 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
AND A QUARTER |
In my earlier lecture, I tried to give you a brief critique of the extant
approaches to linguistic and sociolinguistic analysis trying to show why
and how they were inadequate for the kind of questions we should be asking
about language and society. I characterized language essentially as multilinguality
in a socio-political context that is largely defined by the power structures
obtaining in society. Suppression of multilinguality with an inevitable
celebration of proficiency in a highly codified and standardized language
is a part of sustaining those power-relations in society where a select
few rule over the fate of masses. Language seen as multilinguality needs
to be conceptualised on a continuum, which is substantially focused and
formal on the one end and highly diffused and fluid on the other. Notice
that these ends are neither in complementary nor in contrastive distribution.
They are simultaneous. In the same breath, we need to see language, i.e.,
multilinguality, as a system of systems and as a negotiated practice where
several edges are rough and fluid. It is futile to see it just as a code
because even the simplest of meanings, literal or inferential, cannot be
fully ascertained exclusively from the properties of the code. It is actually
a definitional and constitutive part of our existence. It defines the groups
an individual is simultaneously a part of and it defines the individual's
verbal repertoire in terms of these groups. Our socialization and cultural
practices are not exclusively socio-cultural processes; they are constantly
mediated through language. It is important for us not to accept an uncritical
and unexamined view of power in society; in fact it is one that demands
continuous socio-historical analysis. It is indeed very tempting to believe
that through mutual dialogue, people arrive at a consensus, that is, then
used to run society and use language. The fact is that there are agreements
already in existence; agreements that are forced on the underprivileged
by a select few - agreements that involve the codification of socio-cultural
and linguistic behaviour (which in turn reinforce each other). I guess,
the social and linguistic fate of a Santali child born in a remote village
of Bihar is written much before she is born and this not by any mysterious
gods, but by us. |
There is a relatively well-documented level of sociolinguistic correspondences
that are often reported in literature. The aggressive American, the casual
Indian or the reticent Japanese have fairly clear linguistic indices. The
use of what has been called social deixis including the use of honorifics,
humilitative and humbling expressions and style and code switching are important
phenomena that characterize the interface between language structure and
social hierarchy. Equally significant are the linguistic manifestations
of gender discrimination. Sex is biological, (given) but gender is a socio-cultural
construct that to a significant extent is regulated by language. Language
standardization is also a process of differential power distribution to
different speech varieties and their speakers. As one variety gets celebrated
several others are stigmatised, demoralizing their speakers to the extent
that they begin to view their own language and all else that is associated
with it as inferior. But at a more serious level, we notice that power structures
in society and linguistic discourses that accompany them constantly reinforce
each other in all domains of activity. And except in rare moments of revolt
and liberation, the terms of reference and the structure of discourse are
decided not by negotiation and consensus, but by brute force of a few. If
today the granaries of not only Panjab and Haryana, but also of Orissa are
full and millions of people are dying of starvation in the flood-stricken
areas of Orissa, there must be something fundamentally wrong with our social
structures, our systems of communication and our social sensitivities. (We
are now being told that people are dying because they are not willing to
work to get their share of grain!!). Nothing is more rewarding than to examine
these different discourses about the same crisis. There is nothing humanitarian
about them; there is nothing that is neutral and value-free. It is all very
carefully manipulated and language plays an important role in that manipulation.
The traditional categories of slaves, peasants and labour may have become
outmoded and replaced by categories such as domestic help, para-teachers,
farm managers, short term consultants, software professionals, entrepreneurs,
etc., which constitute, sometimes unwittingly, an integral part of the discourse
of exploitation. Yet the bottom of the pyramid still consists of millions
of starving, homeless farmers and workers across the world. Orwell (1949:
312-13) was quick to notice the ways in which language could be used to
perpetuate oppressive structures: |
The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression
for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc (English
Socialism), but to make all other modes of thought impossible.. This was
done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable
words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and
so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever..Newspeak was designed
not to extend but to diminish the range of thought... |
|
Orwell (1949: 312-13) |
| Linguists are never tired of talking about the equality of languages.
In language, we wish to celebrate human equality and dignity; on the other
hand, we consistently use language, just as we use land, water, riches or
other resources, for social exploitation. We also notice that linguistic
theory and practice in general have not taken note of this phenomenon. |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
