modes and, second, with the special requirements imposed upon him by the book language" (De Silva, 1976 : 10).

The conceptual framework in which the Three-Language-Formula has been conceived or the direction in which regional languages are being legitimatized and modernized is producing a lot of heat for the 'cold war' within and across our speech communities. Similarly, the way in which central planning at the successive levels of educational curriculum, specifically in the area of language policy is being carried out (without reference either to the language setting of Indian society or to the felt needs of our country) is becoming not only socially divisive in output but unreal and ineffective in classroom operation. It is needless to say that policy-makers in India have shown wavering attitudes towards selection of national languages (Srivastava, 1976b), an elitist approach towards codification which seems to go against the logic of mass literacy and language dynamism (Srivastava, 1974), a restricted line of action towards elaboration which is confined merely to the lexical towards cultivation bringing certain directives roles of a language (Srivastava, 1977b).

We have yet to find out the causes that make our societal multilingualism dysfunctional, and , in some instances, and excuse and promoter of internal tension and societal conflict. One has to seek reasons why multilingualism which once was non-competing is dangerously being turned to be conflicting. Comparing the past with the present one this becomes obvious - prior to the modern period, India did not have politically (and economically) dominant language like English. Never in our history has a language been and impeding blockage to upward social mobility for a common man. In the medieval period of India, we find functional role allocation of languages: Sanskrit was the language of ritual and philosophical speculation; Persian was the language of court and administrations; Braj for social reformation and literary expression; while different dialects served as mother tongues. But is the 19th century, India faced the unilateral imposition of English by a dominant group giving English the role of 'dominant' language.

The concept of 'dominant' language has to be discussed with care. a dominant language is one which gets impregnated with power blocking the upward social mobility of the members of other speech groups. Their strength can be measured by the degree of control exercised by them over subordinate groups in a given society. It is a language serving as the second language for the majority of the other language groups, though its own speakers are hardly bilinguals. If we look at the status of English in India, we find that it not only enjoys the administrative privileges and socio-political power in society, its contact speakers by far also exceed the number of native speakers. With the rise of a central political authority and under the spell of industrialization and westernization, English as a dominant language became the first and foremost cause for the disequilibrium of our multilingual society.

After the independence of India, it was hoped that policy framers will try to understand the true nature of our societal multilingualism and functioning of in-group and out-group languages before framing and implementing their educational and language policies. However, immediately after becoming free, governed by considerations of socio-cultural authenticity, we tried to replace the 'foreign' dominant language (English) with a native one (Hindi). in pre-independence India, Hindi was the most potent means of unification and integration. It was the voice of protest against the imperialist power, a vehicular language for mass upsurge and a cultivator of new values free fro class and creed. It was a language meant for mass participation. Soon after it became a 'dominant' language in the post-independence period, it got looked upon by a section of people as a symbol of communalism and language chauvinism, and over and above, a linguistic instrument for oppression of minority languages.

Mother Tongue Teaching in India : An Overview

The micro-system of language pedagogy in multilingual and pluricultural societies should base its operation on sound research work in the following three areas:

1) Status and Role: study of language needs of a society and social roles and status assigned to different languages/styles.

2) Motivational Orientation: study of learner's attitudes towards target language and kinds of motivational orientation.

3) Learning Strategies: study of learning strategies for linguistic encoding of overtly different but functionally (socially) equivalent processes.

Unless we analyse first the functional roles and social status of languages falling within the verbal repertoire of a given speech community, study that attitudes of members of a given speech community towards target language, and, relate the language behaviour of a member with other cultural modes of conduct, we cannot evolve a realistic approach to the teaching of a language in a multilingual society.

Whether we look at mother tongue (MT) teaching or the teaching of other tongue (OT) we have to adopt a 'functional' approach to the study of a language. It is to be remembered that the social role of language gets reflected in linguistic structure in the form of diatypic varieties. A functional approach to the language study apart from the language use in thinking, offers an account of the language use in inter-personal communication as well as the language use in institutions.

While planning to teach a MT with functional approach, we can show at least three distinct contexts - (a) diatypic varieties, (b) diglossic relationships, and (c) transitional situations. The existence of different fields, modes and tenors of discourse determine the pattern of language varieties. The ability to operate in distinct diatypic varieties true to their contexts is what Hymes (1971) calls 'communicative competence'. This competence of users of language "entails abilities and judgments relative to, and inter-dependent with, socio-cultural features". Different from the diatypic varieties is the diglossic relationship which exists between the formal high variety (H) and colloquial low variety (L) of a language. Some of the major languages of India (e.g., Bengali, Telugu, Tamil) exhibit clear-cut instances of two distinct styles (saadhu chalit; granthika-vyavahaarikas; senpeechu, respectively); the H-style is used for all formal speaking codes and in the writing of literary texts, while the L-style is employed for ordinary conversation. The tow speech styles occasionally overlap in certain domains of operation. But as the L-variety is acquired in a normal way and the H-variety is learned through formal education, the commonly held view is that a person does not know the language if he has not acquired ability to use the H-variety.

The situation is not as simple as it appears to be on the surface. Verbal repertoire of every speech-community exhibits a dynamic relationship between codes employed therein. This leads ultimately to the convergence process, which operates on different levels and in different forms. On the other hand, most of the major Indian languages have evolved their socio-culturally and socio-economically oriented distinct speech styles.

One of the primary tasks for linguists working in the area of mother tongue specification in the multilingual and pluricultural societies is to evolve a method for describing a language as a self-contained and homogeneous system, regardless of its hetrogeneity of data and multiplicity of functional variations. One way out is to propose the coexistence of simultaneous systems in the verbal reportoire which 'operate partly in harmony and partly in conflict' (Fries and Pike, 1949). "It is not a coincidence", as has been pointed out earlier (Srivastava, 1969), " that coscientious linguists working on South Asian languages have accepted this stand, and have tried to demonstrate that the concept of coexistent systems is not merely a linguist's construct but in fact exists in the behaviour of monolingual speakers in these language communities" (Ferguson, 1959; Gumperz, 1961; Ferguson and Gumperz, 1960; Gumperz and Naim, 1960; Krishnamurthy, 1972; Radha Krishna, 1970; Sjoberg, 1962 and Southworth, 1974).

This notion of coexistence of simultaneous systems can be extended from the intra-lingual varieties to the inter-lingual diglossical situations. The following contexts of role-relations and speech interaction thus can be specified for defining the verbal repertoire of a mother tongue(MT):

click here to see the chart

Monolingual withdifferentialcompetence Bilectal speakers Biculturalspeakers Adherent speakers
Base : Common core Vernaculars Standardlanguage Dialect
Target : Registral varieties Prestigiousvariety(Horizontaldiglossia) Alternateprestigiousvariety(Horizontaldiglossia) Language

(a) Mother Tongue and Associate Mother Tongue

For the functional use of language in education in multilingual countries, we have to draw the distinction between the two interpretations of MT - narrow and broad. The Narrow interpretation of MT may be accepted as 'the home-language of a child' which in its extreme case, leads to the notion of 'the language spoken by the child from the cradle': The Broad interpretation of MT accepts it to be an institutional reality that has an appeal to local loyalty. It is a language which is commonly used in interpersonal social interaction by members of given speech community. Out of common history, cultural traits, psychological stereotypes, group affiliation, literary tradition, writing system, etc., a member of a community feels like speaking one and the same language in spite of regional and social variations. It acts as an integrating force linguistically as well as culturally4. The narrow interpretation takes MT to idiolect via dialect while the broad interpretation leads MT vial dialect to the level of language.

In fact, the broad interpretation of MT invokes the notion of 'associate-MT'. Dialect speakers, for example, speakers of Bhojpuri, Awadhi, Braj, etc., claimed in the Census Returns that their MT was Hindi. As they command native-like control over Hindi, according to kelkar (1968), they may be called 'adherent speakers', as opposed to 'native' and 'foreign' speakers. For such people Hindi serves as an 'associate MT' as the switching of linguistic codes (different dialects and Hindi) is much the same to the switching of informal and formal styles by monolingual speakers.

The diverse and heterogenous structure of MT in a multilingual and polycultural society can be captured if we systematize the variations in functional, social and cultural contexts of a language. Functional Variations are the result of circumstances and situations. They can be contextualized as field (scientific versus literary), mode (oral versus written), style (formal versus informal) of discourse. These contextualized variants do not invoke the feelings of high and low or good and bad forms of speech. Social Variations relate to linguistic differences correlatable with the speakers' socio-economic strata involving such parameters as educated/uneducated, standard/non-standard or High/Low varieties. In Indian societies, it leads to diglossic situation of vertical nature where in the High variety attests classicism, i.e., copious borrowing from Sanskrit, and making use of fossilized literary expression, while the low variety is based on colloquialism. Cultural Variations are manifested through two or more cultural or literary traditions rather than in terms of actual speech. They can be best explained with reference to what Kloss proposes the term 'Abstand' - the intrinsic distance between two codes). It gets realized in the form of horizontal diglossia. For example, Hindi and Urdu are two such literary and cultural styles which have the common linguistic base, i.e., they are compartmentalized literary standards of the same vernacular, i.e., Hindustani.

There seem to be several difficulties in implementing the mother tongue teaching in a multilingual country like India. Firstly, the very number of these languages acts as a deterrent factor due to the prohibitive cost of developing teaching materials and training of teachers; secondly, there are substantial differences in the stages of development of mother tongues in the country (i.e., while some are well developed and have a good deal of literature, there are others which are yet to have even a practical orthography); and thirdly, in certain cases, the mother tongue usage is highly restricted in number and distribution (i.e., there are languages whose native speakers are less than even a few hundreds). However, one may find several positive gains in promoting the mother education; for example:
--MT is the language in which a child first of all finds expression of his-self and that of his environment,
--MT allows for every one an equal access to education broad-basad,and
--MT helps in bridging the gap between home and the school language.
(This gap is always the source of educational disadvantage to the children of the minority communities).

The Teaching of Other Tongue: An Overview

It is to be emphasized that for Indian speech community bilingualism is neither an anomalous state of languages behaviour nor is it a source of intellectual impoverishment. Though the learning of other tongue (OT) - second or foreign, is not a universal process of language acquisition (as is the case with the first language), for speech communities of multilingual in nature. It is also not dysfunctional or unnatural in nature. It is further more clear that plural societies of India are significantly characterized by the coexistence of a variety of distinct cultures and linguistic codes. What sets these societies off from others is that there are specific types of relationships between socio-cultural settings and code-selection rules, i.e., plural societies have evolved distinct communicative strategies. For example, in the domain of in group and family interaction, in the filed of wider communication, specifically with outsiders, the majority language with colloquial standard variety is used, while as a status-symbol exoglossic language (English) or classical language (Sanskrit) is selected for interaction. It is this significant alternation of codes in socio-culturally different contexts which makes bilingualism a functionally operant phenomenon.
Unless we have a proper understanding of the second language acquisition process and of the different functional roles it plays in social behaviour of a learner as a member of a given speech community, we cannot evolve around linguistic approach towards language teaching nor adopt effective teaching techniques to achieve proper results, Theoretically, there can be the following four distinct functional roles for other tongue (OT):
(a) Auxiliary Function: OT is used merely for the sake of knowledge, rather than communication. Learning of classical languages serves such ends. It produces passive type of bilinguals.
(b) Supplementary Function: OT is used occasionally for the sporadic, restricted needs as is the case with tourists, diplomats, etc. It creates unstable types of bilinguals.
(c) Complementary Functions: OT complements MT when it is habitually used in restricted but defined socio-ecological environments. This creates stable types of bilinguals.
(d) Equative Functions: OT can be said to be equative when it is employed as an alternate language in all domains in which MT is used. This creates ambilinguals.
These socio-linguistically oriented functional roles make implicit assumptions about the kind of bilingualism that exists in a given speech community and about the nature of bilinguals' competence in the languages involved. Implicit in it are also assumptions about the kind of language teaching we need for achieving the objectives of the different programmes. We have to overcome the self-deluding view that there is method for OT teaching for everyone and for every situation.
The typology of OT teaching programme (given below) clearly goes opposite to the simplistic notion that there is only one real kind of language and that this kind can be used by everyone in every domain of activity. Thus, we find in India socially determined different kinds of Hindi or English and different kinds of bilinguals using these languages with differential competence. This has led to the concept of a cline of bilingualism (Kachru, 1965, 1969, 1976), from pidgin to educated English and from English (English for filing and documentation) to the literary Indian English (Shakuntala in skirt type), and spectrum which begins from the most pidginized variety to the standard educated English with intermediate shades of language mixing and variations (Srivastava, 1976c). Before developing and evaluation an educational programme of OT teaching we have to ascertain first the particular functional roles of the language taught and to work out the sociolinguistic assumptions implicit in the programme objectives:

chart

NOTES
1. The majority of Telugu speakers, for example, reside in home-region (Andra Pradesh) but a sizeable number of them have spilled over in contiguous States. Table-3 clearly shows that it is in Tamilnadu, Mysore, Maharastra, and Orissa that Telugu speakers are in their thousands and even millions. Similarly if we look at the prominent languages of Andra Pradesh (Table-4), we find that apart form Hindi-Urdu, majority of non-native speakers in their intensity belong to the languages in the same order in which Telugu speakers have spilled over, i.e., Tamil (Tamilnadu), Kannada (Mysore), Marathi (Maharashtra) and Oriya (Orissa). (For details, Srivastava, 1976a).

2. These are languages which are either specified to be taught as subject languages and/or employed as medium of instruction at different stages of school education. According to the survey conducted by National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), they are sixty-seven in number (Chaturvedi and Mohale, 1976).

3. The purpose of the Official Language (Amendment) Act of 1967 was to remove the restriction which was placed by the Constitution on the use of English after 1965. Now English language may be used in addition to Hindi (a) for all the official purposes of the Union; and (b) for the transaction of business in the Parliament. (For details, Srivastava, 1976b).

4. For example, Hindi serves in this sense, as a supradialectal norm for "a single inter-urban speech community connected by a super-regional network of communication (newspaper, books, radio, etc.), whihc extends from one urban centre to another without directly the intervening rural areas" (Gumperz and Naim, 1960).