Next: Policy in Conflict with
Up: Register and Repertoire.
Previous: Repertoire
Lest it appear that this is
too finely tuned for any natural language situation, this list may be
compared with that shown in Rubin (1968:518-20), where she attempts to
distinguish in what contexts citizens of Paraguay use their repertoires of
Spanish and Guaraní, or the careful distinctions made by triglossic
Luxembourg, whose citizens' differential use of Lëtzebuergesch, German, and
French is described by Hoffmann (1981).
To make the contrast between repertoire and register clearer, let us examine
what a particular speaker's repertoire might be like if a speaker had a
repertoire commanding registers that involved two levels of a diglossic
language plus socio-professional registers from another (third) variety, in
this case an international language. To be specific, this woman is a
Tamil-speaker and has a B.S. in Mathematics and Computer Science.
Figure:
A diglossic and multilingual linguistic repertoire; the speaker is
female, Tamil-speaking, with higher degrees in mathematics.
|
In the schema in Fig. 2.4, the repertoires of this speaker are divided up among
two varieties of a diglossic language (Tamil), and English (in fact
Indian English, since there are lexical, syntactic, intonational, and
phonological differences between IE and American or RP varieties.)
The speaker controls some repertoires actively and some only
passively; the technical/mathematical registers are actively
controlled in (Indian) English, and it is safe to say that the speaker
would not be able to function in Tamil in these modes except to do
low-level arithmetical calculation. In some cases the speaker may
actively control a Tamil register and passively control an English
register, such as in belles-lettres, meaning that such a person is
capable of doing creative writing in Tamil but would probably not
exhibit high proficiency in the English register, except passively,
i.e. to read and enjoy a novel. For ordinary prose, the speaker would have an
active command of both L-variety Tamil and English, but no prose
register exists for L-variety Tamil. A male speaker of Tamil with a
similar professional background would probably have a similar
repertoire, except that his control of `Motherese' would be passive,
rather than active, his control of `Automotive/mechanical' might
be active, his control of `folk taxonomies' would more likely be
passive and his control of `sports' would perhaps be active.
Useful though these squared-off tables may be, I prefer to propose
another type of diagram, one that represents linguistic repertoires as
a set of concentric circles rather than of parallel columns. The
reason for preferring a diagram such as that shown in Fig. 2.5 is that
the nested circles can better demonstrate a number of factors not
indicated by the parallel columns.
- 1.
- One is that all speakers of a
diglossic language share the innermost circle, which also represents
early childhood and nuclear-family intimacy. This is the domain of
family life, story-telling, jokes, folk wisdom, conversation, food,
street life, and intimacy. With schooling, speakers begin to acquire
domains associated with education in the L-variety language. As Tamil
speakers approach the end of secondary education, where they have
mastered the H-variety of their language, proficiency in English
increases, and certain registers are reserved for the domain of
English--technical subjects, mathematics, social sciences, etc.
Higher education expands these repertoires further, but they will only
be acquired after the acquisition of H-variety Tamil repertoires. The
circles can be understood as a progression from the center outward,
with thresholds at the H-variety Tamil `boundary' and at the English
`boundary'. Different speakers will have different repertoires,
represented by different sectors or segments within each circle, but
the sequence of acquisition will be similar for all
speakers.The only exception would be someone who attends an
English-medium school from an early age, in which case acquisition of
H-variety Tamil may be minimal, and if nothing is done to change this,
the control of this domain will be passive at best.
- 2.
- The concentric-circle model emphasizes that the L-variety language is
the basis of and at the center of ones linguistic repertoire--it is
the native language, the language one dreams in, the first learned and
the last forgotten. All other repertoires are added on, but do not
replace the L-variety. This is the repertoire that is taken for
granted, and typically is given no protection in language
policy--domains and reserves are usually only specified for H-variety
languages and/or foreign imports, with exceptions in a few polities
such as Luxembourg.
- 3.
- The concentric-circle model allows us to account for gradience
and variability in proficiency, something that few policies seem to
want to deal with. The line that begins at the center and moves
toward the edge can represent gradient ability, since proficiency
usually increases with time.
- 4.
- The concentricity of the circles also shows that if domains
shift,That is if one register is replaced or displaced by
another, perhaps as a result of a conscious policy decision. it is
usually from one adjacent circle to another, not hopping over one band
to penetrate a non-adjacent circle. A passive competence is possible
within any circle, of course, but the largest number of passive
competencies will most likely be in the language learned last, in this
case English. The circle might also contain a small `passive'
segment for yet another language, since in India it is quite common
for speakers who claim no active command of Hindi to watch and enjoy
Hindi movies, or to understand a bazaar language associated with
marketing and shopping. In the concentric circle model, a niche for
passive Hindi (Cinema) is shared with Tamil and English.
- 5.
- The circles also show what happens when attempts are made (such as
have been in India and Sri Lanka) to restructure the repertoire with
demands for reserved segments for another language (such
as Hindi or Sinhala, respectively). English then functions as the
buffer language, the neutral territory that keeps the invasive
languages at bay. Under Indian language policy, the attempt to
capture domains of languages not reserved for Hindi has so far been
restricted to those registers associated with English, whereas in Sri
Lanka, the perception (among Tamils) was that Sinhala intended to
invade and replace not only English sectors, but sectors that had been
the reserve of H-variety Tamil, such as entrance examinations to
university. English, under that policy, was to be stripped away, or
reduced severely. It is perhaps the disparity between the levels of
penetration that explains the intensity of Tamil resistance in Sri
Lanka, compared with that seen in India, where Hindi made claims only
to the registers in the outer band of sectors.
- 6.
- The concentric-circle model also depicts language registers and
repertoires as an integrated, natural continuum--something akin to a
living organism, rather than just a list of disparate proficiencies.
As such, the threat of another language is seen as an invasive
virus seeking to penetrate the cell, displace certain repertoires,
alter its makeup so as to replicate itself, and perhaps even kill the
original cell. One could carry this virological analogy too
far, but it could help explain something of the emotional reaction to
language spread and policies that seek to bring it about.
- 7.
- Finally, the concentric-circle model allows us to depict diglossia as
a feature of registers and repertoires. As such it is not a deficit
or a disfunctionality, but a natural part of the repertoire of a
speaker. Diglossia is, after all, a kind of language policy,
since it is the result of decision-making of some sort, cumulatively
over time.
Figure:
Concentric repertoires as a function of age and life
experience.
|
Next: Policy in Conflict with
Up: Register and Repertoire.
Previous: Repertoire
Vasu Renganathan
9/25/1998