that "offensive" survey request on diglossia
Lakshmi Srinivas
lsrinivas at YAHOO.COM
Tue Feb 5 22:26:19 UTC 2008
VYAKARAN: South Asian Languages and Linguistics Net
Editors: Tej K. Bhatia, Syracuse University, New York
John Peterson, University of Osnabrueck, Germany
Details: Send email to listserv at listserv.syr.edu and say: INFO VYAKARAN
Subscribe:Send email to listserv at listserv.syr.edu and say:
SUBSCRIBE VYAKARAN FIRST_NAME LAST_NAME
(Substitute your real name for first_name last_name)
Archives: http://listserv.syr.edu
As an amateur but interested follower of discussions on this list, I was quite at a loss to understand the implicit assumption of some kind of causal relation between literacy and diglossia. In situations with longstanding diglossia there does not seem to be much of an effect of literacy (in the high language) over diglossia. Schweitzer Deutsch must be a case in point as is diglossia in Tamil.
Diglossia seems to be a cultural marker more than anything else. Surely one of the first to articulate diglossia in history must have to be Hanuman in the Ramayana when he ponders how to address Sita - in Sanskrit (refined speech) or in the spoken dialect. He is a stranger to Sita and he does not want her to draw the wrong conclusions about him with regard to who he was, his station in life etc.
This prehistoric reference to diglossia would seem to be a contraindicator for the notion that diglossia has any relationship to literacy.
Hope this helps,
Lakshmi Srinivas
----- Original Message ----
From: Peter Slomanson <slomanson at GMAIL.COM>
To: VYAKARAN at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2008 2:10:51 PM
Subject: Re: that "offensive" survey request on diglossia
VYAKARAN:
South
Asian
Languages
and
Linguistics
Net
Editors:
Tej
K.
Bhatia,
Syracuse
University,
New
York
John
Peterson,
University
of
Osnabrueck,
Germany
Details:
Send
email
to
listserv at listserv.syr.edu
and
say:
INFO
VYAKARAN
Subscribe:Send
email
to
listserv at listserv.syr.edu
and
say:
SUBSCRIBE
VYAKARAN
FIRST_NAME
LAST_NAME
(Substitute
your
real
name
for
first_name
last_name)
Archives:
http://listserv.syr.edu
My
objection
was
not
to
the
idea
that
a
diglossic
linguistic
culture
in
which
the
H
language
is
linguistically
distant
from
the
vernacular
language
may
be
an
impediment
to
literacy.
My
only
objection
was
to
the
reference
to
ostensible
ideological
motivations
for
the
maintenance
of
diglossia,
and
more
specifically
to
the
terms
used,
including
"fanaticism"
and
that
"they"
wish
to
"create
a
maximally
large
'Arab
people'".
Why
would
one
suggest
that
political
pan-Arabism
is
a
*general*
motivation
for
the
maintenance
of
the
diglossic
system
in
Arabic-speaking
societies?
Why
should
explicitly
political
motives
necessarily
be
associated
with
the
maintenance
of
diglossia
in
(predominantly)
Muslim
linguistic
cultures?
When
was
the
last
time
Swiss
Germans
were
referred
to
as
fanatics
of
any
variety
in
discussions
of
the
maintenance
of
a
diglossic
system
in
Switzerland?
What
about
the
idea
that
diglossia
is
perpetuated
because
it
is
traditionally
an
integral
part
of
some
linguistic
culture?
That
dynamic
(simple
cultural
conservatism)
would
apply
in
all
of
the
linguistic
cultures
to
which
John
referred.
I
certainly
take
that
to
be
the
motivation
for
the
maintenance
of
diglossia
in
Tamil,
for
example,
although
general
Tamil
language
maintenance
is
an
extremely
politicized
matter.
The
idea
that
only
the
vernacular
is
the
variety
with
which
its
speakers
ought
to
identify
may
be
completely
logical
to
linguists
from
non-diglossic
linguistic
cultures,
but
it
is
hardly
a
universal
perspective.
That
fact
obviates
the
need
to
look
for
a
grand
ideological
motivation
for
maintaining
diglossia,
a
motivation
which,
widespread
or
not,
might
also
be
described
in
less
judgmental
terms.
John
noted
that
literacy
in
Sinhala
and
in
Malayalam
are
quite
high.
I
have
assumed
that
educational
policy/conditions
can
go
a
long
way
toward
mitigating
any
negative
effects
of
diglossia.
I
have
long
found
the
extent
of
literacy
in
Sinhala
to
be
particularly
impressive
at
this
point
in
history.
Although
diglossia
may
contribute
to
difficulties
in
education
elsewhere,
I
am
unaware
of
any
literature
making
such
a
claim
with
reference
to
Sinhala.
(Of
course
they
may
well
exist.)
Linguistic
informants/consultants
have
drawn
my
attention
to
problems
that
arise
in
Sri
Lanka
when
children
there
are
educated
in
a
language
that
is
unrelated
to
their
home
and
peer
group
language,
however
this
is
another
matter.
I
would
be
very
interested
indeed
in
a
longer
discussion
of
diglossia
and
education
in
South
Asia
with
anyone
who
cares
to
jump
in,
in
this
forum
or
privately.
Peter
Slomanson
2008/2/5,
Harold
F.
Schiffman
<haroldfs at ccat.sas.upenn.edu>:
>
VYAKARAN:
South
Asian
Languages
and
Linguistics
Net
>
Editors:
Tej
K.
Bhatia,
Syracuse
University,
New
York
>
John
Peterson,
University
of
Osnabrueck,
Germany
>
Details:
Send
email
to
listserv at listserv.syr.edu
and
say:
INFO
VYAKARAN
>
Subscribe:Send
email
to
listserv at listserv.syr.edu
and
say:
>
SUBSCRIBE
VYAKARAN
FIRST_NAME
LAST_NAME
>
(Substitute
your
real
name
for
first_name
last_name)
>
Archives:
http://listserv.syr.edu
>
>
In
reply
to
various
people
who
found
the
diglossia
survey
"offensive",
I'd
>
like
to
add
what
I
can
to
hopefully
clarify
this.
The
point
John
was
>
trying
to
make
is
that
the
greater
degree
of
distance
there
is
between
the
>
H
and
L
varieties
of
a
language,
the
more
difficult
it
is
to
achieve
>
literacy
for
people
who
only
know
L
and
are
attempting
to
master
H.
I
am
>
not
an
expert
on
Arabic,
but
I
have
heard
people
who
are
say
that
the
>
extreme
diglossia
of
Arabic
is
in
fact
an
impediment
to
literacy
in
>
H-variety
(Qu'ranic)
Arabic,
and
I
would
agree
that
this
is
true
for
>
Tamil,
a
language
I
spent
28
years
of
my
career
teaching.
In
fact
I
used
>
to
teach
H-variety
Tamil
and
L-variety
spoken
Tamil
separately,
almost
as
>
if
they
were
two
different
but
related
languages,
because
otherwise
>
students
tended
to
confuse
the
two
varieties,
especially
at
first.
So
I
>
don't
think
that
offense
was
meant
by
this
question,
and
I
don't
find
the
>
question
offensive
when
seen
in
this
light.
>
>
My
only
reservation
is
that
I
don't
know
of
any
number-crunching
metric
>
one
can
use
to
ascertain
what
the
"distance"
is
between
the
H
and
L
of
any
>
diglossic
language,
so
that
unless
someone
has
come
up
with
a
way
to
>
measure
this,
the
"degree
of
distance"
can
only
be
guessed
at,
>
impressionistically.
I
think
there
is
room
here
for
some
interesting
>
kinds
of
testing,
e.g.
to
see
how
much
of
a
different
dialect
speakers
of
>
a
given
language
can
understand,
e.g.
how
much
Sri
Lanka
Tamil
can
Indian
>
Tamil
speakers
understand,
vs.
Sri
Lanka
speakers
understanding
Indian
>
Tamil.
>
>
The
problem
of
course
is
that
mutual
intelligibility,
or
lack
of
it,
often
>
has
to
do
with
factors
other
than
"pure"
perceptual
cues,
or
measurable
as
>
phonological
morphological,
lexical
or
syntactic
differences.
(SL
Tamil
>
speakers
tend
to
understand
Indian
Tamil
better
than
vice
versa
because
of
>
the
dominance
of
Indian
Tamil
in
films,
etc.,
or
so
I'm
told.
I
once
had
>
the
experience
of
speaking
Indian
Tamil
to
a
woman
in
Sri
Lanka
who
>
replied
to
me
in
H-variety
Tamil;
if
she
had
spoken
SL
Tamil
I
would
have
>
not
understood,
but
the
arrangement
worked
well.)
And
we
also
have
>
literature
on
non-reciprocal
intelligibility
that
is
based
on
political
>
factors.
>
>
In
other
words,
there
are
many
sociolingustic
factors
involved
here,
but
I
>
think
it's
an
area
for
more
research.
In
any
event,
it's
not
an
ignorant
>
question,
and
it's
not
meant
to
be
offensive.
>
>
>
Hal
Schiffman
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/vyakaran/attachments/20080205/803f99a2/attachment.htm>
More information about the Vyakaran
mailing list