The Problem and Planning of Scripts

Prev | Home | Next

The Myth about Writing

Script is only the outer clothing of language. In the popular belief all over the world writing is considered more stable, more permanent than the spoken word. It is often confused with the language. It is only recently, with the advent of modern linguistics that the primary of the spoken word over the written word is beginning to be recognized and the problems of fit and spelling are being scientifically investigated.

In India values of permanence are attached to the scripts and higher status is ascribed to those languages which have ancient and individual writing systems. More often separate identity of languages is even recognized depending on the individuality of script. This explains creation of new script for unwritten languages and reluctance of minority languages for sharing the script for unwritten languages and reluctance of minority languages. So much religious and emotional significance is attached to script that it is extremely difficult to talk in rational terms about script and script reform. Scripts are no more permanent than fashions in clothes. But in a traditional society where the instrument of writing was a cold of clay, a piece of chalk, an iron stylus, the quill of a bird or the medium of writing was either a birch bark, a palm leaf or a rock face, the number and shape of letters in the writing system had to be meticulously preserved and scrupulously propagated. The very fact that today a new script is created in India almost once in three months either for a specific language by way of suggestion to be accepted as a pan Indian script or of universal script indicates the direction of change in thinking in this regard.

In the popular mind writing is endowed with magical power. This has led to the belief that script is the soul of a language. Even today one sees many Urdu and Punjabi speakers in India making such claims. The fear of both Urdu and Punjabi losing their identity in the dominant neighbour Hindi, may have been responsible for the religious sanctity attributed to these scripts as vehicles of Quoran and Guru Grantha Saheb respectively. This has been a convenient tool in the hands of politicians, who in the name of separate identity, keep the people divided. Such partially religious and partially political positions can easily stir people's emotions against any rational approach to te problem.

There are also diametrically opposite situations where introduction of writing is considered as an evil omen. In societies, steeped in orthodoxy controlled by samans, witch doctors or such like, introduction of writing is resisted by the tribal leaders. Even otherwise otherwise where a tribal child, educated in the schools and colleges, loses his tribal moorings, behaves, like a non-tribal elite and is lost to the community, readings and writing is usually blamed.

There are people who blame educational failures on the script. They contend that had the books been written in the script of their recommendation, the learning processes would have been easier. Such snap judgements are not based on empirical ecidence. However, such arguments are capable of rousing people for or against a particular script. From script the arguments can conveniently be transferred for or against a language.

The language planner may ignore all these only with lamentable consequences.

The Indian Scene

India is not only a country with many languages but also many scripts. There are ten major script systems Nagari, Gurumukhi, Gujarati, Bengali-Assamese-Manipuri, Oriya, Telugu, Kannada, Tamil, Malayalam, Perso-Arabic and Raman. The first eight are drawn from a common source, Brahmi. Although they are used to write languages belonging to all the four language families in India, the common heritage provides a sense of unity and familiarity among them. Perso-Arabic and Roman, though relatively late entrants and are considered foreign not being related to the indigenous proto-system, gained currency and prestige because of patronage because of patronage from the ruling groups.

As there are dominant languages and minority languages, so there are minor script systems systems besides the major ones. There are, for instance, Mahajani, Modi, Karani, Grantha, Bodhi (Laddakhi) which are locally used even today. Scripts, like languages, fade away from actual use in course of time. There were scripts like Kharos?t?hi, Sharada, Vat?t?el?uttu and Tul?u which are now extinct. Kharos?t?hi, which was sister of Brahmi died as early as the 4th century A. D. and Vat?t?el?uttu as late as the 17th century. Tul?u which was written primarily in Malayalam with an admixture of Grantha was always referred to as Malayalam in epigraphic records. It is only recently that the name Tul?u script is being revived.

The graphization of non-literate languages has posed serious challenges to scholars as well as politicians. With the advent of Christian missionaries, the Roman script was favoured as the most fit vehicle for these languages. However, the effort to write them in one of the available eight major Indian systems as well as to devise entirely new script systems have gone hand in hand. The O1 script for Santhals, the Mundari script, Gondhi script, the Saora script and the Bodo script devised by protagonists of separate identity may be taken as examples of the latter.

As one can find examples of Ollari (Dravidian) and Gutob (Munda) languages spoken by one ethnic group, one language Hindi or Telugu spoken by different ethnic groups, so also one can find two or more languages written in one scripts. Konkani in the East Coast, for example, is written in Nagari, Roamn, Kannada and Malayalam scripts. Santhali, similarly, is written in Oriya, Bengali, Nagari, Roman and O1 scripts and Sindhi with Nagari and Perso-Arabic scripts. Example of one script used for writing many languages is furnished by Nagari, which is used for writing Hindi, Marathi and a host of minor languages. The Arabic script is used to write Sindhi, Kashmiri and Urdu languages. Languages belonging to the same family or closely related group are written in different scripts as in the case of Bengali/Oriya and Tamil/Malayalam. At the same time languages belonging to the same Sino-Tibetan family spoken in continguous areas in the North are written in Bodhi and Perso-Arabic.

Sanskrit, the classical language of India, was written in different regional scripts, creating new symbols and new script systems wherever necessary. Grantha was a result of this effort. This provided a further factor for integration in a country displaying all these complexities. Most of the languages display a large number of phonemic superfluities and inadequacies. There is a constant demand for script reform in almost all of the major script areas.

The script reforms in turn have their own problems. Languages which have long literacy history have preserved layers of historical meanings in spellings which appear superfluous today. In almost all languages there are sounds which are represented by more than one sound. Thus in Oriya distinction between short and long vowels, and the distinction between the three sibilants s, s, and s? are lost. Their existence in spelling preserves the historical distinction and consequently their abolition from the orthography will create its own problems.

Another related problem is exemplified by Sindhi which at present not only tries to adapt rationally two scripts, but tries to establish equivalence between the two. This creates problems for the lexicographer in particular and the educators in general. The lack of vowel symbols in the Arabic script not only makes it difficult to express Sindhi words, but when an equivalence is sought to be established between the Arabic and the Nagari written words a host of complications show up.

Dimensions of Planning

India presents almost all the complexities that one meets on a tour of the world. Complexities arising due to a multiplicity of scripts and then application in printing, typing and telegraphy, linguistics and cultural complexities arising out of adapting a script to the spoken languages, the linguistic complexity arising out of the spread of writing systems are only a few of the major challenges facing the planner. Whether it is for the purpose of spreading literacy, planning education or motivating the communities to participate in the socio-economic reconstruction, a carefully planned approach towards script becomes an absolute necessity.

With the movement for a single script, the existing major writing systems feel the strain. The major scripts with their recorded history of a thousand years usually become symbols of cultural unity of the groups employing them. So any effort at replacing them is bound to evoke serious opposition. The substitution of Roman for the Turkish is a unique case in the history of mankind. Even then it required a dictator like Kamal Ataturk to accomplish the task. The movement for replacing the Chinese writing system by Roman has met with stiff emotional reaction the Chinese writing system by Roman for the Turkish is a unique case in the history of mankind. Even then it required a dictator like Kamal Ataturk to accomplish the task. The movement for replacing the Chinese writing system by Roman has met with stiff emotional reaction from time to time. The current attitude of the planners in China is to simplify the existing script and adopt the Pinyin system. The argument for and against the adoption of Roman and Nagari as single scripts for India and its implications for the emotional integration of the country will be discussed later. Not to speak of replacement, even the consolidation of script could evoke sharp reactions. For example, Bengali-Assamese-Manipuri is a single script system with Assamese having four letters distinctly different from Bengali. Similarly, in the case of Telugu and Kannada the differences is in six letters. Besides, one of the major problems is 'talakat?t?u ', ' sarifa ', or the ' matra ' on the top of the letters which in one case is written as ü and in the other as *. In spite of the demonstrated advantages of economy in printing, etc., it is not been possible to resolve the problems. It may be mentioned in this connection that after committees examined the issues, both the Governments of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka have accepted in principle the question of a single writing system for both Telugu and Kannada languages. This awaits implementation.

The same Nagari script used for writing Hindi and Marathi is called the Hindi script in the Hindi regions and Marathi script in the Marathi region. The situation is practically the same in the case of Manipuri, Assamese and Bengali and Telugu and Kannada. Speakers of languages like Bengali, Assamese, Telugu and Kannada could either resolve the minor differences and adopt single grids of writing or exaggerate the small differences to assert their different identities. That the same situation is fraught with integrative as well as distruptive potentialities must be taken note of by the language planner needs no further emphasis.

Script has been a major bone of contention among politicians dealing with non-literate languages. In a state where there is a single dominant script, the problem is one of adopting the script to a non-literate language. Different groups suggesting different solutions in this regard may lead to conflict and tension. But in the case of multiple scripts available as alternate choices, the adaptation of one or the other is bound to have serious consequences for literacy, education and integration.

The choice before the non-literate languages is to adopt one of the many existing major indigenous systems, to adopt a foreign system or to devise a new writing system. All the three are concerned with the emotional issue of maintenance of identity of the group. If not properly understood and resolved this may create serious socio-political problems.

The case of Konkani, Santhali and Bodo may be taken for case study in this connection. More often the demand to write Konkani and Santhali in one script is advanced with a view to strengthen the demand for a Konkani or a Santhal state. Similar is the case for Bodo. Bodos with a separate identity for themselves and therefore a section of them what a token separate from the dominant Assamese/Bengali group. This is further linked up with the demand of the consolidation of Bodo speaking areas in Assam, West Bengal and Tripura and demand for a separate State. In all cases the protagonists of one script consider scripts as a passport to privilege.

However the adoption of any script has its own advantages and disadvantages in learning another language. In a community where the dominant language is written in its own script and English is considered the most important second language by both the majority and the minority speakers, writing the minority language in any one of the scripts may create its own problem. For example, to move from 'c"rc' to 'church' or from 'priest' there may arise problems which need to be carefully conisedered. Adoption of the dominant script may also pose similar problems. The advantages and dis-advatages have to be carefully weighed in this regard. In India the major script systems, other than Roman and Arabic, being genetically related have a mueh better claim for unwritten languages in the respective regions, both from the point of view of establishing emotional bonds of identity and from the point of expressing the various phonetic features which are influenced and modified by the dominant language.

The Indian Arguments in Favour of one Script

The arguments put forward in favour of one script may be summarized as follows:

(i) a maximally shared system of writing leading to the increase of communicability of one language to the speakers of another;

(ii) minimizing the time required for acquiring skill in the use of such language ;

(iii) linguistic unity, mutual understanding and emotional integration and

(iv) the compulsive force of the technology of printing.

Whether this one-script would replace all the existing ones or would be a complimentary cementing factor is a crucial question. A wrong answer to this question will spell disaster and defeat the very purpose for which the common script is suggested.

The anti one-script group holds that-first, Indian culture has always meant unity in diversity. The attempt towards the standardization of script is a direct result of the lack of undertaking of the basis of Indian culture. Secondly, the main problem before the government and the language planner is the liquidation of illiteracy and the consequent rise in the political, technical and cultural standards of the country. It is well accepted that the literacy of a people can best be attained through one's own mothertongue. Since the well established scripts in India have a history going as far back as a thousand years, those scripts are the most suitable media for their respective tongues. Thirdly, script represents the individuality and personality of a language. Any tampering with it may lead to the loss of identity of the language and its speakers.

Since India has accepted the three-language formula, there is no ground for raising the question of supplanting scripts. Each child is required to learn three scripts, Nagari, Roman and that of another Indian language. The issue therefore is not whether one should not learn Roman or Nagari, but it is one of defining the domain of the use of the use of both the scripts.

As is clear from the arguments, certain doubts are results of a fear psychosis, the fear that any substitution of all the scripts by one. These two questions have to be clearly separated in the interest of a healthy atmosphere in the country. Besides this, certain other important questions like the relationship between language and literacy, script and language learning, raised by this group need to be taken up for closer examination.

The common script platform is mainly divided between the proponents of the Roman and the Nagari systems. The arguments in favour of Devanagari are: (i) it has acted as a link between all Indian scripts; (ii) the national prestige is enhanced by adopting an Indian script as the common script; (iii) it is the most widely known script in
India; (v) it is potentially capable of fitting into the 90 channel magazine of a lino-composing machine; (vi) it is more naturally arranged than any other and (vii) it is more phonetic than the Roman script.

The anti- Nagari and Pro-Roman stand may be combined and summarized as follows: (i) simplicity and the vigorously alphabetical character has made Roman script the easiest to acquire ; (ii) the Roman script is used over a large part of the world and is the script for important languages of modern science and (iii) economy in time in acquiring languages, in the cost of printing and in the effort of printing. These arguments, by inference, show that Nagari is cumbersome, uneconomical and is the vehicle for relatively unimportant languages. Besides, the Nagari script is identified with the Hindi language and draws some opposition from the opponents of Hindi. It is further contended that Nagari is difficult to read because of (a) the multiplicity of characters, (b) the non-linear order in which some combinations of symbols have to be read, and (c) the alternative spellings.

The arguments which have been raised against the adoption of Roman script are : (i) Roman script has been learnt through English and English literacy is the lowest in the country; (ii) a different Roman script for Indian languages may be barrier for teaching English; (iii) Roman is not phonetic and cannot cope with Indian sounds without modification and (iv) the Roman script with the diacritics will make it cumbersome and rob it of its advantages.

It must be clearly understood that a ' unified script ' is not the same thing as a ' common script '. The first has the connotation of replacing all existing scripts, and is responsible for a good deal of opposition to any proposal of even a common script. Economy is a very illusive principle in any scientific discourse. It may be argued that a list of Nagari takes less space than its transliteration in Roman. But at the same time one might achieve better fluency in writing Roman. Though is a type fount there would be more Nagari types than those of Roman, it is not easy to assert that less types is more economical than more types but less frequent use of types. As regards facility of comprehension, it is imposible to talk of economy of in the absence of experimental data.

Admitting that script unification is like having a single power grid, a basic question needs to be asked for whom is this new unit meant ? If the newly admitted standard is meant to improve the standard of literacy in the country, can it do so ? What is the purpose of literacy ? The immediate purpose is to motivate a person to read and write through his identify affirmation and affirmation of cultural rootedness and the ultimate purpose is presumably to make the culture- content which has been accumulated through the ages available to the reader. If a script is chosen differing from that of the literature which is available or to which people are exposed and familiar, no amount of proficiency in the new script will make them literate in the traditional literature and culture.

It is in this perspective that the problem of Romanization has to be studied.

The Problem of Romanization

To start with the proposition that Roman script will or will not be accepted in India is to start from a position of bias. It would be better to reject this hypothesis and start with a rigorous examination of the suitability of either Nagari or Roman. However, it must be remembered from the beginning that be it Nagari or Roman, it has to be modified to suit the Indian condition.

Linguits have raised questions of adequacy and efficiency of script systems as criteria for acceptance of the script by a larger population. Both these notions are fuzzy and there is no empirical data to prove or disprove the hypothesis that the fewer symbols, the faster and easier will it become to read and learn to read. It is generally accepted that any script augmented to take care of all phonemic contrasts should be adequate. But it may be that the greater the number of allographs, the lower the learning of the graphemes. Even a slight change in graphics shape may slow down learning. The Roman alphabets currently in use double the number of characters by having differing ' capitals '. Besides, diacritical marks as well as indicators have created as much, if not more, confusion as the present 'matras ' in regional printing.

It is a fact that wide acceptance of the Latin alphabet has not resulted in any kind of unity anywhere in the world. The widely varied phonetic values attributed to the Latin alphabet in different countries have made the scene quite confusing. As Gelb1 points out,

"The limitless homophony of signs is best illustrated by the spellings of the names of the famous Russian writer, Chekhov, in which the initial sound can written as Ch, Tch, C, Tsch, Tsj, Cz, Cs or C, the middle consonant as kh, ch, h, or x, and the final one as v, f, or ff in various systems of the world, all using Latin signs". The various adaptations of Latin suggested in India by Firth, Chatterjee, Agarwal, Roy and others are additions to the existing confusion.

The various adaptations suggested for Indian languages suffer from limitations. The scheme suggested by P. S. Roy2 is only a sample. It has to be worked out fully before any final verdict can be given. The deficiency in the scheme, as it is, emerges form the fact that it does not provide for the two Marathi affricates, for the implosives of Sindhi, and for the Badaga voiced phonemes, which though otherwise identical, come in sets of three, differing in the presence of no, slight or strong retroflexion. It does not provide for the vowel signs required for all the Indain languages; though some signs are provided, the relationship has been obscured in many cases. The signs suggested for nasals may not be adequate when one analyses all the Indian languages.

The stress pattern of most of the Indian languages is yet to be investigated. It is not known what kind of visual pattern will emerge and what would be the learners reaction when writing languages like Panjabi with this scheme or when stress is added to this kind of writing. The situation is bound to be confounding at the initial stages. This modified Roman would in no way be superior to Nagari where conjucts or combinations of graphemes are said to hinder learning.

These are only a few of the defects in the suggested scheme. The attempt to create one universal language has resulted in the creation of several passigraphic systems like visible speech, analphabetic notations, I.P.A. etc., and several languages like the Esperanto, Ido, Occidental interlingua, Novial, Volapuk, Abasama, which are new additions to the already confused Tower of Babel. Similarly, these attempts to adopt Roman are yet new additions to the already existing schemes and confusions.

Gelb has rightly pointed out that from the point of view of the theory of writing there is nothing in the Latin alphabet as in use in Western countries, which can be considered superior to what is found, for example, in the Arabic, Greek, or Russian alphabets. The main point in favour of the Latin alphabets, namely, its backing by a Western civilization, seems entirely to overshadow its apparent shortcomings. From the practical point of view, none including the opponents of Nagari, has yet disputed the majority base of Nagari writing in India. The fact that Nagari is known to some and familiar to many has an added advantage over Roman. If the defects of Nagari are corrected this would be the perfect common script for India. The heritage of India's chromatic culture has to be brought constantly before the present and the future generations, if this country has to make any contribution. Roman cannot be adopted without making a complete break with the cultural past.

With the adoption of Hindi as the State language, English as the associate State language, and the adoption of the three-language formula as the strategy of planning, every child in each region of the country will be required to learn three scripts. Roman with diacritics will be yet another additional burden on the young mind.

The 1971 literacy rate in India is 29.45 per cent. In this context what value has a script like Roman, with all its simplicity and wide acceptability elsewhere, if it remains a mystery to the great majority of the peoples in this country ? It has to be decided whether a five per cent clique should be adopted by which hundred per cent of the population can share the progress of the country will be required to learn three scripts. Roman with diacritics will be yet another additional burden on the young mind.

The 1971 literacy rate in India is 29.45 per cent. In this context what value has a script like Roman, with all its simplicity and wide acceptability elsewhere, if it remains a mystery to the great majority of the peoples in this country ? It has to be decided whether a five per cent clique should be allowed to run the affairs of the country or a system should be adopted by which hundred per cent of the population can share the progress of the country. It must not be forgotten that the Latin system is foreign to the genius of Indian writing. In learning a language, emotional factors are overwhelmingly important. One will learn more quickly the ' good ' 'Indian ', ' traditional ' rather than the ' new ' or ' foreign'. The post-Independence accent on nationality and the idea of unity in diversity is likely to aid the adoption of a familiar Indian script and create some resistance against Roman.

Lauback says that the battle of alphabets and languages is not won by arguments. In a democracy, it is the script that the people confront day-by-day as they go about their work and play that wins, no matter how scholars may expound. In every language in which there is a literature (though only a small percentage of the people may be able to read it) tradition and sentiment will hold fast to the present spelling system and alphabet. Only in languages which have been reduced to writing in this country, and in which there is a small body of literature, is there much chance of revision according to the latest to live with them and work them as best we can.

Technical Aspects of Script

Script is the major aspect of writing, but it is not the only aspect. Punctuation, spacing, paragraphing etc., are equally important aspects of writing. In almost all Indian languages punctuation in the modern sense is almost a 18th-19th century phenomenon. That is one of the reasons why it is no so easy to read the ancient manuscripts. What intonation is to speech, puntuation is to writing. In the following Bengali hoarding the positioning of the full stop before or after na changes the meaning entirely ; ekhane, prasrab kariben na karile-pancas t?aka jarimana. "Please do not urinate here. If you do fifty rupees fine" would, if the full stop is positioned before na mean "Please do urinate here. If not fifty rupees fine". There is no need to emphasize that punctuation is essential for clear enunciation of ideas. Diacritics provide a different dimension of writing. Whether to write one symbol with diacritics for distinguishing two sounds, or to write two separate symbols, depends to a large extent on the phonemic structure of the language and the availability of notational symbol in the script concerned.

In this connection graphization of stress and tone may be taken into consideration. There are basically two ways of writing stresses, linear and non-linear. Let us suppose that in language X there are three phonemic stresses one of which is unmarked and the other two marked. This language which uses Roman script does not have use for Q and Z as phonemes. Therefore, this language with a word such as 'apkura' with stresses in the first and the second syllables would be written as ' aQpkuZra ' (Q=primary stress and Z=secondary stress). The non-linear way of writing this may be either ' apkura' or 'a1pku2ra'. Sometimes instead of using consonantal symbols, the structure permitting, one could use vowel symbols for making tone. In a language for example, is stressed vowel as in a : aa; i : ii, etc. Those who number tones follow different convention. As Gedney3 points out, two different conventions are followed in marking tones in Tai languages. "Some scholars are in the habit of listing first the tones on smooth syllables where the maximum number to the tones occurring on checked syllables. Other scholars, recognizing that the two sets of tones are in complementary distribution, identify the tones occurring on checked syllables with the phonetically most similar tones of the other set" There are also instances where the non-linear is sought to be rejected on the grounds unsuitability for printing.

The problem of writing suprasegmental features is not only restricted to the tribal languages. Even in a language like Sanskrit, problem has come up in an interesting manner. Sanskrit tonal marks were almost never written and those who were familiar with the rules or those specially tutored to recite the slokas with proper intonation could read it. But in the new Sanskrit Dictionary published by the Deccan College, Poona, an effort has been made to mark the tonal contours and this has raised understandable controversy among the Sanskritists. The Gurumukhi script, similarly, does not maintain the distinction between the short and long vowel. The Granthi knows how to read it. Each literacy language has its own reading conventions and those spoken languages which are being newly written are bound to establish their own conventions. A clear understanding of this problem may clarify many points, both exiting and those likely to emerge.

A phonemic script may not always be an ideal solution. Sometimes extensive dialect differences may lead to phonemic differences which are better expressed by a morphophonemic script. The Chinese script, for instance, is morphophonemic in this sense. The mutually unintelligible Chinese dialects find in the script a medium through which modernization and standardization may be brought about.

It has been indicated above that every lauguage establishes its own conventions of writing and reading. For example, the Assamese writes what a person knowing the script alone would read as 'cit?ibach', but for the Assamese the expression reads 'city bus'. Similarly a Tamilian may write 'kanti' but read it as 'gandhi'. To one unaware of the language specific value of letters this may be quite puzzling, but once familiar with the spelling conventions, the pattern in the apparent madness becomes clear. In adapting a script by a non-literate language or a common script for a nation having multiple scripts, the question of facility of acquiring reading in a second language is often cited as a point in favour of the argument. In the absence of empirical data a show whether it is easy to move from, say, right to left, left to right, top to bottom etc., such arguments often remain polemic. However, the problem of reading from right to left as in Urdu or Arabic and reading from top to bottom as in Chinese or Japanese, for a person who is conditioned to reading form left to right is a problem which has to be faced by some one planning classroom strategy for the learners of those languages.

Suggested Measures

In India if printing technology is to do its bit in the expansion of literacy and primary education, then rational planning needs to be done in regard to the use of script. The following five principles are suggested as guidelines.

(a) Discouraging creation of new scripts :

The Abasama script for the world languages by Abasama, the Nandaga alphabet for English by S. Parameswar Iyer, A Common Script for World Languages by N. Gnanasambandan, International Script developed by Shri Karulekar and Sulipi develop in India and proposed as common scripts. Various modifications of the Roman script have also been suggested so as to make them the common script in India. These are additions to the existing multiplicity of scripts in India. These are additions to the existing multiplicity of scripts in India, which come not only in the way of rational integration but also in the way of dispersal of knowledge created in one segment of the country in the other segments. There is an inherent universal element in the grammars of Indian scripts. There seems to be no rationale in creating new scripts, using various components of dots and dashes nor indulging foreign scripts which are not organically related to the Indian script system.

(b) Use of dominant script systems by non-literate languages :

The large majority of Indian languages and dialects lack a writing system. In the present context of realities in India large number of minority language groups, suffering from identity crisis are demanding recognition of their languages. It is often contended that a speech form is not language unless it has a script. Invention of Saora script O1 script, Mateli script, Chakma script, Kurux script and the Bodo script are expressions of this sentiment. It is seldom realized that from the point of view of the development of typing, printing and tele-communications technology it is against the interest of those languages themselves to have a separate script. From the point of view of studying an additional writing system which will have no relevance in future is also academically unsound. At the same time it must however be recognized that for giving a change to the minority language speakers to fully participate in the socio economic reconstruction of the country it is urgently necessary to provide them education which will quickly bring them to the mainstream of activities. This would require recognition of their mothertongue for purpose of primary education with provision for smooth transition to the school language economic interest lies.

In view of this it is suggested that the non-literate languages be encouraged to adopt and adapt the script system of the neighbouring dominant language with which their immediate economic interest is tied up.

(c) Rationalizing and consolidating the allied scripts :

It is absolutely necessary to reduce the number of major script systems by accepting a single system for more than one language wherever possible. For instance, the difference between the Bengali and Assamese script systems can be said to be a marginal difference only. Similarly, a difference between Kannada and Telugu is marginal in nature. It should be possible to adopt a single system and call it Telugu script in Andhra Pradesh, and Kannada script in Karnataka. Parallel situations are presented where the same script in Karnataka. Parallel situations are presented where the same script is called Bengali script in Bengal, Assamese script in Assam; the Devanagari script ii called the Hindi script in the Hindi areas and the Marathi script in the Marathi areas. A Grammar of each of these writing systems could however be written to point out their individuality and difference. This kind of consolidation will be a great step towards rationalization of printing technology, creation of a wider book market and national integration. Questions like who should adopt those script need not be made pseudo-prestige issues, but be decided keeping technological advantages in view. For example r + consonant cluster is written in Kannada which is similar to old Telugu ad can be accommodated in two keys of the typewriter. This is better than two stokes in dead keys and therefore accepted by both. With a spirit of give and take these problems can easily be solved.

(d) Script reform :

All over the country efforts are being made to change shapes of scripts wherever necessary to suit the demands of technology. In some ways this is related to the question of adoption of a uniform auxiliary script for the whole country. It is expected that when the report of the survey of Indian publishing undertaken by the Indian Council of Applied Economic Research on behalf of the National Book Trust is available, a lot of information about regional printing would have been assembled in one place for further research. In the interest of efficient research and introduction of new technology there is a great need for co-ordinatin in this area.

(e) Quick learning of script :

Script is relatively a minor aspect of learning a language. However, since it imposes an otherwise avoidable barrier an effort must be made to devise suitable measures for quick learning of scripts. The central Institute of Indian Languages is the pioneer to deserve a script teaching strategy based on patterned perception and contrastive observation, to popularize learning of scripts on the basis of shape similarly. It has prepared a film entitled Learn Devanagari, film-strips for teaching Bengali and Urdu scripts and television programmes for teaching Kannada, Telugu and Tamil scripts. It is also preparing a series of programmed and semi-porgrammed script learning books and film strips. These and many other audio-visual aids could be used with profit for accelerated learning of reading and writing.

From the above discussion it will be clear that writing is as complex a social act as speaking. It is true that many of these problems are scientifically being discussed due to the participation of linguist. But historically, the neglect of writing by linguists and their consideration of writing outside the main domain of linguitics (Bloomfield 1933, Hockett 1958, Gleason 1961, Bolinger 1968 Langacker 1968, Lyons 1968)4, has led to the delayed recognition of writing as a valid area of sociolinguistic enquiry. I hope that this discussion will draw attention of scholars to the " most conspisious shortcoming of traditional studies of writing in that they reveal very little about the social patterning of this activity or the contribution it makes to the maintenance of social system."5

R E F E R E N C E S

1. Gelb, I. J., A Study of Writing. The University of Chicago Press, 1962.

2. Roy, P. S. 'The Problem', Seminar, December 1962.

3. Gedney, William J. ' A Check-list for Determining Tones in Tai Dialects' in M. Estellic Smith (Ed) Studies in Linguistics in Honour of George L. Trager, Mouton.

4. Bloomfield, L. Language, New York, 1933.
Hockett, C. F. A Course in Modern Linguistics, New York, 1958.
Gleason, H. A. In Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics, (Rev. ed.), New
York, 1961.
Bolinger, D. Aspects of Language, New York, 1968.
Langacker, R. W. Language and Its Structure : Some Fundamental Linguistic
Concepts, New York, 1968.
Lyons, J. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, London, 1968.

5. Basso, K. H. 'The Ethnography of Writing' in Explorations in the Ethnography of
Speaking, Ed. By Richard Bauman and Joel Sherzer, Cambridge University
Press, 1974.