relations, etc. But the criterion of Ferguson and Gumperz fails in the
case of pre-literate societies like the one found in Nagaland or in
the case of languages like the Naga Pidgin and the various other Naga
languages that are not put to writing. For instance, despite the
absence of a single superposed variety for the Naga Pidgin and despite
the ambivalent attitude of the Nagas fowards the Naga Pidgin, all the
Nagas and the non-Nagas who use the Naga Pidgin do consider that the
different varieties of the Naga Pidgin associated with different
ethnic/linguistic group as constituting a single language/system. Such
a criterion fails even in the case of highly developed literary
languages used as languages of wider communication across different
continents. Take for instance, the case of English. Despite the
absence of a single superposed variety for its users in different
continents, most of its users do consider the different varieties of
English spoken in different continents as constituting a single
language. In a situation of this nature, this criterion could
only be accommodated by treating the different varieties of English
spoken in different countries as distinct languages like the British
English, the Scottish English, the American English, the Australian
English, the Indian English, etc. Even the notion of mutual
intelligibility has long cased to be the criterion for grouping
different varieties/codes into a single language, rather a language is
more a token of social identity than concrete linguistic codes. It is
only such social identification that enables mutually unintelligible
codes like: Mithili, Magahi, Marwari, Bangru, etc., to be clubbed
together as dialects of Hindi. Conversely near identical linguistic
codes like Hindi/Urdu and Hindi/Punjabi are treated as distinct
languages because of the speakers’ desire to be identified distinctly.
Such identifications take place even in pre-literate communities. Fro
instance, Kheze and Chokri were till recently considered
linguistically as the eastern dialects of Angami but now politically
treated as distinct languages for instrumental purpose. Despite these
apparent contradictions, a vague feeling of a norm associated with
value judgments do exist in the minds of the user of a language. And
in the development of the natural languages, the evolution of the
norm, viz., the standard form having a prestige is a historical
process, which takes place without any conscious effort or a decision
by a few speakers even though the basis of the standard form is
usually the speech of the educated middle class. Though the criterion
for the choice of one variety over the other as the norm is
non-linguistic, the language standardization is a process of one
variety of a language being widely accepted throughout the speech
community as a supra-dialectal norm. The concept of standardization
includes the notion of increasing uniformity of norm itself and the
explicit codification of the norm. In the case of the genetically
related developed languages particularly of the West, the formation of the standard form having prestige took
four to five centuries whereas ther is little time left for the
natural processes to work out the evolution of a standard form for
the pidgins and creoles, if they are to be visualized for use in
education of the tribal population. Further the ambivalent attitude
of the speakers of a pidgin towards it itself would hinder the
natural processes of the development of a norm. When such social
situations including the ambivalent attitude of the speakers
preclude the operation of the natural processes the language planner
is obliged to intervene for improving the pidgin as an instrument of
communication by making it more economical and regular through
planned standardization. The extent to which these exercises have to
be gone through would depend primarily on the social and educational
need of the pidgin speaking community concerned. And in this, we
have already seen that Naga Pidgin has a vital role to play in the
education of the children of the minor linguistic/ethnic
groups, which it is not in a position to discharge owing to the
widespread variations found in the Naga Pidgin with none of the
varieties in a commanding position to be considered as a norm. Since
in the case of pidgins, there is very little scope for the norm.
Since in the case of pidgins, there is very little scope for the
norm to be achieved through the natural processes, we are obliged to
adopt the techniques available to the language planner in
determining the norm for this pidgin. We might therefore have a
brief overview of the options available to the language planner.
|
|
Standardization and Language Planning
|
Whenever a language is
selected for some function above and beyond those which it has been
hitherto associated, elaboration, codification etc. become very
essential. Naga Pidgin has so far been used extensively for oral
communication but now there is an urgent need to used it in writing.
It was also seen earlier that Naga Pidgin shows a wide range of
variation with none of the varieties having prestige. It also lacks a
norm. Hence the main issue is how to arrive at a norm within the
shortest possible time through codification or through other means. An
important feature of language planning is identification of the
problem and as for as the Naga Pidgin is concerned, we have already
identified the problem. With regard to the selection of the norm, Hall
(1972 : 145) states that one could choose the variety used by the
largest number of the people or the one used in the administrative
headquarters, but once the choice is made for the norm, it should be
acceptable to all sections of the community concerned. In terms of the
numerical strength, the northern variety consisting of the speakers
of Konyak, Sangtam, Phom, Chnag and Khiamngan has the largest number
of speakers. Therefore, on the basis of the numberical strength alone,
one could select the northern variety as the norm. Since the capital
of
|
|
|
