LANGUAGE ENDANGERMENT:

THE FATE OF INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES (A

THEORETICAL APPROACH)

Meti Mallikarjun

INTRODUCTION
Language loss has been a reality throughout the history. But the
irony is, the loss of language is of no great moment either for science
or for human intellectual life. It is very evident that these ideas are
very wrong and that language loss is a serious matter or it is a socio-
cultural shock. However, it is often heard that many of the native
languages which are seriously imperilled across the world.
Language shift is defined as the process by which members of a
community, in which more than one language is spoken, abandon
their original language in favour of another (Tsunoda 2004). Here
is an attempt to understand something about the death of
indigenous languages and culture as a historical process and
sociolinguistic perceptions of language endangerment in India.
Language shift and death have long been a topic of discussion among
sociolinguists, linguists, language planners, educators and others.
The result has been an extensive literature on the causes, processes,
symptoms and results of language loss and death (Denison 1977;
Dorian 1977, 1980, 1981, 1987, 1989; Gal 1978; Skutnabb-Kangas
2000).
Primarily, language shift is defined as the switch of L1 and L2.
After that primary language shift, a dominant second language is
used in most domains of life, instead of the mother tongue. The
switch from oneís mother tongue to another language in most
domains is, according to Sasse (1992:10-13), always triggered by
some change in the external setting, in the environment of a
linguistic community. Part of that change in the external setting is
a new or changed contact between the linguistic community that
shifts from its traditional mother tongue to the language of other
linguistic and cultural community. As a result of new sociolinguistic
42 SHSS 2008

contact, there will be a change in the attitudes towards their mother

tongue. Their mother tongues are restricted to very few domains
i.e. home domain.
The dominant language is predominantly used in all the other
functional domains in which the mother tongue was supposed to
be used earlier. In this is a process, where languages are at extinction.
It can be said that linguistic groups that have become minorities
because of their politico-economic and cultural subordination. This
condition is a final stage of language death. But it is very interesting,
linguistic group that has sprung up in response to the challenges
posed by the erosion of the worldís linguistic diversity.
This paper goes on to analyze some of the issues and dilemmas
confronted by minorities, the crisis in the context of the Indian
situation, paying special attention to the challenges are confronting
by indigenous languages. These challenges may lead more ethical
and more relevant research. Each case raises a different question
therefore, Indian case has to situate separately, that canít be
generalized based on models that are available outside India. India
is extraordinary for its linguistic and cultural diversity. According to
official estimates, the country is home to at least 400 distinct tongues,
but many experts believe the actual number is probably around
700. But, in a scenario replicated around the globe, many of Indiaís
languages are at risk of dying out. The effects could be culturally
devastating. Each language is like a key that can unlock local
knowledge about medicinal secrets, ecological wisdom, weather and
climate patterns, spiritual attitudes, and artistic and mythological
histories. Efforts to save minority languages from extinction and
foster a deep sense of community may compel to develop a stringent
language policy for minorities. It is felt that unless drastic measures
are taken to preserve and promote them, all minority languages
might be abandoned in favour of dominant languages in the next
century. It is already discussed that throughout human history, the
languages of powerful groups have spread while the languages of
smaller cultures have become extinct. This occurs through official
language policies or through the allure that the high prestige of
speaking the dominant language can bring.
These trends explain, for instance, why more language diversity
exists in India than in the entire world, which has a long history of
large states and imperial powers. It is necessary to discuss the relevant
theoretical issues regarding language death in terms of the following
aspects:
1. What it means to be an endangered (or extinct) language, how
 LANGUAGE ENDANGERMENT 43

a language becomes endangered and how it can be saved. It is

also addressed, what the loss of a language can mean, both for a
culture and for the field of linguistics.
2. Can it be said that linguistic groups that have become minorities
because of their politico- economic subordination lack a
historical context?
3. Is language shifting a language loss?
4. Is language endangerment a politicized discourse?

LANGUAGE ENDANGERMENT: HOW? WHERE? WHY?

ìA language is endangered when its speakers are using it in fewer
and fewer communicative domains and/or are ceasing to pass it on
from one generation to the next. Language endangerment may be
the result of external developments and policies (whether military,
economic, religious, cultural, or educational), or it may be caused
by internal factors, such as a communityís negative attitude towards
its own languageî (UNESCO, 2000, p. 9). On the other hand,
Michael Cahill has said, ìA language is endangered when it is in
fairly imminent danger of dying outî. He gives two ways to quickly
recognize when a language is on its way to death: when the children
in the community are not speaking the language of their parents
and when there are only a small number of people left in the ethno-
linguistic community. David Crystal has written on language death
and gives the following common reasons why we should care for
language (ibid.: 27-66):

1. Linguicide ñ when a ruling group forbids the subjugated group

to use their own language
2. Genocide ñ when a dominant ethnic group deliberately tries to
annihilate another ethnic group
3. Natural disaster ñ tidal wave, severe earthquake, disastrous
famine, or a measles epidemic could wipe out a group of people
4. Displacement ñ breaking up of the language community
5. Socioeconomic ñ simply being overwhelmed by the encroaching
industrialized world. The main reasons for language death today
seem to be as much economic as anything.

Language vitality has been evaluated from different angles. It could

be defined as a measure of the lifespan of using a language or it
44 SHSS 2008

could also be defined as the ability a language to meet the societal

needs of language users. When language vitality is less, it could lead
to language shift or language death. Home and community domains
are considered as the strongholds of the traditional language. Fasold
(1984: 240) points out that one of the earliest signs of language
shifts is the advance of one language into domains that used to be
retained in the old. Language vitality refers to the overall strength
of a language and the possibility of continuing it through the coming
generations.
Why does a particular language pose a threat to the maintenance
of another language? It is a very important question in order to
evaluate the Indian linguistic situation. But the cases of language
endangerment and loss are probably as old as the contact between
human communities. This occurs because of unequal socioeconomic,
political and technological status. However, the real issues are the
confrontation between majority and minority languages. The role
of language in education and other functional domains is decided
by the privileged class/community. The dogmatic rigidity in claiming
privileges and parity of their (different) language selection is also
responsible factor in language shift/death (Khubchandani 1984a:
42-68). In fact, language shift among these societies occurs more
often due to social and political compulsions (Burdhan 1973). It is
often argued that language shift is a sociocultural integration/
diversity. On the other hand, Doshi (1972: 462-63) described it in a
different way, ìIt rejects the claim that language shift indicates the
process of integration; rather than it shows the process of assimilation
of people into majority cultural groupî. Many linguists have
developed the different hypothesis in order to understand the
various levels of language endangerment process. For example,
Krauss categorizes in the following ways:

1. Moribund ñ This refers to languages that are not being taught

to children as their L1. Unless something changes, moribund
languages will cease to be spoken within a generation.
2. Endangered ñ languages are those that are currently still being
learned by children, but that will no longer be taught to children
within the century.
3. Safe ñ languages are those that are neither moribund nor
endangered ó they are currently being learned by children
and are safe from extinction, for the time being at least.
 LANGUAGE ENDANGERMENT 45

Many a times, the term ëendangermentí is perceived in both terms

of endangered and moribund. Contrary to Krauss, Leonard uses
the concept ìextinctî, which is commonly referred to understand
that language is no longer used by its speakers. His intention is to
understand this linguistic situation in terms of organism, because
an extinct species will never have a chance to resurrect themselves.
Whereas, languages can be revitalized, if not all, few can be done.
However, further, Leonard explains it schematically:
➭
➭ Less Endangered More Endangered ➭
➭
➭➭

➭➭

➭➭
➭➭
➭ ➭ ➭ ➭
Widely spoken Languages Languages that Sleeping
languages associated are not inter- language
Associated with marginal generationally
Powerful Groups Group challenged

THE DEATH OF SANSKRIT: A CONTINUATION OF SOCIOLINGUISTIC

HEGEMONY

From a global perspective, the trend is the same, many smaller

languages are dying out due to the spread of a few world languages
such as English, French, Chinese, etc. (Romaine 1989: 39) There
are many pitfalls in trying to generalize on a global scale about what
causes for language attrition. As it is discussed above, there are many
reasons for language shift and language death. Most studies of
language shift have looked at a communityís transition to the new
language. But, in the case of Indian context, dealing with language
endangerment is a problematic one. It is very subtle and complex
phenomenon. It canít be analyzed based on western modals alone.
However, it can be argued differently. The language of Cosmopolis,
i.e. Sanskrit (Sheldon Pollock), plays a very important role in India
in the process of language shift/loss. We have always been aware of
the ambience of many languages in our environment. Many
languages are alive in our environment and we have always perhaps
switched from one language into another unconsciously
(Ananthamurthy 2009). The ëecologistí perspective ó is a useful
focus for linguists who call for measures to reverse this trend of
language shift. If we value biological diversity and strive to protect
it, surely it is equally important to take moral responsibility for the
conservation and development of linguistic diversity.
ìThe status of Sanskrit is an instance of this ó for close to a
46 SHSS 2008

thousand years, this prestigious language was the chief vehicle of

the (exclusionary and undemocratic) transmission of knowledge;
however, today it is this language, rather than the less prestigious
Prakrits, that is dead. As Sanskrit-speaking ruling classes could only
capture the public domain, the centuries of its dominance had no
permanently crippling effect on the less prestigious Indo-Aryan,
Austro-Asiatic and Dravidian languages that flourished alongside
itî (Ayesha Kidwai: 2008). This Sanskrit is still alive implicitly
spreading across India into the languages and cultures. So Sanskrit
did not die. It grew, it developed and it gradually split into Hindi,
Marathi, Gujarati, and the other Indo-Aryan languages, to some
extent, Dravidian languages too, and it is still with us under those
guises. Thereís something a bit odd about lamenting the death of
Sanskrit language when it has in fact taken off like this. Given the
existence of modern Indo-Aryan, why be upset that Indians donít
speak Sanskrit? Speaking Indo-Aryan pays homage to their Hindu-
Vedic heritage, without requiring them to have frozen their culture
as it was in one place and time. Thus, language shift involves
bilingualism (often with diglossia) as a stage on the way to
monolingualism in a new language. For example, Hindi has got
several dialects, Bhojpuri, Maithili, Awadhi so on and so forth. The
fact is, these varieties of Hindi have never been used in the domains
like education, administration, massmedia, literature (there may
be some exceptions) and other public domains. The Sanskritized
Hindi, i.e. Khariboli took over their place. This new avatar of Sanskrit
is the revitalization of old Sanskrit. It also rejects the claim that
Sanskrit is the dead language. Standardization is nothing but
Sanskritization of the Indian languages, it is not a new practice, and
it has been there throughout the history i.e. sanskritizing the nation.
In my opinion, when Mahatma Gandhiji suggested, making
Hindustani as an official link language, instead of Hindi, there was
a lot of resistance to it. Hindustani is a combination of Hindi and
Urdu, in which Sanskrit had no place. If Hindustani were in the
place of Hindi in contemporary situation,it would have been a
definite shift for dehegemonizing the hegemonic structures of
Sanskrit.
Sanskrit established a clear-cut dichotomy among Indian
languages like marga (the world of Sanskrit) and deshi (indigenous
languages). This can be dealt with reference to Kannada.
Unfortunately these dichotomies are used as the qualifying
characteristics of a standardized variety of languages, which results
in the creation of vernaculars (i.e. Native Languages) and Cosmopolis
 LANGUAGE ENDANGERMENT 47

(i.e. Sanskrit). U.R. Ananthamurthy (2009) describes it in an

optimistic way, vernacular has always had its advantage and use
despite the power of the language of Cosmopolis ñ Sanskrit in the
past and English in our times. It is very evident that it is a kind of
prevailing sociolinguistic hegemony on Kannada language and
culture. It canít be considered as an advantage.
There has been a strong resistance throughout the history of
Kannada language and culture in order to dehegemonize Sanskrit.
As a result, the sociolinguistic hybridity has been developed by our
various poets through their work. For example great Kannada poets
like Pampa, Andayya, Nayashena, Kumaravyasa and Vachanakaras
(mystic poets), by combining, marga and deshi, is also a kind of
resistance to the Sanskritized Kannada. The concept of ëhybridityí
is important in understanding the multiplicity of language practice.
ìThis concept is inspired by the work of Bakhtin (1981) on the
hybridity of the dialogue of languages, by Anzalduía (1987) on the
hybridity of being the ëborderlandsí and by Bhabha (1994) on the
hybridity of the postcolonialityî (Ofelia Garcia 2009: 33). As in views
of Mohanty, ìit is precisely this hybridity of language practices that
is responsible for the maintenance of the many languages of the
Indian subcontinentî (2009: 34). This fluidity in multilingual
interaction demonstrates that different cultures have different ideas
about the integrity of their own group in relation to outsiders. If
speakers of minority language manage to find an ecological niche
in the majority community which is conducive to language
maintenance, they may have a better chance of survival.
In many (minority) languages there are competing pressures
towards (re)vernacularization and (re) standardization, which have
their origin in the competition between the school and home
varieties. There has always been tension between standard dialect
and other regional/caste dialects. The standardization and
modernization, these two tendencies which are greatly affected
indigenous languages in terms of their structural and functional
loss. Bernadett Biro and Katalin Sipocz, are identifying language
shift in two types of linguistic processes such as; functional loss and
structural loss. When a language shift takes place in any speech
community in India that obviously affects the functional loss of a
language and structural loss as well; the former means there is a
decrease in functional use of a language in thevarious domains,
whereas later one refers to the changes that are occurring in the
structure of a given language in the process of a language shift.
Due to the linguistic hegemony and cultural dominance of Sanskrit
48 SHSS 2008

on Indian languages, all our indigenous languages are suffering

from both functional loss and structural loss. The attitudes of Sanskrit
towards the other Indian majority/minority languages can also play
a decisive role in a language shift. As far as functional aspect is
concerned, a necessary condition for the survival of the indigenous
languages, but language shift would bediminishing of its functions.
As far as the structural side of language shift is concerned, we can
only sketch tendencies based on data provided by some case studies
(e.g. B.P. Pandit, Sourashtrasi in Tamil Nadu, D.N.S. Bhatís on
Kannada).
As if the provincial languages are conspiring against the India
unity (U.N. Singh: 1992), Suniti Kumar Chatterji (1943: 3) made a
statement such as, ìwe feel that we ought to have a common
language for the whole of India as symbol of common Indian
Nationalityî. A similar opinion was held by the language planning
commission in 1957, which is discussed by Sumathi Ramaswamy
(2007: 344) in her paper: ìIt is clear, however, from the report
submitted by the Commission a year later, in November 1957, that
it saw its task as being more than just pedagogical, for at stake was
the very survival of the emerging nation. The Commission was fiercely
anxious about ëthe growing fissiparous tendencies and linguistic
parochialism which are jeopardizing the political unity of the country
and are rocking the very foundations of our freedomí.î A decade
of linguistic jealousy and bitterness had marred the joys of
independence; there had been much squabbling within the nation
over state boundaries and territories; and Hindi, the proposed
official language of India, had been found unacceptable by large
numbers of its people. Everywhere, ëregionalismí and ëlinguismí
were on the rise. The Commissionís solution to these problems was
clear-cut: to put Indians on a good and steady diet of Sanskrit by
making its study compulsory in schools, and by instituting it as the
official language of the nation. Sanskrit was ideally suited for this
role, for it was the ìSupreme Unifierî (ibid.: 201) and the ìGreat
Unifying Forceî (ibid.: p. 81). ìThe Indian people and the Indian
civilization were born ... in the lap of Sanskritî (ibid.: 85). It is ìin
our bloodî (ibid.: 81). It is ìthe breath of our nostrils and the light
of our eyesî (ibid.: 87). Mixing its metaphors, the Commission also
variously described Sanskrit as ìthe bedrockî of Indian existence,
the ìmain thread which runs through the entire fabric of the cultural
life of an Indianî (ibid.: 102), and the anchor that keeps the youth
of India from losing their ìcultural mooringsî (ibid.: 51). ìIf the
binding force of Sanskrit (is) taken away, the people of India would
 LANGUAGE ENDANGERMENT 49

cease to feel that they were part of a single culture and a single
nationî (ibid.: 70). So, by restoring Sanskrit back to its citizens, the
nation, too, would be restored, and its troubled waters calmed. In
Sanskrit, it was declared, brings a ìsymphony to our lifeî (ibid.: 84).
These views signify the linguistic chauvinism and fanatical attitudes
towards Sanskrit and its religion. In my opinion, they are merely
slogans and emotional bursts. It is quite true; they are also conspiring
to establish the hegemony of Sanskrit with the sanction of India
Constitution. Even otherwise, the continuity of Sanskrit is spread
across the other Indian languages and cultures in terms linguistic
structure, functional usages and imbibed in cultural practices. This
is to be considered a greater damage to all the indigenous languages
of the Indian subcontinent.

LANGUAGE POLICY: THE FATE OF INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES

Language policy plays a very vital role in the building of a nation. A
nation is not a single entity. Plurilingualism and pluriculturalism
are the qualifying characters of a nation like India. Languages are
equal, yet language hierarchies prevail. The fact is that not all
languages have equal access of having their languages/varieties in
education (Ofelia Garcia, 2009, Skutnabb-Kangas, 2009). However,
it is often felt, managing multilingualism in India has become a big
task. Though there are constitutional privileges are extended for
sustaining linguistic multiplicities, many a timesthey are only in
principle. But in reality, these safeguards are not implemented
properly in order to achieve their goals. There is also accumulating
evidence that language policy and language education can serve as
vehicles for promoting the vitality, versatility, and stability of these
languages (Phillipson, 1992). Thus, this paper considers the role of
language policy and language rights in education and revitalization
efforts, taking up cases of indigenous languages and their vitality
into consideration. However, the Indian Constitution provides many
guarantees and safeguards for linguistic and religious minorities,
besides overall promoting a multilingual India:

I. Article 29 enshrines a commitment to the maintenance of

Indiaís linguistic diversity: ìAny section of the citizens residing
in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct
language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to
conserve the same.î
II. Article 30 guarantees minorities the right to develop and
50 SHSS 2008

propagate these languages (and their speakers) through

education: ìAll minorities, whether based on religion or
language, shall have the right to establish and administer
educational institutions of their choice.î
III. Article 350A provides for instruction in their own mother
tongues at the primary stage of education to children belonging
to the linguistic minorities: ìIt shall be the endeavour of every
State, and of every local authority within the State, to provide
adequate facilities for instruction in the mother-tongue at the
primary stage of education to children belonging to linguistic
minority groups; and the President may issue such directions to
any State as he considers necessary or proper for securing the
provision of such facilities.î
IV. Articles 345 and 120 seek to promote governance that is
multilingual. Article 345 leaves a State free, through its
legislature,to adopt Hindi or any language used in its territory
as its official language(s). Article 120 permits member(s) to use
his/her mother tongue within the Indian Parliament.

These constitutional guarantees are relevant to foster Indiaís

linguistic diversity. At the same time, they also ensure that preserving
sociolinguistic pluralities of heterogeneous speech communities of
India is an assurance of the protection of human rights. These
provisions also uphold the socio-cultural values and ethno-linguistic
vitalities. Even though this has very serious consequences in
education, ìas the smaller a language, the more likely it is to be
dismissed as ëprimitiveí and incapable of further development so
that it may come to bear the weight of modern human knowledge
and intellectual discourse. Responding to this implicit classification,
speakers therefore ëchooseí not to access education in their mother
tongue(s), because that choice will disadvantage them in the not-
so-long runî (Kidwai, 2008: 2). This argument proves that people
who belong to tribal/minority communities will never have a chance
to choose their choice. Language rights may be a necessary condition
to spread primary education in India to improve quality of life, to
build human capital and ensure rapid economic growth. While
supporting the minority languages, it is necessary to consider the
way in which and the purposes for which they are used that are
crucial for maintenance of minority languages. The laws may ignore
or subverted by the state on some administrative, financial or political
reasoning, which is made possible by the way laws are formulated so
 LANGUAGE ENDANGERMENT 51

as to permit administrative laxity and contingencies (Skutnabb-

Kangas, 1998). This can be made very clear by looking at three-
language formula and its paradoxical stands also. As it is discussed,
ìEducation holds the key to development and progress. Therefore,
in multilingual India, language is the defining criterion for the
evolution of societal growth. The three-language formula was a
strategy to cover all linguistic groups in the countryî (Bayer J.M.,
2005: 21). The main problems in the implementation of three-
language formula are found to be the following:

I. The formula does not provide a place for such mother tongues
that are different from regional languages.
II. There is a dissonance between the Constitutional directive to
use mother tongue in primary education (Article 350 A) and
the languages prescribed in Three Language Formula (TLF)
(National Policy on Education: 1968, 1986), particularly as the
first language in schools.
III. It does not allow flexibility in the choice of language and gives
primacy to the interests of the State ignoring the interests of
individuals.
IV. It does not address to the problem of offering classical languages
of choice.
V. The motivation assumed in TLF for learning Modern Indian
Languages (MIL) by students in the Hindi States is inadequate
(quoted from Jennifer Marie Bayer, 2005: 21).

IS MULTILINGUALISM STABLE IN INDIA?

How do we implement the Constitutional Provisions of protecting
language rights of the minority and minority language speakers? In
what way we match between home language and school language?
The home languages are important, as primary education up to
the age of 14 is free and compulsory. How the language planning
and language policy are to be designed? What are the ways and
means we have to find out in order to protect the sociolinguistic
plurality of India? In multilingual India, language is the defining
criteria for the evolution of societal growth.
In raising these questions, I have in my mind that multilingualism
is a fundamental value in todayís world. Preserving and maintaining
the core values, cultural entities, ethnic identities and linguistic
diversities of Indian multilingualism is a very big challenge. The
52 SHSS 2008

several reasons are responsible for this crisis. Due to the socio-political
developments, Indian multilingualism has changed in its nature.
The traditional Indian multilingualism was a combination of mother
tongue, (i.e. tribal/ethnic language) regional language (i.e.
Kannada in Karnataka, Tamil in Tamil Nadu, etc.) and link language
or whatsoever. But what sort of multilingualism, we have in India
today? Thus, is multilingualism stable in India? This question remains
without an answer. Apart from constitutional provisions, language
rights, education and economic benefits, we are still in a dilemma,
what is a stable bi/multilingualism? Therefore, we have to give up
the slogan that ìbi/multilingualism is a norm but monolingualism
is an exception in Indiaî. Of course, I do agree, almost every Indian
is a bi/multilingual in India. My contention is bi/multilingualism is
not stable India; it is constantly changing in its nature.
As in the table, it is shown, the 1991 Census concludes that the
ìLanguagesî spoken in India number 114, even though the raw
data of language names collected by its enumerators totalled 10,400.
The 2001 Census, on the other hand, from the much smaller set of
6,661 raw language names returned, arrives at a figure of 122.
As a consequence of the decision to include only those languages
that have more than 10,000 claimants, many tribal languages simply
vanish, given that adivasi and North-East tribal communities are small
(together they constitute a mere 2.1% of Indiaís population).
Moreover, disparate languages end up as grouped under one
Language. For example, more than 50 languages, including
Chhattisgarhi, Bhojpuri and Garhwali, are grouped under the
Language Hindi, even though 33,099,497 Bhojpuri speakers,
13,260,186 Chhattisgarhi speakers and 2,267,314 Garhwali speakers
told the Census enumerators that they do not speak Hindi. Maithili
speakers, however, strike it rich: the 2001 Census lists it as a Language
for the first time in three decades ñ but this is only because their

Table: From Raw Language Returns to Languages

Census Languages Languages after Mother tongues Languages

Returned Rationalization after classification

2001 6,661 1635 122 234

1991 10,400 1576 216 114

Sources: Ayesha Kidwai, ëManaging multilingual Indiaí, The Marxist, Volume

XXIV, No. 2: April-June 2008
 LANGUAGE ENDANGERMENT 53

language was included in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution

in 2003 (Kidwai, 2008).

STANDARDIZATION, MODERNIZATION AND DIGLOSSIA:

THE STATUS OF LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY
Tribal languages and other minority languages do not institutionally
support for their communicative functions. And also, they have no
written literary tradition and no access to technology and science.
In any of these domains, equal potential and access does not extend
to them. Language revitalization and maintenance are and have
always been politicallysanctioned. Because language policies are
always discriminatory, favouring to some privileged class/
communities. It is quite true that constitutional support and rights
are extended to them in order to maintain their languages.
Practically, they are not in favour of minority languages. The
possibility of recasting the communitiesí interests and perspectives
is never taken into consideration in order to achieve their aspirations.
ìThe processes at work in standardization and hierarchies of
styles and genres also give rise to what Bourdieu calls legitimization
and authorization. Both these turn on how language is socially
evaluated. Legitimacy is accorded to selected ways of speaking or
writing in that they are recognized by other producers, by the
dominant classes and by mass audiencesî (Bourdieu 1991, p. 331;
Garnham, 1993). Differences in social and economic position tend
to be reproduced in unequal knowledge of legitimate language,
which in turn reinforces constraints an access to power. However,
censorship, authorization and the reinforcement of the dominant
languages are all traceable to the pervasive effects of power (Gal &
Irvine, 1997; Lind storm, 1992).
Standardization and modernizationis a politicized discourse.
ìStandardization of languages can be regarded as a legitimizing
activity expanding its institutional order through a ëprogrammed
courseí in socializationî (Berger and Luckmann, 1966, quoted by
U.N. Singh 1992).
According to Fishman (1974), ìthe social context of language
modernization is most commonly discussed in terms of (a) the
growing identification with the standard version of the national
language on the part of the general public, (b) the increased
accessibility of all varieties within the speech community, (c) the
more rapid diffusion of linguistic innovations and status markers,
resulting in repertoire continuity rather than discontinuity across
54 SHSS 2008

classesî (p. 345-46). This linguistic inequality leads to the mismatch

between home and school languages. This tendency reinforces to
neglect the mother tongues of the tribe and minorities as well. As a
consequence, linguistic assimilation takes place, in turn; this forces
the tribal/ minority children into subtractive language learning in
a form of submersion education in the dominant language.
Institutions like education must promote mother tongue education
in the multilingual situation.
Fishman (1971) divides all the multilingual developing nations
into three clusters: nations with several Great Traditions, nations
with one Great Tradition and nations with none (quoted by H.R.
Dua: Hegemony of English). Sanskrit took over every tradition into its
account, considering that there is only one great tradition in India.
As a result, Sanskrit is considered the only language of knowledge,
philosophy, literature, great tradition and resource of vocabulary.
Due to its monistic attitude, it imposed its monistic realities on all
other indigenous languages. As a consequence, linguistic
homogeneity was developed instead of sociolinguistic heterogeneity.
It is another way of levelling the diversities and nullifying them in
the domains of socio-cultural milieus. The knowledge systems and
intellectual diversity were also integrated into Sanskrit tradition.
Characterizing linguistic codes in terms of ëHighí and ëLowí is
another way of differentiating sociolinguistic and cultural hierarchy.
This dichotomy is linguistically called as Diglossia. It is not only a
linguistic reality, but also a sociolinguistic attitude. Primary speech
varieties with localized or restricting domains as ëLowí (i.e. colloquial
Kannada) and superposed varieties enjoying access wider or
enlarging domains as ëHighí (i.e. Standard Kannada) has led many
investigators to attribute ad hoc values to diverse codes available in a
community. Such studies focusing on language attitudes generally
rate primary speech as conceptually ëdeficientí and sociologically as
ëdeprivedí. This raises certain issues of fundamental nature, such
as how does language structure reality. How far do the differences
in speech behaviour reflect differences in adequacy as opposed to
acceptable variation! In what manner does the ëhigh browí values
of speech ó uniformity, precision, elegance, purity of form,
allegiance to literary tradition, elaboration of language through
coining of new terms ó actually meet with the demands of adequacy
and effectiveness in everyday life communication in a society?
(Khubchandani, 1981)
The relationship between Kannada-Sanskrit and Kannada-
English is also a Diglossic situation. The former is dealing with
 LANGUAGE ENDANGERMENT 55

standardization whereas later one is dealing with modernization.

The hegemony of both Sanskrit and English is imposed on Kannada.
As a consequence, Kannada has to struggle with both Sanskrit and
English in order to retain its structural and functional usages. In
the formalized communication, and in the domains like literature,
criticism and other discursive writings Standard Kannada (i.e.
Sanskritized Kannada) is preferred. On the other hand, English is
preferred in the domains like Science, Technology and Law. The
similar situation can find in Hindi, which interface with Sanskrit
alone, ìthose bilingual speakers belonging to the North-Central
region (characterized as the Fluid Zone, cf. Khubchandani 1972a,
1978) who retain their regional or caste dialects either of Western
Hindi or of altogether different languages of the region (such as
Pahari, Lahnda, Panjabi, Rajasthani, Awadhi, Chhattisgarhi, Bihari)
for informal communication within their speech group, but prefer
to use Khariboli (standard Hindi) for formalized communication.
In this diglossia situation, these speakers think of Khariboli as having
a more prestigious role than their native speech, which has a casual
use. They regard their native speech habits as mere substandard
variations of the all-powerful standard Hindi (Khubchandani, 1981).
The distinctions between Standardized Kannada (i.e. pure, high,
powerful, elegant and standard variety) and dialects (i.e. impure,
low, powerless, non-standard, corrupted variety, substandard) is a
big split. As a result, caste/regional dialects are at the tip of
extinction. It leads to not merely ironing-out the dialects alone; it
also leads to the cultural loss.

WHY LANGUAGE MAINTENANCE IS NEEDED?

It is always debated across the world: will languages survive in
increasing globalization? Do dialects of those languages survive
among native speakers? Are the indigenous speech communities
of India still surviving today? In what capacities are they surviving?
Do these tongues have a future? These are common apprehensions
among the Indians.
Economic and social pressures are capital factors in the process
that leads a language to fall into disuse. For the economic, political,
social and educational benefits, speakers of minority languages
assimilate to the local dominant language. However, a number of
Indian communities are striving to revive their indigenous languages,
or foster its widest possible use, and to preserve it against the
perspective of extinction. For example, Kannada dialects have so
56 SHSS 2008

far resisted the pressure of Sanskritized Kannada, and succeeded

in preserving a wide use. The future of these tongues depends on
the will of their speakers to maintain their use. Judging by the
strength of their identity feeling, which commands this will, it seems
that some, at least, of the languages that coexist with widespread
languages might survive for some time.
Languages and dialects spoken in Karnataka are not threatened
by globalization. But they are threatened by standardized Kannada
itself. Due to the Kannada hegemony, linguistic minorities and
minor languages in Karnataka are also suffering and increasingly
become disused. It is quite true that in an era of globalization and
increasing cross-cultural contact, it is necessary to explore the
existential and communicative status of minority and indigenous
languages. The fact is, socio-cultural and politico-economic factors
are also supporting for language shift.
On the other hand, it is realized that, as far as the Indian linguistic
situation is concerned, it is not directly affected by globalization;
increasing globalization concerns international commercial
relationships rather than private communi-cation. Of course,
language has a greater role in the process of globalization. It is
unlikely that dialects, which are constantly used in oral exchange,
will be ousted by literary languages (e.g. Standard Kannada,
Khariboli-Hindi, this is the case with all the major Indian languages),
which is not spoken as a common conversation language in any part
of the given speech community.
Languages represent vast storehouses of human knowledge.
Most languages are not written down, but live only in the memories
and cultural practices of human communities/groups of people
who over millennia have devised unique systems of survival in difficult
circumstances. ìHuman languages are catalogs of plants, animals,
insects, peopleís stories, weather patterns, diseases, social paradigms,
songs, jokes, aphorisms, strategies for war and peace, practices of
trade and negotiationî (Sargent, Benjamin B. 2008: 01). A small
culture also carries within itself the potential of contributing to the
larger ethos. Every culture, irrespective of being big or small, serves
as a bridge between others and as an instrument of interaction which
is humanly universal (Pogcnik, 1986 quoted by L.M. Khubchandani,
1997).
Thus, it is argued, India has several Great Traditions, but Sanskrit
is only considered as the Great Tradition. Other indigenous
languages and their socio-cultural values, beliefs, ethos and ideals
constituting the world-view are not considered relevant to the
 LANGUAGE ENDANGERMENT 57

characterization of tradition. It is another way of devaluing the local

and small traditions. Non-linearity formation of Indian history is a
strong witness to the process of levelling of sociolinguistic diversities
and differences of India. Though, it is often felt, India is a country
of long survivals (Kosambi, 2008: 8). The importance of small
languages/cultures is also being discussed by various linguists, fore.g.
Fishman (1982) elaborates on treating ethno-linguistic diversity as
a worldwide societal asset. Profiles of small cultures can provide a
lot of insights into the probing of such questions as how to channel
the concerns of ethnic identity in a positive and sublime manner to
enrich the nationís heritage, instead of provoking linguistic and
religious conflicts between majority and minority cultures and
languages, or accepting the assimilation of small cultures into the
dominant cultures (L.M. Khubchandani, 1997: 108).
The importance of language diversity can also be remarked from
a historical point of view. Todayís languages consist in huge parts of
remnants of old, dead languages, such as Latin (Sanskrit in case of
India). Those dead languages survive in modern languages in the
form of borrowings, or leave us some structural or morphological
features. This fact not only contributes to a lexical variety, but also
allows us to investigate the exact processes of a language that is
undergoing from its beginnings until today. The history of a language
is closely linked to the history of its speakers. The knowledge of
when a certain feature first appeared in a language and from which
foreign language it was taken makes it possible to re-establish the
genealogy of a nation (Horak, 2008). This is another reason why
the maintenance of language diversity is important. When speaking
of languages, we should not only focus on so-called official (standard)
languages. Moreover, dialects can also have the function of
identification and are, therefore, to be treated the same way as
languages. ìThe boundary between dialect and language is arbitrary,
dependent on sociopolitical considerations (...). Dialect death is
language death (...)î (Crystal 2000: 38). Although the argument
that language helps to keep oneís identity is evident, the
consequence of dialect death is remarkable and can be noticed in
the fact that people have always tried to collect and compile old
words and regional tales (often in dialect) containing rural
expressions (Horak, 2008).
Varying between the boundaries of languages, dialects, cultures,
or speech varieties in Indian subcontinent can only be explained in
pluralistic point of view. The success of linguistic minorities in
retaining their language, therefore, frequently depends on their
58 SHSS 2008

ability to mobilize super-national, or informal, sources of support

(Thomas Hylland Eriksen, 1992: 1). Efforts to save minority
Languages from extinction and foster a deep sense of community
may compel to develop a stringent language policy for minorities.
It is felt that unless drastic measures are taken to preserve and
promote them, all minority languages might be abandoned in favour
of dominant languages in the next century.
The reasons for language shift are complex, and Fishman (1964)
has stated that ìit is currently impossible to specify in advance an
invariant list of psychological, social, and cultural processes or
variables that might be of universal importance for an understanding
of language maintenance or language shiftî (p. 49). According to
Crawford (1996), there seems to be no established and
comprehensive theory of language shift, especially in terms of causes
and varying conditions that might prevent them. As big languages
spread, children whose parents speak a small language often grow
up learning the dominant language. Depending on attitudes toward
the ancestral language, those children or their children may never
learn the smaller language, or they may forget it as it falls out of
use. This has occurred throughout human history, but the rate of
language disappearance has accelerated dramatically in recent years.

CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVES

The kind of relationship is always found between the contexts of
multilingualism and social justice depending upon the sustainability
of linguistic ecology in India. It is not just about the needs of a
particular speech communityís benefit, but also the entire country
is going to benefit from the multilingualism. Education is one of
the vital factors for fostering and sustaining multilingualism.
Simultaneously, education can be used as a weapon by dominant
language speakers to eliminate the multilingualism. For example,
the government of Karnataka dictates that Kannada is compulsory
in all the functional domains. Consequently, the minor languages
like Tulu, Kodava, Lambani, etc., are confronting the threat of
endangerment. But the irony is ëKannada is compulsoryí in
Karnataka never affects the domination of Sanskrit and English as
well. Therefore, this paper strongly believes in multilingual
education that sustains linguistic ecology and rights of all the Indian
languages. The very concept of multilingual education itself justifies
linguistic liberalism and social justice. This linguistic liberalism can
contribute to greater social justice, by protecting and promoting
 LANGUAGE ENDANGERMENT 59

linguistic human rights, it is possible to accomplish the needs,

aspirations of every speech communities of this country.
Maintaining languages in a few private domains will never
accomplish the intended social justice which equips both to maintain
and develop their languages and cultures in the wider society. The
accessibility of social, political, economic rights and the democratic
participation is directly connected to the language. This argument
is not merely justifying how language can play a decisive role in
socio-political and democratic contexts,it is also proving the
significance and paramount of importance of a language.

WORKS CITED

Ananthamurthy, U.R. (2009).Globalization, English and ëOtherí

Languages in Social Scientist, Vol. 37
Anzaldua, G. (1987). Borderlands/La,frontera: The new mestiza.
San Francisco: Spinsters/AuntLute.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin,
TX: University of Texas Press.
Bayer, Jennifer Marie. (2005). Indian Languages in Education:
Globalization and Cultural Territories in South Asian Language
Review.Vol. XV, No. 1.
Bernadett, Biro and Katalin, Sipocz. (2009). ìLanguage Shift among
the Mansiî. In J.N. Stanford and D. R. Preston, Amsterdam,
John Benjamins (eds.). Variation in Indigenous Minority
languages, Amsterdam: Wiley, pp. 321-46
Bhabha Homi. (1994). The Location of Culture. New York: Routledge
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press
Burdhan, A. B. (1973). The Unsolved Tribal Problem, New Delhi:
Communist Party Publications
Chatterji, Suniti Kumar. (1943). Languages and the linguistic problem,
Oxford University Press
Crawford, J. (1996). Seven hypotheses on language loss: causes and cures
In G. Cantoni (Ed.), Stabilizing Indigenous Languages.
Flagstaff: Centre for Excellence in Education, Northern
Arizona University, pp. 10-25. http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/
miscpubs/stabilize/ii-policy/hypotheses.htm accessed on 5th
August 2010
Crystal, D. (2000). Language Death. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
60 SHSS 2008

Denison, Norman. (1977). ëLanguage Death or Language Suicideí.

Linguistics, 191:13-22.
Dorian, Nancy C. (1977). ëThe problem of the semi-speakers in
language deathí. Linguistics, 191: 23-32.
Dorian, Nancy C. (1980). ëLinguistic lag as an ethnic markerí.
Language in Society, Vol.9, No.1: 33-41.
Dorian, Nancy C. (1981). Language Death: The Life Cycle of a Scottish
Gaelic Dialect. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press
Dorian, Nancy C. (1987). ëThe Value of Language-Maintenance
Efforts which are unlikely to Succeedí. International Journal
of the Sociology of Language, 68: 57-67.
Dorian, Nancy C. (1989a). Introduction. In Nancy C. Dorian (ed.),
Investigating obsolescence (:) Studies in Language Contraction and
Death, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-10
Dua, H.R. (1994). Hegemony of English. Mysore: Yashoda Publications.
Doshi, S. L. (1972). ìTribals: An Assimilationist Society and National
Integrationî. In K. S. Singh (ed.) Tribal Situation in India,
Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Simla, pp. 462-467.
Fasold, Ralph. (1984). The Sociolinguistics of Society. London and New
York: Blackwell.
Fishman, Joshua. (1964). ëLanguage maintenance and language
shift as a field of inquiryí, Linguistics, 9: 32-70.
Fishman, Joshua A. (1965). ëWho speaks what language to whom
and when? í La Linguistique, 2: 67-88.
Fishman, Joshua A. 1972. The sociology of language, Rowley,
Massachusetts: Newbury House.
Fishman, J. A. (1974). ìLanguage planning and language planning
research: The state of the artî In J. A. Fishman (ed.) Advances
in Language Planning. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 195-214
Fishman, Joshua A. (1982). ìWhorfianism of the third kind:
Ethnolinguistic diversity as a worldwide societal asset (The
Whorfianism Hypothesis: Varieties of validation,
confirmation, and disconfirmation II) ì, Language in Society,
Vol.11, No.1: 1-14.
Fishman. Joshua A. (1991). Reversing language shift. Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Fishman, J. A. (2001). ìReversing language shift: The best of times,
the worst of timesî In Joshua A. Fishman, Can threatened
languages be saved? Reversing language shift, revisited: A 21st
century perspective, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. xii-xvi
Fishman, J.A. (2001). ìWhy is it so hard to save a threatened
language? (A perspective on the cases that follow)î, In
 LANGUAGE ENDANGERMENT 61

Joshua A. Fishman, Can threatened languages be saved? Reversing

language shift, revisited: A 21st century perspective, Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters, pp. 1-22.
Fishman, Joshua A. (ed.) (2001). Can threatened languages be saved?
Reversing language shift, revisited: A 21st century perspective.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Gal, S. and Irvine, J. T. (1997). The boundaries of languages and
disciplines: how ideologies construct a difference, Social
Research, 62: 967ñ1001
Gal, Susan. (1979). Language Shift: Social determinants of linguistic
change in bilingual Austria. New York: Academic Press.
Garnham, Nicholas, (1993), ëBourdieu, the cultural arbitrary, and
televisioní, in C. Calhoun, E. LiPumma and M. Postone (eds.)
Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives, Oxford: Quality Press, pp. 178-
92
Horak, André. (2008). Language Death: A Theoretical Approach,
University of Berne, http://www.anmal. uma.es/numero18/
Horak.htm accessed on 12th August 2010
Khubchandani, L.M. (1972a). Contact Languages of Tribals, New
Delhi: Indian Council of Social Science Research
Khubchandani, L.M. (1978). ìDistribution of contact of languages
in Indiaî. In J. A. Fishman (ed.) Advances in the Study of Societal
Multilingualism, The Hague: Mouton, pp. 553-85
Khubchandani, L.M. (1981). Language, Education, Social Justice. Pune:
Centre for Communication Studies
Khubchandani, L.M. (1997). Revisualizing Boundaries ñ A Plurilingual
Ethos, New Delhi: Sage
Kidwai, Ayesha. (2008). ëManaging multilingual Indiaí, The Marxist,
Volume XXIV, No. 2: April-June
Kosambi, Damodar Dharmanand. Reprint (2008). An Introduction to
the Study of Indian History, Mumbai: Popular Prakashan
Krauss, Michael. (1992). ëThe worldís languages in crisisí, Language:
Journal of the Linguistic Society of America, 68: 4-10.
Leonard, Wesley Y. (2008). When Is an ìExtinct Languageî Not
Extinct? Miami, a Formerly Sleeping Language. Sustaining
Linguistic Diversity, ed. by King, et al. Washington D.C.:
Georgetown University Press, pp. 23-34
Lindstrom L. (1992). ëContext contests: debatable truth statement
on Tanna (Vanuatu)í. In A Duranti, Goodwin (ed.),
Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.101ñ24.
Mohanty, Ajit K. (2009). Multilingualism of the Unequals and
62 SHSS 2008

Predicaments of Education in India: Mother Tongue or

Other Tongue? In Ofelia Garcia, Skutnabb-Kangas and Maria
Torres Guzman (ed) imaging multilingual schools. New
Delhi: Orient Blackswan, pp. 262-283
Muehlhaesler, Peter. (1992). ëPreserving languages or language
ecologies? A top-down approach to language survivalí, Oceanic
Linguistics, Vol. 31, No. 2: 163-80.
Muehlhaesler, Peter. (1993). ëLanguage and diversityí,
Communication News, Vol. 6, No. 4: 1-3
Ofelia Garcia, Skutnabb-Kangas and Maria Torres Guzman (ed.).
2009. Imaging Multilingual Schools. New Delhi: Orient
Blackswan
Mufwene, Salikoko S. (2003). ìLanguage endangerment: What have
pride and prestige got to do with it? ì In: When Languages
Collide: Perspectives on Language Conflict, Language Competition,
and Language Coexistence, ed. by Joseph D. Brian, Johanna
Destafano, Neil G. Jacobs, & IlseLehiste, Columbus: Ohio
State University Press, pp. 324-345. http://
mufwene.uchicago.edu/publications/
CLS42_%20LANGUAGE_ ENDANGERMENT.pdf accessed
on 18 Nov 2010
Narayana K.V. (2005). NammodaneNammaNudi, Bellary, Karnataka:
Lohia Prakashana
Phillipson R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University
Press
Pogacnik, Bogdan. (1986), ëThe Culture of Small Nations as a
Communication Bridgeí, Inter-Cross UNESSCO, No. 1, Paris
Ramaswamy, Sumathi. (2007). Sanskrit for the Nation, Modern Asian
Studies, 33 (2): 339-381
Romaine, Suzanne. (1989). ìPidgins, Creoles, immigrant and dying
languagesî In Nancy C. Dorian (ed.) Investigating obsolescence
(:) studies in language contraction and death, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 369-384
Sargent, B. Benjamin. (2008). ëLanguage Death and Why It Mattersí,
February 20, www.commonsenseadvisory. com/
analystview.aspx?authorid=12 accessed on 10th August 2010
Sasse, Hans-Juergen. (1992a). ìTheory of language deathî. In
Matthias Brenzinger (ed.), Language death (:) factual and
theoretical explorations with special reference to East Africa, Berlin
and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 7-30
Sheldon Pollock, (1996). ìThe Sanskrit Cosmopolis, A.D. 300ñ1300:
Transculturation, Vernacularization, and the Question of
 LANGUAGE ENDANGERMENT 63

Ideologyî. In J. E. M. Houben, (ed.) The Ideology and Status

of Sanskrit in South and Southeast Asia. Leiden: Brill, pp. 197ñ
247.
Sheldon Pollock. (1998a). ìIndia in the Vernacular Millennium:
Literary Culture and Polity 1000ñ 1500.î Daedalus, 127.3:
1ñ34
Sheldon Pollock. (1998b). ëThe Cosmopolitan Vernacularí, Journal
of Asian Studies, 57.1: 6ñ37.
Sheldon Pollock. (2001). ëThe Death of Sanskrití, Comparative Studies
in Society and History, 43(2): pp. 392-426
Singh, U.N. (1992). On Language Development and Planning ñ A
Pluralistic Paradigm. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced
Study
Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove (1998). ìHuman rights and language policy
in educationî. In Wodak, Ruth & Corson, David (eds) The
Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Volume Language Policy
and Political Issues in Education. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 55-
65
Skutnabb-Kangas. (2000). Linguistic Genocide in Education or
Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights? Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Thomas HyllandEriksen. (1992 & 2001). Small places, large issues: An
introduction to social and cultural anthropology, (Second edition)
London and Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press
Tsunoda, Tasaku. (2005). Language endangerment and language
revitalization. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
UNESCO 2001 Atlas of the Worldís Languages in Danger of
Disappearing. Paris: UNESCO
UNESCO (2000). Human Rights. Paris: UNESCO, Division of
Human Rights, Democracy and Peace