Minority Language Rights, Language Policies and

the Northeast Indian context

সংখ্যালঘু ভাষাৰ অধিকাৰ, ভাষা নীধি আৰু

উত্তৰ পূৰ্াঞ্চল
ব

Dr Arup Kumar Nath

Assistant Professor,
Department of EFL, Tezpur University

16th March, 2017,

1
Dh College
 Lets begin with a facebook update

• এসময়ি ইংৰাজী নাজাননা ৰ্ুধল ৰ্ৰ দুখ্ লাধিধিল । স্কুলীয়া জীৱনি ধৰ্জ্ঞানৰ
মনেল সজা প্ৰধিন াধিিা এখ্নি ভাি ল'ললা, ধকন্তু ইংৰাজী নাজাননা ৰ্ুধল
লকাননাৰ্াই মনেলন াৰ ধৰ্ষনয় ধকৰ্া সুধিনলও এনকা উত্তৰ ধদয়া নাধিনলা;
কাৰণ প্ৰধিন াধিিাখ্ন ইংৰাজী মািযমৰ ধৰ্দযালয় এখ্নি হৈধিল আৰু
লৰ্ধিভাি ধৰ্চাৰনকই ইংৰাজীনি সুধিধিল, ল ধনৰ্া ধৰ্জ্ঞানৰ নৈয় ইংৰাজীৰনৈ
মনেল সজা প্ৰধিন াধিিা । এসময়ি অলপ-অচৰপ ইংৰাজী ধিধকনলা, ধকন্তু
ধনজনক ইংৰাজী ৰ পণ্ডিি লদখ্ুৱাৰ্লল হি (আচলনি ইংৰাজীি ধনজৰ দুৰ্লিা ব
ঢাধকৰ্লল)ৈনক-ধৰ্ৈনক কথাৰ মানজ মানজ ইংৰাজী ৰ্যৱৈাৰ কধৰৰ্লল িধৰনলা ।
অৱনিয আণ্ডজৰ িাধৰখ্ি ইংৰাজী ভাষান া ধকিু পধৰমানণ আয়ত্ব কধৰ ললাৱাৰ
ধপিি অনাৈকি অ'ি ি'ি প্ৰনয়াি কধৰৰ্লল মন লনান াৱা ৈ'ল, অন্তিঃ
ইংৰাজী আৰু অসমীয়া দুনয়া া ভাষানৰ ইজ্জিৰ খ্াধিৰি । 16th March, 2017,
Dh College
2
 What is Language Endangerment/Death?
• A language is referred to as endangered when it is on the verge of extinction, when
its speakers cease to use it, cease to use it in their most predominant domains such
as home, market, playground, office etc. (Nath, 2011)
• A language is endangered when the speakers cease to pass on their language to
their next generation, when their youngest speakers are the older people.
• ‘Language death’ can be seen as the end-point in the process of language
endangerment, when a language ceases to be spoken. (Sallabank, 2012)
• Dorian (1981) lists three symptoms of language death: fewer speakers, fewer
domains of use, and structural simplification.
• Minority languages are not only defined numerically (spoken by a minority of the
population of a country), but in terms of social status, marginalization and access
to resources. (Sallabank, 2012)
16th March, 2017, 3

• Krauss (1992) estimated that 90 per cent of the world’s languages would be
Dh College

severely endangered by 2100.

 Reasons of Language Endangerment
• The causes of language endangerment fall into four main categories:
• 1) Natural catastrophes, famine, disease: for example, Malol, Papua New Guinea
(earthquake);
• 2 )War and genocide: for example, Tasmania (genocide by colonists); Brazilian
indigenous peoples (disputes over land and resources); El Salvador (civil war);
• 3) Overt repression: for example, for ‘national unity’ (including forcible
resettlement): for example, Kurdish, Welsh, Native American languages;
• 4) Cultural/political/economic dominance: for example, Ainu, Manx, Sorbian,
Quechua and many others.
• Grenoble and Whaley (1998: 52) describe economics as ‘the single strongest force
influencing the fate of endangered languages’. Linguistic diversity is associated
with poverty (Harbert et al. 2009), so that speaking a minority language is viewed
16th March, 2017,
as a disadvantage. Poverty contributes to language shift, e.g. through urbanization
Dh College
4
16th March, 2017, 5
Dh College
 Some statistics
• Ethnologue has enlisted 7,099 languages (till this month).
• Out of these 6,000-7000 human languages, 43% are said to be
endangered.(UNESCO, 2010)
• The 8 languages over 100 million (Mandarin, Spanish, English, Bengali,
Hindi, Portuguese, Russian, Japanese) have nearly 2.4 billion speakers (out
of 6 billion) between them; and if we extend this count to include just the
top 20 languages, we find a total of 3.2 billion – over half the world’s
population. (Crystal , 2000)
• Just 4% of the world’s languages are spoken by 96% of the population.
• 96% of world languages are spoken only by about 4% of world people
• 500 languages are spoken by less than 100 people. (Crystal, 2000)
• Around 1,500 languages have less than 1,000 speakers; and 3,340 languages
16th March, 2017,
Dh College
6

have less than 10,000 speakers. (Crystal, 2000)

 Some statistics

• Crystal (2000) lists 51 languages with just a single speaker – 28 in Australia, 8

in the USA, 3 in South America, 3 in Africa, 6 in Asia, 3 in the Pacific islands.
• The world’s languages have a highly uneven distribution: 4% are in Europe;
15% in the Americas; 31% in Africa; 50% in Asia and the Pacific.
• The countries mentioned have the highest distributions: Papua New Guinea
and Indonesia alone have 25% (1,529 languages) between them (according
to the 1996 edition of Ethnologue).
• One language dies in every two weeks. (Crystal, 2000)
16th March, 2017, 7
Dh College
16th March, 2017, 8
Dh College
The health of World languages
Source: http://www.unesco.org/languages-atlas/index.php

16th March, 2017, 9

Dh College
 Indian Scenario

• India has approximately 860 languages.

• India counts maximum number of endangered languages.(197)
• Vulnerable 81
• Definitely endangered 62
• Severely endangered 7
• Critically endangered 42
• Extinct 5
16th March, 2017, 10
Dh College
 Measuring the health of languages
• The most comprehensive language vitality scale is UNESCO’s Language Vitality
and Endangerment framework.
• (1) Intergenerational language transmission
• (2) Absolute number of speakers
• (3) Proportion of speakers within the local population
• (4) Trends in existing language domains
• (5) Response to new domains and media
• (6) Materials for language education and literacy
• (7) Governmental and institutional language policies, including official status and
use
• (8) Community members’ attitudes toward their own language 16th March, 2017, 11

•
Dh College
(9) Amount and quality of documentation
 UNESCO’s vitality framework
Degree of Intergenerational language transmission
endangerment

safe language is spoken by all generations; intergenerational transmission is

uninterrupted
vulnerable most children speak the language, but it may be restricted to certain
domains (e.g., home)
definitely endangered children no longer learn the language as mother tongue in the home
severely endangered language is spoken by grandparents and older generations; while the parent
generation may understand it, they do not speak it to children or among
themselves
critically endangered the youngest speakers are grandparents and older, and they speak the
language partially and infrequently
extinct there are no speakers left
16th March, 2017, 12
Source: www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?pg=00139 Dh College
 Why saving endangered languages?
• UNESCO’s website cites linguistic diversity as a ‘pillar of Cultural Diversity’:
“When languages fade, so does the world’s rich tapestry of cultural diversity.
Opportunities, traditions, memory, unique modes of thinking and
expression – valuable resources for ensuring a better future are also lost.”
• The loss of knowledge tradition. All societies have oral literature, that is,
cultural traditions expressed through language in the form of stories,
legends, historical narratives, poetry and songs. Harrison (2007) and others
argue that the loss of endangered languages means the loss of such
knowledge and cultural richness, both to the communities who speak them
and to human beings in general.
• Sutherland (2003): places such as Indonesia and Papua New Guinea which
have a high number of different biological species also have high linguistic
diversity, compared to Europe, which has the fewest of both. This theme
has been taken up enthusiastically by some researchers (e.g. Skutnabb-
16th March, 2017,
Dh College
13

Kangas 2002) and campaigners.

 Why saving endangered languages?

• Languages are often seen as identity marker. Lanza and Svendsen (2007:
293) suggest that ‘language might become important for identity when a
group feels it is losing its identity due to political or social reasons’.

16th March, 2017, 14

Dh College
 What is LPP
• Language policy is a kind of decision taken by the legal authority usually in a
multilingual set up.
• In general, language planning refers to efforts to deliberately affect the status,
structure or acquisition of languages. (Fishman, 1974)
• Language policy can be seen at all levels: community, society, family and nation. At
individual level also we have our own preferences of using languages.
• They may be conscious , unconscious, explicit or implicit. Explicit—specified in an
official document such as constitution.
• Not having a proper language policy is actually a policy by default (Sallabank, 2010)
• Spolsky (2004) offers a definition of language policy which includes three
components: the language practices of a community, in particular the patterns of
choices of which varieties are used in particular circumstances; language
ideologies; and any specific efforts made to influence practices through
15
intervention, planning, and management.
 Policies vs Planning
• Are they same or different?
• Policies are principles and positions of the government or any authority. They may
be viewed as guidelines or rules for language structure, choices of languages to be
used in the public domain, institution etc.
• Planning refers to the concrete measures for implementation of policy decisions.
They are a statement of goals as well as programs to achieve those goals.
• Attempts to change languages, in terms of either their form or their function, are
usually described as instances of language planning. (Wardhaugh and Fuller, 2015)
• Usually, the decisions are policies, and processes and methods are planning.
• Does planning subsume policy (Fettes, 1997, p. 14) or policy subsume planning
(Ricento, 2000, p. 209; Schiffman, 1996, p. 4)? Is policy the output of planning?
• Not always – “a great deal of language policy-making goes on in a haphazard or
uncoordinated way, far removed from the language planning ideal” (Fettes, 1997,
p. 14). 16

•
 Language Policies

• Huagen (1959) uses the term ‘language planning’ for the very first time with
reference to the Norwegian context.
• He wrote, “By language planning I understand the activity of preparing a
normative orthography, grammar, and dictionary for the guidance of writers
and speakers in a non-homogeneous speech community. In this practical
application of linguistic knowledge we are proceeding beyond descriptive
linguistics into an area where judgment must be exercised in the form of
choices among available linguistic forms. “

17
 Types of LPP

• The first use of the status planning/corpus-planning typology was by Heinz

Kloss (1969), while acquisition planning as a third type of language planning
was introduced 20 years later (Cooper, 1989).
• We may think of status planning as those efforts directed toward the
allocation of functions of languages/literacies in a given speech community;
• Corpus planning as those efforts related to the adequacy of the form or
structure of languages/literacies;
• Acquisition planning as efforts to influence the allocation of users or the
distribution of languages/literacies, by means of creating or improving
opportunity or incentive to learn them, or both. 18
 Approaches of LPP

• Grin (2006) elaborating the concepts ‘language economics’ or ‘economics of

languages’ (Marschak, 1965) stresses that economic approaches to
language policy must be seen as a form of public policy just like
transportation policy, environmental policy.
• Grin (1996) posited a few questions. A)How do language variables affect
economic variables (for example, do language skills influence earnings)?
• B) How do economic variables affect linguistic variables (for example, do
the relative prices of certain goods affect patterns of language use)?
19
 Approaches of LPP

• Many of the earlier contributions (in support of this framework) emphasized

the role of people’s native language as an ethnic attribute affecting their
earnings – thereby raising the question of possible language-based
discrimination. (Grin 1997, 2006)
• A second wave of contributions analyzed language (generally, though not
always, a second language) as a form of human capital. (Grin, 2006)
• In a third wave, opened by Vaillancourt (1980), language was treated both as
an ethnic attribute and as an element of human capital.
20
 Approaches of LPP

• Political theories also help in formulating language policies. A large number

of political theorists have focused their attention in recent years on issues of
close relevance to language policy (e.g., multicultural citizenship, identity
politics, the politics of “difference,” etc.) (Patten, 2001; Patten & Kymlicka,
2003)
• Identity politics derives from the perception that who we are matters in
political life, and there is a variety of politically significant answers to the
question “who are we?”
• Among the most salient have been answers marking persons’ gender, family
roles, profession, region, ethnicity, race, nation, religion, class, and
language. (Ronald Schmidt, 2006) 21
 What is ethnic identity
• Ethnicity, for anthropologists, refers to a cluster of features or practices that are attributed
in some way to a collectivity or aggregation of people, and that is often the basis for socio-
cultural organization (Makihara 2010).
• Fishman (1989) tells us that ethnicity is phenomenological; that is, it is self-perceived, or it
is attributed by others.
• As ethnicity, identity is situational and contextual; that is, there is no ‘true’ identity, but just
more effective or less effective identities, and more salient or less salient identities
(Fishman 2010).
• Ethnic identity refers then to one kind of identity associated with a cluster of features or
practices that are claimed by individuals or groups or assigned to them by other actors in a
specific socio-historical, sociopolitical, and socioeconomic context.
• Ethnic identity can thus be a product of self-perceptions, or a result of outsiders’
perspectives and actions, whether other laypersons or more authoritative persons
(Fishman 2010).
• Furthermore, ethnic identity is impacted by local political economies. There are thus2017,both
16th March, 22
assumed identities and imposed identities, but there are also negotiable identities Dh College

(Pavlenko and Blackledge 2004).

 Language Policy and Minority Rights
• Minority rights may be described as the cultural, linguistic, and wider social and political
rights attributable to minority-group members, usually, but not exclusively, within the
context of nation-states.(Stephen May, 2006)
• Earlier majority languages were consistently constructed as languages of “wider
communication” while minority languages are viewed as (merely) carriers of “tradition” or
“historical identity,”. (Stephen May, 2006)
• So, majority languages had instrumental value, whereas the minority languages had
emotional value.
• Advocacy of MLR (Minority Language Right) arises out of four principal concerns (May,
2006).
• FIRST: The consequent exponential decline and loss of many of the world languages.
• SECOND: why certain languages, and their speakers, have come to be “minoritized” in the
first place. Advocates of MLR argue that the establishment of majority–minority language
hierarchies is neither a natural process nor primarily even a linguistic one. Rather, it is a
historically, socially, and politically constructed process. ((Hamel, 1997a, 1997b; May,
16th March, 2017, 23
Dh College
2000a, 2001, 2002, 2003a)
 Language Policy and Minority Rights

• The branding of majority-minority is mostly a political one. (Danish-Norwegian,

Czech-Slovakia, etc. examples) What these examples clearly demonstrate is that
languages are “created” out of the politics of state-making, not – as we often
assume – the other way around (Billig, 1995).
• The process of selecting and establishing a common national language usually
involved two key aspects: legitimation and institutionalization (May, 2001; Nelde,
Strubell, & Williams, 1996).
• It is a deliberate act of the state by which the other languages/ varieties are
subsequently “minoritized” or “dialectalized” by and within these same nation-
states.
• More often than not, the latter were also specifically constructed as obstacles to
the political project of nation-building – as threats to the “unity” of the state – thus
providing the raison d’être for the consistent derogation, diminution, and
proscription of minority languages that have characterized the last three16thcenturies
March, 2017, 24
of nationalism (May, 2001) Dh College
 Language Policy and Minority Rights

• THIRD: A third principal concern of MLR is to critique the principle of “language

replacement” that centrally underlies the social and political processes just
outlined – that one should/must learn these languages at the expense of one’s first
language. This amounts to a form of Linguistic Social Darwinism.
• FOURTH: the legal protections that can potentially be developed in order to
enhance the mobility of minority-language speakers while at the same time
protecting their right to continue to speak a minority language, if they so choose.
• The Linguistic Human Rights (LHR) research paradigm argues that minority
languages, and their speakers, should be accorded at least some of the protections
and institutional support that majority languages already enjoy (e.g., Kontra,
Skuttnabb-Kangas, Phillipson, & Várady, 1999; Skutnabb Kangas, 2000, 2002;
Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson, 1994). 16th March, 2017,
Dh College
25
 Linguistic Human Rights
• Linguistic human rights (LHRs) combine language rights (LRs) with human
rights (HRs).
• LHRs are those (and only those) LRs that, first, are necessary to fulfil
people’s basic needs and for them to live a dignified life, and, second, that
therefore are so basic, so fundamental, that no state (or individual or group)
is supposed to violate them. (Kangas, 2006)
• It would, for instance, be nice if everybody could, even in civil court cases,
have a judge and witnesses who speak (or sign) this person’s language,
regardless of how few users this language has. (Kangas, 2006)
• The right to use one’s own language, in public or even in private, is not
universally recognized.
• Although, public support to all minority languages is impractical, yet those
16th March, 2017,
Dh College
26

who are not fluent in the national and dominant languages should have
access to the education, media and the justice system in their languages.
 LHR
• Two kinds of interest in LHRs can be distinguished. One is “the expressive interest
in language as a marker of identity,” the other an “instrumental interest in
language as a means of communication” (Rubio-Marín, 2003)
• The expressive (or non-instrumental) language claims “aim at ensuring a person’s
capacity to enjoy a secure linguistic environment in her/his mother tongue and a
linguistic group’s fair chance of cultural self-reproduction.” (Rubio-Marín, 2003, p.
56).
• The instrumental language claims “aim at ensuring that language is not an
obstacle to the effective enjoyment of rights with a linguistic dimension, to the
meaningful participation in public institutions and democratic process, and to the
enjoyment of social and economic opportunities that require linguistic skills”
(Rubio-Marín, 2003 p. 56).
• the paragraph on education (Article 26) in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (1948) does not refer to language at all.
• There are references to the “full development of the human personality” and the
right of parents to “choose the kind of education that shall be given to16th
their
March, 2017, 27
children,” but this does not include the right to choose the language in which this
Dh College

education is given. (Kangas, 2006)

 LHR
• Educational LHRs, especially the right to mother-tongue-medium
education, are among the most important rights for any minority. Without
them, a minority whose children attend school usually cannot reproduce
itself as a minority. It cannot integrate but is forced to assimilate.(Kangas,
2006)
• The UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or
Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (1992):
• A) States shall protect the existence and the national or ethnic, cultural,
religious and linguistic identity of minorities within their respective
territories, and shall encourage conditions for the promotion of that
identity.
• B) States should take appropriate measures so that, wherever possible,
persons belonging to minorities have adequate opportunities to 16th
learn their
March, 2017,
Dh College
28

mother tongue or to have instruction in their mother tongue.

 Educational Linguistic Human Rights
• Without binding educational LHRs most minorities have to accept subtractive
education through the medium of a dominant/majority language.
• Assimilationist subtractive education is genocidal. (Kangas, 2006) Submersion
education cause severe mental harm to the students.
• Edward Williams’s study from Zambia and Malawi, with 1,500 students in grades 1–
7, showed that large numbers of Zambian pupils (who had all their education in
English) “have very weak or zero reading competence in two languages” (1998, p.
62). The Malawi children (taught in local languages during the first four years, with
English as a subject) had slightly better test results in the English language than the
Zambian students.
• In Zubeida Desai’s (2001) study, Xhosa-speaking grade 4 and grade 7 learners in
South Africa were given a set of pictures, which they had to put in the right order
and then describe, in both Xhosa and English. In Desai’s words, it showed “the rich
16th March, 2017, 29
vocabulary children have when they express themselves in Xhosa and the poor Dh College

vocabulary they have when they express themselves in English” (p. 321)
 Educational Linguistic Human Rights

• Educational LHRs include both the right to have the basic education mainly through the
medium of the mother tongue, and the right to learn the official/dominant language well.
• In additive learning situations, high levels of majority-language skills are added to high
levels of mother-tongue skills.
• A good example here is Papua New Guinea, a fairly small country, with a population of
around 5 million. It has the highest number of languages in the world: over 850. According
to David Klaus from the World Bank (2003), as of 2002, 470 languages are used as the media
of education in pre-school and the first two grades. Some of the results are as follows
(Klaus, 2003): children become literate more quickly and easily. They learn English more
quickly and easily than their siblings did under the old English-medium system

16th March, 2017, 30

Dh College
 Linguistic Diversity
• Linguistic diversity (LD) seems to many researchers to be messy. Even
respected scholars like political theorists Will Kymlicka and Alan Patten
seem to accept that things are “complicated by linguistic diversity” (Patten
& Kymlicka, 2003, p. 3)
• Labeling LD as a complication, obstacle, or problem is denying and
lamenting facts – just like claiming that having two legs and five fingers is
more complicated than having one. (Kangas, 2006).
• With very few exceptions, the world’s countries are multilingual, and, in
Debi Pattanayak’s words, “One language is an impractical proposition for a
multilingual country” (1988, p. 382).
• LD is the normal state of life on our planet. “To me, the complication,
obstacle, or problem is not LD but attitudes which I have discussed as
16th March, 2017, 31
monolingual reductionism” (Kangas, 2000, pp. 238–48). Dh College
Policies to support Minority/Endangered Languages
• Increasing the number of speakers.
• A) Improving language proficiency and creating new speakers, usually through teaching
(known as acquisition planning). This can overlap with domains of use, in that efforts often
focus on the sphere of education.
• B) Ensuring that people want to speak the language (known as prestige planning:
Haarmann, 1984; 1990).
• Acquisition Planning: Societies where women have higher status tend to maintain their
languages more than societies where women have low status (Aikio 1992).
• The ‘language nests’ (called after the prototypical scheme, Kōhanga reo in Ma –ori) combat
the loss of intergenerational transmission by replacing and/or supplementing the family
domain. (like earlier Moina Parijat)
• Additive bilingualism and biliteracy (Hornberger 2003; see Chapter 14 in this volume)
• The inclusion of cultural programmes (Hornberger 2008)
• Community involvement
• Supplementing the school-based programme with real reasons to speak the language
outside the educational context (Cantoni 1997). The rest of this section will address this last32
16th March, 2017,
Dh College
point.
 Why national languages?
• Initially, the post colonial countries wanted to have their new identity and
development of their local languages.
• It was thought that a national language would unite the heterogeneous
peoples of a state. It can integrate peoples from different speech
communities and help inculcating patriotism.
• But, since 1990 there has been a perception built up that linguistic diversity
is a ‘good thing’ and minority and endangered languages should be
supported and protected. (Spolsky, 2009)
• Many countries claim to be monolingual (Armenia, Iraq, Singapore, Nepal),
but at the same time they grant protection to the minority languages
• Whereas, many countries follow hegemonistic policy to homogenize their
people and identity. Countries such as China, USA, Japan fall in this 33

category. They follow the ‘melting pot’ approach.

 Language policies of India

• From time immemorial India has a rich history and tradition of

multilingualism. Therefore, societal bilingualism or multilingualism has been
in India for a long period.
• After independence, India needed a language to administer this vast
country.
• The leaders of Freedom struggle also wanted to dethrone English from the
Indian context so that they can eradicate all colonial memories.
• India initially wanted to adopt the ‘Soviet Model of Language Policy’.
34
 Language policies of India

• Hindi was made the Official language of India, not the national language.
(14th Sept 1949 Constituent Assembly)
• Along with Hindi, the constitution permitted the use of English initially for
fifteen years as an associate official language.
• When Hindi was again attempted to make the ‘sole official’ language, there
was a massive protest in South India. Eventually, in 1965 a meeting of all
Chief Ministers decided to retain English.

35
 Language Policies of India
• The eight schedule: 22 languages have been included based on speakers’ ratio and
other socio-political considerations.
• Two major language families a) Austro-Asiatic b) Tibeto Burman languages have
been neglected. Manipuri and Bodo represent TB group, Santali represents Austro-
Asiatic family. The Tai-Kadai, Andamanese and Great Andamanese groups don’t
figure in this list.
• Abbi (2004) said, ‘the big fishes will swallow the smaller one (those not listed in the
eight schedule).
• Abbi (2004) has also pointed out several grey areas in the Eight Schedule. Two of
them are: marginalization and stigmatization of several languages.
• This provision also grants prestige to those 22 languages thereby causing
resentment among others.
• Pattanayak (1995:55) stated “the Eighth Schedule instead of maintaining and
promoting multilingualism in the country props up dominant monolingualism. By 36

not recognizing diversity it indirectly supports language imperialism at the national

as well as regional levels.”
 The three Language Formula
• As a part of language planning, the All India Council for Education recommended
the adoption of the Three Language Formula in Sept. 1956 (Mallikarjun 2003)
• It was a strategy/planning , not a language policy.
• According to this formula, a young learner is expected to learn three languages as
following:
• 1) The mother tongue or the regional language;
• 2) The official language of the union or the associate official language of the Union
as long as it exists (official language of the union is Hindi and its associate official
language is English);
• 3) A modern Indian language or a foreign language, not covered under (1) & (2)
above and other than that used as the medium of instruction.
• India follows the promotive and tolerance policies. Constitutional safeguard is
given to a few languages, like Hindi and others.
• But, there is no such legal guarantee to the other languages of India.
37
 Linguistic situation in Assam

• Assam counts approximately 80 languages (Ethnologue)

• Peoples’ Linguistic Survey of India (PLSI) has enlisted 55 languages being
spoken in Assam.
• Assam is probably the only state in India hosting languages from five
different language families namely Indo-Aryan, Tibeto-Burman, Austro-
Asiatic, Dravidian and Tai-Kadai.
• Assamese being the dominant language has strong literary tradition,
entertainment industry and used in the offices and media.

38
Distribution of tribal languages and population

39
Total major language share of Assam

40
 Linguistic scenario of Northeast

• There are approximately 300 languages spoken in the Northeast India from
different language families.
• Out of 196 endangered languages of India enlisted in UNESCO report,
Northeast India counts maximum number of endangered languages with
various level of endangerment.
• This number falls between 95---100, which is extremely alarming. Arunachal
Pradesh alone has recorded 36 endangered languages.
• Like many parts of India, North east India has always been a multilingual
society. Societal bilingualism and Multilingualism are the order of the
society.
41
 Linguistic scenario of Northeast
• Learning more than one language is the necessity, not an urge.
• Assamese, being the most dominant language of this region, is the main
lingua-franca of the entire North east India.
• Nagamese and Nefamese/Arunamese are some of the offshoot pidgins of
Assamese.
• But, Assamese has lost its earlier glory in the states like Arunachal Pradesh.
• Of late, Hindi has taken over the place of Assamese from the public domains
in these states. Arunachali Hindi, Haflong Hindi are some examples of new
Hindi dialects/varieties. 42
Linguistic Map of Northeast

43
 Language policy and endangerment

• Many languages of Northeast India are dying mostly because of the language
policy and planning of the government.
• It is because:
• ‘Number game’ and socio-political considerations have been the sole deciding
factor in granting official status to languages.
• The Indian language policies are mostly ‘assimilationist’ in nature and eyes on
homogenization.
• There is little scope for encouragement for the standardization of tribal and lesser
known languages of Northeast.
• Since, their languages are not part of the prestige schema of the people, speakers
of tribal languages hold their languages responsible for ‘holding them back’.
Thereby, infusing negative attitude towards their languages. 44
 Language policy and endangerment

• Moreover, there is no scope for revitalization and language reform in this

policy framework (Lacks Acquisition Planning).
• Since, this policy has given the speakers of the scheduled languages upper-
hand, there is mass shifting towards the dominant languages.
• In government job and other sectors such as literary institutions, translation
industry, speakers from the scheduled languages get the advantage.
• The cultural and language beliefs of the people of Northeast and India as a
whole are not taken into consideration in framing these policies.
• It lacks prestige planning as there is less scope for promoting positive view
of languages to challenge negative attitude and ideologies of deficit. 45
 Language policy and endangerment
• There is a proportionate denial of representation of Tibeto-Burman (Except
Bodo and Manipuri), Tai Kadai and Austro-Asiatic (Santhali is the only
inclusion) languages of Northeast India in the scheduled list. Hence, they are
deprived of constitutional safeguards.
• At planning level, there should be a revision of the three language formula
in the education system. No room for their mother tongues.
• It has led to ‘linguistic suicide’ (Abbi 2004) for many languages of North east
India and India as a whole. In other words, we are in the verge of seeing a
‘linguistic genocide’ (Kangas, 2000) in NE.
• To arrest this problem, Abbi (2004) proposes a ‘Four Language Formula’
(FLF) which puts a minor language at the bottom of the hierarchy. 46
 Language policy and endangerment

• As a result of the three language formula, there is huge increase of school

drop-outs in the tribal areas of northeast.
• Peopleare changing language loyalty towards English, Hindi and the
dominant languages.
• Arunachal Pradesh has even developed the Arunachali Hindi variety and in
Dima Hasao district of Assam a Hindi variety called ‘Halflong Hindi’ has also
emerged which can be termed as an outcome of ‘Linguistic Imperialism’
(Philipson, 1992).
• Linguistic as well as knowledge diversity is also under tremendous threat.
47
 Summing Up: the way ahead…
• Wiley (1996), who emphasized the need for critical awareness that, given the role played by
language in struggles for power and dominance between groups, language planning is not
merely a technical undertaking and can often result in creating conflicts rather than solving
them.
• The Govt. and the policy makers must realize the ethos and philosophy of multiculturalism. The
‘group differentiated identity’ (Kymlicka, 1995) must be recognized and through
institutionalization languages should be recognized as a major identity marker.
• Rather than ‘assimilationist’ approach, the govt. should follow the ‘integrationalist’ approach.
• The ‘Minority Linguistic Right’ or ‘Linguistic Human Right’ (Kangas 2000) must be protected.
• ‘Constructive Multilingualism’ should be the major strategy in the education system where
multilingualism is actively promoted.
• Awareness should be spread among the people by taking effective measures to eradicate the
misunderstanding of the language-dialect dichotomy. It may be made a part of the Prestige
Planning.
48
 Summing Up: the way ahead…
• Technology and tools should be invented so that speakers of endangered
languages can see their languages in the advanced gadgets and equipment.
• Respective governments must come up with a policy framework where they can
appoint language teachers for all tribal languages.
• It would be effective if Endangered Languages are introduced and taught at the
University level first and train language teachers first. This pool of people can be
used as the resource persons to produce corpuses in these languages.
• There should be provision to provide financial and institutional support to the
language teaching and maintaining programs so that negative attitude can be
erased.
• Rather than having a top-down or exogenous language maintaining approach, an
endogenous approach should be adopted/developed which would be more
participatory in nature.
• In the line of ‘cultural tourism’, respective governments may also think of ‘linguistic
tourism’ in a high language density area. NE could be an ideal place. 49
 References
Abbi, A. 2004. Vanishing Diversities and Submerging Identities-An Indian Case. Forum
Bercelona.
Billig, M. (1995). Banal nationalism. London: Sage.
Devy, G.N et.el. (ed) 2013. Asomor Bhaxa, Vol-5. Banalata Publishers, Guwahati, (Peoples
Linguistic Survey of India).
Cameron, D. (2002). Globalization and the teaching of “communication skills.” In D. Block & D.
Cameron (eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 67– 82). London: Routledge.
Cooper, R. L. (1989). Language planning and social change. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Crystal, D. (2000). Language Death, CUP, Cambridge.
Dorian, Nancy C. (1981). Language death: the life cycle of a Scottish Gaelic dialect.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Fettes, M. (1997). Language planning and education. In R. Wodak & D. Corson (eds.),
Language policy and political issues in education (pp. 13–22). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Ferguson, C. F. (1968). Myths about Arabic. In J. A. Fishman (ed.), Readings in the sociology of50
language (pp. 375–81). The Hague: Mouton. (Reprinted from Languages and Monograph
Series. Vol. 12, 1959 [pp. 75–82], Georgetown University. Reprinted 1972.)
 References
Fishman, J. A. (1996). Summary and interpretation: Post-imperial English, 1940–1990. In J. A.
Fishman, A. W. Conrad, & A. Rubal-Lopez (eds.), Post-imperial English: Status change in
Former British and American colonies, 1940–1990 (pp. 623–40). Berlin: Mouton.
Fishman, J. 1974. Advances in language planning, Mouton Publisher.
Fishman, J. A., Ferguson, C., & Das Gupta, J. (eds.) (1968). Language problems of developing
nations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Grenoble, Lenore A., and Lindsay I. Whaley, (eds.) (1998a). Endangered languages: current
issues and future prospects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grin, F. (ed.) (1996). Economic approaches to language and language planning (Special issue).
International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 121.
Grin, F. & Vaillancourt, F. (1997). The economics of multilingualism: Overview and analytical
framework. In W. Grabe (ed.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, vol. 17 (pp. 43–65). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Grin, F. (2006). Economic Considerations in Language Policy, In Ricento, T (ed). An
Introduction to Langugae Policy: theory and method, Blackwell Publishing.
Hamel, R. (1997a). Introduction: Linguistic human rights in a sociolinguistic perspective.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 127, 1–24. 51
 References
Hamel, R. (1997b). Language conflict and language shift: A sociolinguistic framework for
linguistic human rights. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 127, 105–34.
Hymes, D.H. (1992). Inequality in language: Taking for granted. Working Papers in Educational
Linguistics, 8(1), 1-30.
Haugen, E. (1959). Planning for a standard language in Norway. Anthropological Linguistics,
1(3), 8–21.
Haugen, E. (1973). The curse of Babel. In M. Bloomfield & E. Haugen (eds.), Language as a
human problem (pp. 33–43). New York: W. W. Norton.
Haugen, E. (1983). The implementation of corpus planning: Theory and practice. In J.
Cobarrubias & J. Fishman (eds.), Progress in language planning: International perspectives
(pp. 269–90). Berlin: Mouton.
Hornberger, N.H (2006), Frameworks and Models in Language Policy and Planning, In
Ricento, T (ed). An Introduction to Langugae Policy: theory and method, Blackwell Publishing.
Huebner, T. (1999). Sociopolitical perspectives on language policy, politics, and praxis. In T.
Huebner & K. A. Davis (eds.), Sociopolitical perspectives on language policy and planning in 52
the USA (pp. 1–15). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
 References
https://www.ethnologue.com/
http://www.unesco.org/languages-atlas/index.php
Kloss, H. (1969). Research possibilities on group bilingualism: A report. Quebec:
International Center for Research on Bilingualism.
Krauss, Michael. 1992. The world’s languages in crisis. Language68. 4–10.
Kontra, M., Phillipson, R., Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Várady, T. (eds.) (1999). Language:
A right and a resource. Approaching linguistic human rights. Budapest: Central
European University Press.
Kymlicka, W. 1995. Multicultural Citizenship. Clarendon Press. Oxford.
Linguistic Map Source: SIL International, 2014
Mallikarjun, B. “Patterns of Indian Multilingualism” Language in India Strength for
Today and Bright Hope For Tomorrow. Vol 10. June. 2010. 1-18. Web Retrieved from
www.languageinindia.com
Marschak, J. (1965). Economics of language. Behavioral Science, 10, 135–40. 53
 References
May, S. (2001). Language and minority rights: Ethnicity, nationalism and the politics
of language. London: Longman.
May, S. (2006). Language Policy and Minority Rights, In Ricento, T (ed). An
Introduction to Langugae Policy: theory and method, Blackwell Publishing.
Nahir, M. (1984). Language planning goals: A classification. Language Problems and
Language Planning, 8, 294–327.
Nath, A.K. (2011), A Lexico Semantic Study of Tiwa and Deori: Two Endangered
Languages of the Tibeto-Burman Family, Unpublished PhD thesis, JNU, New Delhi.
Nelde, P., Strubell, M., & Williams, G. (1996). Euromosaic: The production and
reproduction of the minority language groups in the European Union. Luxembourg:
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Pattanayak, D. P. (1995). The Eighth Schedule: A Linguistic Perspective. In Abbi. et.al
(eds). Language and State: Perspectives on the Eighth Schedule. New Delhi: Creative
Books .
54
 References
Patten, A. (2001). Political theory and language policy. Political Theory, 29, 691– 715.
Patten, A. & Kymlicka, W. (2003). Introduction: Language rights and political theory:
Context, issues, and approaches. In W. Kymlicka & A. Patten (eds.), Language rights
and political theory (pp. 1–51). New York: Oxford University Press.
Paulston, C. B. & Tucker, G. R. (eds.) (2003). Sociolinguistics: The essential readings.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Phillipson, R. (2006) Language Policy and Linguistic Imperialism, In Ricento, T (ed).
An Introduction to Langugae Policy: theory and method, Blackwell Publishing.
Ricento, T. (2000). Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and
planning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4, 196–213.
Rubin, J. & Jernudd, B. (eds.) (1971). Can language be planned? Sociolinguistic theory
and practice for developing nations. Honolulu: East–West Center and University of
Hawaii Press. 55
 References
Rubin, J., Fishman, J., Jernudd, B., Das Gupta, J., & Ferguson, C. A. (1977). Language
planning processes. The Hague: Mouton.
Sallabank, J. 2010. Language Documentation and Language Policy, In Langauge
Documentation and Description (ed.) Austin, P. K. SOAS, HRELP.
Schiffman, H. F. (1996). Linguistic culture and language policy. New York: Routledge.
Schiffman, H. F. (2006). Language Policy and Linguistic Culture, In Ricento, T (ed). An
Introduction to Langugae Policy: theory and method, Blackwell Publishing.
Schmidt, R (Sr). (2006). Political Theory and Language Policy, In Ricento, T (ed). An
Introduction to Langugae Policy: theory and method, Blackwell Publishing.
Skutnabb-Kangas. (2000). Linguistics Genocide in Education—or Worldwide Diversity
and Human Rights? Routledge.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2002). Marvellous human rights rhetoric and grim realities:
Language rights in education. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, I, 179–
56
206.
 References
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. & Phillipson, R. (1994). Linguistic human rights, past and
present. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas & R. Phillipson (eds.), Linguistic human rights:
Overcoming linguistic discrimination (pp. 71–110). Berlin: Mouton.
Spolsky, B. 2004. Language Policy (Key Topics in Sociolinguistics). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Spolsky, B. 2009. Language Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tollefson, J. W. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the
community. London: Longman.
UNESCO Ad-hoc Expert Group on Endangered Languages, 2003. Language Vitality
and Endangerment, Document submitted to the International Expert Meeting on
UNESCO Programme Safeguarding of Endangered Languages, Paris 10-12 March,
2003.
Vaillancourt, F. (1980). Difference in earnings by language groups in Quebec, 1970. An
economic analysis (Publication B-90). Québec: Centre international de recherche sur
le bilinguisme.
57
th
Wardhaugh, R. and Fuller, J.M. 2015. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. 7 Edition,
Wiley Blackwell.
Thank You

16th March, 2017, 58

Dh College