Translational Identity and Multilingualism: The construal of the ‘minority’

Abhisek Sarkar (17200261)

‘Even languages with many thousands of speakers are no longer being acquired by children; at
least 50% of the world’s more than six thousand languages are losing speakers. We estimate
that, in most world regions, about 90% of the languages may be replaced by dominant languages
by the end of the 21st century.’

(International Expert Meeting on UNESCO Programme for Safeguarding Endangered

Languages, Paris, 10-12 March, 2003)

1. Introduction:

Bhatia and Ritchie (2013) violates the sacristy of the purely numeric notions of cultural
‘minority’ and ‘majority’ in the very opening chapter dedicated to lay down some of the most
rudimentary topics to be discussed in the domain of bi/multilingualism. In an attempt to classify
multilingualism, John Edwards mentions at least five kinds of language contact situations
weighing against two distinct scales -- conditions of contact and status of contact. The former
arranges languages along the coherence and adjacency of the speech community and the latter
along the strength of a speech community in a given multilingual situation. Edwards offers three
distinct states of the majority/minority divide in a multilingual situation – unique (when a
language minority is unique to a place, e.g. Breton in France), non-unique (not limited to one site
but is subjugated across registers, e.g. Basque in France and Spain) and local-only (minority in
one setting but a majority variety elsewhere, e.g. French in Canada). He goes further ahead and
talks about two distinct types of contact – adjacent/non-adjacent and cohesive/non-cohesive. It
deals with the type of connection among speakers of the same language in different states; are
they adjoining (again, Basque in Spain and France) or non-adjoining (French in Canada and
French in France)? Thirdly, what degree of spatial cohesion exists among speakers within a
given state? Here, the terms cohesive (Cree in Canada) and non-cohesive (Spanish in the United
States) can be used. In addition, the model considers these distinctions as they apply to both
immigrant and indigenous groups (French and Cree in Quebec). One does not require assiduous
attempts to find lacunae in such classifications; social scientific classification is, as has been
admitted by the author himself, susceptible to over/undergenerlisation anyway. But it must be
underlined that the approach of Edwards to understanding minority in terms of power (consistent
with Max Weber among others) rather than number of speakers alone, opens the opportunity to
broaden the canvas of discussion. On the other hand, due to complete emphasis on physical
contact, the organic contact between languages has been put aside.
The following paragraphs will be dedicated not to scout for such lacunae but to understand a
multilingual situation where the presence of such types is not mutually exclusive. In a
heteroglossic society such as our own, it is often difficult to mark cultural spaces (let alone
geographical sites) strictly along such types and hence, we often witness the rise of what I will
name a ‘Translational Identity’.

2. Cultural Heteroglossia and Language Contact:

The linguist, today, is more than just acquainted to the fact that to preserve linguistic variety is a
task that a speaker takes up often on his own volition (at times, even against planned opposition).
No one style, register or language can serve his manifold purpose of communication. This
inspired linguists to talk about diglossia. The notion of ‘diglossia’ propounded by Ferguson
(Ferguson 1959; 325-40) deters any presumption regarding the unity of human expressions,
perceptions and cultural perspectives. It further gives way to a broad conceptualisation of
heterogeneity as a property innate to the fabric of symbolic exchanges in and between human
societies. This heteroglossic nature of language use is triggered by various factors. Gumperz
(1982) and Myers-Scotton (2006) have come up with significant observations pertaining to the
interplay of power and identity giving rise to heteroglossic situations. This heterogeneity of
language use confronts dire assaults today from the rapid submission of mankind to the
monolithic notion of ‘one culture’. This already renders geographically determined typological
accounts vulnerable to transgression. Representational mechanisms (Habermas discusses this
elaborately in his treatise on ‘public sphere’) of various kinds carry languages across territorial
borders redefining the minority-majority dichotomy. The sense of immediacy and distance is not
governed strictly (or, probably only marginally) by territorial cohabitation. This section seeks to
drive home the point that multilingualism must be understood with recourse to registers and not
physical location (at least in a plurilingual situation such as India).

2.1. Minorities in a melting pot:

Minorities in a chequered pluriliguality are not necessarily a numeric minority. It is perfectly
possible for communities that are otherwise privileged to remain subjugated culturally. Let us
look at the so called Middle East for instance. Berber is a language spoken by almost 60% of the
Moroccan people (Miller 2003). In 1994, King Hassan declared this language as an essential part
of the Moroccan identity. This declaration was further endorsed by King Mohammad VI in 2001.
But the language is yet to find acceptance in administrative exchange, education etc. The Middle
East, dominated largely by Sunni Muslims and ‘Arabs’, defines minorities either in terms of
religion or ethno-linguistic communities. Moreover, most of the nations here conceive a
monolingual national policy. Hence, Berber, an advanced indigenous people is written off as a
cultural minority. They do not own the language that brings them prosperity. Similar kind of
marginalization is visible in the Deccan plateau of our very own MULTICULTURAL country.
In Karnataka, although a large number of Kurgi people contribute to various sectors of
production and constitute an economically advanced and academically rich community, Tulu
remains a minority language (Shetty 2004). The speaker of a Berber or a Tulu cannot carry their
languages and cultures to the fore but have to move gradually away from them in order to take
part in the mainstream. Given Edwards preamble to the notion of minority, both Tulu and Berber
would be considered minority languages in their respective contact situations but the
classification offered is clearly inadequate when it comes to addressing such complex situations.
Furthermore, it may be noted that Berber speakers outside Morocco might form a small
community but are not necessarily weaker than they are in Morocco. Southeast Asian diaspora’s
assertion of their claim over their cultural heritage seems way stronger than their homegrown
brethren who fall prey to globalized convergence.
The point I attempt to drive home is that it is indeed difficult to locate a linguistic minority in
terms of territorial bounds. But this does not settle the matter. Sifting through cases mentioned
by Edwards and others, one must attempt to unearth the parameters along which the status of
linguistic communities in contact may be delineated. A close look suggests that the register or
(somewhat approximately) the domain of language use plays a crucial role in drawing the lines.
It may be noted that each of the instances (unique, non-unique and local-only) tabled by Edwards
show a common tendency – a strong support (both political and economic) of the state for the
‘majorities’ and promoting them not only as the official languages of the respective state but
substantially funding their propagation through institutions, in intellectual life and in trade and
commerce. The politics of cultural assertion and appropriation revolves around representation.
The presence of a language in as many spheres of life as possible invests it with indomitable
power to invade public and private lives. English in India, as was suggested in a survey
conducted by the British Council in 2013, was spoken by only 5% of the population but it comes
across as an enormously powerful language due to its unbridled annexation of the discursive
spaces. A territorial typology glosses over this fundamental fact.

2.2. Conditions of language contact:

In post-cold war situation Immanuel Wallerstein emerged as an important political theorist
whose relevance to cultural investigations cannot be overemphasised. Wallerstein looks at the
world economies as a three tier system (Wallerstein 1979) consisting of ‘core’, ‘semiperipheral’
and ‘peripheral’ states. States at the core are the most powerful and privileged and they certainly
like to cooperate with each other to some extent in ensuring control over the global market.
Nonetheless they are contenders in business. Semiperipheral states are developing economies
often with limited means but great promise. These states share complex relationships with the
core. They tend to go hand in hand with one or more states of the core to maximise economic
growth but are hardly ready to submit to conditions applied to their sovereignty. The weakest lot
constitutes the periphery. These are marginalised economies that often fail to fend for themselves
and have to depend heavily on the core or semiperipheral economies. These states have their
markets controlled almost entirely by the more privileged states. Along with goods and services,
the semiperipheral and peripheral states import ideologies from the core borne by their
languages. They infiltrate the lives of these economies through the lingua franca or through
translation from the lingua franca to the indeginous languages. The reverse meets with limited
support and, in a way, is rendered obsolete ((Spivak 1988) explores how the voice of the
marginalised is rendered unheard).

To address issues pertaining to language contact in a postcolonial era, one must take the world
system as a reference point. Physical proximity between speech communities does not directly
prompt a heteroglossic situation. The contact situation between Halbi and Gondi in Bastar,
southern Chattisgarh may serve as a case study. Halbi and Gondi are languages of tribes that are
neighbor to each other and hence form an adjacent contact situation following the previously
mentioned typology. Both the language speakers are cohesively distributed across the region. But
it is not enough to have contact situations that adhere to the classification presented above as
(unlike the construal of ‘minority’) one would not want to dispute the notion of spatial adjacency
between communities but what concerns us crucially is whether or not such spatial cohesiveness
and adjacency holds sway in the context of language contact. Bastar has been a cosmopolitan
plurilingual space since time immemorial but the newly formed state’s drive to construe a
Chattisgarhi identity crucially impacts the linguistic and cultural fabric of the district. Despite
physical proximity and the organic plurilingual ethos, the current generation (age group 20 to 35)
tends to veer away from Halbi-Gondi bilingualism to espouse Halbi-Chattisgarhi/Gondi-
Chattisgarhi bilingualism allowing a sharp divide along the region between two neighbouring
tribes (Sarkar 2017; Jagdalpuri 2015). Although Chattisgarhi has never been a part of the
linguistic repertoire of Bastar (even the larger Bastar of yesteryears commonly referred to as
Abujhmar),the language has been introduced as the primary medium of education across levels
in all government schools. Administrative offices use the same language in their records and
documents. Over the last decade the propensity towards learning Chattisgarhi over other adjacent
varieties has grown by leaps and bounds prompting erection of cultural walls between adjacent
varieties of language. The same is true of the Rwandan communities – torn by civil war, they
show similar tendency to dissociate themselves from the adjacent linguistic groups. Even in a
cohesive contact situation, adjacency then, is a matter of sociocultural proximity than that of
physical adajacency.

3.Translational identity and language contact:

In the previous section we examined how heteroglossia is driven by forces that defy territorial
contact between communities. How then do we interpret a situation of language contact and the
asymmetry of power involved in it? As we have already shown, domains of language use or
registers play a crucial role in designing contacts. It would follow from this that more than a
passive territorial location it is the active human interaction that shapes a contact situation and
hence contact is heavily dependent on individual speech events. For instance, in vast swathes of
India religious rituals of Hindus are connected by Sanskrit while in other registers several other
languages are used. The languages of official communication in certain parts of this country may
be restricted to Hindi and Englsih but the languages of informal discourse or even certain formal
ones such as literary or journalistic could be more inclusive. In such a plurilingual circumstance,
an individual tends to construe a translational identity that is clearly split along speech events. It
would be useful to consider how an individual is posed vis-à-vis a speech event. One may remain
a minority (unique or non-unique) given a certain register while joining the majority in another.
The language which is accepted as the medium of instruction and finds state support is a majority
language (in terms of power) no matter what territorial affiliation it enjoys. Linguistic territories
are fluid and power percolates.

References:

Habermas, J. Legitimation Crisis. Heinemann Educational Books Limited. London. 1976.

Habermas, J. The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. I: Reason and the Rationalization of
Society, T. McCarthy (trans.). Boston: Beacon. 1984.

Miller, C (2003). Usuki A. & H. Kato eds. Islam in the Middle Eastern Studies: Muslims and
Minorities, JCAS Symposium Series 7, Osaka, Japan, 149-174.

Movius, L. (2010) ‘Cultural Globalisation and Challenges to Traditional Communication

Theories’, PLATFORM: Journal of Media and Communication 2(1) (January): 6-18. ISSN:
1836-5132 Online © Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5
Australia licence.

Myers-Scotton, Carol. MULTIPLE VOICES: AN INTRODUCTION TO BILINGUALISM.

Blackwell, 2006.

Sarkar, Abhisek (2017). The Naming of a Dwarf and the Superstitious Architect. Raw.Con.
University of Hyderabad.

Shetty , Malavika. Texas Linguistic Forum 47: 183-195. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual

Symposium about Language and Society—Austin. April 11-13, 2003.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. "Can the Subaltern Speak?" Marxism and the Interpretation of
Culture. Ed. Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1988. 271-313.

Wallerstein, Immanuel (1979). The Capitalist World-Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.