<div dir="ltr"><div>All:<br><br>In order to clarify some of the background for the demands for a Telangana state in India,<br></div>I searched our archives and found this item, which I had forwarded to the list back in 2011.<br>
<br><div class=""><img class="" id=":145" src="https://mail.google.com/mail/images/cleardot.gif" alt=""></div>A note on linguistic references in Sreekrishna commission report<br>
P. Sreekumar, Dravidian University<br>
<br>
1. The much-debated report of the Committee for Consultations on the<br>
Situation in Andhra Pradesh (CCSAP) known as Sreekrishna Commission<br>
made a few linguistic references on Telugu in relation to the argument<br>
of separate <span class="">Telangana</span> state, which need serious response from<br>
linguists and language activists.<br>
<br>
2. Section 7.14 of the report subtitled titled Cultural Issues discuss<br>
the linguistic issues underlie the <span class="">Telangana</span> State movement as one<br>
among the five distinctiveness of this region. The report turned into<br>
linguistic issues by remanding us the triggering role of Andhra<br>
Pradesh in the formation of the first linguistic states in India. The<br>
report observed that: “It is important to look at the linguistic<br>
diversity of the state as AP was the first linguistic state to be<br>
formed in the country, as a consequence of the demand for a separate<br>
state by the Telugu speaking population of the erstwhile Madras<br>
Presidency. In the current movement for <span class="">Telangana</span>, language has<br>
again become a contentious issue with coastal Andhra and<br>
Rayalaseema claiming that the Telugu language underpins the<br>
fundamental unity of the three regions and for this reason<br>
the state needs to be preserved as it is. <span class="">Telangana</span> people, on the<br>
other hand, have argued that their dialect, if not language, differs<br>
substantially from that of Andhra region, connoting a separate<br>
cultural identity” (CCSAP 2010: 435). What extent the <span class="">Telangana</span><br>
dialect named as ‘northern dialect’ by Bh. Krishnamurti (2003: 230)<br>
differs from the rest of the dialect of Telugu? Section 7. 14. 06 of<br>
the report states that: “People from coastal Andhra ridicule the<br>
<span class="">Telangana</span> Telugu as inferior and pass derogatory comments. The<br>
language spoken in coastal Andhra is considered as “Standard<br>
Language” while <span class="">Telangana</span> language is condemned as an “Ordinary<br>
Dialect”. The language spoken in coastal Andhra is considered as<br>
“Standard Language” while <span class="">Telangana</span> language is condemned as an<br>
“Ordinary Dialect”. The <span class="">Telangana</span> language is also ignored in<br>
the academic syllabus. Text books published by the government are<br>
written in coastal Andhra language. This puts an extra burden on<br>
children from <span class="">Telangana</span> as they have to learn an alien Telugu. The<br>
<span class="">Telangana</span> dialect is ridiculed in government offices, universities and<br>
colleges. There is no feeling of unity among the people of the<br>
different regions on the basis of language.” They claim that <span class="">Telangana</span><br>
Telugu is a separate language; the difference in Andhra Telugu and<br>
<span class="">Telangana</span> Telugu can be found in the literary works of <span class="">Telangana</span><br>
poets like Pothana and Palakuriki Somanatha, compared to the<br>
Andhra poets like Nannayya and Tikkanna or for that matter,<br>
Rayalaseema poet like Srinatha. Hence, it is felt that a new<br>
linguistic state can be forged on the basis of a distinctive<br>
language and other cultural features” (CCSAP 2010: 394).<br>
<br>
3. The above mentioned issues in the Sreekrishna Commission report<br>
raises few questions which are general to many language based states<br>
in our nation. How one dialect of a language felt an alien language<br>
to the people who speak another dialect of the same language? What<br>
constitute this linguistic attitude among the speakers of the same<br>
dialect of a language? Is it purely linguistic, sociolinguistic or<br>
only an attitude constructed by the socio political context of the<br>
speakers? Is it an overstating of a negligible issue by the<br>
Sreekrishna Commission report? If the Andhra Pradesh prefers the<br>
sixth option “keeping the state united”, how linguists address the<br>
above issue especially the extra burden of students to learn the<br>
textbook content rendered in an alien dialect of their language? These<br>
are few immediate issues have to be addressed by the linguists and<br>
language activists who works in language planning in general and<br>
Telugu language and linguistics in particular.<br>
<br>
[Moderator's note: this document, authored by Dr. P. Sreekumar, of<br>
the Dravidian University, India, was forwarded to me by Dr. E.<br>
Annamalai, former head of the Central Institute of Indian Languages<br>
and author of many scholarly works on Dravidian languages, and<br>
Indian language policy. (HS)]<br><br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Harold Schiffman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hfsclpp@gmail.com" target="_blank">hfsclpp@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">A note on linguistic references in Sreekrishna commission report<br>
P. Sreekumar, Dravidian University<br>
<br>
1. The much-debated report of the Committee for Consultations on the<br>
Situation in Andhra Pradesh (CCSAP) known as Sreekrishna Commission<br>
made a few linguistic references on Telugu in relation to the argument<br>
of separate Telangana state, which need serious response from<br>
linguists and language activists.<br>
<br>
2. Section 7.14 of the report subtitled titled Cultural Issues discuss<br>
the linguistic issues underlie the Telangana State movement as one<br>
among the five distinctiveness of this region. The report turned into<br>
linguistic issues by remanding us the triggering role of Andhra<br>
Pradesh in the formation of the first linguistic states in India. The<br>
report observed that: “It is important to look at the linguistic<br>
diversity of the state as AP was the first linguistic state to be<br>
formed in the country, as a consequence of the demand for a separate<br>
state by the Telugu speaking population of the erstwhile Madras<br>
Presidency. In the current movement for Telangana, language has<br>
again become a contentious issue with coastal Andhra and<br>
Rayalaseema claiming that the Telugu language underpins the<br>
fundamental unity of the three regions and for this reason<br>
the state needs to be preserved as it is. Telangana people, on the<br>
other hand, have argued that their dialect, if not language, differs<br>
substantially from that of Andhra region, connoting a separate<br>
cultural identity” (CCSAP 2010: 435). What extent the Telangana<br>
dialect named as ‘northern dialect’ by Bh. Krishnamurti (2003: 230)<br>
differs from the rest of the dialect of Telugu? Section 7. 14. 06 of<br>
the report states that: “People from coastal Andhra ridicule the<br>
Telangana Telugu as inferior and pass derogatory comments. The<br>
language spoken in coastal Andhra is considered as “Standard<br>
Language” while Telangana language is condemned as an “Ordinary<br>
Dialect”. The language spoken in coastal Andhra is considered as<br>
“Standard Language” while Telangana language is condemned as an<br>
“Ordinary Dialect”. The Telangana language is also ignored in<br>
the academic syllabus. Text books published by the government are<br>
written in coastal Andhra language. This puts an extra burden on<br>
children from Telangana as they have to learn an alien Telugu. The<br>
Telangana dialect is ridiculed in government offices, universities and<br>
colleges. There is no feeling of unity among the people of the<br>
different regions on the basis of language.” They claim that Telangana<br>
Telugu is a separate language; the difference in Andhra Telugu and<br>
Telangana Telugu can be found in the literary works of Telangana<br>
poets like Pothana and Palakuriki Somanatha, compared to the<br>
Andhra poets like Nannayya and Tikkanna or for that matter,<br>
Rayalaseema poet like Srinatha. Hence, it is felt that a new<br>
linguistic state can be forged on the basis of a distinctive<br>
language and other cultural features” (CCSAP 2010: 394).<br>
<br>
3. The above mentioned issues in the Sreekrishna Commission report<br>
raises few questions which are general to many language based states<br>
in our nation. How one dialect of a language felt an alien language<br>
to the people who speak another dialect of the same language? What<br>
constitute this linguistic attitude among the speakers of the same<br>
dialect of a language? Is it purely linguistic, sociolinguistic or<br>
only an attitude constructed by the socio political context of the<br>
speakers? Is it an overstating of a negligible issue by the<br>
Sreekrishna Commission report? If the Andhra Pradesh prefers the<br>
sixth option “keeping the state united”, how linguists address the<br>
above issue especially the extra burden of students to learn the<br>
textbook content rendered in an alien dialect of their language? These<br>
are few immediate issues have to be addressed by the linguists and<br>
language activists who works in language planning in general and<br>
Telugu language and linguistics in particular.<br>
<br>
[Moderator's note: this document, authored by Dr. P. Sreekumar, of<br>
the Dravidian University, India, was forwarded to me by Dr. E.<br>
Annamalai, former head of the Central Institute of Indian Languages<br>
and author of many scholarly works on Dravidian languages, and<br>
Indian language policy. (HS)]<br>
<br>
--<br>
**************************************<br>
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to<br>
its members<br>
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner<br>
or sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents.<br>
Members who disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal,<br>
and to write directly to the original sender of any offensive message.<br>
A copy of this may be forwarded to this list as well. (H. Schiffman,<br>
Moderator)<br>
<br>
For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to<br>
<a href="https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/" target="_blank">https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/</a><br>
listinfo/lgpolicy-list<br>
*******************************************<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:lgpolicy-list@groups.sas.upenn.edu">lgpolicy-list@groups.sas.upenn.edu</a><br>
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: <a href="https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list" target="_blank">https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+<br><br> Harold F. Schiffman<br><br>Professor Emeritus of <br> Dravidian Linguistics and Culture <br>Dept. of South Asia Studies <br>
University of Pennsylvania<br>Philadelphia, PA 19104-6305<br><br>Phone: (215) 898-7475<br>Fax: (215) 573-2138 <br><br>Email: <a href="mailto:haroldfs@gmail.com">haroldfs@gmail.com</a><br>
<a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/">http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/</a> <br><br>-------------------------------------------------
</div>