Language Policyandthe Evolutionof Linguistic Communitiesin SL

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/358661738
Socio-political Context & the Evolution of Linguistic Communities in Sri Lanka

Hand-in-Hand with Language Policy Adoptions
Article · August 2021
CITATIONS READS
0 169
2 authors, including:
Upul Gamage
Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka
25 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
A Case Study at Ratmalana School for the Deaf and Blind, Sri Lanka View project
A Case Study in Hambantota Sri Lanka View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Upul Gamage on 17 February 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Sinhala Studies, Vol 2 (II), pp. 26-61, Department of Sinhala, Buddhist & Pali
University of Sri Lanka, 2021 August.
Socio-political Context & the Evolution of Linguistic Communities

in Sri Lanka Hand-in-Hand with Language Policy Adoptions
Upul Priyantha Gamage (BA, MA, PhD)

Senior Lecturer
Faculty of Language Studies
Buddhist and Pali University of Sri Lanka
(PhD Candidate at the Shool of Foreign Languages, Central China Normal University)
Abstract
In this article, the main focus is to figure out the socio-political context of the Language Policy
(LP) adoptions in Sri Lanka while examining the evolution of linguistics communities hand-in-
hand with the LP practices during the last 200 years of period. Notably, the article scrutinizes these
two variables (language policy and language community) to see whether there is any relationship
between language policy adoption and the growth or fall of the population of language
communities during this period. Apart from the major languages, the minor languages are also
looked at in this paper. In this, the threats and opportunities for different language communities
available in Sri Lankan language ecology are also scrutinized and predicted. The study has derived
specifically the two variables; language policy and evolution of linguistic communities to see the
threats and opportunities for different language communities in the current context. Concluding
the work, the study has established the threats and opportunities available for Sri Lankan languages
including classical and small minorities while finding some evidence to see a suspicious
relationship between language policy adoptions and the fall of some small minority languages that
must be further researched with other relevant factors.
Keywords: linguistic community, language policy, language extinction, Sri Lankan language
ecology, Sinhala language
1
1.1 Introduction
At the outset of colonial subjugation, most of the vernacular languages were demoted while
treating language as a problem in the countries where they were governed by colonial authorities.
But, in the post-colonial context and the post-post-colonial context, there is an emerging situation
where the languages are considered as resources. In this context, looking at the growth or fall of
language communities due to different threats is primly important. As there is much evidence from
the countries where there are huge language diversities to showcase the relationship between
language policy adoptions and language community, the current study is relevant and significant
in terms of growth or fall of language communities in parallel to different kinds of LP adoptions.
Sri Lanka is a country that was under colonial rule and its language policies for years set by them
and later on adopted a monolingual policy without respecting small minorities and again has taken
some corrective measures to rectify the monolingual policy by adopting kind of a bilingual policy.
1.2 Research Questions
I. What is the pattern of language community evolutions in Sri Lanka during the last
two centuries?
II. What are the threats and opportunities available for these language communities?
III. Can we see any relationship between language policy adoptions and the evolution of
language communities on this island?
1.3 Methodology
This study sets its method of data gathering through the secondary sources mainly such as
the sources of census department of Sri Lanka and the previous studies conducted in the relevant
field while using the descriptive analyses for the analytical purpose of the gathered data and the
study has employed a mixed-method by taking into account both qualitative and quantitative data.
1.4 The Socio-political Context
Understanding the evolution of linguistic communities with the socio-political context is primly
relevant to see the deep roots of LPs in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka is a country that harbours over 20
million people, but they do not all do it in the same language. The country has a rich mixture of
2
Moors/Muslims, Burghers/Eurasians, Veddas, and Malays living together in addition to its two
main ethnicities (Saunders, 2007). Hence, their language identities cannot be ignored in any kind
of work as it has become a physical and long lasted functional reality in the country. The socio-
political roots of this country from the pre-historic age were the underlying fact even in the colonial
period after cracking down the monarchical power structure in the country in all decisive
endeavours. Therefore, the inception of LP as a discourse in the country under the colonial rule
may have highly been influenced by this context though it was an arbitrary adoption.
The impact of this broad level context was an obvious fact over the whole period of colonial
rule as they (colonial authority) were not successful in continuing what they expected to do with
the LP in the country in that original sense. The different and conflicting opinions of the colonial
masters from time to time regarding LP practices in the country very clearly reflect this matter. As
a result of this contradictory nature, while the domain of English was the language of governance
during the colonial period, there were efforts to study and promote vernaculars as well
(Coperahewa, 2011: 28). Theoretically, if we assimilate the cultural context into this case in
Halliday’s words, “the institutional and ideological background is the cultural context”
(1985/1989: 63-64) of the evolution of linguistic communities in the country from the colonial
period. This broad-level context has entirely reshaped the fabric of the language ecology of the
country. The immediate or the situational context was the local level influence, which also affected
the policy adoptions and implementations in some way or the other. These are considered as extra-
linguistic factors in Systemic Functional Linguistic literature. The broad level institutional and
ideological interventions of the local authorities can also be regarded as the cultural context, while
the other instant reactions of the citizens and citizen representations fall into situational context.
This situational context has also made a considerable impact on the overall socio-political picture
of the LP in Sri Lanka.
1.5 The Evolution of Sinhala Language Community from the British Colonial
Period
Both qualitative and quantitative aspects are essential in this evolution to understand the goals
of the present work. Therefore, we will look into this matter socio-culturally and statistically with
available data. As the Sinhala language community is the majority, and the most influential
3
language community, it is taken into account first and followed by the other communities
depending upon the size of the community.
1.5.1 Statistical Overview
Sinhala is the language of Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, and this is the majority in the country from
its inception of the recorded history which can be traced back to over 2500 years. But, the statistical
data is available merely from modern history with the establishment of a new state after falling
down the traditional monarchy in the country. Therefore, we have happened to limit ourselves to
this recorded history. It is accepted that the origin of Sinhalese had taken place in or around 6 th
century BC with the inter-mixing of the indigenous tribal people of Siv-helas composed of Yaksha,
Raksha, Naga, and Deva with the immigrant people led by Vijaya (Endagama,2017: 12) who came
from North India. Censuses have been conducted in Sri Lanka starting from the colonial period
(1881) up to 2012, every ten years, excluding 1991 (due to the issue of youth revolts in the country,
it had not been held in that decade). These statistics are helpful for us to see the evolution of this
language community, and subsequently, it helps to jump into a conclusion of the Sinhala language
evolution to a greater extent. Indeed, the population who speaks Sinhala may be more than this
number as some minority people also could speak the majority’s language as their second
language, but it is not such significant for the purpose of the current work. Statistically, this is the
way that this language community has evolved over the years, starting from the colonial period.
Table 1: Evolution of Sinhala Population in Sri Lanka
Year Percentage of the Population

1881 66.91
1891 67.86
1901 65.36
1911 66.13
1921 67.05
1931 65.45
1946 69.41
1953 69.36
1963 71.00
4
1971 71.91
1981 73.85
2001 82.00
2012 74.09
source of data: http://www.statistics.gov.lk/
By 1881, the British governing authority in Sri Lanka had introduced their own language
policy by suppressing vernacular languages. The priority was to officialize English by initiating
OLP discourse for the first time in the country. If we take a broad picture from 1881 to 1953, while
taking two edges of the colonialism based on the census (Sri Lanka won the freedom in 1948), the
overall growth of the population remains below 3% (2.45%) for 72 years. For 100 years from 1881
to 1981, it is almost 7% (6.91%). It is evident from the above data that the growth of the Sinhala
population has been accelerated after leaving out this colonial language policy in the country than
in the colonial period. There is almost 5% (4.7%) growth of the Sinhala population for 59 years
(1953-2012) in independent Sri Lanka. From 1963 to 2001, it shows a considerable increase of
11%. Sinhala Only monolingual policy adoption in the country was also included in this period,
and perhaps, this may be a positive inspiration in a way for this unprecedented growth. Then, again
there is a severe drop of 3% in this growth from 2001 to 2012, counting the population to almost
8%. In fact, this period is also significant in the country in terms of promoting multilingual reality
in the overall language ecology. The overall growth of the Sinhala population for the whole period
is 7.18%, and, however, this is also a positive reflection in a country where there have been varying
LP practices from time to time while a colonial language policy was in practice for over 150 years.
Indeed, other factors of the population growth or decline must be taken into account in this kind
of analysis from a sociological point of view apart from LP influence. Therefore, special factors
such as the efforts of family planning at the state level to reduce the population growth remain as
major factors that we do not examine in the current work while considering LP as one important
fact, particularly in the cultural context that is reshaping ideological and institutional
advancements.
1.5.2 Sociocultural Overview
It is also essential to see the sociocultural evolution of this language community hand in hand
with the statistical figures. As we have already established, Sinhalese as a race originated in and
5
around the 6th century BC, and the most significant socio-cultural shift in this race had happened
in the 3rd century with the establishment of Buddhist dispensation. Thus, it has become a Sinhala
Buddhist race and thrived up to the 16th century without facing any challenges apart from some
intermittent invasions from South India. It is believed that the Sinhala language also developed
hand in hand with this nation's development. All such invasions were able to be defeated as the
native rulers had the utmost support from the citizens of this country until the British people
captured the whole country in 1815 (Endagama, 2017: 12-13). Though there were intense
invasions such as Cholas, Kalinga-Magha, etc., this race was strong enough to defeat them as the
people were socioculturally abode to each other, which was led by a feeling of patriotism. The
Sinhalese language was one of the main underlying characters in this obligation. The sociocultural
overview shows that this unique race became a mixed population by inter-connections with other
ethnic groups who belonged to immigrations and invasions.
While South Indians were frequently arriving in this country for both trade and invasion purposes,
some other foreigners, such as Greeks, Romans, Arabs, and Persians, have had made intermittent
visits for trade purposes starting from the Anuradhapura period (from around 5th century AD). As
it has been recorded, with the spread of Islam, Muslims have also arrived around the 7th century
for trade works, and some of them have settled down in the country marrying Sinhalese women.
Since the 16th century, European invasions started from Portuguese, and, respectively, Dutch and
British had made a considerable change in the ethnic composition and linguistic ecology in this
country. As a result of mixing Europeans and Sinhalese, a new community called Burghers
emerged in the country. There were other ways and means as well that the composition of the
ethnic mixture in the country underwent changes; people were brought into the country as slaves,
hired labourers, and plantation workers by the European masters from time to time. Malays,
Kaffirs, and Tamils from South India are those new communities. All these newly established
communities have created a new ethnic fabric and a multilingual reality that later has created some
kind of a hostile environment with the majority Sinhalese in this country. Though there are no
statistical data to understand the evolution of the Sinhala community from its inception to the
British governance, this sociocultural evolution helps us to understand the required overview by
comprehending the gradual development of this unique and isolated language on the island.
6
1.6 The Evolution of Tamil Language Community from the British Colonial
Period
Even though we have already acquired some basic knowledge about the evolution of the
Tamil-speaking community in the country under the previous topic, the statistical data makes it
rather clear for the current purpose. The Tamil language community has evolved from 1881 to the
present day as follows;
Table 2: Evolution of Sri Lankan Tamil population in Sri Lanka
Year Percentage of the Population

1881 24.90%
1891 24.07%
1901 26.69%
1911 12.86%
1921 11.50%
1931 11.29%
1946 11.02%
1953 10.93%
1963 11.01%
1971 11.22%
1981 12.71%
2001 11.9%1
2012 11.15%
In comparing the statistics of the Sinhala language population with the pattern of evolution
of the Tamil community, it is clear that the two moves almost in the opposite direction. From 1881
to 1953, for 72 years, there is a severe decline in the language population that comes to about 14%
(13.97%). This was the period of British governance where the vernacular languages were demoted
or suppressed. In independent Sri Lanka, the population growth of Sri Lankan Tamils does not
1
This figure may not be exactly correct as the census of this year was not conducted island wide including all
Tamil speaking areas.
7
show such a decline, and it is almost stable, and also there is a small growth as well. These statistics
help us to come to an interim guess that the LP adoptions of British governing authority have
negatively affected the minority Tamils in the country, but this temporal conclusion must further
be scrutinized in a separate study by comparing with other parameters which are much influential.
Our focus is not on the ethnic community, but the language community. In that sense, the number
of Tamil speakers may vary in these statistics as there are other ethnic groups as well in the country
who speak Tamil as their primary language. It is also said that in the early days of British
occupation in Sri Lanka, the Tamils were about one-third of the entire population, and the decline
of this population has become gradual and continuous (Pathmanathan, 2017: 76). But, this has not
been evidenced with statistics in any written document.
The sociocultural evolution of the Tamil community in the country is also important. The
community itself believes that their historical origin in the country is far back from the written
history in chronicles. Some academics have given reference to the origin of this community with
one of the ancient tribes in the country called Naga (Pathmanathan, 2017: 57-58). We do not move
into this academic inquiry as it takes away the focus of current research, and also it is out of the
scope.
1.7 The Evolution of Other Minor Language Communities
Apart from the main two language communities that evolved almost over the whole period,
there are several other small language communities. Sri Lanka, as a nation, comprises a smaller
number of Malays, Persians, Chinese, and Arabs as well living in harmony (Mallawa Arachchi,
2013). We pay our attention only to the communities available at this very movement in the
country with the particular focus only on the language, but not as ethnic communities with their
other factors of identity. In addition to the major two languages, there are several small minority
languages and dialects in the country, perhaps treated as endangered languages. Among them,
Veddas creole, Portuguese creole, Sri Lankan Malay, Rodi, Telugu, and religious and classical
languages are important (Coperahewa, 2011: 80-83) for the present work. Out of these, the
language of Veddas is one of the oldest languages in the country. This small community is
considered as the descendants of the aboriginal tribe of this country who have been living from
prior to the arrival of Aryans. Though there are similarities between Sinhala and Veddas’ language,
it is kind of a distinct language that now gradually assimilating into the Sinhala language (in Tamil
8
speaking areas such as Vakarai, this is assimilated into Tamil). There are some critical debates on
this language with reference to its originality and survival in the country. But, the country has no
plans to sustain this language and to protect language diversity, particularly in the current global
context where the languages are being treated as resources. The below statistics show very clearly
how these language speakers are becoming extinct as a community.
Table 3: Evolution of Veddas Population in Sri Lanka
Year Population2
1881 2200
1891 1200
1901 4000
1911 5300
1921 4500
1931 5200
1946 2400
1953 800
1963 400
There are no separate records in the census reports for them from 1963, but generally treated
as they are assimilating into the majority, and the language that they speak is also disappearing
with this assimilation. The Veddas’ language is considered as a creole rather than a distinct
language in accordance with linguistic categorization. Many scholars have concluded that the
Veddas’ language is a native language, and that is mixed with old Sinhala, modern Sinhala, Tamil,
and the language of the Giri tribe in South India. In that sense, it is an independent primary
language that lost its original characteristics, and it is in the list of languages anticipated to be
perished very soon in due course (Jayatilleke, 2017: 312-313).
The creole, which is spoken by the Rodi community or Gadi community, is another minority
language in Sri Lanka. It is not either Aryan or Dravidian language but connected to the Munda
language derived from primitive tribes in Orissa and Bihar in India. The words in this language
2
There are some differences of these statistics when comparing with the data collected in personal research works
by the researchers who studied about this community.
9
have no great relationship with the majority of languages in the country, and this is also one of the
disappearing languages in the country. Separate demographic statistics are not available for this
small community as they come under the ‘other’ category in the statistics of national census
reports. However, this group of people has a long history in the country that can be traced back to
King Parakramabahu’s period, but their language has almost disappeared from the society by
leaving only some words for the present discussion. In other words, with the modernization of Sri
Lankan society, this segregated community has wholly integrated into the mass society of Sri
Lanka (Amaratunga, 2015: 650). With this sinking, their language has also almost disappeared.
Telugu is another such minority language spoken by a small group of people who are living
as gypsies in the country, and this is one of the major Dravidian languages spoken in Andra Pradesh
India. Sri Lankan gypsies who migrated to this country via India may have been influenced by the
South Indian language culture of the ‘Kuravar’ tribe and developed the slang from Telugu actually
called ‘Tulu’ as their language (Dissanayaka, 2017: 339). This language community is not that
significant in the country as they could speak probably both Sinhala and Tamil as well in addition
to their own language. No separate records are available even for this language to understand their
population growth or fall, but what is clear is that they are also gradually assimilating into two
major language communities in the country.
Sri Lankan Malay is another such small language that is spoken by a tiny population of 0.3%,
and they are scattered in two areas of the country, including the capital city. Those people who
speak this language have arrived in the country during Dutch rule. Almost all the Malay people
could speak the majority of languages by now, and their origin is Java. This minority also has a
tremendous lexical influence from the Tamil language. As this community has been included in
the national census reports, we can see how they have evolved over time. Sri Lankan Malay is not
the exact language used by other Malay speakers in other countries. This is a creolized language
from the Indonesian archipelago with local languages, in particular, Lankan Tamil, especially the
variety spoken by Muslim moors (Hussainmiya, 2017: 158-159). As it is depicted in the below
statistics, it is not an extinct language community in the country.
Table 4: Evolution of Sri Lankan Malay Population in Sri Lanka
Year Population
1881 8900
10
1891 10100
1901 11900
1911 13000
1921 13400
1931 16000
1946 22500
1953 25400
1963 33400
1971 43500
1981 47000
2001 54800
2012 40189
In contrast to other small language communities, no gradual decline of this language

community could be seen except in the latest census data in 2012. There is a gradual and
considerable growth of this population, but the language of Malay may not have been improving
parallel to the incremental growth due to the assimilation into the main languages in the country.
This should indeed separately be studied to understand the exact picture of their language profile,
but the general parameter is that the community must exist for the survival of the particular
language, and that is there in this language.
Portuguese creole is another lesser-known language in the country that started to be
established with the arrival of Portuguese invaders in 1505. The origin of this creole took place
due to the contact with the local majority languages and Portuguese. The influence of Portuguese
can still be observed in Sinhala and Tamil languages, as there are many lexical items in use. But,
this Portuguese creole has become an extinct language by now limited to some Eastern towns and
North-Western provinces in the country. As this is being a small creole community, no separate
records are available in terms of their population in the census reports. However, in Batticaloa,
Trincomalee, and 80 Kaffir families in Puttalam are still speaking this Portuguese creole
(Barthelot, 2017: 204). Apart from these small minority languages, there are some dialects of the
11
major two languages as well, but they do not avoid mutual understanding among the speakers.
Thus, they are not such significant as distinct varieties.
Another significant minority language category is classical or religious languages that are
limited to some selected or unique functions. Indeed, these cannot be designated as minority
languages in the real sense. They cannot also be genuinely considered as living languages as a
separate language community is not available to use for the primary day-to-day functions. These
classical languages in the country are related to different religious functions. In that sense, they
have become religious languages. Pali is the prominent language out of these four, as it is the
language of the religious functions of Buddhism. Buddhism being the majority’s religion in the
country, the use of Pali is frequent though a specific community does not use it for the primary
functions. It is sturdy and, no way to find the number of speakers who can communicate in this
language, and Pali also does not have its own script. Therefore, it is written in Sinhala script, and
in other countries where Buddhism is a religion, they have used their own scripts. However, Sri
Lanka is famous for this distinct Buddhist language due to several reasons. Though the state-level
national policies have not been enacted in the country, there are micro-level efforts to cultivate
and protect this language. Pali is taught in almost all the traditional temple-based education
institutions (Pirivenas), and also in the higher education sector.
There is a unique university that is designated as The Buddhist and Pali University to promote
Pali studies, and this may be the only university in the world that is dedicated to Pali studies. Pali
is a subject in other universities where there are departments for Buddhist studies or classical
language studies. Besides, Pali is taught in all Sunday Dhamma schools as a subject. In terms of
language functions, almost all Buddhist religious activities like reciting stanzas are done in Pali.
The Buddhist general public also uses Pali when reciting stanzas though they may not be
conversant fully in this language. There are Buddhist monks and some lay academics in the country
who can communicate in this classic religious language. The great Buddhist Canon (Tripitakaya)
is also written in this language, and recently the government of Sri Lanka has named this as a
national heritage while proposing the need to make it a world heritage. These protective actions
have created a safe and secure environment for this language both at the micro and macro levels.
But, we cannot exactly come to a conclusion about this language, particularly regarding LP
influences and the status of the language in the country as there are no proper records of the
speakers or the users of this language.
12
Out of four classical languages, Sanskrit is the classical language directly related to Hinduism,
and also in some ways to Buddhism. This language uses one of the oldest forms of language scripts,
Devanagari, as its own script. Sanskrit has become a source language for both main languages in
the country, and the influence of this language can still be seen in major languages. This influence
has a long history that traces back to the 5th century, and the Sinhala alphabet also reflects this
influence even by today. It is taught from the university level to Pirivena (temple-based education
in Sri Lanka), knowing that this language is still considered a privilege to study the historical
evolution of Sinhalese grammar. Though this language does not have special functions, some
Sanskrit statements and words are used as mottos and for such other unique purposes. For this
language also, no macro-level policy adoptions have been taken to cultivate or protect it. Also,
there are no proper records about the number of speakers and their evolution in the country.
The other two classical languages are Arabic and Latin. Arabic, being the classical language
of Islam, is used for religious recitations in the mosque. The Muslims who believe in the Islam
religion in Sri Lanka use Tamil as their primary language due to some historical reasons.
Therefore, the conversation ability of them in this language is not significant. But, Arabic is taught
as a subject in Muslim schools in Sri Lanka. They also use a good number of Arabic words in their
day-to-day conduct, while most of them are using Arabic origins for their names. The sacred
classical text; Koran is also written in Arabic so that there is a reason for them to study and
propagate this language. The statistics of the evolution of the number of Arabic speakers are also
not available to understand their growth or fall as a language community. The last one is Latin,
which is the classical language of the Christian church. However, this is not used frequently for
religious activities in the churches in Sri Lanka now due to the fact that it has almost been replaced
by the majority of languages. But, some Latin statements are used in the churches, and, in some
schools as motto statements (Coperahewa, 2011: 83). Simply, the use of this language has almost
disappeared by now, and those who could speak Latin are also hard to find in the country.
1.8 Current Possible Threats for the Language Communities
In common, threats for minority languages have become a universal factor by now due to
several reasons. But, the advancements of the LP studies have created a protective environment
since the languages are currently being treated as resources, particularly as non-renewable
resources. “Apart from natural disasters resulting in the death of a speech community, many
13
human-made factors can cause such disasters. One of these human-made factors that can cause
language shift and death is language policies” (as quoted in Zaidi, 2013: 12). We have many such
examples in the countries where they have adopted language policies with dominant languages at
the cost of minority languages comparatively representing a small number of speakers. The policy
adopted in Kenya by Jomo Kenyatta is one such example. He promoted Swahili at the cost of his
own Kikuyu and many other languages. By now, all these other languages are gradually becoming
extinct (Zaidi, 2013: 16). This is one example from the African region, and we can find many more
from the same continent as it was highly diverse as a language site.
The global macro-level picture of world language statistics alarms the threat that is upcoming
for the languages that are spoken by small communities like languages in Sri Lanka.
Approximately 6000 languages are spoken by more than six billion people in the world today. But
the issue is these languages are not evenly divided among the world population. Over 90% of the
people globally speak only about 300 majority languages, while the remaining 5700 languages are
being termed as minority languages (Dekker & Young, 2007: 236). In this context, the Sri Lankan
language caboodle must be observed based on its LP practices separately by paying individual
attention to each language, particularly the population of those language communities. However,
it is fair to conclude that the language profile in Sri Lanka cannot wholly be included in the
category of threatened; threatened species have three sub-categories, namely, critically endangered
(CR), endangered (EN), and vulnerable (VU). If the language is not transmitted successfully from
one generation to the other, it is considered as endangered (Loh & Harmon, 2014: 31). A very few
languages have been victimized into this status in Sri Lanka by now, but there are some alarming
indicators for other languages. As we know, most of the languages or such groups whose languages
are threatened and engaged in struggles, perhaps for self-determination as it happened in the LTTE
regime in Sri Lanka, are more vulnerable. Out of these struggles, a few have succeeded as they are
large enough to gain such autonomy and sustain it (wright, 2004: 235), but most of them have
failed. Communities move into such movements due to several reasons, and language is one out
of them.
1.8.1 Sinhala
‘Sinhala’ being the majority’s language in this country, the researchers have not paid much
attention to focus on the threats to this language. However, this language cannot be considered as
a majority’s language in the global picture of language identities as this is spoken only in this
14
country merely by around 15 million people, and no other communities in any other country use
this language. In this sense, Sinhala is an isolated language on an island, and there is an obvious
threat to it from this perspective. The statistics do not showcase a severe decline or threat to this
language community at the moment. However, it is evident that the colonial language policy has
affected some way or the other to this language community, and we also can come to an interim
conclusion that the monolingual policy and linguistic nationalism also have some positive relations
to sustain in good numbers of the Sinhala language speakers.
The severe drop in the population between the last two censuses (2001-2012) is a remarkable
fact that needs to be scrutinized. The decline in the Sinhala language population for a decade is
higher than the growth for 100 years (1881-1981) from British rule. This is the only crucial
alarming figure that can be identified as a threat to this language with reference to its population.
As we have already argued, the decline of the language community is an alarming indicator of
language loss. In other words, “language can cease to be spoken for two reasons: the group that
speaks the language ceases to exist or the group that speaks the language shifts to another
language” (Wright, 2004: 230). The first concern of this quotation is relevant to the present
situation. The census in 2001 was not an island-wide execution so that the figures can produce
some misleading statistics. Almost all the figures in this census have this kind of vast fluctuations
in comparison with other censuses in the country. Therefore, the upcoming census (in 2021) will
be a vital parameter to verify this matter further.
1.8.2 Tamil
As we have already come to an interim conclusion, there had been a threat to the Tamil
language during British rule. The statistics show this threat very clearly during the period where
English was the official language in the country, and this threat is not apparent after receiving
independence. Even this threat is not depicted in the figures during the period of Sinhala
monolingualism, which had the hegemonic status. Indeed, to see the results of such LPs, we need
to observe the subsequent years taking a long period into account. The figures of the Tamil
language community do not show such a decline even in the following years in the country.
However, Tamil is not an isolated language on an island, and it has a vast global reach.
15
1.8.3 Other Languages
Possible threats for other small minority languages are apparent, and not having produced
statics for these communities itself is a threat to them and their languages. Out of all the small
minority languages, Veddas’ language is the only language that is truly indigenous, and almost all
other languages are foreign languages grown in the country from time to time due to several
reasons, or at least they have living language communities elsewhere. As it is already depicted in
data, there is a severe decline of the speakers of Veddas’ language. Having not included this
minority as a separate category in the national census from 1963, the threat has purposely been
hidden. The economic and political advancements of the country and the living status of the other
citizens have affected them to assimilate their language identity into major languages, including
their other cultural identities. Rodi and Telugu languages have also faced the same threat of
disappearing. As the data speak, Sri Lankan Malay is not a threat from the perspective of the
language community, but Portuguese creole speakers also have the same threat of assimilation and
disappearing their language identity. We cannot conclude that the other classical languages are in
a threat because the limited number of religious functions of those languages are happening yet
apart from Latin in the church.
Understanding possible threats to languages are essential in several aspects. Diversity in all
perspectives is required for humankind as we protect biodiversity. Language maintenance permits
the speakers of that community to be in touch with their own history and cultural heritage. Also,
language is one of the fundamental elements of identity, and finally, languages constitute an
irreplaceable resource for humanity (Wright, 2004: 219). Also, “preserving language is so that the
past remains contactable; with the language loss, the link with the recorded and transmitted cultural
legacy is broken” (as quoted in Wright, 2004: 223). Therefore, LP can do a lot to the diversity of
languages through protective and preventive actions. Simply, LP practices in a country can kill or
sustain languages in the long run. It is worthwhile to cite the definitions of threatened languages
from the Red-list to see the exact status of the profile of the languages in Sri Lanka. A language to
be critically endangered must be;
either the number of speakers is observed or projected to decline by 80% or more in three
generations (75 years); or speakers number less than 250 and declining by 25% or more in
one generation (25 years); or speakers number less than 50 (Loh & Harmon, 2014: 32).
16
And the endangered languages are those whose speakers,
observed or projected to decline by 50% or more in three generations (75 years); which
have speakers less than 2500 and declining by 20% or more in two generations (50 years);
or the number of speakers less than 250 (Loh & Harmon, 2014: 32).
Vulnerable languages are those whose speakers,
observed or projected to decline by 30% or more in three generations (75 years); or

speakers number less than 10000 and falling by 10% or more in three generations (75
years); or speakers number less than 1000 (Loh & Harmon, 2014: 32).
As we have no statistics for the other indigenous languages, only Veddas’ language falls into
the threatened category, but not the major languages, according to the Red-list definition. But,
UNESCO and other definitions remain a bit closer to the situation faced by most of the minority
languages in the country. Also, the languages such as Rodiya’s language obviously can be included
in the critically endangered category though we do not have figures. The LP strategies in the
country for the last two centuries have hardly paid any attention to these critical characteristic
features of the overall language ecology in the country in the current world context where the
“languages are increasingly viewed as scarce national resources, not unlike flora and fauna,
agricultural or environmental resources, and all other such improvable or alterable resources whose
quality can be influenced by planned human intervention” (Fishman, 2006: ix).
1.9 Current Opportunities for Language Communities
In the Sri Lankan language ecology, both opportunities and threats are available for all major
and minor language communities. The current context of language use in Sri Lanka has developed
a tolerance environment that is useful for all languages, and specifically for minority languages.
We found one such indicator from a policy proposal document that has recently been produced
with the support of state funds. According to this finding, the researcher’s new policy proposal has
been given credence through the overwhelming desire among all respondents from different
linguistic groups to become multilingual in the country (Fernando, 2011: 34). This is a positive
indicator in terms of tolerance in a multilingual society. One of the common experiences regarding
language identities all over the world is that the dominant language communities capitalize on the
17
available opportunities. In contrast, the less dominant language communities could not go for such
attempts though there are opportunities. Under this sub-topic, we will succinctly explore the
opportunities available at the moment for both majority and minority languages in the local context
and global context.
1.9.1 Sinhala
Sinhala is the highest majority in the country, and this fact itself is an opportunity for the
people who speak this language. As was mentioned elsewhere, Sinhala is a language that is isolated
on an island. As it seems, isolation is a threat to a language, but actually, it is not. As Wright (2004)
has argued, “many small languages have survived because of the isolation of their speakers (p.
235). Once a language is isolated on an island, there is a great chance to avoid the contact
phenomenon of other languages from borderlands. It does not implicate that the invasions or
immigration are impossible, but it always faces the contact distance as a barrier. As there is no
critical decline in the growth of the speech community, the opportunity for the Sinhala language
to grow further is still positive, but the issue for this language is that no other land in the world
other than Sri Lanka exists for this community. Hence, protective actions based on LP for this
language are required.
1.9.2 Tamil
The opportunities for this language from the minority point of view are minimal in the
country. The LP practices also have made barriers over the years, including the severe decline of
their population during the colonial period. However, as a speech community, there are many
positives for them as this language is spoken by other ethnic groups too. In Sri Lanka, the primary
language of the Muslim community is Tamil. They have shown almost up to a 10% growth of the
total population by the 2012 census. This is an opportunity for the Tamil language community as
the growth of the speech community helps to survive the language. Ethnic identity cannot be
assimilated or confined to language identity. The important fact for the survival of a language is
the language community (or, in other words, the speech community). “The language community
is a group of people who regard themselves as using the same language” (Halliday, 2007: 6). In
this sense, the Tamil language community is vast and well spread across the world. Almost 6% of
the total population in India is Tamil speakers. In Malaysia, it is over 6%, and the other significant
number of Tamil speakers are reported from Singapore, Mauritius, Myanmar, the United States,
18
and Canada. Besides, Tamil speakers are spread in almost all European countries and, in other
regions such as Africa, East Asia, and South Asia. Tamil has also secured the 17th position based
on the
number of speakers in the world, and the total population who speak Tamil as their first or secon
d language is approximately 77 million. Around 77, 68 million people use Tamil as their native l
anguage (https://www.vistawide.com). Looking at these figures, the opportunities for the Tamil
language in the global context are vast; nevertheless, this language does not have a unique land
that holds the power of the majority apart from South India.
1.9.3 Other Languages
The opportunities for the other small minority languages are very limited in general. But,
some languages that are grown in the country through different kinds of immigration have their
original lands and communities in those countries. Therefore, the threat that has been faced as
small minorities in Sri Lanka may not be experienced in those places. For instance, the Telugu
language might disappear from the Sri Lankan language ecology, but it is a big native language
community in India. There are over 70 million Telugu speakers in Andra Pradesh, which is
exceeding the Tamil native population in the world. The Malay language also has such global level
opportunities as it is spoken by a considerable number of people, mainly in countries like Brunei,
Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore. No opportunities are found to survive the minority Portuguese
creole in the local context, but the original language has its own land, and this also will not be
extinct from the list of living languages in the world.
Classical religious languages in the country also have opportunities both in the local and
global context. They all being relevant to some major religions in the world; religious survival
itself is an opportunity for these languages. The Buddhist classical language; Pali is used in
different scripts, mainly in Theravada Buddhist countries such as Thailand and Myanmar, in
addition to Sri Lanka. Also, the Pali Text Society plays a vital role in promoting and protecting
this language in the global context. The opportunities for the Arabic language are truly vast as it
is the 5th largest language community in the world and spoken by over 200 million people, mainly
in the middle east region. Latin, being the language of Christianity, has well established its position
in the European continent for years, and the religious and historical value of this language is still
imprinted in that religion. Sanskrit is the other small minority language in Sri Lanka, and the
current opportunities available for this language are limited, but there are some first language
19
speakers in India and Nepal. However, in the list of languages in India, Sanskrit has gone to the
edge based on its usage by now. The Devanagari script of Sanskrit, being the script of Hindi and
in a few other languages in India, is a positive feature for the existence of Sanskrit. This is a great
opportunity for this language as the Hindi language is the second largest native population in the
world that represents over 370 million native speakers. Also, Sanskrit has been given the official
status in some states of India.
1.10 Language Policy Adoptions and the Evolution of Language

Communities
In order to understand this relationship, first Romaine Suzanne’s (2002) categorization is

worth quoting. He has come up with several key reasons to rationalize why many languages are
endangered. According to him, fewer than 4% of the world languages enjoy official status in the
countries where they are spoken. Most of the languages are not officially recognized, and also they
are unwritten. Sometimes, they are officially restricted to the local community and home functions,
where they are spoken by a minimal number of people (p. 194). Through this categorization, he
has tried to showcase the relationship between LP practices and language extinction. LP may be
one reason for extinction out of many that come to reality after years of policy implementation.
Language as a component of identity, the disappearance of a language has many repercussions.
“Language is a robust marker of group membership and one that is not easily changed” (Wright,
2004: 225). These ideas have much been proved by the hypothesis introduced by three American
linguists; Franz Boas, Edward Sapir, and Benjamin Whorf. A good definition is required for the
language community to compare these two variables. According to Kennedy (1982), a language
community is all those who speak a specific variety of languages, and we should not take this in a
narrow sense as a variety in a language itself such as dialects (p. 265).
As the data speak, there is a kind of positive correlation between LPs and the evolution of
language communities. The severe decline of the Tamil language community during the colonial
period where they demoted vernaculars including Tamil, and the minimal growth of the Sinhala
language community during the period that English was the official language, and the fast growth
of Sinhala from monolingual prioritization to the independent period have showcased this reality.
Also, the reduction of the growth rate of the majority’s language community in the context of
multilingual tolerance depicts this positive relationship between two variables. Some truly
20
indigenous small minority languages such as Veddas’ and Rodiyas’ languages are in the threatened
category following the definition of Red-list. As there are no protective actions based on the
national level LPs in the country, it can be concluded that they are neglected at the policy level.
For instance, when the small minority groups are put into other categories in the national census,
at least they cannot be recognized as a separate community. As some researchers have suggested,
“self-identification used by the respondents must be used as far as possible with an explanatory
note” in the census (Silva, n.d.: 9) to protect their overall identity, and that might help to find their
language identities as well.
The ultimate and the influential variable to transform a condition of language may not be the
policy, but it has a role to play. Even a “well-intentioned language policy cannot succeed if the
sociolinguistic situation in a speech community and other idiosyncrasies of the languages are
ignored” (Derhemi, 2002: 157). Therefore, the prime factor is the functional reality of the language
though there are intermittent relationships with the other variables. Functional vitality is rather
important than the other variables to decline or enhance the status of a language in society. While
there are many research findings of the negative relationship between LPs and the language
community in the global context, there are practical examples to prove the present argument too.
According to statistics between 1960 and 2000, in Singapore, the use of English as a speech
community has increased after the decision to adopt ‘first language English bilingualism’ in 1956
(Kaplan & Baldauf JR, 140). But, they had not been able to achieve the exact desired impact
through their bilingual policy. In Ireland, there have also been such decisions to sustain the
language community through LP efforts. Their goal was to maintain and revitalize the Irish
(Laoire, 2005: 201). The idea posed by Wright (2004); from a social perspective, “we could say
that communities exist because they have the linguistic means to do so” (p.02) is very relevant to
the Sri Lankan context. The same idea can have a reverse effect as the languages exist because
they have the community means to be so. However, it must be emphasized that other vital variables
can regulate the population apart from language policy decisions, and the most important fact may
be population management strategies in the country, such as family planning. As such strategies
were not in practice before independence in the country, the present argument is rather valid to
that period though it is quite challenging to come to a firm conclusion about the period after
independence.
21
1.11 Conclusion
This research work allowed us to establish one potential parameter of language extinction. It is the
relationship between LPs and the language community that further needs to be established with
cross-reference data. As the study has merely focused on the census statics and previous research
data, this cannot be considered as a fundamental fact which is stronger than the sociolinguistic
situation in the country that affects the language community. However, it is visible that at least
there is some kind of an inspiration to promote or demote a language through LPs with the Sri
Lankan example. In order to understand this fact, this work has made efforts in several ways to
work with data. First, the broad level socio-political context, including the cultural context and
situational context, was investigated. And then, the evolution of language communities during the
period was tried to be explored in two ways; statistical and sociocultural. Also, this work has
illustrated the possible threats and available opportunities for all Sri Lankan Language
communities in the local and global context. The figurative illustrations of the growth and fall of
language communities established in this research invite the authorities to take necessary decisions
for protective and preventive actions. In the current context where the languages are considered as
resources, protecting pluralistic language ecology in the country is truly required.
References
Amaratunga, G. (2015). An Anthropological Assessment of the Changes within the Rodi

Community against a Backdrop of Sri Lankan Society. Proceedings of the Australasian
Conference on Business and Social Sciences (pp. 642-651). Sydney: The Journal of Developing
Areas.
Barthelot, E. (2017). The Portuguese Burghers of Sri Lanka. In S. Pathmanathan, M. Endagama,
B. Hussainmiya, K. T. Silva, & V. Narampanawa, The People of Sri Lanka (pp. 197-212).
Colombo: The Ministry of National Coexistence, Dialogue and Official Languages.
Coperehewa, S. (2011). Colonialism and Problems of Language Policy: Formulations of a
Colonial Language Policy in Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan Journal of Advanced Social Studies, 27-52.
Coperehewa, S. (2011). The Language Planning Situation in Sri Lanka. In R. B. Kaplan, & R. B.
Baldauf JR, Language Planning in the Asia Pacific: Hong Kong, Timor-Leste and Sri Lanka
(Vol. 10, pp. 69-150). London & New York: Routledge.
Dekker, D., & Young, C. (2007). Bridging the Gap: The Development of Appropriate
Educational Strategies for Minority Language Communities in Philippines. In A. J. Liddicoat,
22
Language Planning and Policy: Issues in Language Planning and Literacy (pp. 236-254).
Clevedon/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Derhemi, E. (2002). Thematic Introduction: Protecting Endangered Minority Languages:
Sociolinguistic Perspectives. International Journal of Multicultural Societies, 150-162.
Dissanayaka, G. R. (2017). Sri Lankan Gypsy Community. In S. Pathmanathan, M. Endagama,
T. K. Silva, B. Hussainmiya, & V. Narampanawa, The People of Sri Lanka (pp. 331-355).
Colombo: The Ministry of National Coexistence, Dialogue, and Official Languages.
DOCSS, D.-S. (2019, September 26). Population and Housing. Retrieved from
www.statistics.gov.lk:
http://www.statistics.gov.lk/page.asp?page=Population%20and%20Housing
Endagama, M. (2017). The Sinhala Community. In S. Pathmanathan, M. Endagama, K. T. Silva,
B. Hissainmiya, & V. Narampanawa, People of Sri Lanka (pp. 11-54). Colombo: The Ministry of
National Coexistence, Dialogue, and Official Languages.
Fernando, S. (2011). Ten Year National Plan for a Trilingual Sri Lanka (2012-2021). Colombo:
Presidential Initiative for a Trilingual Sri Lanka.
Fishman, J. A. (2006). Do Not Leave Your Language Alone: The Hidden Status Agendas Within
Corpus Planning in Language Policy. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Halliday, M. (2007). Language and Society. (J. J. Webster, Ed.) London & New York:
Continuum.
Halliday, M., & Hassan, R. (1985-1989). Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a
Social Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hussainmiya, B. (2017). The Malays of Sri Lanka. In S. Pathmanathan, M. Endagama, K. T.
Silva, B. Hussainmiya, & V. Narampanawa, People of Sri Lanka (pp. 155-172). Colombo: The
Ministry of Coexistence, Dialogue, and Official Languages.
Jayatilleke, Y. D. (2017). The Vedda Community of Sri Lanka. In S. Pathmanathan, M.
Endagama, K. T. Silva, B. Hussainmiya, & V. Narampanawa, The People of Sri Lanka (pp. 301-
323). Colombo: The Ministry of National Coexistence, Dialogue, and Official Languages.
Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf JR, R. B. (2003). Language and Language-in- Education Planning in
the Pacific Basin. London: Springer.
Kennedy, C. (1982). Language Planning. Language Teaching, 264-284.
Laoire, M. O. (2005). The Language Situation in Ireland. In R. B. Kaplan, & R. B. Baldauf JR,
Language Planning & Policy, Europe, VOL.3: The Baltic States, Ireland, and Italy (pp. 193-256).
Clevedon/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters Limited.
Loh, J., & Harmon, D. (2014). Bio-cultural Diversity: Threatened Species, Endangered
Languages. The Netherlands: WWF Netherlands.
23
Mallawa Arachchi, N. (2013). Sri Lankan Language Community and Social Effects of Sinhalese
Diglossia. Retrieved January 3, 2019, from University of Kelaniya Sri Lanka:
http://repository.kln.ac.lk/jspui/handle/123456789/3205
Pathmanathan, S. (2017). The Sri Lankan Tamil Community. In M. Endagama, & S.
Pathmanathan, People of Sri Lanka (pp. 55-81). Colombo: Ministry of National Coexistence,
Dialogue and Official Languages.
Romaine, S. (2002). The Impact of Language Policy on Endangered Languages. Protecting
Endangered Minority Languages: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, 4(2), pp. 194-213.
Saunders, B. M. (2007). (Post) Colonial Language: English, Sinhala, and Tamil in Sri Lanka.
Retrieved from http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca:
http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cpercy/courses/eng6365-saunders.htm
Silva, K. T. (n.d.). Politics of Ethnicity and Population Census in Sri Lanka. Retrieved October
11, 2019, from www.ciqss.umontreal.ca:
http://www.ciqss.umontreal.ca/Docs/SSDE/pdf/Silva.pdf
World Languages and Cultures. (2005). Retrieved October 3, 2019, from vistawide.com:
https://www.vistawide.com/languages/top_30_languages.htm
Wright, S. (2004). Language Policy and Language Planning; From Nationalism to Globalization.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Zaidi, A. (2013). Language Planning: An Overview. Journal of Pakistan Studies, 1-24.
24
View publication stats

Language Policyandthe Evolutionof Linguistic Communitiesin SL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language Policyandthe Evolutionof Linguistic Communitiesin SL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Socio-political Context & the Evolution of Linguistic Communities in Sri Lanka

Article · August 2021

A Case Study in Hambantota Sri Lanka View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Socio-political Context & the Evolution of Linguistic Communities

Upul Priyantha Gamage (BA, MA, PhD)

1.2 Research Questions

1.4 The Socio-political Context

1.5.1 Statistical Overview

Year Percentage of the Population

1.5.2 Sociocultural Overview

Year Percentage of the Population

1.7 The Evolution of Other Minor Language Communities

In contrast to other small language communities, no gradual decline of this language

1.8 Current Possible Threats for the Language Communities

1.8.3 Other Languages

And the endangered languages are those whose speakers,

Vulnerable languages are those whose speakers,

observed or projected to decline by 30% or more in three generations (75 years); or

1.9 Current Opportunities for Language Communities

1.9.3 Other Languages

1.10 Language Policy Adoptions and the Evolution of Language

In order to understand this relationship, first Romaine Suzanne’s (2002) categorization is

Amaratunga, G. (2015). An Anthropological Assessment of the Changes within the Rodi

View publication stats

You might also like