=:hapter 1 : goals, sociolinguistic variation and...
TRANSCRIPT
-
=:hapter 1 : Goals, Sociolinguistic Variation And Methodology
-
1.1 Goals of the study
This thesis attempts to investigate through a survey, carried out in Jharkhand
among the tribal communities such as Santhali, Mundari, Ho and Kurux language
speakers, the notion of tribal identity and acceptance of Hindi. It is a correlational study
of both apparent ac; well as real change in linguistic identity of the tribal communities. It
intends to reveal the inter-generational, as well as, intra-generational patterns of
acceptance of Hindi among the tribal communities of Jharkhand region.
The stimulus for this thesis was provided by an earlier study, viz. the ICSSR
( 1998-2000) Project on "Acceptance Level of Hindi as a Pan-Indian Language" which
reveals a high percentage of acceptances of Hindi language in various domains of use, as
well as, for in-group communication among tribai communitit!s of Jharkhand. In general
more than 80 per cent of the urban tribal population uses Hindi language in various
domains of use.
The questions that arise are: -
Why is there a high acceptance of Hindi in various domains of use among the
tribal communities of Jharkhand region?
Is it true that tribal communities view the learning/adopting of Hindi as a tool for
upward socio-economic mobility in the society?
Is the process of de-tribalization an on-going process or is it a kind of forced
assimilation or merely a kind of linguistic displacement?
Do people in Jharkhand treat their linguistic identity as a part of their cultural
identity and therefore, the loss of linguistic identity does not automatically entail
the loss of cultural identity?
Do the tribal communities show a uniform degree of acceptance of Hindi m
various domains of use?
This thesis is an attempt to find answers to these significant and relevant
questions.
The thesis also investigates whether there is inverted pride in "Exclusiveness" that
is, the tendency to assert one's own social identity as being distinct from others~ or is
-
there an anxiety to attain prestige by identifying oneself with a major language group and
not necessarily with one's native language ..
The significance of the study lies in the answe:rs to be found through empirical
research into the notion of tribal identity and its relations to acceptance of Hindi in
various domains of use. The study is first of its kind as it tries to look into;
(I) The exclusiveness of tribal community
(2) The continual process towards identifying with the Great tradition
The primary aim of this sociolinguistic study :is to seek accurate answers to the
following questions:
(I) What roles do the languages play in the construction of social! and ethnic identity?
(2) What are the linguistic repertoires of individual respondents belonging to the four
ethno-linguistic groups?
(3) What are the patterns of language use and what linguistic: and extra-linguistic
variables are important in influencing language choice among these tribal
communities?
( 4) What are their attitudes towards their mother tongue vis-a-vi1s Hindi language and
speakers of Hindi?
(5) What conclusions could be drawn about inter-·group relatioru: on the basis of the
answers to the above questions relating to diffet,.ent dimensions of
multilingualism?
1.2 Sociolinguistics- The Discipline
Sociolinguistics is the study of the social uses of language and the most
productive studies in the four decades of sociolinguistic research have emanated from
determining the social evaluation of linguistic variants. Studyit,lg language variation
proceeds mainly by observing language use in natural social settings and categorizing the
linguistic variants according to their social distribution.
Yariationist sociolinguistics had its effective beginning onlly in 1963, the year in
which William Labov presented the first sociolinguistic rese~arch on "The social
motivation of a sound change". The term sociolinguistics had been coined a decade
before Labov's publication in 1952 by one Haver C. Currie in a programmatic
2
-
commentary on the notion that "social functions and signification of speech factors offer
a prolific field for research". With baptismal zeal, Currie (quoted in Chambers et al.
2002) proclaimed, "This field is here designated "socio-linguistics".
1.2.1 Approaches in Sociolinguistics
In Sociolinguistics, variation in linguistic choices is either studied from speech
community perspective or from individual/person oriented perspective. In bilingual
interactions linguistic choices are either studied from the viewpoint of grammatical
analysis of code- switching or the socio-psychological analysis of linguistic choices.
Speech community approach to linguistic choices is articulated by Labov (1966)
and Fishman (1965). Such an approach locates the crucial impetus for linguistic choices
within the larger community. The implicit claim has been that if you have information
about speakers in relation to specified variables (aspects of their social identities and I or
the situation) from a sample of subjects across a community, you are essentially
explaining what drives their choices. That is, linguistic choices primarily reflect the
speaker's place in a social group defined by the variable (s) studied. This approach views
linguistic variation as the product of macro- elements in the social situation itself and the
speaker as a rather passivelparticipant. The strdng form of this paradigm states that for a
certain type of a speaker i11 any situation X in community Y, one can predict a linguistic
variant z to occur in that situation.
In contrast, the person oriented approaches such as In~eractional Sociolinguistics
(Gumperz 1982a), Markedness Model (Myers-Scotten 1993), Ethnomethodological
approach (Garfarnga, 2000) downplays the effects of societal norms in determining the
linguistic choices. They view linguistic choices made by speaker as a dynamic event.
Speakers are no longer seen as influenced by societal norms in making choices, rather
they also make the choices they do because of dynamic factors e.g. whether a long-term
or short-term relationship is involved or whether power or solidarity is salient. The
person oriented approach criticizes speech community approach for
(i) Its emphasis on consensus as the organizing principle of community, and
(ii) Its preference for studying central members of the community over those at the
margins. Even if in situation X, variety Z does appear, as much as 90% of the
3
-
time the speech cvmmunity approach dot:s not raise the issue of the alternate
usage in the remaining I 0%.
1.2.2 A Variationist Perspective
Sociolinguistics is a diverse field with one common goal: to study the interactions
of language and society. Within sociolinguistics, however, there are different approaches
to language and society and accordingly different methodologies. The methodology
which this work follows is that of Variation Analysis. Variation analysis uses 'hUantitative
and qualitative analysis to investigate the systematic variation of JinguistJic choices,
including independent linguistic variation and the co..:variation of linguistic and social
factors.
The most important construct of the variationist framework is the sodolinguistic
variable. There are two general types of variables: Internal and Extemal. Internal
variables are linguistic variables such as phonological, morphological, or language A or
language B. External variables are the sociological factors specific to a speech
community such as age, class, ethnicity, sex etc. The sociolinguistic variatule comprises
mutually exclusive realisation of the variables called variants. The proportion of one
variant versus another in a speech community can be correlat
-
,.
Variationist approach originated solely within linguistics with the pioneering
work done by Labov. Its basic assumption is that language is heterogeneous, both in its
structure and use. This variation is not generally random or free, but is patterned and
highly regular. There are both internal (linguistic) and external (social/extra-linguistic)
causes for variation. Variationists view linguistic processes as possibly violable and non
deterministic, happening a percentage oftimein the same environment. Variationists also
investigate how non-linguistic factors possibly affect linguistic variation in both speech
communities and individual speakers. Of course, speech communities are composed of
individual speakers, but the goal of Variationist studies has,been to describe and explain
the variation within the speech community as an entity ( i.e. the grammar of the speech
community), in their argument against the homogenous idiolect being the only theoretical
viable entity for linguistic study (Chomsky 1965). As Labov (1989:52, cited in Hudson
1996:30) writes" Individual behaviour can be understood only as a reflection of the
grammar of the speech community. Language is not property of the individual but ofthe
community." Such an approach locates the crucial impetus for linguistic choices within
the larger communities. Labov (1972:120-1) defines speech community as follows: "The
speech community is not defined by any marked agreement in the use of language
element, so much as by participation in a set, of shared norms. These norms may be
observed in overt types of evaluative behaviour and by the uniformity of abstract patterns
of variation which are invariant in respeci to particular levels of usage" His understanding
of the concept of speech community is a concept on macro level. He ~mploys social
groups, which are defined on the basis of class, sex, age etc.
For these two variationist approaches, that of the speech community and that of
the individual, the non-linguistic factors influencing language variation are cast in
different ways. Drawing from sociology, the speech community approach identifies
social factors that divide a speech community: age, gender, ethnicity and social class
have become the standard social factors correlated with dependent linguistic variables
(Ash 2002). By this model, a person is an intersection of social groups. In contrast, the
individual approach encapsulates non-linguistic factors in a person's identity.
Investigating identity allows inclusion of speakers' attitude and beliefs in exploration of
language variation (Mendoza:.Denton 2002).- The overarching identity of a speaker
usually comprises sub-identities of age, gender, ethnicity, social class etc.
5
-
Yariationist approach to the study of the relation between language and social
identity seeks to explain language variation based on invctriant social ca1egones such as
socio economic class, gender etc. With respect to gender, having discovered "women's
language" researchers sought to explain how deviant it was from men's or standard
language. Labov (1963) concluded that for the people of Martha's Vineyard, a speaker's
degree of orientation to the local community showed th€: strongest conelation with the
variants under study. The researches of Labov and his associates have stressed the
correlation of individual choices with factors that delineate social group membership and
or other features of th.! community based social context (Myers-Scotton and Bolonyai
200 I :2). These factors include socio-economic class in particular, as wdl as many other
ingredients that define speakers externally such as gender and ethni
-
Spanish and Guarani in Paraguay and Ervin-Tripp (1972: 219) on choices among
American form of address, together make up an "Allocation Paradigm."
The Allocation Paradigm approach in sociolinguistics was influenced by two
classics on language choice. Ferguson ( 1959) on diglossia, the strict allocation of the two
varieties to distinctly different functions for a limited set of communities and Brown and
Gilman's ( 1960) often -cited discussion of socially conditioned choices between second -
person pronouns in European languages as largely binary at any point in time.
The allocation paradigm views linguistic variation as the product of macro-
element in the social situation itself and the speaker as a rather passive participant. The
basic principle of this paradigm is that "habitual language choice in multilingual speech
communities or speech networks is far from being a random matter of momentary
inclination (Fishman 1972c: 437).
According to Fishman ( 1972c ), a domain is a cluster of social situations, which
are typically constrained by common set of behaviours rules, comprising the roles of
interlocutors within a particular situation and the topics they are most likely to discuss.
The domain therefore takes social organization as its conceptual basis: when speakers use
two languages; they will obviously not use both in all circumstances; in certain situations
they will usc the one, in others, the other. He writes:
"Proper usage dictates that only one of the theoretically co-available languages or varieties will be chosen by particular class of interlocutors or particular kind of occasions to discuss particular kinds of topics. (Fishman 1972 c: 15)"
On the basis of their research in the Puerto Rican community in New York City;
Fishman, Cooper and Ma ( 1971) arrived at a list of five -domains in which either Spanish
or English was used consistently. These were established on the basis of observation and
interviews and comprised the domains of family, friendship, religion, employment and
education. In each domain, there may be pressures of various kinds e-g. economic,
administrative, cultural, political and religions, which influence the language choice and
language use of individual. Often, knowledge and use of one language is a function of
economic and political factors. Such is the case for many speakers of South Asian
Languages in Britain. In Ireland, the knowledge of Irish is mandatory for any civil
servant. Due to a number of competing pressures operating in a particular setting, it is not
7
-
possibl~ to predict which language an individual wm use in a particular domain. As pointed out earlier, the selection of a particular language in the speech event depends to a
large extant or socio- situational variable. We need to identify and analyze these factors
which serve to define certain types of situations in which particular choice are normally
considered acceptable, appropriate and likely.
Pandit (1977: 172-3) has given an example of how a multilingual speaker might
use the different codes in his repertoire. He describes an Indian Businessman living in a
suburb of Bombay. His mother tongue and home langu;a~~e is a dialect of Gujarati, in the
market he uses a familiar variety of Marathi, the state language; at the railway station he
speaks the Pan-Indian lingua .franca Hindustani; the language ofwork i.s Kachhi, the code
of the spice trade; in the evening he will watch a film in Hindi or in English and listen to
a cricket- match commentary or the radio :in English. One can ask: what roles does each
of these different languages and vanities perform in the community and the individuaL
Greenfield (1972) utilized domain analysis for tiht~ study of language choice of
Pureto- Rican bilingualism and at least three congruent iOOmponents: person, places and
topics. His findings confirmed the five major domains viz. O)home (2) beach (3) Church
( 4) school ( 5) workplace. Paras her ( t 980) identified se\ven important domain~ for his
study of two Indian cities: i) family, ii) friendship, iii) neighbourhood, iv) transactions. v)
education, vi) government and vii) employment.
i) Binary choice model~ Rubin (I %8b: 526) uses a decision tree in her analysis of
language choice in Paraguay. Rubin found that P.iaraguayen's decision to speak
Span ish or. Guarani was based on an ordered series li>f situation considerations.
0 u
-
Location
Rural I~
Non rural
Formtity- in formality
I~
Guarani
Formal Spanish Non-formal
I Intimate
I~ Non-intimate intimate
Spanish
.s· · • fd" l 7
~S 0 ISOOr
Non-senous Serious
Guarani First language learned
Fig 1: Decision tree for language choice between Spanish and Guarani in Paraguagy
(Rubin 1968b:526)
The allocation paradigm approach in sociolinguistics is deterministic in nature; it
leads to the logical conclusion that speaker make the choices they do becau~e they are
constrained to do so by a societal system. Even if a statistically significant number of
members of a group make the same choice in a given context, no studies show that aU
members do this. Although we agree that aspects of the larger societal background
certainly affect choices, but the variation in such factors does not directly determine the
actual choices.
9
-
ii) Diglossia:-In Greek diglossia simply means bilingualism, but the use of the word has
been extended to deatote prir.cipally the social aspects of bilingualism. Diglossia is
primarily concerned with the macro social aspect of language, as this is more concerned
with the social structure and processes related to language maintenance and language use.
Both Jardel ( t 982, cited in Landry ,R and R, Allard t 994: 16) have attributed the
distraction between diglossia and Bilingualism to the French specialist in the Greek
language, Psichari, (cited in Landry and Allard 1994:16) who in 1880's used the term to
denote the utilization of two varieties of contemporary Greek; demotiki " or the langm:.ge
of people, and "Katharvousa", the classical language or the language used for official
functions and writing. It is with Ferguson ( t 959), however, that the concept of diglossia
is most often associated. Ferguson used the term to denote situations where two dialects
of the same language are used for different social functions. One variety has a. higher
social status but the two varieties are used in complementary domains and functio:ns.
The High (H) variety is utilized in formal and public dometins (e.g. goVfi!mment,
religion, literature) and the low (L) variety is used in more informal and private domains
e g. family, friends, and unofficial functions. Fishman (1965, 1967, and 1980) extended
the uses of the term diglossia to district languages as well as to complex ca;res where
more than two dialects and /or languages may be involved. Fishman (1980:5) has argued
that diglossia or stable bilingualism is based upon social compartmentalizatipn .. i.e. on
the maintenance of strict boundaries between societal functions associated wi:th H and L
respectively". It has also been stated by Fishman (1972b) that: di.glossia is a necessary
condition for language maintenance by minority linguistic communities. The clear
functional separation of the languages and the institutionali:t:.ation of these functional
differences contribute to stable social compartmentalization, which in tum guarantees a
stable type of societal bilingualism. Fishman ( 1980) has also pointed out, however, that
more and more factors in modem life militate against social. compartmentalization, the
increase in open networks, in fluid role relationships, in superficial 'pubdic familiarity'
between strangers and semi strangers, in nonstatus- stressing interactioHs, even where
status difference remain and, above all, in the rationalization of the work sphere" ( 1980:
5), as well as other sociological factors such as urbanization, and mobility. According to
Fishman, when the stability of social compartmentalization. diminishes there is a gradual
10
-
change towards language shift, the minority group gradually adopts the language of the
dominant group.
This has led Fishman to conclude that "Both diglossia and bilingualism are
continuous variables, matters of degree rather than all or none phenomena, even when
compartmentalization obtains ( 1980:6)".
Landry and Allard (1994: 17) have identified four criteria in their analysis of
various definition of diglossia. These are the linguistic, sociological, functional and ·
stability criteria.
a. The linguistic criterion :- The linguistic criterion refers to whether diglossia applies to
genetically related varieties of a language or whether the term also applies to distinct and
unrelated languages. Although earlier uses of the term restricted it to designations of
genetically related dialects, modern usage of the term extends to the designation of two or
more distinct language or dialects (Fishman 1980).
b. The sociological criteria :- Although diglossia describes a social situation where there
are languages of different status in contact, scholars differ as to the extent to which the
situation is depicted as contlictua1 or non- conflictual, Fishman and Hamars and Blanc
( 1989) seem to define diglossia as non- contlictual ,the situation of non-conflict or the
perceived legitimacy of the situation being in fact the basis on which the stability of the
phenomenon depends. Jardel ( 1982, cited in Landry,R and R, Allard 1994: 18) and others
cited by him argue that no situations involving domination subordination can be non-
contlictual. Obser.'ed stability in a diglossic society would only be conflict in a period of
latency.
c. The functional criterion :- Most authors seem to agree on this criterion. The H and L
varieties are designated for different complementary functions. In a diglossic situation,
"the normative functional complementarity of both languages, each in accord with its
own institutionally congruent behaviours and values, remains relatively undisturbed."
(Fishman 1980: 7) Hamars and Blanc ( 1989) have stressed the institutionalized character
of this functional differentiation, and Fishman (1980) invoked the concept of social
compartmentalization. Fishman,Cooper and Ma (1971) study shows that Spanish-
Americans tend to me mostly English in domains such as school, the Church and work
and to use mostly S~anish in domains such as their home and friendship and networks.
The interpretation of the results was that family and friends domains were related to
II
-
values of imimacy and therefore to more solidarity with their vernacular or mother
tongue. The school, Church, and work domains were more assodated with status values
and favoured greater use of the language dominant in society. Social situations that
constitute a domain can also be analyzed as function of elem1!nts such as time, piace,
theme and the role of speakers, which can also influence language use (C:ooper 1969,
Fishman l972b ). Social domains. therefore, seem to constitute an intermediate· level of
analysis between a macro or sociological level and a micro levd. Moreover, the construct
of social domains can function as a framework fer the study of the social
compartmentalization process observed in diglossic situations. In a highly diglossic
situation, differential use of language should be greatly influenced by the specific
domains in which the language behaviour is mea"ured or oru;erved.
d. The Stability Criterion :- The non conflictual nature of diglossia has sometimes been
attributed i.u the stability of the" societal arrangements" which ascribe dlifferentiai sociai
functions to each language. It remains possible, however that highly conflictual situations
1;ould remain stable because of the difficulty of changing the power distribution between
members of H and L communities. There may or may not be a necelssary relationship
between the stability of the diglossic situation and the d{:gree to whictt the situatian may
be conflictual. Fishman ( 1980:7)" diglossic sociefies are marked not only by
compartmentalized convention but by various df:grees of nllccess restriction''.
Nonetheless, Fishman (1980) has argued that relative stability is a ~ressary co~ition for
diglossia. When social compartmentalization is unstable~ language spread and language
shift occur, the direction of charge always being towards the stronger functional system.
The relationship between bilingualism and diglossia has been described by Fishman
( 1967) with the help of a schema shown below.
+
Diglossia +
Bilingualism and diglossia
Bilingualism
Fig. 2:
Diglossia without Bilingualism.:.
Relationship between Diglossia Fishman (1967)
12
Bilingualism with
-
"While diglossia refers to societal arrangements that help maintain bot:ndaries
between the societal functions associated with H and L,'' bilingualism refers to" an
individual behavioural manifestation (Fishman 1980). There is bilingualism and diglossia
when most individuals are bilingual and .there is a clear institutional support for the
differentiated use of the H & L varieties. There is bilingualism without diglossia when
most people are bilingual but social compartmentalization is unstable. Under this
condition, bilingualism as transitional and temporary. There is diglossia without
bilingualism, when languages are distributed according to the territoriality principle. A
society with neither diglossia nor bilingualism, is rather rare, but any society that is
linguistically homogenous would, at least partially, fit the category.
1.3. Methodology
This section deals with the methodology adopted for the present study such as
selection of tribes, selection of areal points, sampling procedures, tools designed to elicit
data, the procedure adopted during the fieldwork and the method of data analysis.
1.3.1 Selection of Tribes
It was decided that the four numerically big tribal language speakers would be
considered for the present survey.
Table No. 1 Numerical Strength of Tribal Language Speakers in Jharkhand
No. ofspeakers . % of total population
Santhali 2271175 10.40
Mundari 667872 3.06
Ho 653172 2.99
Kurukhl oraon 638236 2.92
(Bhattacharya : 2002)
In Jharkhand, tribal communities constitute 27.66% of the total population.
Among these tribal communities, Santhali language speakers constitute the majority.
13
-
Table No. 2 %of Tribal population in Jhankhand == 27.66%
Santhali 37.57%
Mundani 11.05%
Ho 10.81%
Kurukhl oraon 10.55%
(Source: 1991 Census)
1.3.2. Selection of Areal Points
After Selection of the tribal communities for the present study, the points for data
collection were decided from the district wise population table:s (Census 19\~l) before
commencing the fieldwork.
Table No. 3 Percentage of tribal population in areal points under study
Total population ST population %
Ran chi 2214088 964422 43.55
Dumka 1495709 6214:&4 41.55
East Singhbhum
(Jamshedpur) 1613088 466572 28.92
(Source: 1991 Census)
These three districts were chosen for the present study because the1se districts
constitute the majority,( i.e., overall 38%) tribal language speakers under m:udy and in
addition, the social composition of these districts lends itself well to judgement sampling
(Milroy 1980). Linguistically, Dumka constitute majority of Santhali languar~e speakers,
Ranchi consti!utes Kurukh and Mundari language speakers and in East Singhbhum
(Jamshedpur) Ho language speakers constitute the majority.
1.3.3 Method of Data Analysis
The analysis of the data has been made according to following individual and social
variables.
14
-
• Age: In terms of age of the informants, the sample has been d!vided inLO the
following four categories.
age ranging from 15 - 21
II age ranging from 22-30
Ill age ranging from 31 -50
IV age above 50 years
Age is seen to be a significant variable. This sociolinguistic study gives ample
illustrations of how in terms of acceptance level of Hindi, attitudes towards Hindi and
language choice, older informants are markedly different from younger informants.
• Gender: - Gender has proved to be a significant variable in relation to acceptance
level of Hindi, attitudes towards Hindi and language choice. The following were
the values
Male =
Female= 2.
As Eckert and Me- Connell - Ginet (1992 - 90) state "women's language has been
said to reflect their own conservativism, prestige consciousness, upward mobility,
·insecurity, deference, nurture, emotional expressivity, sensitivity to other, solidarity and
men's language is heard as evincing their toughness, lack of affect, competitiveness,
independence, competence, hierarchy and control."
• Education: - In terms of "education" the sample has been divided into the
following groups
Upto high school = A
High School & above = B
Uneducated or illiterate = c 'Education' plays a vital role in the life of the people. Language skill, language
attitudes and language use of the individual co - vary with the level of education. For
example, the more educated the respondents are, the more languages they know and use,
whereas the majority of the illiterate know and use the language only in the spoken form.
The literates use more languages and majority of them have all the four language skills
IS
-
viz. understandill£,, reading, writing and speaking. Consequently, education as a variabl1~
is a viable social determinant of different patterns of multilingualism.
• Settlement Patterns
The "settlement pattem" as a variable is categorized as follow
Code
Rural
Urban
1.3.4 Sampling Procedures
R
u
The universe/population of this sociolinguistic study is the speakers of tribal
languages such as Santhali, Mundari, He and Kurukh of Jharkhand. The sample for this
study consists of 197 informants from Ranchi, Jamshedpur and Dumka districts of
Jharkhand and the migrant population in Delhi. Most of them, i.e., 17! out of 197 had
always lived in Jharkhand while the rest 26 infonnants had been living i111 Delhi for le
-
Apart from the areal and numerical distribution of ·the informants, the
characteristics of the population are considered very important for this study. The
characteristics under analysis are of two types:
(i) Independent variables
(ii) Dependent variables
In this sociolinguistic study, gender, age, educational background, settlement
patterns and tribal identity are independent variables while factors like acceptance of
Hindi, attitudes towards Hindi and language identity are the dependent variables.
1.3.4.1 Demographic characteristics of the Sample by Community
We look at the entire data in terms of the four major ethno-linguistic communities
viz. Santhali, Mundari, Ho and Kurux-Language speakers. Tables given below clearly ' show that the respondents of our sample are young, educated and urban based.
Table No. 5 Community - Wise Distribution & Sample
Santhali Mundari llo Kurukh Total
Characteristics N=79 N =35. N=37 N=46
Areal distribution
Rural 0 5 0 5 10
Ran chi
Urban 5 29 5 29 68
Rural 6 0 6 0 12
Jamshedpur
Urban 29 0 22 0 51
Rural 10 0 0 0 10
Dumka
Urban 20 0 0 0 20
Delhi Urban 9 4 12 26
17
-
Table No.6 Distribution ofSamQle b~ Gender
Santhali Mundari Ho Kurukh Total Ran chi! M 5 24 5 25 59
F 0 10 0 9 19 Jhamshedpur M 28 0 20 0 48
F 7 0 8 0 15 Dumka M 22 0 0 0 22
F 8 0 0 0 8 Delhi M 6 I 3 7 17
F 3 0 !, 5 9
Table shows that the respondents of our sample consist of only 25.8% ~emale
respondents while majority are males, i.e., 74.12%.
Table No.7 Distribution ofSamQle b~ ~me
Santhali Mundari Ho K111rukh To1Jal I 2 10 1 7 20 ii 3 14 4 10 31
Ran chi III 0 6 0 13 19 IV 0 4 0 4 8
I 1 I 0 7 0 18· Jamshedpur II 10 0 II 0 21
Ill 10 0 7 0 n IV 4 0 3 0 7
I 9 0 0 0 9 Dumka II lO 0 0 ()I w
III 9 0 0 (I 9 IV 2 0 0 () 2
I 3 0 l 3 7' Delhi II 4 1 2 '7 14
Ill 2 0 1 2 j' .) IV 0 0 0 0 0
I 15 - 2 t yrs II - 22-30 yrs Ill ·- 31 -50 yrs IV == Above 50+
The researcher was unable to trace the informants in the age group oftht! category IV i.e. above SO years in Delhi. Hence the concerned column remains blank.
18
-
Ran chi
Jamshedpur
Dumka
Delhi
Table no.8 Distribution of SamQle b:t Education
Santhali
A 0
B 5
c 0
A 9
B 24
c 2
A 5
B 20
c 5
A
B 8
c 0
Upto high school
High School & above
Uneducated or illiterate
Mundari
6
24
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
= = =
Ho
0
5
0
8
17
3
0
0
0
2
2
0
A
B
c
Kurukh
9
22
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
8
0
Total
15
56
7
17
41
5
5
20
.;
"'
7
19
0
The researcher was unable to trace the Uneducated or illiterate informants in the
category C. Hence the concerned column remains blank
1.3.5 Tools for the Study
The most impo1tant tool used for this study are the questionnaire and systematic
observation. The questionnaire has been so designed in order that the cultural, social and
socio-psychological data of the informants can be elicited. (For full questionnaire see
Appendix II).
19
-
1.3.5.1 The Questionnaire
The questionnaire was first prepared in English and then ~lat€-'.d into Hindi,
mainly adopted from the "language use" and "general attitude and langtllage attitude"
section of a questionnaire developed by Abbl et al {2000} to study the "Ae
-
-( ~
The following interlocutors were selected from the said domains of activity:
Interlocutors Domains
1 . Father - mother
2. Brothers - sisters Home
3. Grand father- mother (Private)
4. Children
5. Friends J Friendship/Private 6. Market place
7. Colleagues at workplace Public
8. Teachers
9. Seniors
The languages used by the informants with each interlocutor in each of these
domains were identified This provided important data to test the acceptability level of
Hindi in various domains such as home, workplace, market place, public offices.
The fourth part of the 9uestionnaire was devote? to measure the relative
frequency with which a given language is used taking a time variable
Tt T2
in generations to know the languages spoken by the grandparents of the respondents and
then to compare it with the first language of the respondent himself/herself. I tern no. 19-
a, 20 and 21 were devoted to elicit the information.
Th~ fifth part of the questionnaire was devoted to study the Codeswit~hing among
the informants. Codeswitching within the multilingual context occurs when speakers use
forms of two or more languages within the same conversation. Item no. 24, 25 and
devoted to Codeswitching.
In the sixth section, we wanted to know how far Hindi is used in mass media.
Item no. 29 was devoted to elicit the information.
21
-
The seventh section of the questionnaire was intended to provide data regarding
the awareness of language identity. The respondents were asked the question whether the
use of Hindi is a threat to their mother tongue or not. Item no.41 (iv) 49, 50, 51, 52, 53
were intended to elicit the information regarding language identity. Item no. 43, 44,, 45,
47 and 48 were intended to elicit data on the traits that make the tribals consider lllOFl-
tribals and distinct. The factors t.hat distinguish the tribals from non-trlbals: are Languag.e, •
Religion, Caste, Festivals, Social customs and Dress.
The eighth section of the questionnaire was devoted to elkit information
regarding language preference as medium of instruction, preference for mother tongLle,
encouragement for younger generation to use Hindi. Item no. 32, 33 and 34 we;n!
intended to elidt the relevant information. The question on "Do you encourage tht!
younger generation to speak and use Hindi" was constructed to be answered using ~he
binary response such as "yes" I no".
In ninth part of the questionnaire, we wanted to know about the;: attitude of tlhe
tribal language speakers of Jharkhand towards Hindi language and Hindi Speak(ers
through item no. 37. 38, 41, 46, 42, 35, and 36. The usefulness of Hindi language fn,>m
the point of view of the informant elicited through item no.37. Seven puq>Qses w.ere
suggested to the informants and t~ey were supposed to tick the degree of usefulness, i:.e.,
very useful, somewhat useful, not useful at al. Item no. 42 was intended to provide data
on social distance. In a multilingual situation where distinct groups coexist, each gr
-
1.3.5. ~ Systematic Observation
There were two kinds of observations, one of them being participant observation.
· The interviewer was visible, identified with the groups while participating in their
activities and other social functions including functions such as "Santhal Utsav". The
"Santhal Utsav" organized by celluloid chapter Jamshedpur and Tribal cultural society
Jamshedpur. (5 - 6 Dec. 1998) gave an opportunity to study first hand the cultural basis
which unites the Santhal society. This provided insight into the behavioral patterns of the
population and gave a chance to see it against the norms expressed in responses to
questions.
The second was the non- participant observation which is primarily observing the
groups through documentary sources. Books, Magazines, Census data, Newspapers were
studied to get the background of the groups under study.
1.3. 7. Field Procedures
In this se~tion the general field procedures followed for data elicitation have been
described. Fieldwork entails social intera~tion. Knowledge of the social group is a pre-
. requisite to fieldwork. The fieldwork for this empirical research was conducted twice,
first in the month of Nov-Dec 1998 and second time in Sep-Oct 2000. It is a
sociolinguistic study which aims at capturing aspects of attitudes, identities and language
use.
The following procedure was followed for data gathering:
• Each of the informants was approached individually with a request to fill out the
questionnaire. The place of interview was either the residence of the informant or
university or offices.
• Several visits to the subject's place of work yielded an opportunity to observe
their linguistic behaviour. They were observed interacting In a number of formal
and informal situations, which provided ample opportunities for gathering
information on their linguistic behaviour.
• The researcher's association with Jhankhand spans more than 25 years. My family
roots are here. In fact it was possible for me to project myself as a person who
was neither insider nor an outsider and still both - a friend of a fr;cnd. This
enabled me to carry out prolonged discussion with the respondents. Respondents
23
-
introduced me to members of their personal networks, hence, I was able to
overcome social barriers and that helped me gain access into living r~mts and
community centres.
1.3.8 Limitations ofthe Study
It was not possible to collect a stratified random sample. My criterion for
selection of respondents was decided on the basis of convenience. The main criterion was
that speakers should understand and speak Hindi, be resident of Jharkhand and b:e willing
to spare time for interaction with me and for filling out the questionnaire. Of course,
enough care was taken to select respondents representing the four major ethn~.c tribals,
their age., gender and other criteria. It can perhaps be considered as a kind of Judgement
sampling. I understand that such a sampling suffers from many limitations, but being an
outsider in these tribal communities as it were, I had to depend on introductions and the
consent of the respondents. I was able to fill 197 completed questionnaires. I consider this
data adequate because I have been able to cover the four major c!thno-linguisttic: groups
Santhali., Ho, Kurukh and Mundari language speakers of interest and the reg!Ularity of . socio - psychological dimensions of ethno-linguistic behaviour can hopefuHy emerge
from the study of more limited samples than is usually required for other kind of study.
To summarise, in this chapter we have outlined the Goals of the Study, the
Sociolinguistic enterprise especially reviews the Domain mod•=l and the Variationist
Perspective, and lastly, outlines the methodology employed in the study.
1.4 Organisation of the Study
Chapter 2 describes the socio-historical and socio-cultur:a.l context of Jharkhand.
This discussion provides the context pertinent to the specific goals of this study rather
than a comprehensive history of Jharkhand. This chapter alm investigate!s different
concepts employed in this study and the Literature Survey on V~:triati.onist Perspective on
Language and Identity.
Chapter 3 gives an account of various approaches employed to 1e>~plain the
phenomenon of language choice in multilingual communities. In the first section it
depicts the varying degree of language skills of these four ethno-lingui~)tilc groups;
secondly, it discusses the frequency of Acceptance level of Hindi in difterent domains of
24
-
use. The chapter also examines the data on linguistic identity, codeswitching and
language attitudes towards Hindi.
Chapter 4 includes a reanalysis of pertinent data from previous chapter. We have
examined and analysed the findings with the help of the notions and concepts discussed
in chapter I, 2 and 3 in particular. Several frameworks were adopted in the analysis of the
functions represented by the data . No single specific framework was used because a
single framework cannot account for the multifunctional language choice made by these
four communities of interest.
Chapter 5 concludes with an analysis of how the research findings of this study
fit into current sociolinguistic thinking, and what implications there are for further
research.
25