The
Diglossic situation is well established in recent years since the publication of
Ferguson
's (1959) article on
diglossia. The clevage between the
H(igh) and L(ow) varieties of Tamil is found at all linguistic levels starting
from phonology to Syntax. Though the
dialossic situation remains relatively stable all through these years, the gap
or the distance between the two varieties seems to vary now and then in the
history of the language. This alternating convergent and divergent
situations existing between the two varieties of Tamil diglossic are due to
linguistic as well as socio-political reasons.
Within the linguistic sphere, Tamil script, as it is used for
representing both the varieties, plays a small but significant role for the
unstable distance the two varieties. This
paper aims at studying the role of writing in the on-going dynamic situation
existing between the two varieties of Tamil diglossia.
The script of a language is
devised to represent mainly the sounds of that particular language.
However, this representation is always found to be inadequate and there
exists a gap between the script and the reading pronunciation.
There seems to be no faithful rendering of the script in its true sense.
A script of the language is mostly associated with its (classical)
literary writings and its long standing tradition bound association with the
classical literature of the language, creates an amount of prestige and further,
the script becomes a source of historical information, besides being a marker of
social and cultural identity of that particular language group.
Sometimes, script indirectly helps to stabilize the clevage between the two
varieties at linguistic and social levels by the availability and relative
permanence of written records and its effect as `a model for those who aim at
safeguarding and accomplishing the marks of excellence in usage' (De Silva,
1976:33). The constant inflow of new
words in H-variety to express new ideas and concepts and the standardization
process undertaken in the H-variety of the language (Shanmugham, 1975) seems to
narrow the gap between the two varieties of the diglossic language.
The amount of loan words being used assimilated or unassimilated the
growing trend for a simple and easy writing are some of the indications for
close relationship existing between the two varieties of the language.
However, it must be noted here that there is a hard-core H-variety form
of Tamil used by pandits for classical writings, where all these modernization
processes (such as loan words, borrowings, etc) are kept at low ebb and
`pure-Tamil' seems to be the order of the day.
Non-literary writings such as writing novels, short stories, journalistic
writings, etc. are the one in which we see a kind of convergent situation in
progress.
It is true that script
represents the sounds of that particular language.
But when there is a diglossic situation in the language such as in Tamil
3, the existing script system seems to be adequate to some extent to represent
the sounds of the H-variety of the language, but it remains a burden or
constraint to those who wish to go closer to speech form, the L-variety of the
language. A script may have been
originally a direct reflection of the speech through a process of high level
abstraction (Thirumalai, 1978:36), but its long standing association with
classical literary writings, the existing diglossic situation and the necessity
for using the above prestigious script to represent spoken variety makes one
frustrated when he cannot represent as such the nuances of the word he hears.
The constraint imposed by the script forces a writer to create variations
and inconsistencies in his writings. Usage
of non-native words to express new concepts and ideas in writing system
representing H- or L-variety remains unavoidable in any developing society.
Most writers use generally
a type of a standard spoken forms of Tamil (which belongs to L-variety) which
`is not a representative speech of a region, caste or religion (Vasantha Kumari,
1976). Annamalai (1976) mentions
that the standard spoken variety is obtained' by eliminating all the
stigmatized, stereotyped or marked features of the home dialects.
Thus, writers use neutral items brings forth the standard spoken Tamil
near to written, the H-variety form of Tamil (Gnanasundaram, 1980).
As said earlier, a writer could not go closer to the speech form in his
writings due to the inadequacy of the script for a faithful representation of
it. Further, the writer himself does
not want to have such a faithful representation because any such representation
will hamper one's reading speed. Thus,
technically, a writer needs a spoken effect in his work for which he manipulates
the script system in order to get the feeling that he is representing the spoken
variety. Evidently, the above
situation makes a writer to represent his L-variety with a sizable mixture and
influence of the H-variety of the language.
Some of the constraints
laid down by traditional grammarians for the proper use of the Tamil script, are
generally over-looked by many writers in representing H- as well as L-variety of
Tamil diglossia. Initial occurrences
of liquid consonants such as r, l, etc. are disallowed in the writing system.
The above liquid consonants however can occur only preceded by the vowel
`i' in the initial positions as laTTu written as illTTu `laddu'.
It is not clear how words such as lilli' linkam will be represented.
Further, plosive consonants such as k,t, p, c, etc. do not occur in final
positions as pure consonants. External
sandhi rules across word boundaries such as occurrence of gemination of word
final plosive consonant when followed by another word initial plosive consonant,
are not strictly followed in the writing such as tiTTa kamisan `planning
commission' pookku varattu kalakam `Transport Corporation', peeccai keeTTaakal,
(They) listened to the speech etc. indicate the absence of gemination by the
external sandhi rule which is prescribed for the writing system.
The above three constraints are not found in the L-variety of the
language. Any H-variety writing
disallowing these three constraints is obviously close to that of the L-variety.
Initial consonant clusters
are not allowed in the writing system without the occurrence of enunciative
vowel in between the cluster. Writing
system follows this rule in representing both these two varieties.
Words such as kiraamam' pirapala "popular", piratamar
"Prime Minister" are written without initial clusters in both
varieties. Words such as piraa `brassiers'
are written sometimes with initial cluster as praa, Nasalization of penultimate
vowel followed by a nasal in word is not represented in the writing system.
However, this representation is not possible by the available Tamil
script. So the writing system
represents such words as non-nasalized vowel followed by a nasal as `avan' `he'
paNam `money', in H- as well as in L- variety
of Tamil4. Initial voiced
consonants are represented mostly by their voiceless counterparts except in the
case of C where the Sanskrit grapheme `G', is used for voiced ones as in `jatakam'
`astrology' vs saatakam `practice'. Some
writers use bold letters for voiced consonants and some use colophon in front of
the respective grapheme to denote the voicing of the sound5 (Thirumalai,
1978:39).
The inadequacy of
representing initial consonant clusters and voicing of some initial consonants
are compensated by the reading pronunciation by reading in those palaces as
consonant clusters and voiced consonants. Thus,
generally the non-standardized script system tends to move towards L-variety by
the reading pronunciation also. Annamalai
(1976, b) has shown that some of the traditional grammatical rules have changed
to adjust the usage of modern times and the above changes are found in the
direction of the L-variety of the language.
Writers representing
L-variety do not seem to have any fixed norm among themselves.
Due to the non-standardization of the script for representing L-variety
forms, each writer differs from others and thus feel their own individual
identity. It is also true that even
an individual author is not consistent in is own writings in the same piece
representing L-variety. Consider for
example, Jayakanthan's short story `rishimuulam' where alternating forms are
used in representing one item as own shown below: `paathaa/paarthaa' (she) saw
(it)'; kaTTille' kaTTilile `in the cot', keeTTaalnu' keeTTaalnnu `that (she)
asked', keeTTu connaal' keeTTucconnaal `(she) listened (to it) and said'.
We further notice lexical items which are more often found in H-variety,
being used in L-variety writings. Some
times H-variety lexical items unaffected by `conversion rules'6 are used in
L-variety as: paTTri `about', aval `she' etc. instead of fors such as patti and
ava, respectively, which are converted into L-variety ones as shown below:
VantukoNtiruntaa instead of vantukiTTiruntaa `she was coming'.
Sometimes, particular type of syntactic construction found more often in
H-variety is also found to occur in L- variety writings.
For example, usage of desire verbs such as ari `to know', Virumbu `to
like' are found more in H-variety where as they are expressed in L-variety more
by verbs like teri and piTi respectively. However,
the usage of verbs of H-variety are found sometimes in L-variety writings.
- a)
naan avarukiTTeeyiiruntu arinceen
I
from him (I) learnt
I
learnt it from him
b) naan
inkeyirukkattaan eppavum virumpreen
I
to be here only always (I) like
I
always like to be here only
- a)
naam avarukiTTeeyiruntu terincikiTTeen
I from him (I) learned
I learnt it from him
b) enakku
inkeyirukkattan eppavum piTikkum
to
me to be here only always like
I
always like to be here only
Thus,
we see, the non-standardization of the script system used for representing
L-variety, the writers' compromise between one's reading speed and the
representation of L-variety allow for a mixture of H-variety forms in one's
L-variety writings. Similarly,
innovations and changes that are taking place in the H-variety, the motivation
for easy understanding of the reader forces the H-variety writings to be closed
to the L-variety of the language. The
above situation is bound to lead towards a kind of convergence between the two
varieties of Tamil language.
The
bi-partie situation of Tamil diglossia is further brought closer more in the
Radio medium than in the print medium. Any
Radio literature is intended to the aural medium and needs to be read whether it
is in H-variety or in L-variety, for the message to get across to the listener.
The difference in the manner in which one's writing is carried over these
two media demands for a different objective and technique in the art of writing.
The above fact that the script is going to be `spoken' influences the
author writing in H-variety to make his script suitable for reading; i.e. to
write in an easy and simple form of H-variety; simple in the sense the sentences
are not too long and complex with embedded ones7; easy in the sense,
the lexical items are not pedantic and archaic, but are known to wider
population and easily understandable. Usage
of loan words are found to be more in Radio literature than in print media.
Radio literature aims at a wider section of people educated as well as
uneducated, where as the print media can only be utilized by educated mass.
Because of this significant difference with wide listening, radio
literature needs to be more simple and easy for everyone who hears it, to follow
it and understand the material. Thus,
the radio literature of H-variety seems to be near to standard spoken variety
with regard to simple syntax and neutral lexical items8.
The essential factor of reading the radio materials for broadcast adds
further to the `nearness' between the two varieties by its reading
pronunciation. The occurrence of
liquids, voiced consonants and consonant-clusters in word – initial position,
occurrence of plosive consonant in word – final positions and the absence of
external sandhi rules which are all found in the L-variety, are also found in
the reading pronunciation of the H-variety radio literature.
However, non-nasalization of penultimate vowels following nasals, marks
the difference in the reading pronunciation of H-variety from that of L-variety
besides individual linguistic items belonging to each variety.
It
is assumed that most of the L-variety forms are derived from H-variety by a set
of conversion rules (Schiffman, 1978, Arokianathan (ms.), Deivasundaram, 1978).
However, in some cases we have independent forms belonging to each
variety which are not derivable. Some
L-variety forms such as ava `she', uuttu `to pour' are derived from the
corresponding H-variety ones aval, uurru respectively, by a set of phonological
rules. We have morphemic sets such
as koNTu/kiTTu `marker for continuous aspect' where the former is used mostly
for H-variety and the latter for L-variety.
Sometimes, conversion rules may apply to its maximum or may stop at some
arbitrary intermediate stages as needed, as shown below: H-variety form
piTittaan piTittaa
PiTiccaa
piTiccaa
puTiccaa
`He
caught (it) !' The more the number of rules apply, the more colloquial or
sub-standard the form appears. Since,
the word needs to have a spoken effect to be understood by all and read over the
prestigious radio medium, radio literature of L-variety often aims to remain
with less application of the conversion rules, thus, being closer to H-variety.
Further the direction of conversion in a word is found always from right
to left i.e., a H-variety form gets converted to L-variety starting from the
last syllable of word. A
conversion rule, in other words, cannot abruptly affect in the middle of a word.
The non-occurrence of the forms such as *puTittaan, *piTicaan (H-variety form
piTittaan `he caught (it)') illustrate the direction of change as right to left
in a word converting from H-variety to L-variety.
Thanks to the necessity of reading involved in the radio medium a writer
of the Radio literature of L-variety can freely use H-variety forms (which are
convertible to L-variety) and shrug the responsibility of converting to
L-variety to the one who puts them across the medium for the listener.
This makes the radio reader (announcer, talker or actor) to do the
conversion at the time of presenting the material over the medium and the
quantum of conversion depends on the radio reader's ability
and
experience in the art of conversion. This
situation can well be understood by comparing the L-variety material meant for
broadcast and recording it. Generally,
sentences in L-variety radio literature have verbal endings in L-variety, Words
of scientific and technical terms are in H-variety in L-variety radio literature
e.g. visai telippaan `power sprayer', porukku vitai `improved seeds'.
Loan words are used in L-variety as well as in H-variety with no
hesitation in the radio medium. Passive
construction which is found only in H-variety of Tamil is also found in
L-variety radio literature. Thus, in
L-variety radio literature, grammatical as well as form words, phrases and even
whole sentence appear in H-variety. On
contrary, L-variety forms are used in H-variety sometimes `assimilating' them
phonologically to suit the H-variety as esaku pisaku a L-variety form being used
in H-variety as isaku pisaku `petty mistakes' where usage of the above item is
non-extent in H-variety. Forms such
assnaalu `four' whose corresponding H-variety form is aanku `four' are more
often found to occur in H-variety radio
literature. Whenever there is a
confrontation for selection of a non-stigmatized word, radio literature uses
invariably either H-variety forms or loan words which even is easy to
understand.
Some of the sentences given
below are taken from a L-variety play broadcast in an agricultural programme
from All India Radio, Trichy on
25th
March 1976
.
The sentences given below will indicate the amount of H-variety forms
(which are underlined here) being used in a L-variety radio programme.
3.
Inraikku nam munne vantirukkira valakku
today
us before have come case
patti
cila vaartiakal
about
some words
Here
are some words about the case which has come to us today.
4.
porukku vitaikala malivaana vilaikku koTukkutu
selected
seeds cheap price it gives
It
gives improved variety of seeds for a cheap price.
5.
tinam pala ariya vivasaaya visayankalaiyum
daily
many important agricultural news also
oliparappi
varraanka
broadcast
(they) are coming
Daily,
they keep broadcasting also many important agricultural news.
6.
aanaa, atu illaammee nam coompeerittanamum
but
that without our laziness
muyarci
inmaiyaalum tean pattaakuraikku
non-incentive
also for in-sufficiency
kaarnamaayirukku
it
is (the) reason.
But,
besides this, our laziness and non-incentive attitude become the reasons for our
insufficiency (in food products).
Thus,
we see a great amount of H-variety forms in L-variety radio literature and vice
versa. Thus, the influence or the
overlapping situation between the two varieties is found to occur regularly and
systematically, thus, leading to a possible convergence between the two
varieties of Tamil diglossia. The
reason for the above situation partly lies within the Tamil script system which
is non-standardized and inadequate for writing.
The whole problem further culminates in the radio medium by the reading
pronunciation when one's writing needs to be transmitted only by reading through
the aural medium for its prospective listeners.
NOTES
:
- Shanmugham
(1960) refers to the expansion of domains of L-variety and predicts a
possible merger of the two varieties in Tamil diglossia.
Zvelebil (1964) also refers to a possible merger of the two varieties
in Tamil. Annamali (forthcoming)
observes that changes in H-variety are in the director of L-variety and thus
predicts a possible merger. Though
everyone predicts a merger, yet they have difference of opinion regarding
the direction in which one variety moves towards the other.
Schiffman (1978) believes that there exists a built-in mechanism in
Tamil which averts any possible merger.
- Scholars
like Manicka Naikar (1971) have studied the mysticism that surrounds around
the origin and the shape of Tamils script.
There are scholars who claim that the shape of the Tamil script
represents evolution of human life, nature and Hindu philosophy.
- Tamil
script system is alphabetic in nature and represents phonemically the sounds
of Tamil language (Thirumalai, 1978: 41).
- Some
writers omit the nasal phonemes in words like naan which are written in
spoken variety as naa:he'. If
generalized, this will lead to further confusion in the case of avan `he'
when written as ava, which is homphonous to the spoken variety of aval
`she'.
- Sometimes,
graphemes English language are used in Tamil representing spoken variety.
Tuglak magazine uses `f' for bilabilal fricative sound as in `form',
`file'.
- For
conversion rules see Schiffman (1978), Arokianathan (ms.).
- c.f.
Thirumalai (1978).
- Neutral
items are those which occur frequently in both varieties (c.f. Gnanasundaram,
1980).
- c.f.
Schiffman and Arokianathan (1980).
- Gnanasundaram
(1980) refers to such a situation in conversational environoment where
stigmatized spoken word is substituted by a standard spoken form modeled on
H-variety of Tamil.
REFERENCES
:
Annamalai,
E. 1976
`Standard
Spoken Tamil': some observations' in R.V.K. Thampuran, (eds), Studies in
Dialectology vol: 1:2.
Trivandrum
: Linguistic Department mimeo.
Annamalai,
E. (1976 b)
"Grammar
and Error" Tamizhaayvu. 4.
Madras
:
University
of
Madras
.
(forthcoming)
"Convergence of Literary and Colloquial Tamil" Pakha
Samajam,
University
of
Punjab
.
Arokianathan.
S. "Vowel shift in Diglossic Tamil". (ms)
Devisundaram,
N. 1978 "Can we measure . . . ? "Pulami" 4:2. pp. 173-182.
DeSilva,
M.W.S. 1976. Diglossia & Literacy,
Mysore
: Central Institute of
Indian
Languages.
Ferguson
, C. 1959.
"Diglossia"
word 15:2 pp: 325-40.
Gnanasundaram,
V. 1980. "The role of Diglossia in the Emergence of
Standard
Spoken Tamil" paper presented in 2nd International Conference in
South Asian Languages & Linguistics,
Hyderabad
.
Manikka
Naickar, P.V. 1971. The Tamil Alphabet: Its Mystic Aspect,
Madras
: Siva Siddanatha publication.
Schiffman,
H. 1978. A grammar of spoken Tamil Madras: Christian
Literature
Society.
Schiffman,
H. 1978.
"Diglossia
and Purity/Pollution", in Maloney (eds.) Contributions to Asian
Studies, pp. 98-110.
Schiffman,
H. 1978 & Arokianathan, S. 1980.
"Diglossic
variation in Tamil film and fiction" paper presented in 10th
International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences,
Mysore
: C.I.I.L.
Shanmugham,
S.V. 1975. "Modernization in Tamil".
Anthropological Linguistics, 17:2, pp. 53-67.
Shanmugham
pillai, M. 1980.
"Tamil
Literary and Colloquial" in Charles A. Ferguson (eds). Linguistic Diversity
in
South Asia
, IJAL:7.
Tirumalai,
M.S. 1978.
Stylistics:
A Linguistic Approach.
Madras
:
University
of
Madras
.
Vasantha
Kumari, T. 1976 "The standard Spoken Tamil" in Gopinathan
Nair
(eds.) Studies in Dalectology vol.1:1,
Trivandrum
. University of
Kerala.
Zvelebil,
K. 1964.
"Spoken
Language of Tamil Nadu"
Archive
Orientalini, 32:2, pp. 237.64.