1 Standardisation, Linguistic Capital and Inequalities

Usually standardisation denotes the historical process by which a speech community develops a special dialect for use as a medium of discourse in science, education, administration, and literature (Byron 1978: 397). A standard language is the language that r esults from direct and deliberate intervention by society. In what has come to be regarded as a classical theoretical framework in sociolinguistics, Einar Haugen has described the process of l anguage development and standardisation in terms of fourfold tasks or stages: language selection, codification, norm implementation and elaboration (Haugen 1983: 269-89).

An important aspect of language standardisation involves what is known as the process of “variant reduction” because the process of standardisation is usually achieved through the suppression of non-standard linguistic variants in a given region. Such process may include the deliberate intervention by government or non-governmental regulatory authorities. Before canonisation, most standardised languages coexisted with other dialects and language varieties within a given region. But after the

Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

r ecognition of the standard variety there is a devaluation of all other varieties of language. In stressing the need for uniformity and correctness in language use, the primacy of writing, and the idea that the standard language as the only valid language of the speech community, standardisation process also entail discursive practices which are hegemonic (Deumert 2004: 2).

The linguistic standardisation process in which the nonstandard varieties are relegated to the periphery also involves power relations and domination. It is here that ideology gets entangled with the process of language standardisation. Standardisation entails structural changes in a language but often these basic changes are seen by many people as inevitable and even as “natural”. It has been pointed out that structural changes in languages do not take place in a socio-political vacuum, and no history of a language can be adequate if it does not take account of this. Variation and change in a language that has undergone standardisation cannot be wholly independent of the process of standardisation itself, as the ideology of standardisation is to a greater or lesser extent present in the minds of speakers of the language (Milroy and Milroy 1997: 75).

The French sociologist and philosopher Pierre Bourdieu (19302002) sought to unmask inherited categories and taken for granted ways of thinking which are used in legitimising social and cultural practices. He also interrogates established templates of power and domination and the structures which sustain them. Bourdieu looks at the social world not as a harmonious entity but rather as template of fierce contestation and competition. Out of this ongoing field of contestations arise social and cultural distinctions, aesthetic tastes, classes, cultural and linguistic capital, symbolic power and domination. One of his central concerns centres on the question as to how the dominant classes maintain their power through the production and reproduction of dominant ideas. He is concerned about the ways in which hierarchy and status are projected as natural and inevitable. It is not just about differences and hierarchies – it is also about inequalities which ride on the back of these differences and hierarchies.

What is of interest to us is the theoretical work of Bourdieu pertaining to language and its relation to power and domination. Bourdieu’s conceptual framework of linguistic capital is particularly useful in theorising about language standardisation. Usually when we speak of capital, we think mainly in terms of economic capital. He speaks of symbolic capital, cultural capital, linguistic capital and economic capital. Bourdieu also moves away from the strict Marxian notion which tends to see all forms of capital as variations and combination of the basic economic capital. In ways that are interesting and convincing, Bourdieu links cultural capital to creation and maintenance of social inequalities. In Bourdieu’s theoretical framework, language forms an important form of capital (Bourdieu 1995: 78-89). Here, linguistic capital denotes the possession of and facility in high-status language or languages which are used by social groups who have cultural, social, political and economic power. Linguistic capital is the resource which caters to the demands of a specific market. An interesting point in Bourdieu’s theory consists in the idea of the uneven distribution of linguistic capital. This notion of u neven distribution is intrinsically related to language

SPECIAL ARTICLE

s tandardisation because usually what is projected as “standard” language is the language of the dominant social groups. According to him, some people and groups have more linguistic resources within their reach than others. And this resource forms a definite capital since they can use this resource to their economic, social and c ultural advantage.

For Bourdieu, educational institutions are key reproductive locations of cultural capital. For example, linguistic capacities act as a filter through competitive examinations for admissions to elite educational institutions. These institutions, in turn, are springboards for high-salaried job opportunities in the competitive market. Those who do not have access to linguistic capital exemplified in language standardisation are left out of such educational and job opportunities. Within the capitalist system and free market economy, though educational institutions are open to all in theory, only those who have the linguistic capital can gain access to these educational and career opportunities. In other words, linguistic advantages and disadvantages are translated and transformed into educational advantages and disadvantages. For Bourdieu, linguistic capital is transformed into educational capital, and further into social and cultural capital and thence into economic capital. Linguistic capital, in his t heoretical framework, has a cumulative effect which perpetuates inequalities in society (Bourdieu 2000: 72-102). Thus, l inguistic capital tends to reproduce social stratification and p atterns of domination.

Possession of such linguistic resource also serves as a status symbol. Linguistic exchanges are also relations of symbolic power in which power relations between speakers or their respective groups are actualised (Bourdieu 2005b: 37). In Bourdieu’s thinking, various cultural practices such as preferences in literature, music, type of education and art predisposes tastes to function as markers of “class”. In this regard, he moves away from the Kantian concept of aesthetics which sees taste as an acquired disposition to “differentiate” and to “appreciate” (Bourdieu 2005a: 466). Indeed, for thinkers like Kant, culture embodies the finest achievements of the human mind and the ability to differentiate and appreciate such achievements mark the “taste” of cultivated minds. He looks at the issue of aesthetics and squarely places “taste” as a function of social class. In other words, taste functions as a mark of distinction to separate one social class from other social classes. In the symbolic order of hierarchies and distinctions taste transforms itself as an expression of one’s class position. So, usually the upper classes show a preference and “taste” for what is perceived as classical literature, classical dance and classical music. As he points out, taste is the source of the system of distinctive features which are perceived as a systemic expression of a particular class of conditions of existence (Bourdieu 2005a: 175). Standardised languages usually reflect a huge bias towards the language of the upper strata of society.

For Bourdieu linguistic standardisation also involves forms of symbolic domination. In many instances, standardisation process involves implicit coercion, which he calls “symbolic violence”. He uses the term to mean the imposition of a dominant culture, chiefly within the framework of educational set up. It refers to the process by which minority groups are encouraged to accept the dominant culture as superior and legitimate and their own culture as inferior and illegitimate. Indeed, Bourdieu i nvestigated the French society of the 1960s on the basis of empirical e vidences. Many of Bourdieu’s conceptual and theoretical frameworks can be useful in understanding and analysing the dynamics of language and language standardisation elsewhere.

2 Mapping the Context

Before proceeding further, it may be fruitful to delineate the context in which Gujarati standardisation began to take shape. It needs to be noted that in Gujarat the standardisation process actually began with the emergence of colonial modernity. And one of the major elements in the codification process of Gujarati was the emergence of modern educational system in the first decades of the 19th century. Colonial modernity also resulted in social r eform movements in Gujarat and the growth and evolution of Gujarati literature in the 19th century is intimately connected with the reform movement. The notions of progress and development which were implicit in social reform also percolated into the debates about the state of Gujarati language and literature. We need to note that many of the debates taking place in the 19th century such as the correct form of Gujarati language, proper

o rthography, and uniformity were largely absent – almost nonexistent – in the previous centuries.

The printing press had a far-reaching effect on Gujarati society. For the first time, the Guajarati language appeared in print on 29 January 1797 in the Bombay Courier, which was a government notification about stray animals. In Gujarat, the first printing press was started by the London Missionary Society in Surat in 1820. Printing mediated the evolution and development of literature and literary forms in unprecedented ways and without print technology, “it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for most modern prose forms like the novel, autobiography and e ssay, to flourish to the extent they have” (Mehta 1992: 120). B etween 1817 and 1867 nearly 78 printing presses were started in Gujarat, indicating an increase in the size of the reading public. Between 1831 and 1886 there were 94 newspapers and journals which began publication in Gujarati (Yashaschandra 2003: 594-97). It is interesting to note these significant shifts that were t aking place in the language market as a result of changes in technology.

How did the initial efforts in language standardisation look like in Gujarat? A convenient place to begin would be by looking at the publication of Gujarati dictionaries and grammars in the 19th century which sets in motion the process of language c odification. In the early decades of the 19th century several G ujarati dictionaries and grammar books were published both in Gujarati and in English. The list is rather long and for the sake of brevity we shall mention only a few. Drummond’s Glossary which was published in 1808 was the first bilingual dictionary of G ujarat. Dalpatram Bhaghubhai published The Dictionary of Grand Commercial Language of Western and Central India in 1846. Among bilingual dictionaries Karsandas Mulji’s Gujarati-English Dictionary (1862) is noteworthy. Another bilingual dictionary, The Dictionary of Gujarati and English was published in 1863 by Shapur Edalji and mid-19th century saw the publication of several

august 1, 2009 vol xliv no 31

Gujarati monolingual dictionaries. Kavi Hirachand Kanji published the Gujarati Kosavali in 1865. The first major monolingual Gujarati dictionary was produced by well known Guajarati poet and reformer Narmad, entitled Narmakosh in 1873 (Jani 2005; Singh 1991). One of the first institutional efforts towards Gujarati standardisation was undertaken by the Gujarat Vernacular S ociety which was established by Kinloch Forbes in 1848 with the help of his friends. It began the task of compiling a Gujarati d ictionary with proper orthography (Parekh 1932: 9).

One of the first to articulate rather perceptively the complexities involved in the standardisation of the language in the 19th century was Narmad. In the 1873 edition of Narmakosh we find rather elaborate set of rules for writing in Gujarati. He wrote in 1873: “From the time I started writing about the correct form of written Guajarati, I have been an advocate of the principle: ‘write as you speak’. Twice or thrice I had formulated rules for writings but then I did not desire to follow them everywhere”. Narmad noted the reasons for his reluctance as follows: “It is not feasible to formulate permanent rules for the correct form of Gujarati writing until mutual interaction between people increases, there are a good number of writers, many dictionaries, and the regional language has achieved certain degree of uniformity. The o bjective of formulating the present rules in view of the correct use of G ujarati is to initiate a discussion and to exercise some control over those who study in the schools” (Narmadashankar 1998: 91).

In spite of the discussions, and the publication of dictionaries in the 19th century orthographic uniformity was less than satisfactory as the following testimonies suggest. Shapurji Edalji wrote in 1868 that the Gujarati “language is in such an unsettled state and authoritative standards are so far wanting, that uniformity of opinion does not exist among any class of Gujaratis as to the legitimacy or otherwise of words in their vernacular”. A ccording to Edalji “if a jury of twelve Gujaratis were called upon to fix the exact and diversified sense of words, there would be a scene of confusion and contradiction” (Edalji 1868: 4). Navalram Pandya, educationist and social reformer, wrote in March 1872: “Each one declares a word to be either literary or apabramsh as he thinks. And accordingly there is an outburst of spellings in schools. There seems to be no way out of this situation.” (Jodanikosh 1967: 4). In 1878, Trübner’s Oriental Series noted about the Gujarati language that its “orthography is doubtful and has to be settled” (Cust 2000: 61). J F Blumhardt, who published the first ever catalogue of printed Gujarati (and Marathi) books of the British Library in 1892, made the following observation: “Gujarati authors are so extremely lax and irregular in spelling their names, even in their native character, that to adopt their own forms would inevitability result in endless confusion, and it is therefore necessary to follow a systematic and fixed principle of spelling for cataloguing purposes” (Blumhardt 1892). In 1914 J haveri pointed out that there were “no uniform rules existing” in Gujarati for the correct spelling of words as well as for “the correct pronunciation of words” and this problem is “engaging the close attention of Gujarati scholars”. He summarises the situation as follows: “Much discussion has taken place but no definite conclusions have yet been arrived at. A committee was appointed by the Sahitya Parishad, and it has submitted a report

Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

(in April 1912) in which an effort is made to lay down some guiding principles in respect of this subject” (Jhaveri 1914: 8). This shows that though there had been some efforts towards homogenisation and standardisation of Gujarati, the results were far from satisfactory.

3 Gandhi, Gujarati and Language Standardisation

It is against such a background that Gandhi initiated the standardisation process. Gandhi began his work in India in 1915 after his return from South Africa and chose Ahmedabad as the centre for his activities. He felt that being a Gujarati he could serve India only by identifying himself “completely with the life of Gujarat” (Gandhi 1965: 94). He himself wrote extensively in Gujarati and inspired a new generation of Guajarati writers. Gujarati literary figures not only listened to Gandhi but were also inspired by his nationalist ideas. At the 12th Gujarati Sahitya Parishad in his presidential address he asked Guajarati writers to keep the common people at the centre of their writings. Gandhi brought an entirely new idiom to politics and civic life through the notions of truth, non-violence, non-cooperation, and satyagraha and the Gujarati language played an important role in shaping and moulding these ideas. S Yashaschandra writes: “By writing in the Gujarati language, Gandhi corrected it, moulded it, and fashioned a new semiotic productivity that gave a new meaning to the society that used that language” (Yashaschandra 2006: 136).

One of his earliest views on “standard” Guajarati (though he never used this term directly), can be seen in a speech given in London in 1909 to support the third Gujarati literary conference which was to be held at Rajkot. Gandhi requested the leaders of the Rajkot literary conference to appoint a standing committee of Hindus, Muslims and Parsis proficient in the language “with the duty of watching the trends in the Gujarati writings of all the three communities and of offering advice to the writers”. He added: “It should also be possible for writers with ideas to have their writings corrected through this committee free of cost” (Gandhi 1966a: 460). In 1920 Gandhi expressed his views on the state of Guajarati language as follows: “Our language Gujarati is used by three classes of people: Hindus, Muslims and Parsis. Each class has developed its own dialect and, besides, the three communities keep so much aloof from one another that none of them acquires acquaintance with the language of the other two”. He locates the development of Gujarati within the framework of n ationalism, which had just begun to emerge in Gujarat. He d elineates the conditions for the uniformity of Gujarati l anguage as follows: “When the feeling of oneness is born among us, when especially we come to have all our education in schools through Gujarati and Gujarat comes to be respected by Gujaratis, all of us will learn to write one and the same language” (Gandhi 1966b: 155).

In 1928 Gandhi told his audience at the Gujarat Vidyapith: “We want to ensure the spread of the Gujarati language, to see that it shines forth, that it is able to express our deepest thoughts” (Gandhi 1970a: 394). However, Gandhi was very much concerned about the state of the Gujarati language, a state which he described as “chaotic”. He wrote in 1928: “The present chaotic state of spellings acts as a hindrance to the development of the

SPECIAL ARTICLE

l anguage”. In the same article he pointed out that among “all l anguages of I ndia, Gujarati is found to be the only one in which laxity in r egard to spellings is possible” (Gandhi 1970b: 406). At one point Gandhi felt that the Gujarati language is “in a state of widowhood” (Gandhi 1976b: 420). He also expressed concern at the lack of uniformity in Gujarati orthography (Gandhi 1967: 22).

Gandhi took the initiative and constituted a committee with Maganbhai Desai as its chairman in order to look into the question of Gujarati spellings. After circulating the basic rules for spelling among Gujarati scholars this committee outlined the objectives of the standardisation as follows: there should not be much change in the existing orthographic system; the rules should be easily acceptable; and writers and publishers should not face difficulties. Meanwhile the Gujarat Vidyapith appointed a spelling committee consisting of Ramnarayan Pathak, Chotalal Purani, Kalidas Dave and Narahari Parikh. Since this new committee accepted the basic principles outlined by the Maganbhai Desai Committee, Gandhi wanted it to take up the task of publishing a new Gujarati dictionary. The Vidyapith took up the financial responsibility for the publication of this dictionary (Kalelkar 1967: 24-25).

Published in 1929 it was the first dictionary which sought to standardise Gujarati orthography with a set of 33 rules (Jodanikosh 1967: 16-20). Normally standardisation must justify the reasons for choosing certain norms to judge the correctness of language and spellings. This is what Gandhi has to say on this issue, “It may be asked: How is one to accept that the spellings given in this dictionary are correct while those in others are not? The answer is that it is not a question of deciding which spellings are correct and which are not. The principle followed in the compilation of this dictionary is that the spellings adopted by those who have a good knowledge of Gujarati and who try to write grammatically correct Gujarati be as correct” (Gandhi 1970c: 213). Obviously, the argument used by Gandhi is circular. He says that the dictionary adopts spellings used by those who have a “good knowledge” of Gujarati and who write correct grammar. without saying anything about what constitutes “good know ledge” and what makes it correct. Setting up one form of language as the standard to judge correctness rests on a questionable assumption because in an absolute sense the so-called standard language is not more “correct” than other regional varieties and dialects.

Efforts at language standardisation usually gain momentum with institutional recognition and government approval or what Haugen terms as the stage of “implementation”. Gandhi wanted the municipal schools to follow the spellings given in the Jodanikosh and made obligatory for the teachers. With this objective, he asked Kalelkar to “get the spellings adopted in all other educational institutions in Gujarat” (Gandhi 1970d: 335). The 500 c opies of the first edition of the dictionary of 1929 were sold out quickly and very soon the work for the second edition began. It was published in 1931 and welcomed by prominent scholars and writers. Moreover, authors, publishers and teachers began to f ollow the spelling system standardised by the Vidyapith. It got a further boost when in 1936 the 12th Gujarati Sahitya Parishad approved it. It passed a resolution asking for the cooperation of Gujarati scholars in making the new standardisation even more widely accepted. The third edition published in 1937 was r ecognised by the Bombay University. Within a short period of time, the dictionary began to be recognised as an important step in Gujarati standardisation. Gradually, schools in Gujarat started implementing it. The third edition observed that with “the recognition of the dictionary in 1936 some of the problems and difficulties of spellings have settled to some extent”. But it also felt the need of further efforts to make the standard spelling use even wider among the people. The responsibility for this, it was felt by the dictionary compilers, rested with the teachers, writers, newspaper owners, journal editors and publishers (Desai 1967: 11-15).

In 1940 the government of Bombay issued a notification approving the spellings standardised by the Gujarat Vidyapith. Among other things, it highlighted the debate which had been going on for some time in Gujarat about the correct spellings of Gujarati words. The notification pointed out that the spellings given in the dictionary had been accepted by the Gujarat Sahitya Parishad, the Bombay University, some Gujarati publishers, and some newspapers and journals. The Bombay government also recommended the adoption of the spellings by the state’s educational and publishing institutions. According to this notification only those works which followed the spelling rules set forth in the Jodanikosh would be approved and carried in school and college textbooks (Gandhi 1967: 22).

However, it should not be concluded that with the publication of the Jodanikosh and efforts to implement the codification norms, the problem of standardisation was over. In February 1940 we see Gandhi in an agitated state about Gujarati spellings. He wrote rather strongly in Harijanbandhu: “The anarchy prevailing in Gujarati spelling is perhaps unparalleled in any other language. It is not found in Marathi, Bengali, Tamil or Urdu. I have not heard of it in any other Indian language. It is to be found in no European language.” He continues using even stronger language: “What epithet except barbarous can one apply to a people who speak a language with unorganised spelling? Man’s language develops as he progresses. A man can be judged in several matters by the language he speaks” (Gandhi 1967: 22). It is interesting to note the word used by Gandhi in Gujarati – jungli (barbarous) – to indicate a people who speak a language with unorganised spelling. In Gandhi’s linguistic calibration, cultured people used “proper” language with correct spelling.

4 Gujarati Standardisation: Contestations

According to many Gujarati scholars, writers, and teachers, Gujarati orthography is still in a state of instability, chaos and confusion. Manishi Jani highlights the language situation as follows: “Of the five lakh students who take the board exams (in Gujarat), some one and a half lakh fail in their mother tongue”

available at

SPECIAL ARTICLE

Taylor in his speech at the Gujarati Sahitya Parishad, like most of his Indian contemporaries, took it for granted that Indians and Europeans spring from a “common” Indo-Aryan race. Among the nationalists there has been a definite effort to project Indian civilisation as the sole creation of the Aryans to the e xclusion of the contributions of other cultural and ethnic groups. During Gandhi’s time, the Gujarati language debate was i nfluenced in a significant way by such nationalist identity c onstructions.

We need to juxtapose the so-called “standard” Gujarati promoted by Gandhi and Gandhian institutions throughout the state with the actual multiple linguistic situation of Gujarat. When we piece together the ancient history of Gujarat, it reveals a highly complex and pluralistic traditions and cultural past. The accepted “standard” dialect is the speech of the area from Baroda to Ahmedabad (C ardona and Suthar 2003: 722). But apart from what is projected as “standard” Gujarati, there are large number of dialects in Gujarat such as Kathiawari, Nagari, Surati, Anawla, Patani, Patnuli, Charotati, Patidari and Parsi Gujarati, just to mention a few (Taylor 1944: 411-22). Tribal groups constitute nearly 15% of the Gujarat population with two districts having a tribal population of more than 50% and two districts with 45% (Shah 2000: 98). Tribals in Gujarat have their own dialects such as Vasavi, Bhilli, Gamit, Kokna, Dangi, Choudhuri, Rathwa and Tadvi. Nearly 15% of the Gujarat tribal population has to struggle to learn an alien language if they want to be in the competitive job market, at least in the private sector.

This is one of the ways in which language standardisation and the linguistic market creates inequalities. It is not merely a matter of learning an alien language, but also one involving pressures to conform to the dominant culture. There is a definite trend among the Gujarati tribal population that is educated to conform not only to the Gujarati linguistic matrix, but also to give up their own language and culture. This is what Bourdieu terms as “symbolic violence” by which a dominant form of language in the form of standardisation is imposed on other cultures. The standardisation process through institutionalised legitimation forces linguistic minorities to accept the “standard” language which is the language of the dominant groups. Such a process is not “natural” but a deliberate one which entails a d efinite political process. As Bourhis has rightly pointed out, “the type of choice made to bring about language standardisation can become a revealing barometer of the different forces at play in multilingual societies and ultimately come to reflect society’s views towards its weaker minorities” (Bourhis 1984: 11).