Chapter 1: Language and Education
LK reviews what education was like before colonialism. Education was regarded as `an extension of primary socialisation imbibed through immediate environments of family, caste, creed, and tradition'. Emphasized disciple/master relationship between pupil and teacher; designed to preserve segmental identities by catering to the needs of the Advanced and Ordinary (sic) traditions.
- Advanced: gurukul and madrasseh traditions of `elegant' education for elites (sons of priests, ruling classes, high officials): reading of scriptures and historical texts through Sanskrit or Perso-Arabic.
- Ordinary: pathasala and makta traditions stressed practical education provided to administrators, merchants through locally dominant vernaculars (use in lower courts, for accounting).
Structure was hierarchical both in society and in education. Thus there were local varieties, sub-regional dialects, supra-regional dialects, and `high-brow' styles, arranged in complicated diglossias. Education provided fluidity in use of language, according to appropriate conditions of identity, context and purpose, a strength of plural societies.
Report of 1823, Bellary District, (numbered 7 on this map) enumerating 533 schools in district: 235 used Kannada, 226 Telugu, 23 Marathi, 21 Persian, 4 Tamil, 1 English medium, plus 23 schools for Brahmins taught in Sanskrit.
British (during consolidation of rule in 19th century, but not before) introduced schools which eclipsed the traditional systems in most of British India. This differed from previous attempts such as by missionaries, private societies and individuals supported somewhat by East India Company. Early attempts relied on extant systems, expanding madrassas and Sanskrit colleges. Indigenous rulers and British did not at first perceive that they had any responsibility for state education, since in Britain itself there was no public state system at this time (1823); this system looked much like pre-renaissance Europe.
Eventually changes occurred both in Europe, and these were extended to British India as well, turning away from elitist educational goals to deal with needs of humbler subjects.
Debate between Classical and Scientific subjects:
There then arose a debate over classical vs. scientific subjects: classicists thought classical education ennobled people, refined soul and character. People wanting science thought this would help modern industrializing nations. Classics were (for them) too narrow, incomprehensible, irrelevant. Science and English were utilitarian. It took until 19th century (in Europe in general after the French revolution) for the medium of instruction, and the focus of education, to switch to English
Respectability of Vernaculars Use of English in schools was low-status in England until the 19th century, and even after that it was the medium
of education but not the subject. Victorians accepted class divisions and accepted that some people ought to have utilitarian education and others elitist. Gradually, the study of English literature was also legitimized. English (especially English literature) didn't acquire respectability as a subject until 20th century(!). Progressive theories began to question methodology, rote learning, etc.Colonial situation Concerns back in Britain about these goals and issues affected the ways they conceived of education in India, but despite gradual changes, LK says the British never resolved three issues:
- The content of education: initially change from traditional (classic) to western (utilitarian) knowledge did not affect the others very much.
- The Spread of education: how broad in society should it be, i.e. who should get it. Missionaries wanted it to go deep and be broad; wanted local vernaculars etc. while rulers wanted to attract respectable members of Indian society to man the administration through English medium.
- the Medium of education. At first British used local classical mediums; then they began to question this: the battle between the ``Orientalists" (Princep) and the ``Anglicists" (Grant and Macaulay) heated up and went on for some time.
Indian elites were also realizing that English was the key to power and participation, and abandoned classical languages. Many reformers cried out for access to English (Ram Mohan Roy etc.), pleading with rulers to give them English.
Macaulay's hard-line:
Later the British recognized they had to think about the masses, too, and recommended use of vernaculars. Thus, English for the elites, and vernaculars for the masses.
In actuality, the British recognized 3 types:
- English medium, in urban areas, for elites, from beginning.
- Two-tier: vernacular for primary, English for advanced, in smaller towns.
- Vernacular medium: in rural areas for primary education (rural ed. didn't go beyond this).
Thus though in England English represented an opening to the masses, humanistic values, etc. in India it represented elitism, and occupied the space of classical languages. It dichotomized education: English vs. vernacular. But the content of education through English did have an effect on the Indian psyche, getting ideas (e.g. democracy!) that were not elitist. Nevertheless, Indian reformers (Gandhi, Tagore, Gokhale etc.) campaigned for vernacularization of education, universalization of education, even use of mother-tongue in administration. These leaders were thus planning ahead for a language policy in an independent India .
This policy would deal with:
|
Gandhi etc. wanted to bring education and life together, make education meet needs of poor and rural people, e.g. connecting it to handicrafts, work. During the independence struggle, however, most of the quarreling was about the medium issue while ideological issues of content were ignored. The needs of white-collar urban elite overshadowed, and still overshadow, needs of rural areas.
On the other hand, there was a focus on certain issues, e.g. facility of expression in mother-tongue and superiority of mother-tongue education were highlighted rather simplistically, always contrasting mother-tongue against English. Taken for granted that foreign medium is bad; taken for granted that Hindi would be better for everybody! Supporters of mother-tongue haven't defined what they meant, nor was attention paid to hierarchy of different linguistic forms, diglossia etc. prevailing in pluralistic societies. If needs of urban-based people are primary, the diglossia of vernaculars becomes exacerbated. Urban-based dialects may be as difficult for rural people as another FL. Leaders acted as if substitution of Native Language for FL would solve all problems.
During independence. struggle, people did not understand how pluralistic Indian society was, and the sociolinguistic complexity of India's linguistic situation. Especially didn't understand
- diglossia
- The fluid nature of language boundaries (dialect continuum): speakers of Pahari, Lahnda, Rajasthani, Maithili, Bhojpuri, Awadhi, Chattisgarhi etc. may declare that they are Hindi speakers; or may not.
- Inconsistency of language labeling: Hindi? Urdu? Panjabi?
- The tendency to declare linguistic loyalty to a language not their mother-tongue, such as Urdu for Muslims, Panjabi for Sikhs. Declaration of linguistic identity is often a declaration of ethnicity, not of linguistic habits.
- Tendency for declarations (in census) to fluctuate: between 1951 and 1961, changes of more 14,000% (sic!) were recorded for some languages.
- In pluralistic societies, people often claim native competence in more than one language/dialect. (e.g. Oriya/Telugu in Ganjam District., 1931 census).
- Wide-spread code-switching may also be evident.
- Grass-roots multilingualism is widespread, but may be non-literate .
It is thus devalued (also because it may be in non-standard forms) unless
they move toward standard mastery, and literacy.
- Many people do not recognize that they are in fact bi- or multilingual;
it's just their repertoire, and they do not declare it.
The plurality of mother-tongues may be more widespread even than recorded; a phenomenon not known in the west. Problem may be that linguistic identity may not be congruent with other identities, such as religious, ethnic, national, etc. These identities cross-cut other identities, rather than lining up with them. There may be one kind of ``speech" but many different kinds of variety, lack of unity, diversity). No one trait dominates the other. In Europe or other insular societies, various social identities are congruent and their boundaries are co-terminous. (Example: In Europe, if you're Italian, you're Catholic; if you're Swedish, you're Protestant.)
Gandhi is quoted as having said that in India, a person's identity is embedded in concentric circles which radiate out forever, instead of stopping at some boundary and then piling up in a kind of cone. (Or maybe if not that image, this one.
Table 1: Speech Behavior and Language Education
an example from Rural Marathi community around Nagpur.
|
Speech Varieties 1 |
Communication Situations 2 |
Languages Taught 3 |
School Values 4 |
|
Nagpuri Marathi |
close ingroup |
-- |
denied prestige, and used minimally as substandard varieties |
|
Supra-dialectal Marathi |
wider ingroup |
-- |
denied prestige, and used minimally as substandard varieties |
|
Standard Marathi |
ingroup mass communication |
Marathi |
promoted through `autonomy' values in all situations |
|
Neighboring varieties of Marathi |
optional familiarity through mobility |
-- |
regarded as non-prestigeous and their use not promoted |
|
Nagpuri Hindustani |
inter-group |
-- |
use signifies non-prestigious upbringing |
|
Standard Hindi/Urdu |
inter-group mass communication |
Hindi |
learnt as `exercises' for eventual use after school career (not related to immediate use) |
|
Regional English usage (a few phrases) |
optional modernistic acquaintance |
English |
learnt as `exercises' for eventual use after school career (not related to immediate use) |
| Sanskrit or Arabic (a few phrases) | optional ritualistic acquaintance | Sanskrit Persian |
learnt as an optional `classical' language for religious and literary scholarship |
Table 2: Rural Santali Community in Bihar.
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
Local Santali |
close ingroup |
-- |
denied prestige, used minimally as substandard varieties |
|
Supra-dialectal Santali |
wider ingroup |
-- |
denied prestige, used minimally as substandard varieties |
|
(Standard) Santali |
-- |
Santali (standard set by language-elite) |
medium for primary education |
|
Other tribal languages (Munda, Ho, etc.) |
optional familiarity through mobility |
-- |
regarded as non-prestigious, use not promoted |
|
Sadri (Sadan), a hybrid Bihari language |
tribal intergroup |
-- |
use signifies non-prestigious upbringing |
|
Bihari languages (Maithili, Magahi, etc.) Regional Bengali or Oriya |
non-tribal intergroup |
-- |
regarded as non-prestigious, use not promoted |
|
Regional Hindustani |
urban contact |
-- |
use signifies non-prestigious upbringing |
|
Standard Hindi/Urdu; standard Bengali or Oriya |
mass communication |
Hindi |
medium for further education |
|
Regional English usage (a few phrases) |
optional modernistic acquaintance |
English |
learned as an `exercise' for eventual use after the school career (not related to immediate use). |
|
-- |
-- |
Sanskrit |
learned as an optional `classical' language for religious and literary scholarship |
Problems with this analysis:
1. Compare this with my Concentric Circles: , or Mackey's boxes: (See full document on BlackBoard Course Documents)
 |
- With Mackey's boxes model, we would have to have many more than the four he gives (Home, Region, School, Nation) but as many as eight or nine.
- Not clear if they should be nested as they are with Mackey, since there are many auxiliary languages.
- Is the concentric circle model, with compartmentalization as we move outward from the home environment, preferable?.
- Khubchandani also doesn't allow for diversity within the home as we often get in S. Asia (and in Indonesia!): speaking one Language with mother, or women folk; another with father/menfolk, or with servants. Ananthanarayana: speaking Tulu in the back of the house with the women, and Kannada on the front porch with the men.
The S. Asian pattern is not just linear: child ==> school ==> region, but probably nested circles, and language boundaries (and codes) are not discrete.
- Everyday verbal communication: fluidity and diversity of codes in the informal situation
- Formal (written) situation: rigid, compartmentalized, `appropriate' and `correct' usage.
- socially favored styles are called standard language and widely used in society over a wide network.
- speech varieties with smaller networks (dialects, slang, jargons) are thought of us uncouth, vulgar, or quaint.
Standardization is done by the officially-accredited custodians of linguistic reality in grammars, dictionaries, etc. Standard usage is the shift from event-centered discourse (what actually happens) to ideal-oriented correct expression. Contextual and functional fluidity is deprecated. In actuality, uniformity and homogeneity are myths, but they are what is cultivated by custodians. Literacy is a crystallized entity characterized by a distinct tradition embodied in a literary language. When standardization occurs today, it is done to serve the needs of urban elites and their tradition-inspired value system.