(An extract from the book THE QUINTESSENCE OF APATANI LANGUAGE (PRELUDE)
released on 5th July 2011)
“Ziro is a valley, not a plateau;
Apatani
is a language, not a dialect”.
Some early writers referred to Ziro
valley or Apatani Valley as Ziro
plateau or Apatani plateau and we
blindly accepted it, obediently followed it and lavishly used the jargon
without even verifying the definition of the terminology. In fact, Ziro
is a valley not a plateau; to be precise, Ziro is an intermontane valley[1].
Likewise, some early writers referred Apatani as dialect and we are still in the
hangover of it without authenticating the meaning and connotation of the
terminology (not realising Apatani speech variety is an independent
language).
 |
|
Dr (Mrs) Tage Rupa-Sora
Assistant Professor
Department of Geography
Rajiv Gandhi University, Ronohills
|
Let me reason it as ignorance and
obliviousness of many and most of our own people–both educated and others
alike–who take pride in proclaiming, tagging and levelling Apatani as dialect.
We are the obedient followers of the flow of the wind. But then what are the
arguments to establish Apatani as a language and to refute that it is not a
dialect.
Incidentally, it’s a general
misunderstanding that any speech variety to be called a “language” has to have
a script of its own and for the speech variety which doesn’t have a script is
called a “dialect”. Regrettably, this perception of the definition is wide of
the mark as far as linguistic discipline is concerned.
Notwithstanding, if we go by the
above definition; how do we explain the phenomenon of the established languages
like Marathi, Hindi, Nepali using Devnagri script; English, French, German
employing Roman alphabet (=Latin alphabet); Yiddish, Judaeo-Spanish, Hebrew,
Aramaic using Hebrew alphabet; Persian, Urdu using Arabic Alphabet; and
Russian, Ukrainian, Serbian, Bulgarian using Cyrillic alphabet? Are we going to
classify them as dialects and not as languages because these languages don’t
have their own native script but use (borrow) other alphabets/scripts to write?
How do we justify the proclamation and tagging of these speech varieties as
languages and not as dialects?
At some point or the other of their histories, even their speech
varieties had had the same crisis and status as we have today. In fact there
existed no script in the world. But with time scripts were invented and the
scripts evolved gradually and were refined. Some new scripts were adapted from
older prototypes. However, “some alphabets (like Armenian alphabet, Mongolian
hP'ags–Pa script, Cherokee syllabary), have been created artificially for
peoples previously illiterate, or for nations hitherto using alphabets of
foreign origin”[2].
Thus, the basic misconstrued criterion to have an indigenous script/
alphabet for a speech variety to be levelled as a ‘language’ can be refuted.
Hence, on this basis Apatani not having an indigenous script still qualifies to
be levelled as language.
Now, what is a language and what is a dialect? Why is Apatani a language
and not a dialect?
Longman Dictionary of Language
Teaching and Applied Linguistics defines “dialect” as “a
variety of a language, spoken in one part of a country (regional dialect), or
by people belonging to a particular social class (social dialect or sociolect),
which is different in some words, grammar, and/ or pronunciation from other
forms of the same language. A dialect is often associated with a particular
accent. Sometimes a dialect gains status and becomes the standard variety of a
country.”
A rule–of–thumb used to define language: When dialects become mutually
unintelligible–when the speakers of one dialect group can no longer understand
the speakers of another dialect group–these “dialects” become different
languages”[3].
Well, because of the distinct structural differences, it is very easy
even for a layperson to identify the languages like Japanese, Hebrew, Thai,
Turkish or Tamil as different languages. But what about structurally and
lexically similar languages like Hindi and Urdu or Assamese and Bengali
languages? What about structurally similar but lexically dissimilar languages
like Hindi and Marathi or Tamil and Telugu? And what about 13 different absolutely
mutually unintelligible spoken varieties (Cantonese, Mandarin, Wu, Xiang, Yue,
Min, Kejia (or Hakka), Gan etc ) which are brought together as one unified
Chinese language[4]?
Now here, to pronounce a speech variety as a language or a dialect; not
just linguistic principles are enough but many socio–political factors come
into play. Some of them being: representation of social and political unity,
sense of pride, symbol of independence, depiction of affiliation, cultural
empathy etc.
According to Chambers and Trudgill,
usually a dialect is understood to be “a
substandard, low status, often rustic form of a language, lacking in prestige.
Dialects are often being thought of as being some kind of erroneous deviation
from the norm–an aberration of the 'proper' or standard form of language”[5].
But Fromkin, Rodman and Hyams opines, “A dialect is not inferior or degraded
form of a language, and logically could not be so since a language is a
collection of dialects”[6].
Nevertheless, one can infer that
a language is a collection of varieties of dialects and that dialects are less
prestigious and subcategories of language. The broad difference and relation
between a “language” and a “dialect” can be easily understood by comparing them
with a “tree” and “branches”. Languages are trees which have many branches
(dialects) and the dialects are branches which branch out from the tree
(language).
However, if Apatani was a
dialect; there should be other dialects whose grouping would form a
proper/standard supra Apatani language. That is to say, Apatani variety with
some other varieties would branch out from a parent tree (language). Since
there is no higher language (apart from Proto–Tani)
to which Apatani will be linked to as its dialect, the rationality of Apatani
being levelled as dialect on this basis of
is also refuted. Or is it that Apatani is a dialect of Nishi language as
subdued according to the Part-B Non
Scheduled languages by the Office of the Registrar General and Census
Commissioner, Ministry of Home Affairs, India?
Hence, Apatani in the absence of
a higher language even without its own indigenous script with no social or
political factor to be considered it as inferior to others is not a dialect,
rather it is a proper/standard language.
In fact, Apatani has its own
dialects. As English is considered to
have dialects like Received Pronunciation, Cockney, Yorkshire English ,
Australian English, Indian English, American English, Australian English,
African–American Vernacular English and
so on and Hindi has Khariboli,
Mumbaiyya, Brajbhasa, Kanauji,Bundeli,
Bagheli and
many other dialects of Hindi; so has Apatani.
Apatani in itself
is a language but ha seven dialects named after their villages: Bamin-Michi
dialect, Bulla dialect, Dutta dialect, Hari dialect, Hija dialect, Hong
dialect, and Mudang–Tage dialect. Even within these broad classifications of
dialects, there are (negligible) variations even within them. Every village of Apatani has a
distinct speech variety hugely differentiated on accents, tones, pronunciations,
rates of speech, intonational musicality, lexical and morphological differences
used by the speakers. These varieties are discussed in Dialectal Variations section.
Well, we are ready and let us
pronounce, “Apatani is a language, it is
not a dialect”. Here in this book, I have repeatedly used “Apatani
Language” with the conscious purpose to let all of us realise the advantages of
being a language and disadvantages it has.
[1] As elucidated
by Dr (Mrs) Tage Rupa-Sora, Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, Rajiv
Gandhi University, Ronohills
[3] Fromkin V, Rodman R and Hyams N (2003). An
Introduction to Language (7th edn). Thomson Wardsworth Publishing.
[4] The logographic script of China is similar for all
the varieties and when people of unintelligible different varieties meet, they
gesture each other in signs according to the alphabets.
[6] Fromkin V, Rodman R and Hyams N (2003). An
Introduction to Language (7th edn). Thomson Wardsworth Publishing.
No comments:
Post a Comment