TheMultilingual Reality: Living with Languages 9781788921978

Table of contents :
Contents
Acknowledgements
Series Editor’s Preface
Foreword
1. Introduction: Languaging Without Borders and Binaries
2. The Multilingual World: Conceptual Issues
3. Multilingualism: A Resource or Burden?
4. Language, Power and Hierarchy: The Double Divide
5. Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Societies: From Marginalisation/ Assimilation to Assertive Maintenance
6. Language Disadvantage, Capability Deprivation and Poverty
7. Multilingualism and Language Policy in Education
8. Educational Models in Multilingual Societies: Rethinking Multilingual Education
9. English in Multilingual Societies: The Dynamics of Dominance
Afterword
References
Index of Languages
General Index

Citation preview

The Multilingual Reality

LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY AND LANGUAGE RIGHTS Series Editor: Dr Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, Åbo Akademi University, Finland Consulting Advisory Board: François Grin, Université de Genève, Switzerland Kathleen Heugh, University of South Australia, Adelaide Miklós Kontra, Károli Gáspár University, Budapest Robert Phillipson, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark The series seeks to promote multilingualism as a resource, the main­ten­ ance of linguistic diversity, and development of and respect for linguistic human rights worldwide through the dissemination of theoretical and empirical research. The series encourages interdisciplinary approaches to language policy, drawing on sociolinguistics, education, sociology, economics, human rights law, political science, as well as anthropology, psychology, and applied language studies. All books in this series are externally peer-reviewed. Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can be found on http://www.multilingual-matters.com, or by writing to Multilingual Matters, St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK.

LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY AND LANGUAGE RIGHTS: 16

The Multilingual Reality Living with Languages

Ajit K. Mohanty

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Bristol • Blue Ridge Summit

DOI https://doi.org/10.21832/MOHANT1961 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Control Number: 2018028665 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-78892-196-1 (hbk) ISBN-13: 978-1-78892-195-4 (pbk) Multilingual Matters UK: St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK. USA: NBN, Blue Ridge Summit, PA, USA. Website: www.multilingual-matters.com Twitter: Multi_Ling_Mat Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/multilingualmatters Blog: www.channelviewpublications.wordpress.com Copyright © 2019 Ajit K. Mohanty. Front cover image The front cover shows tribal Kui mother tongue children in government primary schools in Odisha, India, participating in the research project ‘MLE Plus’ classrooms for tribal MT children (Ajit Mohanty & Minati Panda, see Chapter 8). The documents shown are versions in different Indian languages (from left: English, Hindi, Banjara, Bangla, Assamese, Odia, Adivasi Oriya, Santali and Saora) of a community advocacy document Why Mother Tongue Based MLE? developed by Ajit Mohanty, Minati Panda and Tove Skutnabb-Kangas for the project ‘National Multilingual Education Resource Consortium’ based at Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi. Ajit Mohanty was the founder Director (now Chief Adviser); Minati Panda is the current Director. Photographies and layout are by Dr Bapujee Biswabandan. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset in Sabon and Frutiger by R. J. Footring Ltd, Derby, UK. Printed and bound in the UK by Short Run Press Ltd. Printed and bound in the US by Thomson-Shore, Inc.

To The children in my studies, Nalini Jani, Barun Digal and all others, who kindled the human side of a researcher & My grandchildren, Om, Shivam, Siddhant and Smera, who ignited the passion in being human

Contents

Acknowledgementsxi Series Editor’s Preface Tove Skutnabb-Kangas

xiii

Forewordxvii Jim Cummins 1 Introduction: Languaging Without Borders and Binaries

1

2 The Multilingual World: Conceptual Issues Defining Multilingualism Multilingualism: Some Features

10 15 18

3 Multilingualism: A Resource or Burden? Early Views on Bilingualism Emergence of a Positive View of Bilingualism Effects of Bilingualism among Konds in Odisha Moving Beyond the Kond Studies: Metalinguistic Advantage of Bilinguals Some Limitations of Research on Bilingualism Multilingualism and Cognitive Resource: An Appraisal Understanding the Dynamics of the Multilingual Mind Conclusion: Multilingualism as a Resource

35 35 37 38 51 55 58 63 66

4 Language, Power and Hierarchy: The Double Divide 70 Vanishing Voices of Kond Women 70 Disadvantaged Languages in a Multilingual Society 71 Marginalisation of ITM Languages and the Illusion of Maintenance74 The Vicious Circle of Language Disadvantage 75 Language, Power and Hierarchy in Multilingualism 77 The Double Divide in Multilingualism 88 vii

viii Contents

5 Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Societies: From Marginalisation/Assimilation to Assertive Maintenance 95 Identity and Intergroup Processes: Some Theoretical Perspectives96 Identity Negotiations in Multilingual Contact: Studies in Odisha and Assam 105 Marginalisation and Assertive Maintenance: Negotiation of Identities 118 Summing Up: The Dynamics of Marginalisation and Assertive Maintenance 121 6 Language Disadvantage, Capability Deprivation and Poverty 127 Poverty and Capability 128 Education and Languages in Multilingual Societies 130 Neglect of the Home Language in Education: Some Consequences132 The Tribes in India: Languages and Education 135 Exclusion of Tribal Languages and Educational Failure 137 Some Indicators of Poverty Among the Tribal Peoples of India140 Conclusion141 7 Multilingualism and Language Policy in Education 145 Language, Hierarchy and Education in India 146 Language-in-Education Policy and Practice in Post-colonial India148 Looking Beyond the TLF and the Evolution of Educational Language Policy 152 Procrustean Solution to the Problem of Languages in Education157 Multilingual Society and Monolingual Practices in Education 160 8 Educational Models in Multilingual Societies: Rethinking Multilingual Education 162 Multilingualism in Indian Schools: Forms of ‘Multilingual’ Education 164 MLE in India: Still a Bridge Too Far? 174 Languages in Education and MLE in Some Multilingual Societies175 Moving from Bilingual Education to MLE: Some Issues 179 Conclusion181



Contents ix

9 English in Multilingual Societies: The Dynamics of Dominance 185 Perception of English and Its Power 186 English in a Multilingual Ecology 191 English and the Transmission of Values and Affective Orientations194 English and Education in Multilingual Societies 195 Conclusion: English in a Multilingual World 207 Afterword214 E. Annamalai References220 Index of Languages General Index

242 244

Acknowledgements

Life’s turns are sometimes fortuitous but crucial. During 1976, the third year of my doctoral work at the University of Alberta as a Killam Scholar, I was assigned an office along with another senior graduate student who had finished his PhD a couple of years earlier and returned as a Research Associate; it was Jim Cummins. My doctoral research then was a hard-core experimental psycholinguistic study of the processing of ambiguous sentences; Jim was known for his outstanding doctoral work on bi­lingualism. We spent many late hours in the office discussing our work and the future. We shared views about some issues in Western bilingualism research and the prospects for methodologically controlled studies in India. Some time around then, we attended the annual conference of the Canadian Psychological Association to present our research and I participated in Jim’s presentation of his early work on the threshold hypothesis. I returned to India in December 1977 on completion of my work. By the time I began my studies on bilingualism among the Konds in my home state in 1978, Jim had left Edmonton to join OISE. Our collegial relationship has deepened over the years while Jim’s work and his impact have remained my guiding spirit. Any acknowledgement of his enriching influence on my work would be an understatement. When I read Bilingualism or NOT I found the passion in the book contagious. Years later I met the author, Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, and saw the same passion personified. By then, without knowing me personally, she had agreed to read the draft of my first book on multilingualism and her many friendly and helpful gestures and constant encouragements had a transformative impact on my work. Meeting Tove and Robert Phillipson in 1994 in Bhubaneswar was the beginning of a close association which has had a salubrious impact on my professional and personal life. This book draws its inspiration from their work and meticulous mentoring of my earlier drafts; any remaining inadequacies are of course mine. I am grateful to Robert for his help and lingering interest in my work and to Tove for her guidance as the Series Editor and as a great guru. Researchers and students in Southeast Asia are disadvantaged on many accounts, unjust dominance of English being among the major drawbacks. I have been singularly lucky having had the benefit of many a brief encounter with and influence from some of the best in the field xi

xii Acknowledgements

of my lifetime engagement – Ofelia García, Nancy Hornberger, Teresa McCarty, Jasone Cenoz, Stephen May, Suresh Canagarajah, Christine Hélot, John Berry, Christiane Perregaux, Jessica Ball, Brigit Brock-Utne, Kathleen Heugh, Hywel Coleman, Shelley Taylor, Joseph Lo Bianco, Carol Benson, Larissa Aronin and many others, as well the late Joshua Fishman and Neville Alexander. I thank them for setting the standards to emulate. Closer to home, my understanding of the multilingual scenario in India and its neighbouring countries has been progressively shaped by many: D.P. Pattanayak, E. Annamalai, Tariq Rahman, Yogendra Yadava, Lava Deo Awasthi, Ramakant Agnihotri, Anvita Abbi, Probal Dasgupta, Giridhar Rao, Pramod Pandey, P.G. Patel and the late R.N. Srivastava, to name only a few. In this book I have tried, albeit inadequately, to reflect the collective vision of all these great global scholars and outstanding human beings. I thank all of them for co-constructing my understanding of multilingualism and multilingual education. I am grateful to my close colleague and co-researcher Minati Panda for being a great critic and support in our work. I thank my colleagues and students – Prakash Padakannaya, Bapujee Biswabandan, Jayashree, Sakshi, Shivani, Rashim and many others – for being there for me, always. I thank Tommi Grover for patiently waiting for and silently encouraging this work and supporting its publication. Finally, I must acknowledge my debt of gratitude to the unseen influence on my commitment to my academic promises – my wife Bina, who not-so-silently tolerated days and months of being alone under the same roof and still prodded me on with all her support to be where I am today. My love and Shraddhā to Bina and our family – Jitu and Mama, Sarita and Spandan and our lovely grandchildren. From Bhubaneswar, with mother's blessings. Ajit Mohanty

Series Editor’s Preface Tove Skutnabb-Kangas

This is a fantastic book, summarising Ajit Mohanty’s work of a lifetime. I have followed the development of the book since August 2006, when Ajit first suggested writing it. It has been worth waiting 12 years. Already in Ajit’s 1994 book, Bilingualism in a Multilingual Society, he succeeded in correcting some of the biases in most Western studies about the cognitive benefits of bilingualism. One bias in many of these earlier studies was that they compared groups that differed so much that it was almost impossible to differentiate the influence of ‘bilingualism itself’ from the influence of other factors. This was/is mostly true regardless of which groups did better on the tests used. In most of the studies from the 1960s onwards it was the bilinguals who did. Often the bilinguals represented minority or minoritised groups, mainly of low socio-economic status (SES), whereas the monolinguals were often ­dominant-language children of much higher SES; cultural differences between the groups were also large. The role of literacy was also im­possible to control for. Ajit’s studies of the I­ ndigenous/ tribal Konds in Odisha, India, which are also presented in this new book, corrected for these biases, in addition to others. In the industrialised ‘Western’ world, studies like Ajit’s would never have been possible. Merrill Swain coined in her PhD thesis the term ‘bilingualism as a first language’. Ajit Mohanty describes in this book ‘multilingualism as a first language’ (MFL) in great detail, psychologically, linguistically, educationally, sociologically, economically, legally and from the point of view of political science, with many examples. His multi/trans/inter­disciplinarity combines with having lived MFL all his life. Having observed it and reported and analysed MLF in so many contexts is unique. Other studies about MFL are mostly not self-experienced from birth by the re­searchers (except maybe as parents), and even those which are longitudinal are often about one individual child only, and mostly in situations where some kind of monolingualism is the norm in the surrounding society. India is different, as the first Director of the Central Institute of Indian Languages, Debi Prasanna Pattanayak, put it: The dominant monolingual orientation is cultivated in the developed world and consequently two languages are considered a nuisance, three languages uneconomic and many languages absurd. In multilingual xiii

xiv  Series Editor’s Preface

countries, many languages are facts of life; any restriction in the choice of language is a nuisance; and one language is not only uneconomic, it is absurd. (Pattanayak, 1984: 82)

Ajit’s concept ‘the double divide’ captures a situation that exists in most Asian and African countries and elsewhere. It describes and permits strong and persuasive analyses of the power relations encoded in the institutional (including educational) and functional hierarchies that exist between languages and their users. A dominant language, most often English, is at the top, the regional majority and national languages in the middle, and Indigenous/tribal, minority and minoritised (ITM) languages linger way at the bottom. Ajit describes the functional differentiation between them, and their roles, capturing (and invalidating) much of the discussion in many countries where ‘integration’ often means forcible assimilation, and where it often leads to linguistic and cultural genocide in education (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000; Skutnabb-Kangas & Dunbar, 2010). I cite Ajit’s paragraph from p. 92: Thus, in the hierarchy of languages in multilingual societies, the most dominant language has instrumental significance but little integrative value. The regional majority and national languages, on the other hand, have some instrumental significance along with integrative value for their users. The ITM languages have minimal instrumental value for their users but, as identity markers, they are important for group identity and sense of community belongingness.

I have tried to put this in tabular form, using the Indian state of Odisha as an example, but almost any language in a similar position could be inserted in the table: Language

Instrumental value

Integrative value

Group identity, sense of belonging

English

High

Low

Low

Odia

Some

Some/high

Some/low

Tribal language

Minimal

High

Very high

The concept of the double divide in multilingual societies is critical for understanding the processes of discrimination against ITM languages, Ajit writes. Likewise, the concept helps us to understand how formal education can be an instrument for perpetuating inequalities: tribal languages at best as a medium for the first couple of years (meaning earlyexit transitional education); regional languages as the teaching languages after that (late-exit transitional model); and English as a medium at the latest from the final grades in school, and at all higher, technical and university levels. The double divide also explains much of the loss of linguistic diversity in the world.



Series Editor’s Preface  xv

In addition to being a serious, subtle scholar, Ajit has also always been a passionate activist. His untiring work for decades (often together with colleagues like Minati Panda, and students) has resulted in the Government of Odisha, Ajit’s home state, finally issuing official guidelines on multi­lingual education (2018). I have been privileged to have had the opportunity to work closely with Ajit for years, in India, Nepal and elsewhere (see our joint publications on my home page, www.Tove-Skuttnab-Kangas. org; see also my long review of Ajit’s 1994 book in the TESOL Quarterly (1995) 29:4, pp. 775–780). The world now has the opportunity to listen to the voice of this wonderful, humble scholar/activist/human being! Grasp the opportunity – you will learn as much as I and many others have already done! The Foreword by a distinguished Western scholar, Jim Cummins, and the Afterword by the equally distinguished Indian scholar, Annamalai, elaborate on the importance and relevance of Ajit’s book. References Government of Odisha (2018) Extracts from Odisha Guidelines on Multilingual Education, India. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas and R. Phillipson (eds) Language Rights, Volume 3: Language Endangerment and Revitalisation; Language Rights Charters and Declarations, pp. 273–288. London: Routledge. Mohanty, A.K. (1994) Bilingualism in a Multilingual Society: Psycho-social and Pedagogical Implications. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. Pattanayak, D.P. (1984) Language policies in multilingual states. In A. Gonzales (ed.) Panagani: Language Planning, Implementation and Evaluation. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines. (Quoted in Mohanty 1994: 166.) Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000) Linguistic Genocide in Education – Or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (see http://www. tove-skutnabb-kangas.org/en/most_recent_books.html for a list of contents, and for the 2008 Southeast Asian version; see also https://www.routledge.com/products/​ 9780805834680). Skutnabb-Kangas T. and Dunbar, R. (2010) Indigenous Children’s Education as Linguistic Genocide and a Crime Against Humanity? A Global View. Galdu, Resource Centre for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (http://www.galdu.org). Swain, M. (1972) Bilingualism as a first language. PhD thesis, University of California at Irvine.

Foreword Jim Cummins

It is both a personal and professional privilege to have the opportunity to write a Foreword to The Multilingual Reality: Living with Languages. Ajit Mohanty and I go back a long way. We met in 1976 at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada. After completing my PhD in 1974 and spending two years back in Ireland working on educational research in that context, I returned to Canada and was offered a research position with Professor J.P. Das, who was exploring the educational implications of Alexander Luria’s distinction between simultaneous and successive cognitive processing. Ajit had arrived from India in 1974 to pursue doctoral work with Professor Das. During the two years I worked with Das (as he was commonly known), Ajit and I had many opportunities to explore our professional and personal connections. Our formative educational experiences originated in opposite corners of the globe, mine from a tiny island on the periphery of Europe and Ajit’s from a vast multilingual subcontinent. Despite the geographical, cultural and linguistic differences in our origins, we shared some common experiences. We each grew up in countries that had emerged from British colonial rule relatively recently and each had witnessed and personally experienced through education the frequently divisive debates about language policies and bilingual/ multilingual instruction that defined the identity politics of our societies during the 1950s and 1960s. Although we lost direct contact during the 1980s, our academic research followed remarkably similar trajectories. As he documents in this volume, Ajit embarked on a series of research studies focused on the effects of bilingualism on the metalinguistic development of children from tribal communities in India. His 1994 book Bilingualism in a Multilingual Society: Psycho-social and Pedagogical Implications convincingly documented the significant metalinguistic advantages conferred by bilingualism. Other research, including studies I carried out in Ireland and Canada in the 1970s with students in Irish–English and Ukrainian–English bilingual programmes, had shown similar patterns of advantages, but these studies came nowhere close to the rigour or scope of Ajit’s research with tribal communities.1 The disciplinary orientation of the research each of us carried out at that time derived primarily from psychology – we were interested in the xvii

xviii Foreword

individual cognitive, linguistic and educational consequences of acquiring two or more languages. Gradually, however, our focus shifted to a much more interdisciplinary orientation that integrated perspectives from psychology, education, sociology and applied linguistics. Since the mid1980s, exploration of the intersections between societal power relations and teacher–student identity negotiation in schools has been central both to Ajit’s academic work and mine. This interdisciplinary orientation emerges in multiple ways in the current volume. Ajit highlights the contrast between the overwhelming evidence that bilingualism/multilingualism confers cognitive benefits with respect to metalinguistic and metacognitive abilities, and the ‘normalised’ social and educational policies that deny children from impoverished and marginalised communities opportunities to develop their multilingual abilities within the context of schooling. In India, as in other postcolonial societies, what Ajit calls the ‘double divide’ operates to exclude Indigenous, tribal, minority and minoritised (ITM) languages from education in favour of regional or national languages, which, in turn, are subsequently marginalised by the former colonial language, in this case English. This inexorable suffocation of ‘weaker’ minoritised languages by the dominance of English and national/regional languages clearly reflects a societal pattern of what I have called ‘coercive relations of power’. In contrast to collaborative relations of power, where power is generated and amplified in the interactions between individuals, groups or countries, the notion of coercive relations of power refers to the subtractive exercise of power by a dominant individual, group or country to the detriment of subordinated individuals, groups or countries (Cummins, 2000). Coercive relations of power operate at multiple levels of the social hierarchy to deny educational opportunities to ITM students and communities. Within the school, current submersion policies in India result in 50% of ITM students dropping out by the fifth year of schooling. This ‘push-out’ phenomenon reflects and reinforces what Ajit here describes as ‘feelings of humiliation, inferiority and loss of identity associated with neglect of MTs [mother tongues]’ (p. 133). Schooling thus functions as an instrument of social reproduction whereby inequality and marginalisation are re-created from one generation to the next. State and national policies, for the most part, have remained complicit with, and in many cases have actively reinforced, social policies designed to perpetuate inequality and educational disadvantage. With the exception of a handful of states (e.g. Andhra Pradesh, Odisha), educational policies across India (and many other post-colonial countries) have not implemented in any sustained way mother-tongue-based multilingual education programmes, despite the rapidly accumulating research evidence (sum­ marised in this volume) of the effectiveness of these programmes.2 Coercive power relations are also reflected in the fact that teacher education programmes typically provide little, if any, preparation for new teachers



Foreword xix

on ways to mitigate the negative effects of submersion education in ITM contexts (e.g. through engaging students’ multilingual repertoires and scaffolding instructional strategies designed to help students understand academic content through a new language). In defending their reluctance to implement evidence-based instructional programmes, politicians and policy-makers frequently point to the demand from all sectors of society for English-medium instruction and the lack of demand among many tribal communities to have their languages used for instructional purposes. This lack of demand for mother-tongue instruction is illustrated by Ajit in Chapter 5, in which he documents the lack of interest among the Konds in having Kui used as a medium of instruction despite the fact that Kui serves as a language of identity for most of the community. This orientation contrasts with the assertive maintenance orientation of the Bodos in the state of Assam, who have been successful in establishing Bodo as a language of instruction at all educational levels. It seems that in the absence of this type of assertive maintenance, policy-makers are content to ‘give the people what they want’, despite the disastrous results of these policies for individual children and communities. As documented in Chapter 9, a significant factor in students’ success in acquiring English and other academic content taught through that language is the quality of English instruction, but this varies dramatically across socio-economic groups. Students from relatively affluent communities are typically taught by relatively well trained teachers who are fluent in English but students from less affluent and/or marginalised communities are frequently taught by teachers whose English fluency and pedagogical preparation are minimal. As a result, many speakers of ITM languages experience inadequate opportunities to acquire a functional academic command of any of their instructional languages (their home language, regional/national languages, or English). Thus, as Phillipson (1992) and Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) have pointed out on many occasions, English acts as a cruel mirage that promises much but delivers little. It is not surprising that many parents and communities believe that there is a direct relationship between time spent in the medium of an instructional language and attainment in that language. This commonsense ‘time on task’ or ‘maximum exposure’ assumption has dominated policy debates about bilingual education in countries around the world (Cummins, 2000; Phillipson, 1992; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). However, the fact that this common-sense assumption is entirely devoid of research support has clear implications for educational policy and practice. For example, in contexts where communities have been led to believe that mother-tongue instruction will reduce their children’s opportunities to acquire the languages of power (English and national/regional languages), it is incumbent on policy-makers and educators to communicate effectively to parents the fallacies inherent in this ‘either/or’ forced choice.

xx Foreword

This communication of accurate information can be accomplished through a variety of means at minimal cost. For example, pamphlets regarding the benefits of multilingualism and mother-tongue instruction can be distributed to all parents when they enrol their children in school. In contexts where parents have not had opportunities to become literate, information can be distributed to those with influence in order to initiate dialogue about these issues within communities. Policy-makers at local, regional and national levels can also ensure that teachers are familiar with the basic research on these issues. For policy-makers and educators, ignorance can no longer serve as an excuse for failing to advocate actively for evidence-based instructional options that promote children’s knowledge of both their home languages and languages of wider communication (e.g. regional/national languages and English). The research evidence is readily available and has been disseminated in multiple ways that are immediately accessible for anyone who cares to enter a few search terms into a computer. Thus, the fact that, in many social contexts, mother-tongue-based multilingual education remains ‘a bridge too far’, to quote Ajit, represents an ethical failure on the part of educational officials and policy-makers. So what educational strategies can be pursued by educators and other actors committed to social justice (e.g. researchers, NGOs) in contexts where enlightened top-down leadership is in short supply? One conceptual tool that might be useful in thinking about s­ trategies for implementing educational change is the notion of actors of bi­ literacy, which I proposed as a possible additional dimension to Nancy Hornberger’s (1989, 2003) ‘continua of biliteracy’ framework (Cummins, 2003). During the past 30 years, Hornberger’s framework has served as an extremely useful tool for mapping and analysing the intersections of bilingualism and literacy from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. Any literacy event or practice can be located within a multidimensional space that encompasses continua focusing on contexts, development, media and the content of biliteracy. Contested power relations are embedded throughout these four continua. Obviously, within a multilingual societal context such as India, it would be more appropriate to talk about ‘continua of multiliteracy’, but the basic analytical tools are still applicable. The inclusion of the notion actors of bi/multiliteracy makes explicit the fact that social actors, at all levels of the educational hierarchy, can exert a direct impact on the extent to which students from marginalised communities experience opportunities to develop and expand their knowledge of multiple languages. I described the intersections of identities, choices and societal power relations as follows: How should the various participants (e.g. policy-makers, educators, parents) whose actions shape the conditions under which children acquire (multi)literacies define their roles? What identities do they envisage for



Foreword xxi

children as they choose to promote and implement certain options rather than others in relation to the contexts, development, media, and content of biliteracy children will experience? To what extent do the choices these actors make challenge coercive relations of power in the broader society or, alternatively, reinforce these relations of power? (Cummins, 2003: viii)

A focus on actors of multiliteracy highlights the fact that researchers can stimulate evidence-based change in educational provision by working with social actors other than policy-makers at the Ministry of Education. Clearly, it is important to work with policy-makers to create the legal, financial and logistical conditions for mother-tongue-based multilingual education. However, researchers can also initiate change by working collaboratively with multiple social actors (educators, parents, community leaders, NGOs, etc.) to explore forms of multilingual instruction appropriate for particular local contexts. In addition to acting as a catalyst for dialogue about educational possibilities, researchers document the process and outcomes of instructional initiatives undertaken by teachers and communities and integrate the findings into broader frames of under­standing. Bapujee Biswabandan’s (forthcoming) recent collaborative action research study in one tribal community in Odisha that included speakers of the Santali and Ho languages documents the consciousness-raising among parents and teachers that was generated by the creation of a multilingual book that included parent-generated community stories in Ho, Santali and Odia, which was the medium of instruction in the school. Stories recounted by parents in either Ho or Santali were translated into the other two languages. Biswabandan’s research parallels an extensive range of collaborative action research projects carried out by educators and researchers in Europe (e.g. Kirwan, 2014; Little & Kirwan, 2018) and North America (e.g. Cummins, in press; Cummins & Early, 2011). These studies not only demonstrate the potential power of teachers as knowledge-generators but also highlight the power of multiple social actors working collaboratively to bring about transformative change in the educational experience of students from minoritised groups. In conclusion, this immensely engaging, authoritative and compelling book provides an empirical and moral foundation upon which educators, researchers and other social actors can build dialogical spaces to facilitate communication and information-sharing both with marginalised communities and with policy-makers. The implementation of mother-tongue-based multilingual education does not have to depend on the whims of policy-makers (although enlightened policy decisions can greatly facilitate its implementation). As demonstrated by a growing body of research, classroom spaces can also be transformed into multilingual educational zones through the creative actions of individual teachers collaborating with parents, researchers and community leaders. The

xxii Foreword

challenge for researchers is to support and document, ideally both in print and through video, local examples of inspirational pedagogy that can serve as catalysts for further pedagogical exploration by teachers who see their role as knowledge-generators rather than simply transmitters of static information and skills. This dialogical process has already begun (see for example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTQaDbt5uJY) and the dissemination of Ajit Mohanty’s research findings and theoretical insights to policy-makers, teacher educators, researchers and community leaders will undoubtedly invigorate and enlighten societal debates in India and elsewhere about the most effective ways of stimulating the development of children’s multilingual and multiliterate talents. Notes (1) The demographic, educational and linguistic diversity of the Indian context was also instrumental in enabling researchers (Alladi et al., 2013) to reinforce the findings of Bialystok et al. (2007) that bilingualism delays the onset of symptoms of dementia by about four years. Unlike previous research in this area, the large-scale study carried out by Alladi and colleagues was able to demonstrate that this effect was independent of immigration and educational status. (2) One country that has acted decisively on the basis of the research evidence is the Philippines, which implemented a trilingual mother-tongue-based multilingual education policy in 2009 (see Dekker, 2017).

References Alladi, D.M., Bak, T.H., Duggirala, V., Surampudi, B., Shailaja, M., Shukla, A.K., Chaudhuri, J.R. and Kaul, S.D. (2013) Bilingualism delays age at onset of dementia, independent of education and immigration status. Neurology 81 (22), 1938–1944. DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000436620.33155.a4. Bialystok, E., Craik, F.I.M. and Freedman, M. (2007) Bilingualism as a protection against the onset of symptoms of dementia. Neuropsychologia 45, 459–464. Biswabandan, B. (forthcoming) Multilingual education program for classrooms with multiple mother tongues: A case study exploring the pedagogical possibilities. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto. Cummins, J. (2000) Language, Power, and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (2003) Foreword. In N.H. Hornberger (ed.) Continua of Biliteracy: An Ecological Framework for Educational, Policy, Research, and Practice in Multilingual Settings (pp. vii–xi). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (in press) The emergence of translanguaging pedagogy: A dialogue between theory and practice. Journal of Multilingual Research. Cummins, J. and Early, M. (eds) (2011) Identity Texts: The Collaborative Creation of Power in Multilingual Schools. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books. Dekker, D.E. (2017) Finally shedding the past: Filipino teachers negotiate their identities within a new mother tongue-based multilingual education policy landscape. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto. Available at https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/ handle/1807/77454. Hornberger, N.H. (1989) Continua of biliteracy. Review of Educational Research 59 (3), 271–296.



Foreword xxiii

Hornberger, N.H. (ed.) (2003) Continua of Biliteracy: An Ecological Framework for Educational Policy, Research, and Practice in Multilingual Settings. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Kirwin, D. (2014) From English language support to plurilingual awareness. In D. Little, C. Leung and P. Van Avermaet (eds) Managing Diversity in Education: Languages, Policies, Pedagogies (pp. 189–203). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Little, D. and Kirwan, D. (2018) Translanguaging as a key to educational success: The experience of one Irish primary school. In P. Van Avermaet, S. Slembrouck, K. Van Gorp, S. Sierens and K. Maryns (eds) The Multilingual Edge of Education (pp. 313–340). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Mohanty, A.K. (1994) Bilingualism in a Multilingual Society: Psychosocial and Pedagogical Implications. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. Phillipson, R. (1992) Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000) Linguistic Genocide in Education – Or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

1 Introduction: Languaging Without Borders and Binaries

Living with languages is a beautiful experience. It is colourfully diverse; there are patterns in this diversity and yet it is not trite. It is like strolling through a huge floral garden in which you are drawn into a gestalt of colours while each type of flower has its own hue. But that in itself is not what the experience of a garden is all about. It is much more than all the hues put together. The experience of living with many languages is unique and enriching. It gives you the richness of a diverse world – a kaleidoscope of languages, cultures and world-views. I grew up in a beautifully multilingual world, moving naturally and spontaneously between people and languages, unconcerned by any boundaries and infringement. I did not have to bother about my own inadequacies in the languages I encountered, nor did I have to count the languages I knew or did not know. Levels of my competence in languages around me did not have to be judged. The binaries between knowing or not knowing the language and the borders between them did not matter. What mattered is that I could move between the languages without any self-consciousness and, at the same time, with a sense of transient completeness. It is a beautiful world of many languages. I grew up believing in the capacity of multilingual societies to accommodate diversity, to make people feel at ease with their own languages, with many languages syner­ gistically weaving their communicative world into the harmony of their life and living. It did not matter whether the common person out there was monolingual, bilingual, trilingual or multilingual. Sometimes people did speak of ‘English-knowing persons’, ‘Sanskrit-knowing scholars’ or ‘polyglot pundits’ who knew and cultivated many languages. But that was only a matter of formal learning and scholarship in languages. The common person moved between languages with agility and elegance, but there was usually no consciousness or self-ascription of multilingual competence; living with languages was unmarked and natural. 1

2  The Multilingual Reality

Sometimes, when people are asked to identify themselves as mono­ linguals or multilinguals or to name the languages they know, as in the census enumerations, they are clearly uncomfortable. Languages are perceived as being different to each other, language labels are psychologic­ ally real and language identities crystallised, but they are experienced as a network or a totality in routine communicative acts. In Chapter 2 of this book I have attempted to conceptualise what it means to be a multi­ lingual in a multilingual society, the nuances of growing up amid complex encounters with many languages and their speakers, and how children learn to negotiate the complex communicative demands of a multilingual social milieu. I have also attempted to delineate some distinctive features of multilingualism and multilingual societies. My encounters with the Western monolingual and bilingual worlds and academic engagement with the issues in respect of languages in society made me realise that my early experiences in a world of many languages were different from those of most people, although I was not quite able figure out how and why. I needed to look closer and critically into my own experiences of the multilingual world and to engage with a broader canvas of multilingual societies. My work since 1978 with tribal1 peoples in India, beginning with the Kond (or Kandha) people in the erstwhile district of Boudh Phulbani, now Kandhamal, in Odisha (India), made me question some of my own assumptions (and also some prevalent academic generalisations) about the place of languages in the multilingual world. Looking closer into linguistic diversity, I realised that all is not well, that an idealised and somewhat romantic view of multilingualism is perhaps just that: romantic but not real. I began with the Kond community, and they fitted initially into my imagined world of many languages. However, the longer I worked with them the more uncomfortable I felt, because I began to see the reality not just from my own perspective but from the perspective of the Konds, the tribal people. In their silent ways, the Kond adults and children – in particular Nalini Jani and Barun Digal,2 but also hundreds of others like them – made me see a sad reality that while using many languages is good, it is better if one speaks certain languages rather than ‘others’. I was struck by the realisation that the Kond people, who take pride in their Kui language as a marker of their identity, did not share my optimism about speaking one’s own language while living in a diverse world of many languages. My continued engagement with the tribal people in different parts of India made me understand the dynamics of languages in multilingual societies. I had some structured and planned agendas for research into the issues in respect of the indigenous, tribal, minority and minoritised (ITM)3 languages in multilingual societies. But the people and children I worked with primarily in the community and educational contexts added much more to my insights than the ‘hard data’ from my research.



Introduction: Languaging Without Borders and Binaries  3

I started with naive assumptions and some straightforward research questions, narrow and mundane in many ways and focused on microissues. But as I ‘researched’ the children and adults I worked with (then called subjects), they taught me much more than I bargained for; they reoriented my views of research and instilled in me a desire not just to locate problems but to try to do something about them, not just to suggest changes but to try to be the agent of change, not just to curse the darkness but to attempt lighting even a tiny little lamp, as Barun Digal taught me some 40 years ago. This book is an account of my journey into the world of many languages, a journey in which I have progressively been prodded to partake views from the margins, to understand the dynamics and share the agony of linguistic discrimination and the disadvantages of the ITM communities in the multilingual world of cumulative neglect and regress­ive marginalisation. I started with looking into how multilingual societies and individuals – children and adults – were different and why. The initial findings reaffirmed my positive views of the multilingual world and of multi­lingualism. These findings did add to the emerging views of bi­lingualism and multilingualism as resources. In Chapter 3, I discuss our early studies of Kond children, showing how they are related to contem­porary views of the cognitive processes of bilinguals and multilinguals. With the methodological advantages of the unique sociolinguistic context of the bilingual4 and the monolingual Kond communities, the findings of these studies reinforced the growing view of bilingualism as a cognitive resource and an asset to the community. The bilingual Kond children who retained their indigenous language in addition to learning the contact language were found to be endowed with a host of cognitive advantages and with better academic achievements when they started school; the cognitive advantages were also there for the bilingual children who never went to school. The advantages, however, seemed to be nullified by the social and educational conditions the Kond communities were subjected to. The Kond children, like many others from ITM language communities in the world, suffer educational neglect of their language and culture in a system of submersion education in a dominant language. Such neglect of languages in education in a multilingual society is consequential for children from ITM communities and, at a broader level, also for the very conception of multilingual societies as having a place for all languages. In contrast to my early experience and view of the beauty of multilingualism, I found myself in an encounter with the other side of multilingualism, which compelled a reappraisal of my idealised view. It is also equally disturbing that the societal neglect of some languages is pervasive, not just in education but in all other spheres of social life. Among the Kui mother tongue children who joined formal schooling, there was large-scale educational failure and high ‘push-out’ rates during the early school years. My analyses of the macro-level data on the socio-economic mobility of the Konds show that

4  The Multilingual Reality

educational neglect of the language of the Konds and other ITM language communities does contribute to their educational failure, capability deprivation and poverty, as I discuss in Chapter 6. If education is a site where the neglect of ITM languages leads to failure, capability deprivation and poverty, it can also be a site for change. I found this an exciting possibility. I believed that even some small changes in the education of ITM language children can be seen as powerful advocacy for sustained changes. I also saw in such possibility some opportunities to redeem my silent commitments to the tribal people I worked with for my research. At the same time, I realised that understanding of the complex processes of discrimination and neglect of languages in multi­lingual societies was necessary for any change to be effective. Why are ITM languages disadvantaged and neglected? And why so in multi­ lingual societies, which are expected to have a place for many languages? As I moved between micro- and macro-level aspects of societal neglect and impoverishment of languages, I realised that the disadvantages are cumulative and that they are integrally related to the societal power relationship of languages and their speakers. My analyses of the role of languages in Indian society and the power and privileges associated with different languages reveal a hierarchy of languages. The sociolinguistic hierarchy is characterised by a broad pattern of languages organised in three tiers, with major power gaps between these tiers. I have labelled this ‘the double divide’. In discussing the sociolinguistic double divide in Chapter 4, I have shown this to be a common feature across different multilingual societies. The hierarchy and the double divide are closely linked to the role of languages in education. My engagement with the issues of language and education of tribal communities in Odisha and in other national contexts in India gave me a closer view and understanding of the processes involved in languagein-education policy and practice for the tribal mother tongue children. Evidently, ITM language communities are cumulatively victimised in a social system that weakens these languages by prolonged neglect, and then justifies further exclusion of those languages on the grounds of their weakness. The vicious circle of disadvantage of the ITM languages and their exclusion from children’s education, discussed in Chapter 4, seems to be a common feature in multilingual societies in which ITM languages are located on the lowest rungs of power in the sociolinguistic hierarchy with a double divide. The hierarchy of languages in multilingual societies is reflected in the dominance of some languages in the significant domains of use, including education; the language(s) that people use or do not use become a basis of their access to resources, power and privilege. The public domains of communication are gradually taken over by the dominant languages. Over the years of my work with tribal communities, I experienced rapid displacement of the languages of the tribal people from marketplace



Introduction: Languaging Without Borders and Binaries  5

transactions and other domains of socio-economic significance. Over a few decades, the Kui language of the Konds, for example, became confined to use in family and community communications only. Progressive domain shrinkage and gradual decline in intergenerational transmission of languages are usually associated with language shift and loss of nondominant languages in contact with dominant languages. In contrast, some Indian sociolinguists have pointed out that language maintenance rather than shift is a more likely outcome of language contact in India. Our studies with the Kond people show that when ITM languages are kept out of intergroup domains and confined to in-group use, there is partial language shift. ITM languages may continue as markers of identity for the language community, but the instrumental value of these languages is taken over by the dominant contact language. In the process, rapid loss of languages does not happen, but the languages remain marginalised; there is a passive acceptance of the dominance and marginalisation as I found in the case of the Konds in our studies. Marginalisation is a common outcome of language contact in India. But there are also instances of assertive maintenance and revitalisation of ITM languages, as in the case of the Bodo language in Assam. My studies of the major turns in the history of Bodo–Assamese contact and the dynamics of the Bodo movement for assertion of the linguistic rights of the Bodo people show the dynamics of assertive maintenance of a marginalised language and intergroup relations in a situation of contact between dominant and non-dominant languages. In Chapter 5 I have sought to analyse the processes of identity negotiations in the two contexts of language contact. I have tried to show the contrasts between the passive acceptance strategies of the Konds, which led to the prolonged marginalisation of the Kui language, and the assertive maintenance ­strategies of the Bodos, which led the Bodo language from marginalisation to revitalisation. Exclusion of ITM languages from education is known to be a major factor in loss of linguistic diversity across the world. Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) describes the situation as ‘linguistic genocide in education’ and shows how state policies and discriminatory social practices lead to the loss of linguistic diversity. My studies among the Kond and continued engagement with other tribal communities in Odisha have convinced me that it is necessary to promote educational use of ITM languages both for high-quality education and for the socio-economic mobility of tribal people. The seminal work of Jim Cummins and Tove Skutnabb-Kangas and many others has shown convincingly that language-in-education is a royal road to high-quality education and the development of languages. Developments in the theory and practice of mother tongue based multi­ lingual education (MLE) offers some hope for the tribal people I have worked with. In my writings since the 1980s, I kept pleading for the education of tribal children in India to be based on their mother tongue

6  The Multilingual Reality

(MT). Among the many pioneering educators and linguists in the country, Debi Prasanna Pattanayak, a leading linguist of India and the then Director of the Central Institute of Indian Languages, had also done the same quite forcefully through several publications as well as experimental programmes for tribal MT children in different parts of India. In the state of Odisha, where I worked for my research with tribal languages and education, there were some weak but early signs of interest in the use of tribal languages in education as a strategy for dealing with the educational failure of tribal children. During the 1990s and early in the current century, there were sporadic attempts to use MTs in the early education of tribal children in the state. Through my academic and popular writings and several reports and documents sent periodically to the government of Odisha, besides presentations in different fora, I kept pressing for MT-based education. There were also many others doing the same: in their own ways, trying to influence the state and induce some actions for the MT-based education of tribal children. Having worked for nearly three decades by then for and with the tribal people in the state, I kept moving between hope and despair as reports and documents gathered dust in the government files. In Chapter 8 I discuss some occasional initiatives and promises for bringing selected tribal MTs into early primary education, primarily with the goal of a soft transition of the tribal MT children to education in the dominant state language, Odia. These experimental initiatives were short-lived. It appeared that some policy-level changes were necessary for sustained programmes of MT-based MLE. Analysis of language-in-education policy in India and many other multilingual countries shows a broad statutory and constitutional commitment to the principle of education of ‘linguistic minorities’ in the MT, at least in the early years of primary education. There are also several policy proclamations regarding and commitments to education in children’s MT, mostly in a multilingual framework. However, the character­istic hier­ archical positioning of languages in multilingual societies and the double divide between dominant national/colonial languages, the major regional/ national languages and the ITM languages seems to create gaps between the declared and de facto policies in many multilingual countries. As a result, education in these societies perpetuates social inequalities by undue emphasis on the dominant languages and neglect of ITM languages. My discussion of language-in-education policies in multilingual societies in Chapter 7 shows the multilingual social realities and monolingual practices in education. The focus in education in post-colonial societies also seems to be shifting in the direction of the major colonial and international languages, such as English. Effective education of linguistic minorities needs both macro- and micro-level changes in language-in-education policy and in educational practices. Education in children’s MT has been seen as a basic requirement for high-quality education. As early as 1953, UNESCO (1953) made a clear



Introduction: Languaging Without Borders and Binaries  7

recommendation: ‘It is axiomatic that the best medium for teaching a child is his [sic] mother tongue’ (p. 11). In multilingual contexts it has become necessary to develop multilingual competence through schooling and to move from MT to many languages. The history of education in India and in rest of the world shows that bilingual/multilingual education has been emphasised for quite some time (Baker, 2011; Mackey, 1978; Mohanty, 2008). Substantial work on the development of bilingual and multilingual skills through schooling and education by a number of scholars (e.g. Cummins, 1984; Skutnabb-Kangas, 1984) have provided the rationale for MT-based MLE particularly (but not exclusively) for minorities. In India, experimental projects on the bilingual transfer model (discussed in Chapter 8) were undertaken in the 1980s. In my earlier writings, particularly in my 1994 book Bilingualism in a Multilingual Society, I discussed the theoretical and empirical support to plead for MT-based bilingual/multilingual education for tribal children in India. Apart from the advocacy for MT education by many linguists and education professionals, there was a substantial body of groundwork justifying MLE, specifically in and for India. Unfortunately, despite several major initiatives taken by the government of India under the national Education for All (EFA) programme during the 1990s and early in the current century, MT-based education for minorities got only notional support. There was no systematic long-term MT-based education programme for linguistic minorities, even if this was clearly mandated by the constitution of India and in several policy declarations (see Chapter 7). Personally, for me, the prospects for any substantive change in the education of the tribal people I was working with and for all the ITM language communities in India seemed to be bleak. As I show in Chapter 8, there were several local initiatives by private organisations and sporadic programmes by the national and state governments in India, most of which lacked any consistent theoretical grounding and did not meet the minimum condition of use of tribal MT as a language of teaching for some years in primary grades. There was no long-term plan for MT-based MLE. In the year 2004, with some support and persuasion from UNESCO, UNICEF and other international bodies, the government of India supported an experimental programme of MLE for eight tribal languages in the state of Andhra Pradesh. The programme was launched in 2005, and was followed by a similar programme in Odisha in 2006 (see Mohanty et al., 2009a, and Chapter 8). Along with a few others, I was directly involved in providing academic support for the planning, development and implementation of the MLE programme in Odisha. Our special intervention project, MLE Plus, started concurrently with the government programme, as noted in Chapter 8. I point out in Chapter 8 that the MLE programmes in India have had some initial success. There are, however, many issues in the implementation and consistency of these programmes over the years, although the programme

8  The Multilingual Reality

in Odisha has grown in both size and coverage. Some initiatives have been taken, including in the development of a state policy in Odisha for MLE for tribal children (Department of School and Mass Education, 2014; see also Mohanty et al., 2014). However, as I have shown, the dominance of the Odia and English languages in the sociolinguistic double divide remains a major issue in planning for teaching these languages following initial language and literacy development in the MT. The growing popularity of education in English in India seems to be a major hurdle for the MT-based education of tribal and other children in India. Chapter 9, the last in this book, deals with the issues in respect of English in education in India, its role in education of the ITM language communities and the possible positioning of English in the MLE framework. This book is an account of my journey as a researcher and a coparticipant in the multilingual world from the perspectives of the people and communities at the margins. Through this account, I have sought to share the complexity, the agony and the beauty of living with languages in a multilingual world. My own experiences of living with languages have been modulated by my years of encounter with the tribal children and adults of the ITM communities in India. It is my belief that no account of multilingualism and multilingual societies is complete without the perspectives of the people at the margins. The organisation of this book is roughly isomorphic to the sequence of my encounters and engagements with various aspects of multilingual societies. It proceeds with the concerns and issues that have confronted me and the questions prompted by my encounters with the ITM communities and their education. The issues necessarily go beyond the question of languages and transcend the borders of India, because they are tied to questions of power, the processes of domination and subordination in all societies. The specific themes in the book echo concerns from the ITM perspective – both local and global. These themes reflect some interrelated aspects of what it means to live with languages in a multilingual society. Notes (1) The indigenous or aboriginal people in India are officially called ‘tribes’ (ādivāsi). Specific ādivāsi communities are recognised and listed as ‘Scheduled Tribes’ (STs) by the government of India. The STs are identified on the basis of distinct culture and language, geographical isolation, ‘primitive’ traits, economic ‘backwardness’, limited contact with the out-group and other considerations. The reference to ‘tribe/tribal’ in this book is only in this formal and neutral sense. (2) In my Introduction to Multilingual Education for Social Justice: Globalising the Local (Mohanty et al., 2009b) and also in Social Justice Through Multilingual Education (Skutnabb-Kangas et al., 2009a), I have narrated how Barun Digal’s naive questions transformed my basic orientation to research and to my work with tribal people. Barun himself was not from a tribal community, but he represented the sentiments of all the disadvantaged people of his area. (3) See Skutnabb-Kangas (2000: 487–492) for a discussion and broad definitions of the



Introduction: Languaging Without Borders and Binaries  9

concepts of ‘indigenous’ and ‘minority’ groups. The ITM groups constitute a generic category of dominated people characterised by gross disadvantages in their respective societies. However, there are within-group variations (i.e. relative disadvantages) among the ITM people. In India, for example, some ITM languages have official or constitutional recognition whereas others do not. (4) The Kond studies were conducted with formal identification of Kui monolingual and Kui–Odia bilingual samples on the basis of the dominant pattern of language use. However, as I show later, the Kond population in the area covered in our studies had exposure to and use of multiple languages in the milieu.

2 The Multilingual World: Conceptual Issues

I grew up in Puri, a small town in India on the east coast of the Bay of Bengal. Puri is known for the temple of Lord Jagannath – the Hindu God of the Universe. Jagannath Temple (called Bada Deula, the Chief Temple, in the Odia language) is one of the four major shrines for Hindu pilgrimage. Naturally, Puri was a place where Indian languages converged in the routine transactions and rituals in the temple – a host of languages shared by the pilgrims from all over the country. Sanskrit was the language of worship and was used in the mantras recited by the priests and the devotees in prayers and offerings to the gods. During the 1950s, the temple had a number of Sevāyats (people in the service of the Lord), who rendered services to the pilgrims, acting as their religious representatives, tourist guides and facilitators. Family of the Sevāyats (called pandās in Odia and many other Indian languages) were the traditional representatives of villagers and communities from different parts of the country; the pandās maintained genealogical records of the devotees in the respective villages and communities they represented, showing the names and addresses of adult members of the families and children over several generations. As soon as the pilgrims arrived at the railway station or near the temple, the language and its variety spoken by them were recognised and geographic­ally placed, and soon the respective pandā, the traditional representative of the communities from a specific location, would be known and contacted. There was hardly any ambiguity or dispute over the representation. Of course, each pandā had the family records to substantiate the mutual relationship, which continued over generations. Considering that the temple attracted 10,000 to 1,000,000 devotees on any given day, the number depending on the auspicious significance of different periods in the religious calendar, the linguistic/regional distribution between the pilgrims and their pandās seemed to work remarkably well. The pandās, whose schooling typically lasted seven years at most, were multilinguals, with functional proficiency in different languages and varieties, particularly of the communities they represented. The temple and other places of tourist interest in the town, including the beautiful sea beach, were places wherein I naturally got accustomed to 10



The Multilingual World: Conceptual Issues  11

many languages and forms of communication. The linguistic diversity of this small town was not just related to the floating population of devotees and visitors; besides the majority community of Odia-speakers, the town had sizeable groups of Bengali-, Hindi- and Telugu-speaking families from the neighbouring states. These families had migrated some generations back (generally seeking work or business opportunities). There was also a small population of government officials from other regions and languages who worked for the railways and central government offices. It was thus quite common to hear many languages in the streets and market­places of this small coastal town. The local people used different languages to communicate in different settings, often code-mixing and code-switching, although Odia was the dominant language in public places. The local movie theatres (there was no television in those days) showed Hindi, Bengali, English, Odia and Telugu movies, although Hindi movies were the most frequently shown and popular ones. Was it strange in any way to grow up in an environment of so many languages apart from Odia, my mother tongue? If it was in any way, I was never conscious of it, as I grew up moving spontaneously between languages. Some of my friends spoke a different language in their homes and it was routine for me to try to communicate in these languages, often code-mixing with Odia. Often I visited friends whose family members, particularly the older ones, spoke to me in their language, such as Bengali or Hindi, and I would reply in Odia; we would not only understand each other but in fact find the communication social and respectful. My mother, who had not completed her primary education, could read Odia and was an avid reader of Bengali fiction, although I never heard her speak Bengali. Thus, I grew up with some understanding of Bengali, Hindi and, later, English; but I did not have to speak these languages, at least not with any appreciable fluency. My early experiences in different places outside my home town were not much different – less diverse perhaps, but many languages were present, blending quite naturally into the communicative environment. In my ancestral village, where I usually spent a part of my vacation with my grandparents, it was the same experience – mostly, people spoke Odia but other languages, including Hindi, Urdu and Bengali, were very much present in people’s daily lives. That never struck me as anything but natural. Despite using different languages to meet my communicative requirements, it did not even occur to me that I was using multiple languages and that I could be considered a multilingual. Much later, my exposure to the patterns of language use in Canada and the USA made me realise how strikingly different my early ex­perience had been. There was the presence of many languages in both these societies: in the USA, in addition to English, the indigenous languages and many more brought to the country as native languages of immigrants; and in Canada, the two official languages, English and French, as well as the indigenous

12  The Multilingual Reality

languages and the languages of the immigrants. But these many languages, surprisingly for me, remained isolated and confined to specific groups of speakers, without any sign of sharing the communicative space, something which I had assumed to be very natural from my early ex­perience. The broad public spheres were typically monolingual in English (or, of course, French in parts of Canada), with the other languages used only for limited communicative purposes within the families and communities of the speakers of the other language. These languages were marked as being different and as representing different cultures. There was also something very noticeable among the users of heritage and ethnic languages: unlike the speakers of English in these countries, they were bilinguals in their language and in English. Further, there was a clear language shift from the family language to English (or French in parts of Canada) among the younger generations. They were increasingly becoming monolinguals in the dominant language; bilingualism among the minority groups in these countries was only a point in transition from monolingualism in the native language to monolingualism in the dominant language. Further, bilingualism was accepted as a point of departure only when the major language was also there. Monolingualism in the major language was the norm and there was a pressure to conform to its normative use; this was not necessarily the case for any additional language or languages. There was linguistic diversity in the society but the major language was the least common denominator in such diversity. In these societies, remaining bilingual was always a challenge because it meant a different language, a different culture and, perhaps, a more complex identity. More importantly, the two languages of the bilinguals were treated as two solitudes. Moving between the two worlds, I had a very different understanding of what it meant to have multiple languages coexisting in a society. I had grown up accepting many languages as a fact of life and as integral aspects of a total communicative experience in which languages remained woven and merged into a totality. Communicating, in my early experience, did involve the use of many languages, but it was never viewed as an exercise of crossing linguistic boundaries, transgressing into a different territory. While I always thought of myself as an Odia-speaker, I had little doubt that my communicative world would remain insufficient if I lacked at least some competence in the many other languages necessary to make my communication more effective and complete. In other words, growing up as an ordinary person (and not as a linguist – which I am still not), despite having a mother tongue as well as multiple linguistic identities, I never had to treat languages as discrete units. Languages did have separate names, entities and identities for me, but those were popular as well as linguistic labels, required more for organising the world of experiences than for acts of communication. Suddenly, then, I was struck by how discretely the languages were treated in the common world-view in the two North American societies.



The Multilingual World: Conceptual Issues  13

In such societies, a person had to be a ‘native’ speaker of a language and it was interesting if she or he could also use another language, or especially many other languages. This is what made bilingualism a matter of interest, an object of study in North America, and indeed in the West more widely. When I returned to India, after my doctoral degree from Canada, I sought initially to use the Western academic framework of bilingualism studies to understand the phenomenon of multiple languages in society. I soon realised my discomfort in doing so in the typical social context in which I grew up and lived. I considered the communicative context to be much more complex than what my taught view of bilingualism had endowed me to deal with. Clearly, the context of communication was not just moving from two to many languages. An immediate reaction to this perceived inadequacy was to try to look for simpler social and communicative contexts uncontaminated by the ‘confounding’ of too many languages. In 1978, when I started my work with the Kond tribal population (about which I will have more to say later) in the Phulbani District of Odisha, I thought that moving into the remote, rural and tribal setting would enable me to understand the communicative role of languages through the framework of Western bilingualism research. During the four decades of my continuing work with this particular tribal people, and also moving into very different and sometimes more complex and broader communicative contexts in India, I came to realise that the apparently ‘simpler’ context of the Konds is not fundamentally different from the complex multilinguality of my early experience. The communicative scenarios in India may differ with respect to the kinds and numbers of languages used in any given context, but these contexts share some common features. The languages and their users blend into the total ecology of communication in a manner which makes them a natural and accepted aspect of each communicative act; usually, no language and no speaker is ‘marked’ as being different or out of context. Each of the languages used in a given context and domain of use is viewed as a necessary and legitimate aspect of the social exchange at that point in time and place. People and languages come together in social communication with mutual acceptance; they are necessary aspects of the multilingual reality, with its usual variety and diversity. Languages and their speakers, in the apparently simpler multilingual contexts of the tribal villages, remain intertwined in different domains of use, even when the speakers maintain the distinct identities of their own linguistic communities – Kond tribal Kui-speakers and non-tribal Odia-speakers. In the Kui-speaking Kond tribal majority areas of Phulbani District, Kui and Odia are the main languages of communication within the respective language communities. But in the public domains, such as the weekly markets in the locality, the two languages (Kui and Odia) as well as Hindi and Telugu are used freely by members of the two major language communities in code-mixed Kui

14  The Multilingual Reality

or Odia. English is rarely used as such, but borrowed English words (such as chair, table, ball, film, cinema, school, tomato, cycle [for bicycle], car, truck, bus, radio) constitute a part of the common vocabulary of Odia and Kui languages. During the 1980s, most of the tribal Kui-speaking women typically used Kui1 in the marketplaces, but other tribal and non-tribal vendors used different code-mixed varieties of Odia or Kui, along with occasional Hindi and Telugu words, if necessary, for business transactions. The patterns of language use in the markets and other social spaces have changed in recent years, but they continue to be highly multilingual. Are these tribal folks monolingual, bilingual or multilingual? They are Kui-speakers by their language of origin, their competence and identity. But, more importantly, they are able to function with ease in their interactions with the Odia-speakers; their communication derives its completeness and functionality by involving active and passive use of other languages. In terms of their dominant pattern of use outside their own family and community, they are certainly Kui–Odia bilinguals; in fact, in my early writings I did characterise them as such. But characterisation of these tribal communities as ‘bilingual’ would grossly underestimate the complexity of their sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic contexts and the ease with which they move between many languages to achieve a functional level of communicative effectiveness regardless of their own levels of proficiency in the languages in their milieu. Thus, multilingualism in India (as in other countries with similar societal conditions) cannot be taken as a simple point of departure from monolingualism or as constituting a linear extension of bilingualism by addition of a third, fourth or nth language to the second. Languages and language users in typical bilingual contexts usually constitute culturally distinct entities and it is possible to imagine the languages functioning in relatively independent manners in many of the domains of their use. In contrast, the co-presence of multiple languages and users of these languages in multilingual societies necessarily involves interdependence and networking of languages in a manner which makes it difficult to isolate languages or their speakers as autonomous entities. It is possible that, historically, languages have had distinct cultural or sub-cultural traditions and roles, but prolonged contact and interdependence among the languages and language communities in multilingual societies lead to convergence and mutual complementarities. In India, Sanskrit and folk languages, for example, have had distinct traditions and religious-cultural practices associated with them but, with centuries of coexistence and mutual impact, it is not possible to imagine these languages as isolated communicative units in the multilingual social structure. It is necessary to consider multilingualism as a sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic phenomenon distinct from how bilingualism in typically monolingual societies has been viewed.



The Multilingual World: Conceptual Issues  15

Defining Multilingualism

Defining individual or societal multilingualism is problematic because of the diversity of contexts of use of multiple languages and also the complexity of such contexts. Views of multilingualism are also affected by researchers’ own experiences,2 backgrounds and ideologies (Kemp, 2009). In dominant monolingual Western societies, monolingualism is seen as unmarked (Kemp, 2009) and it is often contrasted with multilingualism (as well as with bilingualism) as points of departure (Mohanty, 1994a; Romaine, 1989). Researchers in Western societies have found bilingualism interesting because it is a marked phenomenon in the context of the dominant monolingual ethos. With the growing number of studies on bilingualism, some researchers have started questioning whether the concomitants of bilingualism can be generalised to more complex contexts, such as the trilingual situations in Europe (Cenoz & Genesee, 2001; Cenoz & Gorter, 2005). As one moves from monolingualism to bi-, tri- and multi­ lingualism, it becomes evident that counting languages in use in complex contexts is itself a major issue, due to the fluidity of boundaries between languages. Kemp (2009: 18) finds counting languages problematical due to the difficulties in measurement of language proficiency, also related to the non-categorical nature of languages and speech communities. The relationship between languages and their use does not remain static across domains. And when people move between languages and their use in different social contexts, it is often difficult to identify the boundaries between languages because of the gross overlap between them and their contexts of use. Levels of competence of individual language users in different languages in multilingual societies may vary across contexts of use, making it difficult to judge the range of competencies in languages of the multilinguals. Typically, different languages in a multilingual community are used for different purposes. Further, the level of competence of multi­ linguals varies with formal education, occupation and the registers used in a given context. The Konds using Kui, Odia, Hindi and other languages do so to be able to communicate effectively in specific domains of use; their Kui is effectively used in their home and in-group communication as much as their Odia is used for inter-group communication and Hindi for tele­vision viewing and some marketplace use. Their multilingualism involves alternate use of these languages as and when required; a similar a conceptualisation of bilingualism is used by a few Western re­searchers (e.g. Mackey, 1970). The languages of multilinguals are used not in isolation but as a set of tools to fully meet particular communicative requirements; such use does not involve a static level of knowledge or performance, nor native speakers’ competence (which itself is hard to define) in any or all of the languages. A competence criterion for the identification of bilinguals/multilinguals is problematic, since language users’ competence

16  The Multilingual Reality

in languages hardly ever remains the same across different domains of use. Most of the users of English in non-English-speaking countries use English in professional and scholastic domains only and, as such, they show limited competence in use of the language in other social domains. Kemp also points out the difficulties in isolating multilinguals’ languages and looking at the levels of proficiency in each: Recent definitions of multilingualism also do not require individuals to be proficient to native speaker level, not least because nativeness appears to be a function of age of acquisition for many learners, and because re­searchers working within the more recent multilingual paradigm tend to take a more holistic view of all the languages within the individual’s system. In other words, each language in the multilingual integrated system is a part of the complete system and not equivalent in representation or processing to the language of a monolingual speaker. (Kemp, 2009: 19)

Therefore, functional use of languages for communication is a more adequate criterion for the identification of bilingual or multilingual persons and communities. In defining bilingualism, Skutnabb-Kangas (1984) suggested two functional criteria, namely free use of two languages and switching between them as means of communication. In a functional approach to defining multilingualism, the emphasis is on use of languages for communication rather than absolute levels of competence (Mohanty, 1994a: 11). Languages of multilinguals (and, indeed, of all language users) are socially situated practices and do not involve competences in abstraction or in a vacuum. Multilingual societies and individuals need to be viewed holistically and not as a sum of specific levels of competence of the language users in a variety of sociolinguistic contexts. Describing multilingualism, therefore, necessarily involves consider­ ation of the performance of multilingual language users in real socio­linguistic contexts and viewing languages as functional codes and not just as formal codes. However, in specific bilingual or multilingual contexts, it may be necessary for researchers to specify the expected or acceptable standards of functioning in multiple languages for meaningful comparison across various groups and contexts. Given the complexity of multilingual situations, each group of multilingual individuals or com­ munities is unique in many respects. In view of this, although the functional approach to defining multilingualism is useful and practical, it is also necessary to provide some details of the specific individuals or groups denoted multilingual, since definitions can be arbitrary and may use any of multiple criteria (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1984). Skutnabb-Kangas (1984) discussed four criteria for defining bilingualism: definitions by origin, which emphasise the origin and development of



The Multilingual World: Conceptual Issues  17

bilingualism; definitions by competence in the languages of the bilinguals; definitions by the functions that languages serve for the users; and definitions based on identification with languages. All or some of these criteria can be (and have been) used in defining multilingualism, depending on which aspect of the phenomenon is considered significant for the purpose of such a definition (Mohanty, 1994a). Further, these criteria themselves are contingent upon several contextual conditions. For example, the extent to which a multilingual individual or community identifies with all the languages in use depends on a host of complex sociolinguistic, political and cultural conditions, and not necessarily on the levels of competence in these languages. Competence can also be developed in a language without identifying with the language. Sometimes, languages are learnt for specific requirements and benefits. Indian civil servants are required to learn the majority language of a state which they are assigned to serve and they learn the language to meet this formal requirement. In many non-Englishspeaking multilingual societies, there is a growing group of people with formal education and varying degrees of functional com­petence in English, mostly for professional use; not all of them identify with the language or have a sense of pride in it. Admittedly, all definitions of multilingualism can be considered arbitrary, emphasising different aspects of the phenomenon of use of multiple languages; it is not possible to arrive at an absolute definition. It is, however, possible to identify core aspects of the concept of multi­ lingualism in a manner that combines its characteristic features and matches the general profile of the common multilingual communities and individuals. In its core meaning, multilingualism can be defined as follows: the ability of communities or persons to meet the communicative requirements of themselves and their society in normal daily life in two or more languages in their interactions with the speakers of any of these languages.

In her discussion of the development of multilingualism research in the European context, Franceschini (2009) offers a similar definition of multi­lingualism: The term/concept of multilingualism is to be understood as the capacity of societies, institutions, groups and individuals to engage on a regular basis in space and time with more than one language in everyday life. (Franceschini, 2009: 33)

Such functional definitions are simple, have a general application and leave open the questions of competence in and identification with multiple languages and cultures. By focusing on functional communicative skills in normal life and routine interactional contexts, these definitions of multilingualism acknowledge the possibility of the levels of multi­ lingual functioning changing across different contexts and domains of

18  The Multilingual Reality

communication. For example, English-knowing multilinguals from most Asian countries may not have adequate functional skills in academic English or when they move to the UK or the USA. The definition also leaves open the question of context of development of multilingual skills, which can vary with specific multilingual persons or communities. Of course, such contextual variations can be important considerations for certain purposes and may need to be specified in studies of multilingualism. At the same time, multilingualism is to be viewed as a composite or synthesised system of a network of languages, since languages do not remain discrete units as in the case of the dominant monolingual societies; multilingualism is much more than a simple combination of multiple languages in a society or individual.3 The term ‘plurilingualism’ is sometimes used by researchers to characterise individuals’ multilingual competence. Plurilingualism is considered characteristically more complex than bilingualism in North American contexts and, at the same time, different from the typical societal multi­ lingualism in African and Asian contexts. Popularised by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages developed in 2001, plurilingualism is often associated with the European context4 and distinguished from multilingualism; it is sometimes viewed as more focused on individual rather than social use of languages and on an individual language user’s ‘repertoires’ and ‘agency’ in multiple languages (Marshall & Moore, 2013) and their competence in use the of and switching between different languages. Plurilingualism researchers consider ‘multilingualism’ more as a social phenomenon of the presence of multiple languages in social contexts. However, Marshall and Moore (2016) question the implicit binary between the social and the individual in the common distinction between multilingualism and plurilingualism and argue that there is no substantive difference between the two terms. According to them, the agency of plurilingual speakers, their competence in languages and use are socially situated; the usual association of plurilingualism with focus on the individual does not necessarily exclude the social. In this book, I do not subscribe to any distinction between multilingualism and plurilingualism. Use of multiple languages by multilingual individuals, communities and societies is both individual and social; the individual’s languages are socially constructed and social practices of languages get reified through use by language users who themselves are socially situated. Multilingualism: Some Features

With India as a test case, one can ask whether the multilingual worldview emanates from or is in some way related to the sheer linguistic complexity of numbers and varieties in use within a defined space. Is it that there is no fundamental difference between the ‘bilingual’ view from the West and the multilingual view from the non-Western societies, except



The Multilingual World: Conceptual Issues  19

that in the latter case the varieties of languages are formidably many? Prima facie, the answer may appear to be in the affirmative. But when one looks at the manner in which languages in practice are linked in the minds of their users and the fuzziness of the linguistic boundaries, it becomes quite evident that, at the level of actual communicative practices, it is not the number of languages that distinguishes multilingualism. First, let us look at the numbers in India. The People’s Linguistic Survey of India (PLSI) (Devy, 2014) has identified at least 780 languages (see http://www.peopleslinguisticsurvey.org for a list of all volumes of PLSI). The census of India 2001 listed over 6600 mother tongue (MT) declarations by the people. These declarations were rationalised to 3592 MTs. Out of these, 1635 MTs with more than 10,000 speakers each were listed and the remaining 1957 were clubbed under a single ‘other’ MT category. Further, the 1635 listed MTs were grouped under 122 languages. This process of rationalisation of MT declarations and grouping them into languages, somewhat arbitrarily, has resulted in variation in the number of languages identified in successive decadal census surveys in India. In the 1991 census, for example, over 10,000 MTs were declared. These MT returns were r­ ationalised and classified into 3372 MTs, out of which 1576 were listed and the remaining 1796 were grouped under the ‘other’ MT category. India has 22 languages listed in Schedule VIII of the constitution of India (http://www.india.gov.in/govt/constitution_of_india.php) as official languages for all communication between the states as well as the states and the Union of India. Hindi is recognised as the official language of the Union of India and English as an associate or additional official language. Table 2.1 lists the languages with official status in the constitution of India. Table 2.1  Languages with official status in the Indian constitution Official language of the Union of India (Article 343(1))

Hindi (in Devanagari script)

Additional official language of the Union of India (Article 343(2))

English

Official languages for communication between the states and between the states and the Union (Schedule VIII, Articles 344(1) and 351)

(1) Assamese; (2) Bengali; (3) Bodo*; (4) Dogri*; (5) Gujarati; (6). Hindi; (7) Kannada; (8) Kashmiri; (9) Konkani**; (10) Maithili*; (11) Malayalam; (12) Manipuri**; (13) Marathi; (14) Nepali**; (15) Odia; (16) Punjabi; (17) Sanskrit; (18) Santali*; (19) Sindhi***; (20) Tamil; (21) Telugu; (22) Urdu

Note: 14 languages were initially included in Schedule VIII in 1950. *** One language added in 1967; ** Three added in 1992; * Four added in 2003.

Looking at the national patterns of language use in major domains of the society, one may be intrigued by the large number of languages. There are registered newspapers in 123 languages, the All India Radio News Service broadcasts in 90 languages and regional news units in 75 languages

20  The Multilingual Reality

and films are produced in 35 languages.5 The figures are daunting and, with so many languages, India is definitely high in its linguistic diversity. It ranks fourth in the world in terms of the number of languages, provided one uses the number of ‘languages’ that the census has reduced the MTs to (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). However, it is not just the presence of a large number of languages in different spheres of social life in India that makes its multilingualism unique. As Annamalai (2003, 2008) points out, Indian multilingualism is not about its demographic features and multiplicity of languages; it is the functional relationship between many languages in different domains of use that makes India multilingual. The dynamics of the relationship between these languages and their users, the manner in which the languages are organised in society and the way they are reflected in the daily lives of common people all over the country make the ethos of language use in India distinct from the dominant mono­lingual societies. The psychosocial dimensions of the patterns of language and com­ munication in India are characterised by several unique features (Mohanty, 1990a, 2006) which are particularly relevant for understanding the distinctive nature of its multilingualism. Multilingualism at the grassroots level In the west, individuals and societies have to deviate to become and remain bilingual. In India, it would be unnatural if individuals and societies can remain completely monolingual. (Mohanty, 1994a: 1)

Widespread use of two or more languages in different domains of daily life makes it necessary for individuals and communities at the grassroots level to communicate among themselves and with members of different speech communities and also to deal variously with different languages and speech varieties. Each area is characterised by a history of language contact between different speech communities and also with languages which are socially present, even if one may not always notice a visible group of speakers of such languages. Multiple languages are more noticeable in urban areas with large-scale migration of rural populations from different places. But in rural areas, too, multilingual contacts are common. For example, as I have noted earlier, in my village, which would appear to be almost homogeneously an Odia monolingual settlement to a casual visitor, people have had regular contact with Urdu-speaking Muslim communities living in nearby villages for generations and, despite the social-religious segregation, the two groups often interact in the marketplaces, political and other gatherings and on special occasions. There are similar contacts with Bengali-speakers. Hindi and English were present earlier through the popular All India Radio programmes, occasional film shows and other commercial entertainment events (such as touring circuses). Now, contact with Hindi and English and also other languages



The Multilingual World: Conceptual Issues  21

is facilitated through advanced media and communication technology. Thus, living in my village, as in the others, meant and still means a life of routine contact with and communication through a variety of languages in some form or other. If one uses a maximal-competence criterion for multilingualism, it may be difficult to characterise people of my village as multilinguals. But, in their routine lives, they negotiate all or some of these languages. This is typical of the rural and remote areas all over India. Multiple languages constitute an integral aspect of life and, as such, a psychological and social reality for the masses. It would be inappropriate to ask if the villagers in my village, the Konds or other tribal people in rural areas and people in other parts of India are multilingual in the sense in which the term is predominantly used. It is not just a matter of their discrete language competences but the ease with which they negotiate languages, using them both receptively and productively to maximise their communicative effectiveness. If one were to assess their ‘native competence’ in these different languages, one would certainly be disappointed. But, considering that they not only develop awareness of languages but also become skilful in managing their routine lives without any self-conscious transgressing into many languages other than their own, it can be said that multi­linguality, if not high levels of competence in multiple languages, comes to them naturally. Under such conditions, widespread multilingualism at the individual level and the coexistence of multiple languages at the societal level are functionally significant for communication. Multi­plicity of languages in use in contemporary Indian society can be viewed as a necessary outcome of the way languages are used in everyday life (Khubchandani, 1986). People do acquire functional skills in languages in domains of use that are contextually relevant and serve communicative functions; proficiency across domains is hardly a matter of concern and, therefore, is mostly irrelevant in mapping individual multilingualism. When, on the other hand, languages are learned through some formal education, domain-independent proficiency in languages use is often considered necessary and relevant. Multilingualism through schooling or formal learning is often distinguished from grassroots multilingualism, but in multilingual societies the two contribute to each other. No language user in such a grassroots level of functional multi­ lingualism, in India as well as other multilingual societies, particularly elsewhere in Asia and in Africa, is marked as a deviant speaker, regardless of whichever language happens to be his or her primary language. The spontaneity, effortlessness and smoothness with which languages are negotiated make the multilingual milieu what it is. In fact, most of these people may not even project themselves as multilingual, since they are not likely to rate their competence in languages other than their MT as very high. That is why the census surveys in India, which ask respondents to report whether they speak any languages other than their MT, grossly

22  The Multilingual Reality

underestimate the incidence of bilingualism and trilingualism in Indian society.6 Using multiple languages in daily life is different from ‘speaking’ many languages. I use a number of languages, including English, in my daily activities, but I generally speak Odia when I am in my place of residence. It is, therefore, not surprising that many multilinguals do not report speaking languages other than their MT. Almost half of the districts in India have minority linguistic com­ munities exceeding 20% of the population (Annamalai, 2008; Khubchandani, 1986) and, in addition to the major state language, every state has one to six other languages which are spoken by more than 20 persons per 1000 population. The number of districts has increased by over 50% in recent years, making these administrative units smaller and more homogeneous. But grassroots multilingualism is evident all over the country. Speakers of languages other than the state majority language constitute a significant proportion of the population of all the states in India; in the 2001 census, the percentage of speakers of other (minority) languages in states varied from 86.0% in Nagaland to 3.8% in Kerala (http://www.mhrd.gov.in, accessed 15 October 2017). The presence of many languages at the grassroots level and the linguistic diversity, however, do not impede communication across the country (Annamalai, 2008; Khubchandani, 1978; Pattanayak, 1981) because individual and community bilingualism/multilingualism at the local or regional levels ‘constitutes the first incremental step towards concentric layers of societal multilingualism’ (Mohanty, 2006: 263). Skutnabb-­Kangas (2000: 9) speaks of ‘a continuum of “dialects”, where those people whose villages are physically close to each other have learned to understand each other’ and she illustrates how mutual intelligibility across languages and ‘dialects’ are established at village levels in multi­ lingual societies (see Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000: 10, insert 1.3). As Pattanayak (1981: 44) says, in India, ‘If one draws a straight line between Kashmir and Kanyakumari and marks, say every five or ten miles, then one will find that there is no break in communication between any two consecutive points’. Annamalai (2008) discusses how different languages are used as functional links to facilitate communication in Indian multilingualism. Multilingualism is not about how many or which languages one uses and with what levels of competence; rather, it involves the use of a flexible and dynamic set of languages in a synergistic network for functionally effective communication. Indian multilingualism has been viewed as a ‘natural phenomenon’ (Bhatia & Ritchie, 2004). ‘Centuries of coexistence and an ongoing process of convergence have led to an unmarked pattern of widespread naturalistic linguistic coalescence rather than separation, dominance and disintegration’ (Bhatia & Ritchie, 2004: 795). In such a scenario, languages, varieties of expression and speech styles fit into ‘the framework of social mosaic and individuals’ own pattern of language use in a mutually complementary manner’ (Mohanty, 1994a: 113).



The Multilingual World: Conceptual Issues  23

Complementarities of languages

The multilingual lifestyle in India and diverse patterns of language use are sustained through a complementary relationship between languages and their smooth functional allocation into different domains of use, such as home, in-group and inter-group communication, marketplace trans­ actions, religious rites, formal communication, entertainment, media and so on (Dua, 1986). For example, when living in Delhi, where my MT, Odia, is not a major language, I used Odia at home, English at my work­place, Hindi when watching television and for informal communication with various people outside my family, Bengali to communicate with some of my Bengali colleagues and my domestic helper, a mix of Hindi–Punjabi–Urdu in marketplaces in Delhi and Sanskrit for my prayers and religious activities. In Assam, where we had a project running in the Bodo area, I tried to use informally some Bodo and some Assamese (which I understand quite well). Through all these experiences of moving across languages, I engaged in some code-switching and code-mixing in order to make my communication more complete and effective. The languages that I use in different domains of my activities serve various communicative functions in my life in a mutually complementary and non-competing relationship. The diverse patterns of language use in social interactions and in different domains of daily life of common people support the multilingual lifestyle in India (Mohanty, 2006). The choice of languages and speech styles across different domains is affected by a complex set of psychological and sociolinguistic factors (Mohanty, 2004). According to Annamalai (2008: 229), ‘India has been functionally multilingual by not assigning the functions in [the] public domain to only one language’. Multiple languages used in specific domains complement each other synergistically to make communication effective. The Hindu religious rituals of puja (prayers and offerings to the gods) are usually performed on behalf of devotees by Brahmin priests reciting mantras in Sanskrit. Usually, many of the devotees do not understand the Sanskrit or, at best, understand the mantras only partially. The priests offer interpretations and directions for devotees for ritualistic actions or specific acts of offering in other languages. Thus, the use of Sanskrit and other languages contributes to making the communicative functions in the religious domain complete. Complementarity of languages and their functions across different domains makes living with many languages easier and it forms a major aspect of early language socialisation, as I will discuss below. According to Southworth: Multilingualism is an integral part of social segment of life to which many Indians adjust at a very early age. Different languages, dialects or sharply distinct styles of speech are complementarily distributed in the speech of individuals and groups in a way which minimises their competition with each other. (Southworth, 1980: 79)

24  The Multilingual Reality

Changes in patterns of speech, use of ‘low’ and ‘high’ linguistic varieties, switching from one language to another and mixing languages within a discourse unit do not indicate any failure to communicate; languages are used as deliberate and selective strategies to serve specific communicative functions. Indian sociolinguists have highlighted the functional significance and implications of code-switching and code-mixing in the context of the country’s multilingualism (e.g. Dua, 1984; Gupta, 1978; Kachru, 1978; Sridhar, 1978; Verma, 1976). The competence in any language of multilingual language users may be incomplete compared with the native speakers of each of these languages, but the complete verbal repertoire of such a person is like a functional tool box, out of which specific usages are selectively chosen to serve a particular social purpose. Given such a relationship between languages, the notions of dominant and non-dominant languages or balanced language skills are rendered hazy and, often, meaningless. As Annamalai (2001: 56) pointed out, languages are possessed and used like ‘an additional garment or tool needed for [a] different situation or purpose’. In any given context of multilingualism, it is the totality of languages for communication and not the distinct entity of a language that matters. When languages are assigned to domains of use and for specific communicative functions, they do not exist as isolated units, and this leads to fluidity of linguistic boundaries in the perception of the language users. Fluidity of linguistic boundaries and multiplicity of linguistic identities

With a history of languages in contact and the prevalent heterogeneity of languages complementing each other in different domains of use, linguistic boundaries in India are quite fluid in the minds of language users: Language labels are not rigidly associated with fixed ‘stereotypes’…. Language boundaries … remain fluid and the masses at large do not show over-consciousness of the speech characteristics which bind them in one language or another. (Khubchandani, 1986: 20)

Khubchandani (1983, 1986) analysed 1951 and 1961 census returns and noted that the declaration of MT fluctuated from one census to the other because of the fluidity of boundary between dialectical MT and a superordinate language. For example, the number of claimants of the Bihari group of languages, which includes Maithili, Bhojpuri and Magahi, which were considered regional dialects of Hindi, increased from 1951 to 1961 by 14,611% (Khubchandani, 1986). Similarly, over that decade there was a 68.7% increase in declaration of Urdu as the MT, showing a change from regional to religious identity influencing the MT claims of the Muslim population in India.



The Multilingual World: Conceptual Issues  25

Fluidity of linguistic boundaries in the multilingual context makes linguistic identities and MT declarations quite complex. Khubchandani (1986) identified five categories of language users among 123 million people who were identified as Hindi MT claimants. MT claims and vacillation in such claims are of psychological significance, often indicating patterns of socio-cultural and linguistic loyalties and changes in group identity rather than actual patterns of language use in a multilingual context. The relationship between MT claims and identity is both subtle and complex in multilingual societies. The four criteria for identification of MT (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1984, 2000) include MT by (internal or external) identification. MT identification in a multilingual society may sometimes be fuzzy, since the fluidity of linguistic boundaries makes it difficult for the language users to choose between multiple identities, particularly when a choice is mandated as in case of MT declarations for census. Maithili, until recently, was considered a dialect of Hindi and, therefore, people who spoke Maithili and Hindi often considered themselves simply as Hindi-speakers. With recognition of Maithili as a separate language, the same speakers became conscious of being Hindi–Maithili bilinguals/multilinguals. As Khubchandani (1983, 1986) points out, in the Hindi–Urdu–Punjabi region of India, switching from a regional language such as Bhojpuri to Hindi is often considered similar to a monolingual’s switching of style (e.g. formal to informal). However, it is possible that the regional languages are accepted as dialect-like tools for informal oral communication and, sometimes, with crystallisation of group identity and pressure for establishing group distinctiveness, the language of informal communication in the in-group domain may result in ascription of a higher status to the language. Thus, the perception of fluidity of linguistic boundaries may be both an effect and a consequence of the dynamics of group identity processes. In multilingual contact situations in India, multiplicity of identities tends to minimise intergroup conflict by the complementary use of languages, which reduces the tension usually associated with choice among languages competing for status and seeking to displace each other from significant domains. In a study of the dynamics of intergroup relationships in a multilingual contact situation in central Kolkata in West Bengal (India), Singh (2007) shows that the Bengali MT speakers, the Anglo-Indian community of English MT speakers and the Urdu MT community of Muslims are able to have a stable pattern of multilingual use of languages across domains and an integrative social relationship through multiple linguistic identities at different levels. While they demonstrate positive in-group identities, they also identify with the other languages in different domains of use. This facilitates consensual and complementary use of languages in different domains and for different functions without any tension. The speakers of Bengali, the major state language, identify with English as a major international language of power and they prefer

26  The Multilingual Reality

to use it in some domains. They also have no issues with using Hindi-Urdu the local marketplaces. The English-speaking Anglo-Indian community identifies with their MT as a language of prestige and speaks Bengali as the major language of the region and Hindi-Urdu as a language of market­place transactions. The Urdu-speakers of the Muslim community also identify with Bengali7 and, like the other communities in contact, they also identify with English. As Bhatia and Ritchie observed: Multiple languages and multiple language identities are defining features of Indian (and South Asian) bilingualism that reveal the dynamics of language usage and a constant negotiation of identities. (Bhatia & Ritchie, 2004: 795)

Typically, language users in multilingual societies extend their identities beyond a particular language. The high degree of flexibility in perception of languages and their boundaries also makes language identities flexible (Khubchandani, 1983, 1986). People move between languages with the patterns of identity changing under various social psycho­logical conditions which affect the dynamics of perceptions of mother tongues and linguistic boundaries (Mohanty, 1994a, 2006). Southworth highlighted the relationship between languages and identity in the Indian context: The fact that an individual uses English or Hindi in the office does not imply any pressure to use that language in preference to the home language – which might be, say, Bengali or Tamil – for domestic purposes. Just as a man ‘takes off his caste’ when he changes from dhoti to trousers, he changes his social identity when he changes from his home language to the language which is appropriate for the office. Thus, for many individuals the question of ‘threatened identity’ does not arise, and any additional competence attained in new languages will always be additive rather than subtractive.8 (Southworth, 1980: 79) Maintenance norms

The multilingual ethos of Indian society and the non-competing roles of languages generally support norms of language maintenance. Per­sist­ ence of isolated minority languages all over the country and languages of migrants over generations in host communities such as Bengali in Hindi/ Bhojpuri-dominant Varanasi, Urdu in Mysore (where Kannada is the main language), Tamil in Mathura (the regional variety of Hindi is the main language of the region) or Bhojpuri and Hindi in Maharashtra (Marathi is the dominant/majority language of Maharashtra) show relative absence of assimilative pressure on non-dominant contact languages, unlike what generally happens in dominant monolingual societies. Linguistic and cultural variations in multilingual societies meet with a greater degree of



The Multilingual World: Conceptual Issues  27

acceptance, if not a high level of support. As a result, migrant communities show a gradual and voluntary acculturation. In contrast, Western studies, starting with the pioneering work of Weinreich (1953), invariably show that contact between majority and dominant languages of power and dominated languages leads to language shift from the non-dominant contact language and loss of linguistic diversity. Such processes of shift are generally associated with synchronic variations in the pattern of language use, including intergenerational differences in use of the minority or dominated languages. But maintenance of isolated languages among migrant communities over generations in different parts of India has led to the claim (Pandit, 1977) that, in India, language maintenance is the norm and language shift a deviation. According to Pandit: A second generation speaker in Europe or America gives up his native language in favour of the dominant language of the region; language shift is the norm and language maintenance an exception. In India, language maintenance is the norm and shift an exception. American sociolinguists start their enquiry with the question, why are languages maintained? Indian sociolinguists should start their enquiry with the question, why should people give up their languages? (Pandit, 1977: 9)

Judging from the fact that, despite strong maintenance norms, languages are dying in India, Pandit’s generalisation seems to be too optimistic and may need to be qualified. Indeed, Srivastava (1989) sought to show that, in some sociolinguistic contexts in India, Pandit’s generalisation does not hold good. He pointed out that speakers of dialects of Hindi (e.g. Bhojpuri) settled elsewhere as migrant subordinates show a shift of their primary MT in favour of Hindi. Similarly, as Srivastava (1989) also pointed out, in the absence of any root or ‘great tradition’ (which is there in the relationship between Bhojpuri and Hindi), tribal languages in contact show language shift in favour of the dominant contact language. However, in face of contact between, say, Bhojpuri and Marathi, a shift from Bhojpuri to Hindi is not the same thing as a shift from Bhojpuri to Marathi. I have pointed out that it is not defensible to characterise the change from Bhojpuri to Hindi (or from what is considered to be a dialect to its root language) as language shift: ‘the process of change observed among the migrant dialect speakers may, perhaps, be viewed as a change of speech styles generally associated with social mobility over a few generations’ (Mohanty, 1994a: 112). However, Srivastava’s (1989) observations regarding the language change from a tribal languages to the dominant contact language can be viewed as departures from the maintenance norm, although the dynamics of such change are complex. Srivastava had pointed to the language shift process for the Santali tribal language but, contrary to his apprehensions, Santali language movement has now resulted in constitutional recognition

28  The Multilingual Reality

of Santali as an official language of India. I will return to this issue of tribal language maintenance in Chapter 5, where I show that Srivastava (1989) was right in pointing to partial shift and assimilation as possible outcomes of contact for the tribal languages. Sometimes internal and intergenerational changes in patterns of language use may be evident in a migrant linguistic community but such synchronic variations do not necessarily lead to language shift, as would be expected on the basis of common Western findings. Bhuvaneswari (1986) studied the pattern of language use among Naikans, the Telugu migrant workers from Andhra Pradesh settled over several generations in Palghat, Kerala (where Malayalam is the dominant state language). Internal variations did exist at synchronic level but the community was still able to maintain the Telugu language over the years and had a stable pattern of Telugu–Malayalam bilingualism. Bhuvaneswari found that the younger adolescent Naikans showed signs of language shift but, as they grew into adulthood and got married, they reverted back to use of their native Telugu language, retaining the pattern of language use of their predecessors. Thus, despite internal diversity in the pattern of language use at synchronic level, the long-term outcome was language maintenance, not shift. It should also be noted that languages are maintained by the minority migrant communities in contact and, as Bhatia and Ritchie (2004) pointed out, this is possible not by rejecting the host language but by linguistic accommodation and acceptance of the host language. The host community also shows similar linguistic accommodation by patterns of language use in which the language of the migrant community is used in some form, particularly in domains involving the contact groups. This is what Singh (2007) also noted in the trilingual contact situation in Kolkata with all three communities in contact – the Kolkata Bengalis, English-speaking Anglo-Indians and the Urdu-speaking Muslims – showing preferred use of the contact languages in different domains of interaction. It seems that becoming bilingual or multilingual is an adaptive mutual strategy for individuals and communities in contact and this effectively stabilises the relationship between communities and languages (Mohanty, 1994a, 2003). Processes of linguistic accommodation and adaptation are, in fact, aspects of early multilingual socialisation in India. Early socialisation for multilingual functioning

The socio-cultural context in which a child grows up is crucial in the development of language(s) and social use of such language(s) for communication. In the process of acquiring language(s), a child is socialised in the family, community and socio-cultural context to use language(s) to communicate in a culturally appropriate manner. Such socialisation involves use of language(s) for development of the child’s language(s) as



The Multilingual World: Conceptual Issues  29

well as her understanding of the principles of socially appropriate use of these language(s). While proper use of language must reflect social parameters, language also serves as a powerful medium through which family and others seek to socialise the child. Thus, language is both a medium and a product of socialisation. (Mohanty et al., 1999: 126)

Language socialisation is defined as the process of ‘socialisation through language and socialisation to use language’ (Ochs, 1986: 2). It involves integration of ‘the code knowledge with socio-cultural knowledge’ (Ochs & Schieffelin, 1984: 307). Specific processes of language socialisation vary across cultures. Cultures may also differ with respect to the relative functional emphases on social and person orientation, object exploration and control of a child’s action through the use of language with children. But, generally, these socio-cultural practices in language socialisation share some goals, such as developing understanding of rules of social communication, orienting children to status- and roleappropriate use of language, setting stylistic preferences and functional priorities in the use of language in social interactions, transmitting values and affect, controlling children’s actions, providing exposure, instruction and practice in socially appropriate use of language and development of metacommunicative awareness (Mohanty, 1994c; Mohanty et al., 1999). At a grassroots level of multilingualism, functional allocation of languages into different domains of daily life and with interlocutors varying in sociolinguistic characteristics, learning to communicate appropriately in multilingual societies involves a more challenging process of language socialisation. As Mohanty et al. (1999) suggest, in addition to the broader processes of language socialisation, multilingual socialisation involves the following developmental tasks: (1) awareness of language variations across sociolinguistic contexts, (2) domain-appropriate hierarchy of preferences for use of languages, (3) functional allocation of languages in a given multilingual society, (4) understanding and use of rules for code-switching and code-mixing in different contexts, (5) sharing of the social norms (such as politeness rules, status-appropriate use of language) of multilingual communication. The processes of multilingual socialisation may also involve development of a child’s competence in languages, but the two must be viewed as different (though overlapping) processes. Multilingual socialisation is not learning of languages as such, but learning how these languages are socially interrelated and projected into the real world of many languages. Differentiation of languages and codes into specific domains or hierarchical layers of communication serves pragmatic functions, since use of any

30  The Multilingual Reality

incongruent code is likely to result in communication difficulties. In a multilingual society, such pragmatic knowledge about context-­appropriate choice of languages is an essential element of language socialisation. Multilingual socialisation is more about learning multilingualism as a first language than learning multiple languages. Our studies (Bujorbarua, 2006; Mohanty, 2000; Mohanty et al., 1999) among two- to nine-year-old children growing up in different regions of India under diverse conditions of linguistic heterogeneity show that language socialisation in multilingual contexts involves the development of skills required for competent functioning regardless of a child’s personal competence in the use of multiple languages; it is not always that children learn specific languages in their milieu to become competent users of these languages, but that they develop the skills required to function effectively in their multilingual context. Children show gradual differentiation of languages in the multilingual milieu, progressing from an early undifferentiated perception of languages to a broad differentiation; they recognise the difference and then identify and name the languages. By about nine years of age, most children have developed an understanding of the hierarchical positioning of languages in society and become aware that some languages are more prestigious and preferred over others in specific contexts. Indian children develop these skills in three broad develop­ mental periods – the period of language differentiation, the period of social awareness of languages, and the period of competent multi­lingual functioning. While learning to live with many languages continues as a whole throughout development, each period has a major focus on and development of a specific aspect of multilingual socialisation. Each period is further divided into two stages (Mohanty et al., 1999). I. The period of language differentiation

The initial period of language differentiation involves development of awareness of differences between languages based on regularity of their occurrence in different communicative contexts and also rote-level knowledge of languages. The first stage of emergence of language differentiation begins quite early (about two years of age) with the child’s recognition of different languages in communication (e.g. television programmes on different language-specific channels, specific visitors or persons in the neighbourhood who use different languages), awareness of different labels/names (in different languages) for familiar objects and also differences in modes of expression. Differentiation of languages begins much earlier than the naming of languages. During the second stage of the period of language differentiation, children move beyond simple awareness of language labels to comprehension of language differentiation. They show some understanding that various languages differ from each other and begin to follow the conformity norm of the need to respond in a language one is spoken to.



The Multilingual World: Conceptual Issues  31

For example, Chotu (3 years 10 months old) (Mohanty et al., 1999) tries to correct his mother’s Punjabi to Hindi to make it more appropriate for the third person (a Hindi-speaker) being spoken to: Mother (in Punjabi): Teri nā ki hai? [What’s your name?] Chotu (in Hindi): Nām kyā hai, ye pucho. [What’s the name? Ask like this.]

Sometimes, even if they lack the required competence in another language, children try to follow this norm by making some attempt in their communi­ cation to bring in the language of interlocutors from different language communities. II. The period of social awareness of languages

During the second period of multilingual socialisation, usually beginning around the age of four, children show greater appreciation of the norms of multilingual communication and social practices associated with the social and contextual differentiation of languages. They begin to understand that some languages are more appropriate than others in a given context. The first stage in this period involves emergence of social awareness of context-appropriate use of multiple languages and recognition of language variations across different domains and speakers. Children understand the need for appropriate choice of language and try to speak differently in the presence of speakers of different languages. For example, a Tamil child, Aditya (4 years 3 months), talks to his mother in Tamil, but tries to speak in Odia to the milkman and, when probed, he says that it is not ‘right’ to speak in Tamil to the Odia milkman, but he cannot say why it is not right. He is also aware that Odia is spoken in his neighbourhood, Tamil in his home and English in his school. During the next stage in this period, children develop some understanding that languages have different social roles and also rule-based contextual appropriateness. For example, children in this stage understand the politeness norms that the home language may not be appropriate for use with an outsider or a visitor who speaks a different language. Even when they do not know the language of another person in a social context, they show clear awareness of the need to use that language or, at least, a language different from the home language. A Bengali child, Teeya (5 years 3 months), living in an Odia-majority city in Odisha, speaks in Bengali with her parents, but attempts to change to Hindi (not Odia) in the presence of visitors from other language communities (regardless of their language background) and, sometimes, seeks to obtain social support from other family members for communication in a different language. Children in this stage show context sensitivity in their own choice of languages and in attempting code-switching for enhancement of communicative effectiveness. Children’s understanding of the social role of languages in

32  The Multilingual Reality

multilingual contexts indicates a broad appreciation of the need for their own speech acts to be communicative. It also involves basic perception of the mental state of others when a language is not intelligible. III. The period of competent multilingual functioning

The social norms of communication in multilingual societies are progressively internalised by children and usually by seven to nine years of age they have become more competent in multilingual functioning. During this third period of multilingual socialisation, children, most of whom already display sensitivity to the context-specific use of languages, develop a broader understanding of the hierarchy of preferences for languages. They also appreciate the appropriateness of different languages to a given context in which multilingual speakers are present. During this stage, children show awareness of the rules of functional code-switching (­politeness- and prestige-based awareness). This period is also characterised by emergence of systematic code-mixing in multilingual communication. The first stage in this period is characterised by an appreciation of the functional roles of different languages. Children show some understanding that, in multilingual communication, languages have socially accepted functions in different contexts. Children begin to understand that the home language is more appropriate for intimate and affective communication, whereas other languages, such as English, may be more appropriate in formal and academic contexts. They perceive the social differences in the prestige value of languages and internalise the preference hierarchy across languages. In our studies we observed many seven- to eight-year-old urban middle-class children trying to impress the research investigators (RIs) by attempting to use English in their conversations, even if they had Indian languages (such as Odia, Hindi or Assamese) in common with the RIs and even when they were being spoken to in an Indian language which they knew. During the second stage of this period, children’s multilingual communication becomes more systematic and socially appropriate as they show progressive understanding of the linguistic hierarchy and the implicit social norms for code-switching. Code-switching or, at least, an attempt to use a different language to communicate meaningfully in presence of other speakers of different language(s) becomes more consistent and regular. Puja (8½ years), a girl from a Bengali family living in Odisha, tries to use Odia in speaking to some local visitors and switches to Bengali when talking to her family members. She also knows that in her school she has to speak in English and not in Bengali or Odia. Another child, Samparna (also 8½ years) speaks to the RI in Hindi, switches to Odia when her friend enters and then speaks to her mother freely mixing Hindi and Odia. By about nine years of age, children seem to be able to show socially appropriate and systematic (rule-based) code-switching



The Multilingual World: Conceptual Issues  33

and code-mixing. They are able to deal with the nuances of multilingual social communication even as they continue to develop proficiency in the languages in their environment and schooling. Mohanty (2014) shows that communities and families use a variety of strategic devices to facilitate children’s differentiation of languages across different contexts, domains of use and interlocutors. Family members also provide multilingual speech modelling through speech expansions, translation and simplification devices and repeated code-mixing and code-switching routines and demonstrations of preferential patterns of language use. Language socialisation is a collaborative process through which adults also learn to change their own patterns of speech input in social interactions with children. Different members of families and communities – grandparents, neighbours, community members and visitors – share distributed roles and responsibilities in multilingual socialis­ation. It is also important to note that as children are socialised to multilingual modes of functioning and multilingual communication, they develop conscious awareness of languages in society, showing increased communicative sensitivity compared with their counterparts in mono­ lingual societies. Diversity of sociolinguistic encounters and processes of multilingual socialisation have a mutually facilitative influence on children’s metalinguistic awareness quite early in their development. My grandson Om grew up in the multilingual campus of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, and learnt Odia in our family and Hindi through interactions with Hindi-speaking domestic helpers, visitors and peer group. He also had some exposure to Bengali, English and other Indian languages. Om moved to Mumbai when he was four and attended an English-medium pre-primary school. After a few months at school, he showed a keen perception of languages in his surroundings. When I asked him which were the languages present in his school, he not only named a number (English, Marathi, Bengali, Gujarati, etc.) in his classroom and among his friends, but proceeded to map the use of English only in the classroom and use of other languages outside the classroom by specific children from different linguistic communities. His metalinguistic reflections included identifying several Odia words also used in the Marathi language, such as pāni (water) and sakāla (morning). He also pointed to the similarity between some Odia and Bengali words while noting, with exaggerated intonation, how Bengali words were pronounced differently. Given the early encounters with multiple languages and the challenges involved in dealing with societal multilingualism, it is not surprising that children show early development of metalinguistic awareness. Our language socialisation studies show that a multilingual society is not a Tower of Babel; it is a dynamic structure of multiple languages, each extending into the other in a complex interplay of multiple identities and, early in their development, children are socialised to live with

34  The Multilingual Reality

multilingualism as a natural phenomenon. Further, it can be said that early development of linguistic sensitivity is related to appreciation of linguistic diversity in society and to psychological readiness, which supports the features of multilingualism, such as its maintenance norms and multi­plicity of linguistic identities. In this sense, it can be argued that the different features of Indian multilingualism discussed so far are syner­ gistically interrelated, making multilingualism a positive force in India. Notes (1) The use of Kui in marketplaces has declined over recent years. (2) My understanding of multilingualism is affected by my experience in different social contexts. (3) Grosjean (1982, 1985) questioned the prevalent two-in-one view of bilingualism which conceptualises a bilingual person as a sum of two natives speakers put together, assessing a bilingual’s competence by comparing him or her with the native speakers of L1 and L2. Following Grosjean’s work, bilingualism has increasingly been viewed as a composite phenomenon much more than two monolingual speakers put together. This led to consideration of bilingualism as the first language of bilinguals. (4) Plurilingualism is also considered a French equivalent of multilingualism. (5) The figures are taken from, respectively: the Registrar of Newspapers website, http:// www.rni.nic.in (accessed 17 September 2017); http://www.allindiaradio.gov.in, accessed 17 July 2017; and http://uis.unesco.org/en/news (accessed 31 March 2016). (6) The 2001 census of India showed that 24.8% of the population spoke a second language and 8.5% a third language. The incidence of bilingualism and trilingualism was higher among males (28.5% bilingual and 10.3% trilingual) than among females (20.9% bilingual and 6.6% trilingual). The figures were based on information about ‘speaking’ a second or third language collected for the population above five years of age, assuming that all children below five are ‘monolinguals’. The population aged up to five years represented over 10% of the total population. If the percentages of the bilingual and trilingual persons in the population are recalculated only for the population aged above five years, the figures for bilingualism and trilingualism in India increase to 27.5% and 9.5%, respectively. (7) In fact, some of them had a problem being identified as an Urdu-speaking group since they perceived themselves as native speakers of Bengali as well. (8) However, that any additional language is always learnt additively in multilingual contexts is questionable. Additive or subtractive learning of languages depends on the conditions of such learning and the sociolinguistic relationship between languages in multilingual societies.

3 Multilingualism: A Resource or Burden?

Travelling in a train in India, one experiences a real multilingual, multi­ cultural kaleidoscope of changing languages, varieties and shades of cultures. There was a family beside me – young parents and a threeyear-old girl. The parents spoke my language, Odia, and so we started a conversation and I found the young couple quite friendly. I was a little surprised that they spoke to their daughter in English, although she not only understood Odia better but also often tried to speak to her parents in the language even when they consistently talked to her in English. I was curious. The father told me that they were trying to get her to speak in English because she would be going to a private English-medium school in Delhi. The mother said that too many languages would be a burden on the child and so they were keen to have her learn only English, since that would be the language of her education and future. I told them that she could speak Odia and still grow up to be fluent in English. The mother persisted with their position and quoted an Odia proverb: ‘If you have your feet on two boats, you are sure to drown’. She was convinced that bilinguals or multilinguals cannot have their thinking rooted firmly in any language and, hence, they are likely to be unstable and inept. I tried to explain that it is not necessary for multilingual or bilingual children to be split between languages and that, in fact, many languages can be great resources for the mind as well as for society. But, like many around the world, these parents believed that many languages are a burden. Early Views on Bilingualism

The belief that more than one language is a burden, splitting human thinking capacity, has been resistant to change. Early researchers on bi­ lingualism also reflected the social belief about its negative effects. In 1948, Christophersen (cited in Jensen, 1962) wrote that the bilinguals ‘feel a pull in opposite directions which threatens the unity of their personality’, just as the mother’s belief that having two languages is like having one’s feet unstable on two boats. Immigrant bilingual children in school, the Spanish–English bilinguals in the USA or the Welsh–English bilinguals 35

36  The Multilingual Reality

in Wales, for example, constituted marked groups mostly from the lower socio-economic strata, with limited opportunities and likely experiencing social discrimination. Their low educational performance was a concern which led to research attempts to locate the psycho-educational factors behind poor classroom achievement. Bilingualism was believed to be a liability for these children and this expectation formed the rationale for the early studies on the cognitive consequences of bilingualism. ‘Researchers in the early period’, as Lambert (1977: 15) pointed out, ‘generally expected to find all sorts of troubles and they usually did; bilingual children relative to monolinguals were behind in schools; retarded in measured intelligence and socially adrift’. The methodological shortcomings of these early studies have been severally pointed out (Baker, 2011; Lambert, 1977; Mohanty, 1994a; Skutnabb-Kangas, 1984). Apart from the socio-cultural differences between the bilinguals and the monolinguals in these studies, there was no assessment of the degree of bilingualism or of the level of proficiency in the language of testing. It is not surprising, therefore, that studies found mean IQ differences between bilinguals and monolinguals ranging from 12.7 (Hirsch, 1926) to 27 points (Mead, 1927); bilingual children, tested for verbal IQ in their second language, scored less than their monolingual peers. Notably, some studies during this period also showed higher IQ scores for bilingual children when tested in their first language (Brown, 1922; Yoshioka, 1929). The findings of the studies on bilingualism conducted before 1960 have been questioned on several grounds: socio-cultural and socio-economic differences between the bilingual and monolingual populations, failure to control for the degree of bilingualism and the level of proficiency in the language of testing, test biases, and the social expectations of poor psycho-educational performance of bilingual children (Mohanty, 1994a). Bilingualism was considered a pathological condition that causes mental burden and intellectual fatigue. As Cummins (1984) noted, bilingualism was held responsible for school failure; therefore, teachers sought to eradicate bilingualism. Immigrant and linguistic minority children were often reprimanded or even punished in schools for speaking in their home language. The pressure on the immigrant children to quickly learn the dominant language of the host society and unlearn their native language must have created a subtractive environment, leading to the negative findings (Baker, 2011: 142). But there were some studies during this period which did not confirm the negative findings of the other studies. A large South African survey in 1938 conducted by Malherbe (1946) showed positive effects of bilingualism. Particularly the studies which controlled for socio-economic status differences among bilinguals and monolinguals did not find monolingual superiority on tests of intellectual functioning. A study by Jones (1959, cited in Baker, 2011), for example, showed no difference between bilinguals and monolinguals in non-verbal IQ when parental occupation was taken into account.



Multilingualism: A Resource or Burden?  37

Emergence of a Positive View of Bilingualism

The landmark study by Peal and Lambert (1962) changed the negative view of bilingualism in the West. The study matched the bilingual and monolingual samples for socio-economic level, age and schooling. The degree of bilingualism was controlled by taking balanced bilinguals. The measures of intelligence used in the study were standardised in each of the two languages – French and English. The study also used measures of attitude towards the respective language communities. The bilinguals outperformed the monolinguals on measures of verbal and non-verbal intelligence and school achievement. Peal and Lambert (1962) concluded that experience with two languages gives bilingual children advantages in mental flexibility, abstract thinking, concept formation and a positive transfer between languages. Besides marking a change to the stream of negative findings, the Peal and Lambert (1962) study also affected the course of research on bilingualism and cognition, in two significant ways. Instead of focusing on unitary measures of intelligence, studies started looking into specific intellectual skills and mental processes and became more concerned about matching bilingual and monolingual samples on socio-economic and other variables, including some psychological ones, and controlling for levels of bilingual proficiency. A study by Liedke and Nelson (1968) matched monolingual and bilingual samples on age, socio-economic status, gender and IQ and found better conceptual skills among the bilinguals. Balkan’s study (1970) in Switzerland matched 11–16-year-old balanced French–English bilinguals and French monolinguals on non-verbal intelligence and socio-economic class. The bilinguals outperformed their monolingual counterparts on scholastic aptitude tests (verbal aptitude, reasoning and numeracy) and tests of cognitive flexibility (verbal and perceptual plasticity) designed to assess capacity to restructure given elements and to discover new organisation of differently structured elements. The bilinguals’ superiority over the monolinguals was much more pronounced for the early bilinguals (both French and English learnt before the age of four) than for the late bi­linguals (those who had learnt the second language after four). In a replication of the Peal and Lambert (1962) study in western Canada, Cummins and Gulutsan (1974) showed that balanced bilinguals performed better than monolinguals matched for age, gender and socioeconomic status, on measures of verbal and non-verbal ability and a ‘verbal originality’ measure of divergent thinking. A number of studies conducted after 1960 in different cultural and linguistic settings with a variety of cognitive tasks confirmed bilinguals’ superiority over matched groups of monolinguals. For example, studies by Ben-Zeev (1972, 1977a, 1977b) with Hebrew–English bilinguals, IancoWorral (1972) with Afrikaans–English bilinguals from South Africa and

38  The Multilingual Reality

Bain and Yu (1978) with bilinguals and matched monolinguals from Canada, France and Germany found bilinguals to be better than mono­linguals on a variety of measures of cognitive flexibility, problem solving and intellectual performance. Southworth’s study (1980) in India took a sample of 1300 school children (grades 1–10), including monolingual Malayalam-speakers and other mother tongue (MT) (Tamil or Konkani) bilinguals. The sample was categorised into five socio-economic levels. Classroom achievement of the bilingual children was better than the monolinguals. A large number of studies over three decades following Peal and Lambert’s (1962) study found bilinguals’ superiority on a wide range of cognitive measures, such as general intellectual development (Bain, 1975; Cummins & Gulutsan, 1974), cognitive flexibility (Duncan & DeAvita, 1979; Hakuta & Diaz, 1985; Kessler & Quinn, 1980), ability to analyse linguistic input and sensitivity to interpersonal communication (Bain, 1975; Bain & Yu, 1980; Cummins, 1978a, 1978b; Cummins & Mulcahy, 1978; Feldman & Shen, 1971; Genesee et al., 1975; Rueda, 1983). Thus, studies during this period in different cultural and linguistic contexts (Bialystok, 1990, 1992; Hamers & Blanc, 1983; Harris, 1992; Perregaux, 1994) using a variety of measures and approaches, have shown a positive relationship between bilingualism and cognitive functioning (for reviews, see Mohanty, 1994a; Mohanty & Perregaux, 1997). With the positive findings gradually becoming more typical, particularly in studies with greater methodological control, research in this area started examining the psychological links between bilingualism and cognition, exploring specific aspects of bilinguals’ performance, particularly in respect of information processing, cognitive flexibility, creativity, mental representation and organisation of languages, memory and language processing, and metalinguistic awareness (Baker, 2011). The current state of our understanding of the psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic mechanisms of bilingual and multilingual children and adults do not change the overall positive view of the multilingual mind, although recent research (for a review, see Bialystok, 2013) reveals specific strengths as well as weaknesses associated with bi- and multilingualism. Before turning to the recent findings to sum up the current position and to respond to the main question of this chapter – whether multilingualism is a burden or a resource – I will describe a series of studies with Kond tribals in Odisha (India) on the cognitive and metalinguistic consequences of bilingualism. These studies are uniquely placed with a distinct methodo­ logical advantage of drawing bilingual and monolingual samples from the same culture and socio-economic context. Effects of Bilingualism among Konds in Odisha

Studies on the cognitive consequences of bilingualism, as pointed out above, have often confounded the effects of socio-cultural differences



Multilingualism: A Resource or Burden?  39

between bilingual and monolingual populations with the effects of bi­ lingualism per se. The Kond studies reported in this section are unique in that the bilingual and monolingual samples are drawn from the same indigenous tribal culture; the two groups differ on the pattern of language use while they share cultural, ecological, religious and socio-economic conditions. The Kond studies,1 undertaken over more than two decades, starting in the early 1980s, sought initially to examine just the relationship between bilingualism and cognition but gradually moved on to analysis of the dynamics of bilingual superiority in terms of metalinguistic and meta­cognitive variables as possible links between bilingualism and psychological processes. The studies compared Kui–Odia bilingual Kond children with their Odia monolingual counterparts. It should be mentioned that the ‘bilingual’ and ‘monolingual’ populations in these studies are formal methodological labels based on their areas of residence (bilingual or monolingual) and assessment of the dominant patterns of language use by the children in their daily life. The ‘bilingual’ samples were identified as balanced bilinguals on the basis of assessment of their relative skills in the two languages – Kui and Odia. Similarly, the Odia monolingual samples were identified on the basis of their dominant pattern of language use in their daily life. However, all the children in these studies – bilinguals as well as monolinguals – had exposure to and possibly minimal proficiency in other languages in their milieu. Before I move on to the studies, a brief account is given below of the socio-cultural context of Kond tribals and the patterns of their language use in the area of their major concentration, namely, the district of Phulbani (Kandhamal) in Odisha (India). Context of the Kond studies

The Kond or Kandha2 tribe is the largest tribal group in Odisha.3 Odisha has a large tribal population, with 62 tribes residing in the state; tribal people constitute 22.13% of the state population. The census data show the Kond population to be close to one million.4 The majority of the Konds reside in Kandhamal district – which is popularly known as Phulbani district, which is the name used here – where they constitute over half of the local population. Some Konds live in adjoining districts, such as Koraput, Raygada and Ganjam. The Konds are settled throughout Phulbani district, living in close contact with non-tribal speakers of Odia (an Indo-Aryan language), which is the dominant language of Odisha. Kui, a Dravidian language, is the indigenous language of the Konds. As a result of a history of language contact in different areas of Phulbani district, there is a geographical split in the pattern of language use among the Konds. The north-east regions of the district (areas from Khajuripada to Phulbani town and adjacent areas) have undergone a complete language shift, leading to Odia monolingualism among the

40  The Multilingual Reality

Konds. The Kui language has been maintained in the south-western part of the district with areas up to G. Udaygiri showing a relatively stable pattern of Kui–Odia bilingualism among the Konds in the area, who use Kui for intragroup communication and Odia for intergroup communication. Historically, the north-east region came under dominant contact with the Odia language during the British rule, which was represented by Odia officials. The language shift from Kui to Odia was most likely triggered by the dominant presence of Odia and beginning of modern formal education in Odia. It seems this process of language shift was halted towards the end of the period of British rule, when the Kui identity of Konds crystallised, perhaps due to the Indian freedom movement. Christian missionaries in the area also promoted the Kui language for church activities. The current stable pattern of language use – Odia only in monolingual areas and Kui–Odia bilingualism in the rest of the district – has been described as a process of frozen language shift (Mohanty, 2003). Kond children in the bilingual areas grow up acquiring Kui in their early life at home. As soon as they begin to move out of their home, they acquire Odia in the neighbourhood through contact with the adult speakers of Odia and in their play with peers. All the Kond children in these areas are bilingual to different degrees by the time they reach school age. Odia is the language of schooling and Kui has no educational use except in an experimental project of MT-based multilingual education (MLE),5 which started in 2006. Kui has no writing system of its own and is written in Odia script.6 Most of the teachers in schools are Odia-speaking non-tribals and do not speak Kui. During 1980s, when most of the studies discussed here were conducted, only around 30% of the school-age Kond children were enrolled in schools and the push-out rate was high; for every 100 children joining school in grade 1, over 80 were out of school by grade 5. Despite several measures for better access to schools and quality schooling and 100% of the tribal children joining grade 1 at the age of six, the push-out rate continues to be very high – 50% by grade 5 and 80% by grade 10. The literacy rate among Konds during the 1980s and 1990s was low, at 12%.7 Significantly, for the purposes of the Kond studies on the role of bilingualism in intellectual development and child education, despite the differences in the pattern of language use in parts of Phulbani district, Konds in the bilingual and monolingual areas constitute a close in-group, sharing a common tradition, culture and social practices, and with a strong Kond identity (Mohanty, 1982a, 1982b, 1994a). Ironically, the Kui language, which has been largely lost in the monolingual areas, happens to be the main identity marker for the Konds, who call themselves Kui people all over the district, including those in the Odia monolingual areas. All the Konds are members of the Kui Samaj (the Society of Kui People), which is an informal social organisation of the Kond people. Economically, the Konds all over the district live in abject poverty and are settled cultivators,



Multilingualism: A Resource or Burden?  41

mostly working as farm labourers, with little or no land-holding. They engage in seasonal gatherings in the forests around their habitations. Kond religious beliefs and rituals, marriage and child-rearing practices, birth and death rites, and other social customs are shared across the district. Marriage between Konds from the bilingual and monolingual areas is not uncommon and is socially accepted. The pattern of language use is not related to any significant socio-economic or cultural difference among the bilingual and monolingual Konds. As such, the stable patterns of Odia monolingualism and Kui–Odia bilingualism among the Konds offers a unique context for methodologically valid research on the possible effects of bilingualism. The series of Kond studies discussed here was undertaken to explore the relationship between bilingualism (which involved maintenance of the indigenous language along with acquisition of the contact language) and intellectual development. The studies were conducted with Odia mono­ lingual and Kui–Odia bilingual children mostly from different grade levels in primary (grades 1–5) and secondary schools (grades 6–10) in the district of Phulbani, although two studies compared unschooled monolingual and bilingual children. The children in these studies belonged to very poor economic groups: their parents were landless farm labourers who also gathered foods from the forest. These parents had very low levels of formal education; most, particularly the mothers, had no formal education and were considered illiterate. However, it needs to be pointed out that Kui – as well as most other indigenous, tribal, minority and minoritised (ITM) languages in India – is oral in its tradition and it is unfair to consider these orate people negatively as illiterate/uneducated, compared with the literate and formally educated (perhaps ‘inorate’) people (on this issue, see the writings of Skutnabb-Kangas: Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000; Skutnabb-Kangas & McCarty, 2008; also Mohanty & Skutnabb-Kangas, 2013; Nurmela, Awasthi & Skutnabb-Kangas, 2010). The most formal education any of these parents had received was up to the primary level (that is, five years of formal schooling). Their monthly income varied in different studies, from 125–500 Indian rupees8 (approximately US$18–45 at the time). The children in the respective grades in schools in the bilingual areas of Phulbani were assessed of their degree of Kui–Odia bilingualism. Most of the studies sampled only balanced bilinguals. For assessment of bilingual balance, the studies used either a cross-lingual translation task or a word association task, or both. In the translation task, 10 Kui and 10 Odia sentences were read out in a pre-randomised order to each participant with instruction to translate Odia sentences into Kui and Kui sentences into Odia. The translation time for each sentence was recorded and the difference between the total translation times for 10 each of Ku–Odia and Odia–Kui sentences was obtained. The difference for each participant was calculated as percentage of the total translation time taken by the respective participant for all 20 sentences. The ones with

42  The Multilingual Reality

scores of 0–30% were taken as balanced bilinguals. In the word association task, 10 Kui and 10 Odia words were presented in a pre-randomised order to the participants with the instruction to respond spontaneously in any language. The number of cross-lingual responses was noted and the difference between the number of Kui responses to Odia words and Odia responses to Kui words was expressed as a percentage of all crosslingual responses. Percentage scores of 0–30% were taken as indicators of bilingual balance. In the early studies, both measures were tried and the children who had balanced scores in both were selected for the study. But the participants were found to be more comfortable with the translation task, which was therefore used as the only measure of bilingual balance in the later studies. Studies on bilingual and monolingual Kond children

The first of the Kond studies (Mohanty, 1982a) was a comparison between Kui–Odia bilinguals and Odia monolinguals on measures of cognitive, linguistic and metalinguistic development. The participants were 10–12-year-olds in grade 6, 12–14-year-olds in grade 8 and 14–16year-olds in grade 10. The sample totalled 180 children (including 53 girls9) with 30 monolingual and 30 bilingual children at each grade level. The cognitive measures in the study were taken from an early version of the PASS theory of intelligence (Das et al., 1975, 1979, 1994), which emphasised planning, attention, simultaneous and successive processing modes of information integration as a move away from the unitary conceptualisation of intelligence. The simultaneous and successive processing measures have been used in many studies in a wide range of cultural contexts, including studies with tribal and disadvantaged caste groups in Odisha. Raven’s Progressive Matrices, Figure Copying, Cluster­ ing in Free Recall were used as measures of simultaneous processing. Digit Span, Paired Associate Learning and Free Recall Scores were used as measures of Successive Processing. Classroom Language Achievement Test, Test of Oral Reading (Time and Error), Semantic Class Association and Para­digmatic Association Scores were used as a series of measures of proficiency in Odia, which was the classroom language for all the children. Metalinguistic awareness tasks included the Syntactic Ambiguity Detection Test, Test of Evaluation of Contradictory and Tautological Propositions, Linguistic Symbol Substitution Task, Metalinguistic Tasks of Understanding Arbitrariness of Language, Meaning–Referent Relations and Nonphysical Nature of Words (for details, see Mohanty 1982a). The study showed that Kui–Odia bilingual Kond children performed significantly better than the Odia monolingual Kond children on all the measures of simultaneous and successive processing except for Clustering and Digit Span, for which the differences were not significant. There was no significant difference between the monolingual and bilingual groups



Multilingualism: A Resource or Burden?  43

on measures of Odia language proficiency. The bilinguals performed significantly better than their monolingual counterparts on all the measures of metalinguistic awareness and had better classroom achievement. The findings were summed up as follows: In comparison to the unilingual controls, the Kui–Odia bilingual Kond children perform better in tests of cognitive information processing ability, have a more objective and analytic orientation to language, and demonstrate a level of linguistic development in their second language at par with the development of the only language of the unilinguals. It seems that, although in terms of their general intellectual performance the tribals suffer from detrimental effects of socio-psychological dis­ advantage, within their culture retention of their own language gives them some advantage boosting their cognitive and linguistic abilities. In other words, Kui–Odia bilinguals seem to be benefiting from retaining their own culturally intrinsic language besides learning Odia. (Mohanty, 1982b: 39)

Since the bilinguals had significantly higher scores on Raven’s Pro­gress­ ive Matrices (RPM), which is generally used as a measure of non-verbal intelligence and reasoning, we used analyses of covariance to statistic­ ally control for the difference in RPM scores and found the bilinguals significantly better than the monolingual controls. This study prompted other studies for further examination of the metalinguistic hypothesis of bilinguals’ cognitive superiority. The next study (Mohanty & Babu, 1983) among the bilingual and monolingual Konds was a comparison between the two groups on meta­linguistic development assessed through a modified version of Metalinguistic Ability Test (Osherson & Markman, 1975). Odia monolingual and Kui–Odia balanced bilingual Kond children from grades 6, 8 and 10, in the age ranges of 10–12, 12–14 and 14–16 years, respectively, participated in the study. The samples were drawn from a number of schools in the remote rural areas of Phulbani district. Socio-economic status and levels of parental formal schooling were controlled by taking children of landless farm labourer parents with a maximum of three years of school education and approximate annual income of less than 1500 Indian rupees. A total of 180 children (including 45 girls) were chosen for the study. There were 60 children from each grade level, with equal numbers of monolingual and balanced bilingual children. Besides the measures of metalinguistic development, the children were administered the RPM test. The bilingual children had significantly higher RPM scores than their monolingual counter­parts. Analysis of covariance with RPM scores as the covariate showed that bilinguals performed significantly better than the monolinguals on the metalinguistic tasks. The metalinguistic test score also increased with grade level. This study showed that even when the difference in non-verbal intelligence scores was statistically controlled, the bilingual children had a clear advantage in their metalinguistic task performance.

44  The Multilingual Reality

The participants in the two studies described above were from the secondary level of education (grades 6–10). A study by Pattanaik and Mohanty (1984) took comparison samples from primary grades and used measures of metalinguistic as well as cognitive development. The Meta­linguistic Ability Test was developed by us following extensive pilot testing. The test items were similar to many of the metalinguistic measures used by other researchers in the field, but they were developed specifically for Odia- and Kui-speaking children. Some involved rhyme recognition, judgement of appropriateness of utterance in different social contexts such as choice between a request or a command statement (e.g. when a child wants to join other children in a game), correction of grammatically anomalous statements, substitution of linguistic symbols in the context of sentences, and a morphological generalisation task (such as the ones used by Berko, 1958). In a task assessing definitional ability and understanding the ­meaning– referent relationship (that is, the understanding that the meaning of linguistic symbol such as a word or a lexical concept is independent of the state of the object it refers to), each participant is shown a toy bird, which is called Pari Chadhhei (Fairy Bird). The child is told that Pari Chadhhei is a bird with four wings of different colours. As a measure of the definitional ability, the child is asked to say how she would explain the meaning of Pari Chadhhei to a younger child. The toy is then removed and the child is asked to say what the term Pari Chadhhei would mean if the last Pari Chadhhei died and there were no more of those left in the world and then to say whether the meaning of the name Pari Chadhhei would change when there are no more Pari Chadhhei left. The Metalinguistic Ability Test included another measure, understanding the arbitrariness of the relationship between a word and its referent, that is, understanding that changing the name of an object does not change its properties. For example, the child is asked ‘If we are giving new names to things, can we then change the name sun to moon and moon to sun?’ If the child failed to respond correctly, an explanation was given and the child was told that the names of objects can be changed if everyone agrees to such a change. The child is then asked to say what she would find in the sky during the day or night. The child is also shown pictures of a cat and a dog and asked if the names can be interchanged if all agree. Then the child is told to say the new names of the pictures and asked to say what sound a ‘cat’ or a ‘dog’ would make. Similarly, in a task for assessing understanding of the non-physical nature of words the child is asked if the word book or the name of the object (book) is made up of paper. The task ‘non-physical nature of words’ assesses the understanding that the names of objects or words do not have the property of the objects they symbolise. The children were administered the Metalinguistic Ability Test in Odia or in Kui, depending on which language each felt comfortable with. In



Multilingualism: A Resource or Burden?  45

fact, since all the children knew Odia, which was the classroom language, most of the children took the test in Odia and, sometimes, in explaining a test item to the Kui–Odia bilingual children, the local interpreter used Kui to facilitate their understanding. In addition to the Metalinguistic Ability Test, a set of six Piagetian conservation tasks from Goldsmid–Bentler’s Concept Assessment Kit (Form A) was used. The bilingual and monolingual samples did not differ on RPM and conservation tasks, but bilinguals had significantly higher scores on the Metalinguistic Ability Test. The findings show superiority of bilinguals in metalinguistic tasks even when their level of Piagetian cognitive development (conservation scores) and non-verbal intelligence (RPM scores) do not differ from their monolingual peers. Our next study (see Mohanty, 1994a, for details) addressed the question of the interrelationship between metalinguistic and other cognitive measures. A sample of 174 Kond high school students (87 balanced Kui–Odia bilinguals and 87 monolinguals) from schools in the district of Phulbani was administered coding and information processing tests from the Simultaneous-Successive Processing Battery (Das et al., 1979), and measures of metalinguistic ability, oral reading, language achievement and classroom achievement. RPM and Figure Copying scores were used as measures of simultaneous processing and Digit Span and Paired Associate Learning as measures of successive processing. The Meta­linguistic Ability Test (Mohanty & Babu, 1983, Form B) developed for older children (10 years and above) was used for assessment of understanding the arbitrari­ ness of language, meaning–referent relationship and the non-physical nature of words, besides tasks of evaluation of contradictions and tautologies, ambiguity detection and symbol substitution. Factor analyses of the scores (principal-component analyses with Varimax rotation) for the total sample of 174 children and also separately for the bilingual and monolingual groups revealed a metacognitive process factor with significant loadings on the measures of metalinguistic ability, RPM and Digit Span scores. These last two measures are known to tap basic cognitive processes, namely, reasoning and immediate memory, respectively. Metacognitive development involves awareness of how basic cognitive processes can be controlled and metalinguistic awareness is an important aspect of such control. Tunmer and Herriman (1984), for example, suggested that metalinguistic awareness can be seen as a process of control in performance of various mental operations. Thus, the findings support the role of metalinguistic awareness as a significant aspect of metacognitive processes and as a higher-level skill influencing information processing and academic performance. The factor analyses for the total sample as well as for the two linguistic groups separately also yielded a coding factor loading on measures of simultaneous and success­ ive information processing and an academic achievement factor, loading on language and classroom achievement (and measures of reading for the

46  The Multilingual Reality

bilingual sample). Reading skill also emerged as a separate factor (loading on oral reading time and error) for the total sample. Bilingualism has been associated with better metalinguistic awareness, developed through the use of multiple languages and dealing with the complexity of keeping the two languages coordinated for effective communicative use. The factor analytic study among the Kond children does show that metalinguistic awareness can be conceptualised as an aspect of the general metacognitive processes which operate as planning and control mechanisms for effective use of cognitive capacities. Our next two studies sought to explore how bilingual children attend to the objective properties of language and analyse linguistic inputs with greater message sensitivity and effective decoding strategies in the detection of sentencelevel ambiguity. Bilinguals, with their analytic orientation to language, are known to be more sensitive to lexical and structural ambiguities in sentences (Cummins & Mulcahy, 1978). Our study (Babu & Mohanty, 1982) among 10–16-year-old Kond high school students was designed to test the hypothesised superiority of bilingual Kond children over their monolingual counterparts in the detection of surface and deep structural ambiguity. Ambiguity of sentences at the surface structural level involves possible alternative surface-level grouping or bracketing of the units of a sentence corresponding to the alternative meanings. For example, the surface structurally ambiguous sentence They fed her dog biscuits can be grouped or bracketed in two ways, corresponding to the two meanings: They (fed her) dog biscuits. They fed (her dog) biscuits.

In spoken sentences, the bracketing is done through intonational grouping (temporally reducing the articulation gap) of the units. In perception of the meaning(s) of spoken ambiguous sentences, the listener needs to utilise the intonational cues in addition to the other contextual cues to dis­ ambiguate the sentence or to appropriately perceive the intended meaning. In case of deep structurally ambiguous sentences, on the other hand, the meanings are related to the perception of how the units are related in the underlying structure of the sentence. For example, the different meanings of the sentence He is the one to help are related to whether ‘He’ is the subject (meaning He is the one (who can) help) or object (meaning He is the one to (receive) help) in the underlying structure of the sentences; intonational grouping or surface-level bracketing cannot indicate the two meanings in this instance. The ambiguity detection task was developed through elaborate pilot testing of a large number of ambiguous sentences in Odia. A final list of 12 ambiguous (7 surface structure and 5 deep structure types) and 12 equivalent unambiguous sentences was prepared for the Ambiguity Detection



Multilingualism: A Resource or Burden?  47

Test. Each of the 24 sentences was presented in a pre-randomised order along with four line drawings on a single sheet of A4 paper. Two of the four pictures depicted the different meanings of each ambiguous sentence and only one of the four pictures depicted the meaning of each unambiguous sentence. The Ambiguity Detection Test was administered to 120 balanced bilingual and monolingual Kond children of poor socio-economic status (family income less than 200 rupees per month and parental education 0–5 years of schooling). Equal numbers of bilingual and monolingual children were taken from grades 6, 8 and 10. The sentences in the Ambiguity Detection Task were presented on a pre-recorded audio-tape with a meaning-neutral intonational pattern. Each participant was asked to point to the picture or pictures corresponding to the meaning or different meanings of each sentence and then to explain her response. A score of 2 was given if a child pointed to two pictures corresponding to the meanings of ambiguous sentences and correctly justified her responses; a score of 1 was given if two pictures were identified and justification was not spontaneous but given only after some probing; choice of incorrect picture or of only one of the two correct pictures or justification showing lack of appreciation of the ambiguity of the sentence led to a score of 0. The bilingual children performed significantly better than their monolingual counterparts in each of the three grades in the detection of both surface and deep structural ambiguity. Thus, the bilingual children were able to analyse the linguistic input with flexibility to perceive the sentential ambiguity more accurately. Analytical orientation to language and cognitive flexibility of the bilinguals are reflected in their capacity to group the structural units of the ambiguous sentences in different ways to be able to perceive and identify the two meanings. Metalinguistic ability, including detection of structural ambiguity, also involves effective utilisation of linguistic and paralinguistic cues in the communicative input for efficient decoding of meaning(s). In fact, perceived ambiguity of spoken surface structurally ambiguous sentences depends on either lack of sufficient contextual and intonational cues in the utterance, or the hearer’s failure to perceive these cues and utilise them appropriately. A hearer of the surface structurally ambiguous sentence They fed her dog biscuits can perceive the intended meaning by orienting to the intonational cues to the appropriate grouping of the units in the utterance and using these cues effectively. Exposure to and use of the intonational and structural variations of different languages make multilinguals more sensitive to differential cues and, therefore, when they hear ambiguous sentences, they are more likely to be able to perceive the appropriate meaning. This prediction was tested in our study of perception of spoken surface structurally ambiguous sentences by Kui–Odia bilingual and Odia monolingual Kond children. A list of 17 sentences, including the set of seven surface structurally

48  The Multilingual Reality

ambiguous sentences (used in the previous study) and 10 unambiguous ones from the Ambiguity Detection Test (Babu & Mohanty, 1982), was audio-recorded in a pre-randomised order in two versions. The ambiguous sentences in version 1 were spoken with intonational grouping of the word units appropriate to one of the meanings, while in version 2 of the audio-recording the same sentences were spoken in a manner appropriate to the other meaning of each ambiguous sentence. The presentations of the spoken unambiguous sentences were same for both the versions. The meaning-appropriateness of each version of the ambiguous sentences was checked independently by four adult native speakers of Odia and they all agreed that there was a clear correspondence between the intended meaning and how the sentences were spoken. The two recorded versions were also pilot tested with monolingual Kond students in grade 6. The study was conducted with 120 bilingual and monolingual Kond children from grades 1, 3 and 5, in the age range 5–10 years. There were 20 bilingual and 20 monolingual children at each grade level. Socio-economic level and parental education of the children were controlled as in the previous studies. The two language groups were matched for non-verbal intelligence by selecting the samples from among children who scored at the 40–60 percentile levels on the RPM test. Children in each of the subsamples were randomly assigned to testing with one or other version of the recorded sentences. Each child was instructed to listen to the recorded set of 17 sentences one at a time and to identify, for each sentence just heard, one of the four pictures drawn on a single sheet of paper (and presented along with the spoken tape-recorded sentence) corresponding to the meaning of the sentence. Each sentence followed a beep in the tape as a signal for the child to get ready to listen to the sentence carefully. The time taken by each child to respond by pointing to a picture was noted and the child was asked to justify the response. The child was also probed to indicate if any other picture could also be identified as appropriate. Participants’ responses to each of the ambiguous sentences were scored 3 for correct identification of the intonation-appropriate picture, sub­ sequent identification of the second picture corresponding to the possible second meaning of the sentence, and correct justification of the response. A score of 2 was given for identification of the appropriate picture with justification or for identification of the appropriate picture followed by identification of the other picture with no or wrong justification. And a score of 1 was given for identification of the intonation-inappropriate picture without correct justification. Identification of a wrong picture was scored 0. The average time taken by the bilingual children was 6.06 seconds, whereas the response time for the monolinguals was 5.21 seconds. The bilingual children took longer than the monolinguals, but the difference was not significant. The bilinguals had a significantly better ambiguoussentence perception score than their counterparts in all grades; the



Multilingualism: A Resource or Burden?  49

bilingual children were more proficient in their perception of the intonation-appropriate meaning of the ambiguous sentences. They were also able to point to the ambiguity of the sentences when probed about a possible second meaning. Older bilingual children were able to point out that while one meaning matched the sentence as spoken, the other picture could also be considered ‘somewhat appropriate’. Such responses indicate bilingual children’s sensitivity to communicative cues and their analytic orientation to verbal inputs. These studies show that bilingualism fosters metalinguistic and metacognitive development which endow the bilinguals with effective control of their cognitive processes, make them cognitively more competent and flexible, and enhance their sensitivity to communicative input. A possible limitation of the studies described so far is that, like all other studies in the literature, they were conducted with schooled samples or with participants with formal literacy experience. The experience of schooling, it may be argued, can be a major factor in the development of metalinguistic awareness of bilinguals. It is well known that when children experience learning to read and write, their metalinguistic awareness develops faster (Donaldson, 1978); the very act of reading, for example, involves focusing on the orthographic representation of language as the object of thinking. Use of language in schools is more abstract, and classroom learning requires children to consciously reflect on language or to make language the object of thinking. Is it possible, then, that the metalinguistic and cognitive advantage of bilingualism obtained in the studies is typical only for those bilinguals who have had experience of formal school learning and literacy instruction? With a low level of literacy and a large proportion of children who have never been to school, the Kond tribal context offered a possibility of finding out if the cognitive and metalinguistic advantages associated with bilingualism are limited to schooled bilinguals only. Two studies among the Konds addressed this question. A study by Mohanty and Das (1987) took a sample of 80 unschooled Kond children from Kui–Odia bilingual and Odia monolingual regions of Phulbani district of Odisha. The children had no formal school experience or any literacy skills. They were selected in two age groups, 7–8 and 9–10 years. The age of the children was ascertained from the parents, who could not give the exact date of birth, but who indicated a major event during the year of birth, which was cross-checked with other villagers and also confirmed on the basis of the age of the older and younger siblings. There were 20 Kui–Odia bilingual and 20 Odia monolingual children in each age group. The bilingual children spoke only Kui in their family and community and Odia for communication at village weekly markets, common festivals and public gatherings, in the marketplace in the urban or semi-urban localities close to the village, and with non-tribal people living in areas adjacent to the Kond settlement. They could use both languages

50  The Multilingual Reality

equally fluently in the domains of their use. The Odia monolingual Kond children lived in villages in the Odia monolingual areas where the Konds speak Odia only. All the children in the study came from families of landless farm labourers with a monthly income of less than 200 Indian rupees and without any formal education. The participants were individually administered Raven’s Coloured Progressive Matrices (RCPM) test and the Metalinguistic Ability Test (Pattanaik & Mohanty, 1984). In both age groups, the bilingual children had higher scores on RCPM and the Metalinguistic Ability Test than their monolingual counter­ parts. But the mean difference in Metalinguistic Ability Test scores was not statistically significant. The scores on RCPM and Metalinguistic Ability Test increased significantly with age. The small sample in this study with a cell size of 20 might have affected the lack of a statistically significant effect of bilingualism on metalinguistic ability. The study shows better non-verbal reasoning and intelligence of the unschooled bilinguals over their monolingual counterparts, but fails to support the hypothesised bilingual superiority in metalinguistic ability. Almost 15 years after this study, Pattanaik (2004) conducted a more elaborate study of the relationship between schooling and bilingualism. She took a sample of 146 balanced Kui–Odia bilingual and Odia monolingual Kond children in the age range of seven to nine years. The sample included 75 unschooled children – 42 bilingual (17 girls and 25 boys) and 33 monolingual (9 girls and 24 boys) – and 71 schooled children – 45 bilingual (17 girls and 28 boys) and 26 monolingual children (6 girls and 20 boys). The schooled children were from grades 2, 3 and 4 from six residential Ashram schools.10 The children came from families of very low socio-economic status; their parents were landless farm labourers (and seasonal gatherers of forest products) with no formal education. All the children were administered tests of cognitive and metalinguistic ability. The cognitive measures included a set of Piagetian conservation tasks (conservation of number, length, substance, weight, two-­ dimensional space, continuous quantity, discontinuous quantity, and area) as measures of cognitive development and Raven’s Coloured Progressive Matrices (RCPM) as a measure of non-verbal intelligence and reasoning. A battery of measures of metalinguistic ability used in the earlier Kond studies (suitably modified through pilot testing with six- to nine-year-old unschooled children) was administered to all the participants. This battery included a set of eight tasks involving rhyme recognition, knowledge of appropriateness of utterances, correction of speech, defining words, symbol substitution, understanding of arbitrariness of language, morphological generalisation, and ambiguity detection. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) for all the measures together showed significant effects of bilingualism and schooling. The interaction between bilingualism and schooling was not significant; better performance of the bilinguals than their monolingual counterparts was



Multilingualism: A Resource or Burden?  51

found for the schooled as well as the unschooled groups. Comparison on specific measures showed that the bilingual children performed significantly better than the monolinguals in respect of the total score on the battery of metalinguistic tasks. The positive effect of bilingualism on metalinguistic performance was obtained for both the unschooled and the schooled groups. Bilingualism had a significant positive effect on the conservation score for the total sample as well as for the schooled and unschooled groups separately. The difference between the mean scores of the bilinguals and monolinguals on the RCPM was not significant. As expected, the schooled children performed better than the unschooled ones on all the cognitive and metalinguistic measures. Thus, besides confirming the bilingual advantage in respect of metalinguistic and cognitive tasks, the study by Pattanaik (2004) shows that the positive effects of bilingualism are also obtained for unschooled children. Moving Beyond the Kond Studies: Metalinguistic Advantage of Bilinguals

The studies among Konds confirm the findings of the post-1960 studies on the cognitive consequences of bilingualism. They show the cognitive superiority of the bilingual Konds over their monolingual counterparts from the same cultural context and matched for socio-economic variables. Kui–Odia bilingual Kond children performed significantly better than Odia monolingual Kond children on a host of intellectual and cognitive tasks, classroom achievement and a number of measures of metalinguistic awareness and metacommunicative skills. The positive impact of bi­ lingualism noted among school children was also obtained for unschooled Kond children. The actual operation of better metalinguistic processes of the bilingual children was found in tasks of ambiguity detection and perception of ambiguous sentences. The advanced level of the bilinguals’ metalinguistic awareness has been attributed to the experience of using multiple languages and dealing with the complexities of multiple linguistic systems as well as the challenges of their appropriate social use. Early in the field of bilingualism, Vygotsky and Leopold pointed to specific strategies that bilingual children use to negotiate multilingual complexities. Leopold (1939–1949) was of the view that parallel exposure to two languages accelerates separation of sound and meaning or name and object. Vygotsky (1962) suggested that the capacity to express the same thought in different languages develops better insight in the bilingual child into the objective and arbitrary properties of language. According to him, ‘The child learns to see his language as one particular system among many, to view its phenomena under more general categories and this leads to awareness of his linguistic operations’ (Vygotsky, 1962: 110). Vygotsky’s insight led to a large body of research on metalinguistic awareness of bilingual and multilingual children and adults.

52  The Multilingual Reality

Early formulations of the metalinguistic hypothesis of bilinguals’ cognitive superiority (Ben-Zeev, 1977a, 1977b; Cummins, 1978a) essentially followed these suggestions. Metalinguistic awareness is hypothesised to be better developed among the bilingual and multilingual children compared with their monolingual counterparts. Ben-Zeev (1972) suggested that the bilingual child develops specific metalinguistic skills as strategies for dealing with the problems of possible interlanguage interference11 when two or more language systems are involved: The emphasis is not on interlingual interference per se, however, but on the cognitive consequences of the strategies or processes which develop in the bilingual child as he struggles to overcome interlingual interference operating on the structural level of language. (Ben-Zeev, 1977b: 30)

High levels of bilingual proficiency enhance metalinguistic awareness, which, in turn, influences different aspects of cognition (Tunmer & Myhill, 1984). Bilingual children have shown better understanding of the relationship between words and their meanings, referential arbitrariness and the non-physical nature of words, independence of the properties of the objects from their arbitrary labels or associated lexical symbols as in word substitution tasks, grammatical acceptability of sentences, and other objective properties of language at different levels of their representation (Ben-Zeev, 1972; Bialystok, 1988; Cummins, 1978a; Edwards & Christophersen, 1988; Galambos & Hakuta, 1988; Ianco-Worral, 1972; and many other studies). The Kond studies have broadly supported the metalinguistic hypothesis of bilingual superiority. Metalinguistic development is fostered by the experience of dealing with multiple linguistic codes and this leads to flexibility in cognitive operations and to creativity. Effective use of languages for communication involves much more than simple knowledge of the rules of the languages or their grammar at different levels (phonological, lexical, syntactic, semantic); communicative competence also requires knowledge of the rules of language usage in context and the ability to take into account the state of knowledge of the participants in a communicative event. Ability to take a communicative event as an object of cognitive reflection and analyse it is a major aspect of competence in dealing with such communication. Broadly, a reflective orientation to any complex communication and the ability to control the underlying processes by thinking about it in order to analyse its relevant features and to effectively use them involve metacognitive processes (Flavell, 1977). Metacognitive processes, including metacommunicative and metalinguistic operations, are the mechanisms which enable one to monitor and control the basic cognitive functions. The experience of communicating in multiple languages involves greater problem-solving challenges, which augment metalinguistic and meta­ cognitive processes as mechanisms necessary for effective negotiation of such challenges.



Multilingualism: A Resource or Burden?  53

Studies (Mohanty et al., 1999; Vihman, 1985; see Chapter 2) show that bilingual and multilingual children are able to differentiate between the languages in the surrounding and attend to the task of keeping them separate fairly early in development, by about the age of two years. In her review of bilingual development and the cognitive mechanisms involved in dealing with two language systems, Serratrice (2013) suggests that discriminating between the two systems is the initial challenge for children growing up in bilingual environments, and the acquisition of two languages must begin with the discovery of the two systems in their linguistic input. Beginning with such discovery of the input systems and early differentiation between the languages, multilingual experience entails constant challenges of selecting socially appropriate linguistic code, code-switching and code-mixing in a variety of communicative contexts. The multilingual child has to deal with possible conflict between pragmatic rules and social norms governing communication in multiple languages by developing awareness of communicative practices in complex multilingual contexts (Genesee, 2006), in addition to the task of negotiating possible interference between her languages at a formal structural level. For example, as we have seen in Chapter 2, by about four years of age, children in multilingual social contexts understand that some languages are appropriate in certain contexts and not in others, and that it is not right to speak to someone in a language that she or he does not understand. At a later age, children engage in functional code-switching in response to the politeness norms in society, switching appropriately to the language of the interlocutor. The nature of code-switching and code-mixing may change in the presence of multiple interlocutors belonging to different languages. In such cases, children deal with communicative situations in which social norms may be conflicting by ignoring the politeness rule of language choice or by multiple code-switching to accommodate to the situation. In discussing the implications of the early Kond studies, Mohanty noted that: In addition to the requirements of learning and applying the rules of his language and the usual communicative rules and monitoring these rules, the bilingual child has to keep the rules of language and communication from interfering with each other and, more importantly, develop another set of rules governing the appropriate choice of rules specific to each of his languages. (Mohanty, 1994a: 92)

Proficient multilingual communication must involve metalinguistic and metacognitive reflection and control over cognitive operations. This can be expected to facilitate performance of multilinguals in intellectual and scholastic tasks. The relationship between metalinguistic and meta­ cognitive processes and cognitive control is bidirectional; as cognitive processes become more effective, they add to the efficiency of the mechan­ isms of control and metacognition.

54  The Multilingual Reality

It must be recognised, however, that metalinguistic development is not exclusive to bilingual or multilingual children; acquisition of language necessarily involves some level of metalinguistic reflection (Clark, 1978). In all children, including the monolingual ones, signs of metalinguistic skill begin to appear approximately at age two, in forms of questions and comments on language and in correction of their own and others’ speech; ‘reflection on the product of utterance’, as Clark (1978: 35) pointed out, is an aspect of children’s metalinguistic development. It seems that exposure to the variations in use of a language in different social contexts, use of several sociolects, ‘high’ and ‘low’ varieties and diglossic features of language trigger metalinguistic reflections among children as a necessary aspect of their socialisation for the development of communicative competence. According to Ochs and Schieffelin (2008), the structure and form of language in use have indexical functions denoting specific relations between socio-cultural context and linguistic cues. Through the processes of acquiring a language and language socialisation, ‘normally developing children become increasingly adept at constituting and interpreting’ such relations (Ochs & Schieffelin, 2008: 8–9). Intralingual variations at register and code levels convey information about social class, status and social group identity and aspects of social organisation. In her study of the development of communicative competence and language socialisation in Western Samoan children, Ochs (1985, 1988) shows how intralingual variations in linguistic structures and registers index social distance and social hierarchy, gender and status differences and differences across formal and informal contexts. Similarly, intralingual variations between colloquial English and standard English are noted in Singapore English (Gupta, 1989), with the colloquial variety used in informal settings and the standard variety in education and formal use. Through repeated exposure to different contexts of use, children learn to switch between the two registers as they develop communicative com­ petence in Singapore English. Experience of multiple forms of communication, within a language or across languages, enhances metalinguistic reflections essential for children’s develop­ment of communicative competence. The Estonian– English bilingual child Raivo in Vihman’s (1985) study showed ‘ability to attend to language qua language’ quite early (Vihman, 1985: 314). Just before the age of two years, the child could talk about his own speech – I (said) ‘good night’ (to) my mother – and, by age two years two months, correct others’ speech – It isn’t ‘in the room’, it’s ‘in the kitchen’. Vihman also reported Raivo’s ‘explicit metalinguistic reference to language’ such as ‘reporting or requesting translations in either language and quoting his own speech acts’ (Vihman, 1985: 313) by the time he was two years one month old. Evidently, bilingual children show awareness of languages and the rules of use of such languages at an early age. According to Vihman,



Multilingualism: A Resource or Burden?  55

development of awareness of and sensitivity to adult standards of communication motivate early language differentiation by bilingual children. Thus, the very process of becoming bilingual or multilingual involves the development of specific strategies which crystallise as enhanced metalinguistic skills. Some Limitations of Research on Bilingualism

The current state of our understanding of the relationship between bilingualism/multilingualism and better performance on a wide range of intellectual tasks is much more refined and focused than when the Kond studies were undertaken. But the basic tenets of this relationship suggested by these findings remain valid. Ironically, the methodological weaknesses of the early bilingualism research that prompted the Kond studies continue in present research. In a review of research on bilingualism, cognition and creativity, Kharkhurin expressed this concern: In most of the studies of bilingual cognition, bilingual groups included immigrants who in addition to speaking two languages were also likely to experience and participate in two cultures. This cultural element has been virtually ignored in the investigation of the possible cognitive impact of bilingualism. (Kharkhurin, 2012: 62)

The series of studies among the bilingual and monolingual Kond children addressed this methodological concern. It must be pointed out that similar settings are found among other communities in India and it is quite likely that, in many multilingual societies, besides India, there are diverse patterns of language use within the same cultural communities. However, there is a dearth of research in such sociolinguistic settings. It seems that a paucity of research from non-Western societies and failure to go beyond the dominant monolingual contexts in which most bilingualism research has been undertaken have contributed to such limitations. In fact, most of the research on bilingualism also suffers from a language limitation: a majority of the studies are from English-dominant societies or, at least, have English as one the two languages of the bilingual populations studied. This is also identified in Kharkhurin’s review: Despite the fact that bilingual participants were tested in a large variety of languages, in most studies they spoke their native language and English. Virtually, no research was conducted with individuals speaking other language combinations. (Kharkhurin, 2012: 64)

Again, this limitation of bilingualism studies needs to be taken seriously. While it is necessary to go beyond the dominant monolingual settings of Western research to extend the generalisability of the findings on bilingualism, it is also equally important to make an effort to correct the myopia

56  The Multilingual Reality

of failing to note the studies (though few) in non-dominant, smaller and indigenous languages, such as the Kond studies. Related to this question of linguistic variety in bilingualism research is the question of extension of the studies from the users of two languages to the users of multiple languages. This leads to the question of generalising from bilingualism to multilingualism. Till recently, most of the studies in the field were undertaken in North American contexts with English monolinguals and English–other language bilinguals. Within a growing body of European research, trilingualism emerged as a parallel concern even as some research dealt with multilingual contexts and participants. But bilingualism continued to be used as a generic term, with the assump­ tion that the processes for bilingual individuals and contexts can be expected to occur in multilingual individuals and contexts. A cursory view of the current usages in the field suggests that the term multilingualism is being increasingly used by a growing number of researchers and interchangeable use of the terms bilingualism and multilingualism (as in this book) has become quite common. But the validity of any generalisation from bilingual to multilingual contexts remains a major question, which can be addressed only by more studies on multilingual societies. As I have stated, the Kond studies were conducted in a broad multilingual milieu, even if the study samples were formally identified as Kui–Odia bilingual children. These children had some familiarity and occasional use of other languages such as Hindi through television programmes and other contacts. Since multilingual competence was not used as a defining feature of the samples, the Kond studies cannot claim to deal with the question of generalising from bilingual to multilingual contexts. However, the basic issue of the relationship between use of multiple languages and cognition involves how multiple languages are organised in the human mind and their impact on aspects of cognitive development. In this respect, the basic psycholinguistic processes underlying the use of multiple languages can be assumed to be grossly similar in bilingual and multilingual populations, making valid comparisons possible across the two. Yet another limitation to generalisability of the Kond studies emanates from the use of balanced bilinguals. The focus on balanced bilinguals was justified as a methodological necessity; selection of balanced bilinguals was the dominant pattern in the literature on bilingualism. But it raises the question of generalisation to bilingual and multilingual populations as a whole (Kharkhurin, 2012). It is now well established that the bilingual advantage in cognitive and metalinguistic tasks is more pronounced for balanced bilinguals (Bialystok, 2013). In fact, a number of studies (Bialystok, 1988; Gathercole, 1997) have confirmed the threshold theory of Cummins (1979) and Skutnabb-Kangas and Toukomaa (1976; Toukomaa & Skutnabb-Kangas, 1977) suggesting that partial bilingualism is associated with poor cognitive performance. It is likely that the bilingual advantage found in the Kond studies is related to balanced proficiency in



Multilingualism: A Resource or Burden?  57

the two languages. As suggested by Bialystok (2013: 643), ‘Both absolute levels of language proficiency and the relative balance between languages are crucial factors in determining outcomes for bilingual children’. It is possible that the Kui–Odia balanced bilinguals in the Kond studies had grade/age-appropriate levels of skills in both their languages, besides showing relative balance between the languages; in fact, our studies which included as one of the variables classroom language (Odia) achievement showed no difference between the Odia monolinguals and Kui–Odia bilinguals in their classroom achievement in Odia, the language of schooling. Thus, it would be fair to say that the balanced bilinguals in the Kond studies showing significantly better performance on cognitive and metalinguistic tasks had high levels of proficiency in both their languages. As such, the generalisability of the findings to less proficient and/or nonbalanced bilinguals has not been established.12 It should be pointed out, however, that in multilingual contexts language users move between domains in each of which one language may be preferred to another. Therefore, in each domain, the language users may show greater proficiency in the preferred language than in the other languages. In other words, relative dominance or balance in the languages of bilinguals or multilinguals may vary from one domain to another. The question of ‘balance’ between languages across different domains of use becomes much more complex in the case of multilinguals. Bilingual balance is a theoretical notion for methodological control and it cannot be considered a stable characteristic of a bilingual or multilingual population or individual; balance or dominance across languages are likely to vary across different domains of communication. Perhaps the relationship of bilingualism or multilingualism with cognitive and metalinguistic skills is better understood in terms of the level of proficiency in the languages over a broad range of domains in which these languages are preferred. As has been suggested in the threshold theory (Cummins, 1976; Skutnabb-Kangas & Toukomaa, 1976; Toukomaa & Skutnabb-Kangas, 1977), widely supported by a growing body of research (Bialystok, 1988; Cummins, 2000), with increasing proficiency in the languages, positive effects of bilingualism and multilingualism are more likely to enhance cognitive and metalinguistic performance. Multilingual proficiency below a high threshold does not attract the benefits, whereas very low levels of proficiency may have negative consequences. Thus, levels of proficiency in languages rather than relative balance between them seem to be a better predictor of the consequences of bi- and multilingualism. However, locating the precise levels of proficiency beyond which the threshold of the effects change from being negative to neutral and then from neutral to positive is problematic (Baker, 2011) and, further, the possible variations in language proficiency across domains need to be accommodated in defining the levels of proficiency as related to the nature of the impact of multilingualism on cognition.

58  The Multilingual Reality

Multilingualism and Cognitive Resource: An Appraisal

The status of our knowledge which prompted the Kond studies has moved beyond the simple declaration of the positive effects of bilingual/ multilingual experience on human cognition. Nearly four decades of research following the Peal and Lambert (1962) study not only strengthened the positive view of multilingualism but also added to our understanding of the mechanisms by which the experience of using multiple languages boosts general cognitive functioning. The research provided robust support for the metalinguistic hypothesis of multilingual superiority and offered some understanding of the dynamics of the relationship between multilingualism and cognition. The early years of the 21st century further refined this understanding. While the basic scientific view of multilingualism as a cognitive resource continued in the post-1960 track, new insights have accumulated over the last decade enriching knowledge in the field. The metalinguistic advantage of multilinguals has remained a consistent finding. However, as Bialystok (2013) observes, metalinguistic awareness is not a monolithic concept; children’s language awareness involves different aspects and levels of language. Studies of the meta­ linguistic awareness of bilingual children have gradually moved towards focusing on specific aspects of metalinguistic awareness at phonological, lexical, syntactic, textual and pragmatic levels. Studies using a variety of phonological awareness measures – such as segmental tasks of phoneme or syllable deletion, substitution, reversal and rhyme recognition – have shown different patterns of bilingual advantage often related to the languages of the bilinguals and also to the writing systems in which they learn to read. Padakannaya (1999) shows that speakers of Indian languages, including those without any formal literacy skills, perform better on syllable-level manipulation tasks such as rhyme recognition, deletion and reversal than on phoneme deletion and reversal tasks. He also suggests that exposure to alphabetic writing systems like English improves performance on phonemic awareness tasks. Bruck and Genesee (1995) found that English– French bilingual children from French school programmes perform better on syllable-counting tasks, whereas their English monolinguals peers were better on phoneme awareness tasks. It is known that when children learn to read, their phonological awareness is influenced by the nature of the writing system. Reading in alphabetic, linear and opaque writing systems like English fosters awareness at the phonemic level, whereas alpha-syllabary, non-linear and transparent writing systems like Hindi are related to syllable-level awareness (Padakannaya & Mohanty, 2004; Sproat & Padakannaya, 2008). Kar et al. (2014) examined normally progressing and slowly progressing readers acquiring biliteracy skills in Hindi and English in primary-grade English-medium schools and found that the normally progressing readers had better reading development in Hindi and used script-dependent strategies. The slowly progressing readers, in



Multilingualism: A Resource or Burden?  59

contrast, showed poor cognitive and linguistic processing ability and had difficulty developing script-dependent strategies in reading English and Hindi. Kar et al. (2014) suggest that for development of biliteracy skills with different writing systems, such as Hindi and English, a sequential instructional strategy may be more effective than simultaneous learning of the two orthographic systems. Singh et al. (2016) studied 8–10-year-old Hindi-MT children learning to read their native language, Hindi, and an unfamiliar language, English, and found that the orthographic features of the two writing systems affected the reading processes in the two languages. They also noted additional cognitive load in learning to read an unfamiliar language (English) and suggest that biliterate education should focus on developing strong MT skills, as these can be transferred to the development of literacy skills in a second language. However, despite variations in processes underlying reading in different writing systems, learning to read in any writing system involves some basic awareness of the phonological structure of language. Ho and Bryant (1997) suggest that some minimum level of phono­logical awareness is also required in learning to read in non-alphabetic o ­ rthography such as Chinese. Bialystok et al. (2005) compared morphemic- and p ­ honemic-level awareness of children learning to read Chinese and English. The Chinese readers had better awareness of morphemic structure, whereas the English readers showed better awareness of phonemic structure. In an fMRI study of phrase reading in Hindi–English bilinguals, Kumar et al. (2009, 2010) noted different patterns of cortical activations in reading Hindi and English texts. Bialystok (2013) suggests that the nature of advantage of bilinguals in phonological awareness may depend on the languages of the bilinguals and also learning to read in specific writing systems. Bilingual children show different patterns of phono­ logical awareness before and after learning to read. Reading instruction for specific orthographic systems fosters awareness at different levels affecting the difference between bilingual and monolingual readers in phonological awareness (Eviatar & Ibrahim, 2000; Muter & Diethelm, 2001). It seems that bilingual and multilingual children have an advantage in learning about the sound structure of their spoken languages, particularly when these languages are similar, and learning to read augments or neutralises this advantage, depending on which aspects of phonological awareness are emphasised for learning specific orthographic systems. The advantages of bilingualism/multilingualism are related to the nature and relationship between the languages as well as the nature of writing systems involved in learning to read in a language or in biliteracy. However, when one gets on to the question of the similarity or dis­similarity of the languages and writing systems, the combination of different linguistic features – such as language structure, phonology, morphology, syntax and range of writing systems – makes generalising on the

60  The Multilingual Reality

basis of pairs of languages of bi- or multilinguals extremely complex; it is hard to say which combinations of languages can be reliably related to specific bilingual/multilingual advantages. In general, it can be concluded that bilingual and multilingual children have an advantage in understanding the principles of phoneme to grapheme representation in printed or written texts and this advantage is transferred to early acquisition of literacy (Bialystok & Barac, 2013). Bilingual children also show superior performance on a variety of word awareness tasks assessing understanding of the relationship between words, their referents and meanings. Tasks of word awareness assess knowledge of a word’s referential arbitrariness, its non-physical nature, word definition, substitution of lexical symbols, and similar skills. Word awareness involves understanding that speech can be segmented into meaningful units and that the relationship between meaning of words and their referents is arbitrary (Bialystok, 2013). Tasks of word counting and defining words are examples of the understanding of words as meaningful units. Symbol substitution, meaning–referent relations and ‘non-physical nature of words’ tasks are some measures of awareness of the referential arbitrariness of words. We used these tasks in the Kond studies to show bilingual/multilingual advantage in word-level awareness. Bilingual children also show better understanding of word boundaries in sentences than their monolingual peers. Bialystok (1986a) administered to bilingual and monolingual children word counting tasks of varied difficulty under conditions of a scrambled string or a normally uttered meaningful sentence. The two groups had an equal level of performance in the scrambled string condition, which indicated equivalent knowledge of the word units. But, in sentence condition, the bilingual children performed better, showing that they were able to dissociate the identification of word-level meaning from the meaning of the sentence as a whole. Bilinguals’ advantage is also obtained in studies using meaning– referent relations tasks to assess children’s understanding that the meaning of words remains stable even in absence of a referent. Studies using tasks of understanding the non-physical nature of words do not show consistent bilingual/multilingual advantage, although a majority of the studies (including the Kond studies discussed above) show either bilingual s­ uperiority or no group difference. Similarly, tasks of arbitrariness of words involving change of object names show bilingual advantage in agreeing to the exchange of names and also understanding that the characteristics of the object do not change even if the name is changed. Similarly, studies (including the Kond studies) with symbol substitution tasks in which children are asked to play games that involve substituting some words with other words, leading to anomalous statements, show that bilingual children perform better than monolinguals. The bilinguals/ multilinguals demonstrate superior awareness of the referential arbitrariness of words, ignoring the consequent anomaly in symbol substitution.



Multilingualism: A Resource or Burden?  61

Thus, research findings offer strong support for the positive relationship between bilingualism/multilingualism and word awareness assessed through a variety of tasks. Syntactic awareness is usually assessed by grammaticality judgement tasks in which children are presented sentences with grammatical errors and asked to identify and correct the error and, sometimes, to explain the error. A variation is to have both grammatical errors and semantic anomaly in the set of sentences presented for grammaticality judgement. When sentences also have incorrect or anomalous semantic information, judgement of ungrammaticality becomes more difficult. Grammaticality judgement tasks do not show a consistent advantage for the bilingual children; monolingual children often perform at the same level as the bilinguals, particularly older children. However, bilingual children perform better with grammatically correct but semantically anomalous sentences, which they are more likely to identify as ‘correct’ (Bialystok, 1986b, 1988; Bialystok & Majumder, 1998; Cromdal, 1999). Besides grammaticality judgement, tasks of detection of sentence ambiguity are also used as a measure of syntactic awareness. Studies with ambiguity detection tasks, involving correct identification of ambiguous sentences and paraphrasing the meanings with explanation of ambiguity, find that bilingual children perform better (Galambos & Hakuta, 1988). The Kond studies also showed multilingual advantage in ambiguity detection and use of intonational cues for disambiguation. Older multilingual children in the Kond studies performed better than monolinguals in detecting structural ambiguity in sentences and paraphrasing or explaining the two meanings. Further, our study of bilingual/multilingual Kond children found they had greater sensitivity to intonational cues in disambiguating spoken surface structurally ambiguous sentences (Mohanty, 1989a). On the whole, however, research investigating syntactic awareness of children does not show consistent advantage for bilingual children; the nature of syntactic awareness tasks and also the languages of the bilinguals are two determinants of bilingual advantage (Bialystok, 2013). The performance of bilinguals/multilinguals in relation to literacy, reading and discourse seems to have some built-in advantages associated with functioning in multiple language systems. Bilingual children’s advantage with metalinguistic awareness and awareness of discourse structure act as predisposing factors for their oral discourse skills and early reading development (Bialystok, 2013). Bilingual and multilingual children also show positive transfer across languages in their competence with literacy-related discourse such as storytelling. Such cross-linguistic transfer occurs over a wide range of literacy skills, particularly for abstract and decontextualised tasks, as noted by Cummins (1979, 2009a). Bilingual children show comparable levels of performance in their languages in tasks like picture description and providing definitions (Davidson et al., 1986; Snow et al., 1989; Wu et al., 1994). Storytelling ability in the home

62  The Multilingual Reality

language of multilinguals is affected by their proficiency in the language and the extent of exposure to the home language. Oral discourse pro­ ficiency in bilingual children’s home language is transferred to reading and classroom academic use in the second or school language. There is also some evidence of transfer across languages in the case of polyglot aphasics undergoing language training as an intervention and such transfer is greater for similar languages (for a review, see Ijalba et al., 2013, ). Understanding of the relationship between print and meaning is a prerequisite to reading. For example, readers need to understand the invariance of meaning of a written or printed form, such as a word, regardless of where it is placed. Bialystok and Luk (2007) used a movingword task in which words were moved from one picture or object to another to test children’s understanding of meaning invariance. Bilingual children showed consistently better understanding on this task (Bialystok, 2013) regardless of whether they were learning to read in the same or different writing systems (Bialystok & Luk, 2007). Knowledge of the symbolic basis of written forms also involves understanding that written form is related to meaning rather than to the referent or that the length of a word is unrelated to the size or length of its referent. The bilingual children learning to read only in two different writing systems performed better than monolinguals in word-size tasks to assess such understanding (Bialystok, 1997; Bialystok et al., 2000). Thus, understanding of the nature of print form as a prerequisite to reading is facilitated by multilingualism and this advantage is even better when multilingual children learn to read in different writing systems. Transfer of reading-related skills across languages of multilingual children facilitates reading in both of their languages even when the writing systems are different. The nature and impact of such transfer, however, vary according the nature of the languages as well as the writing systems. A study by Geva et al. (1997) with children learning to read in two different writing systems, Hebrew and English, found that transfer of skills in reading in the dominant language facilitates literacy acquisition in the weaker language. When children learn to read in a language other than their home language, there is transfer of phonological skills from the home to the school language, facilitating reading development. Padakannaya et al. (1993) compared Kannada-speaking children, literate in the alphabetic writing system of English, with those who were literate only in Kannada (which has a semi-syllabic writing system), on a phonemic awareness task in Kannada. They found that literacy in the alphabetic writing system had a positive effect on performance in phonemic awareness tasks. Liow and Poon (1998) assessed spelling in English, the school language of children whose home language was English or Chinese or Bahasa Indonesia. The last group had the best English spelling performance, and this was attributed to transfer of phonological skills from a phonologically simple Bahasa Indonesia to English. In a study by Carlisle et al. (1999), the



Multilingualism: A Resource or Burden?  63

English reading comprehension of Spanish–English bilingual children was predicted by vocabulary knowledge and phonological awareness in both languages. Similarly, when children learn to read in two languages, phonological skills in one language facilitate reading in the other language (Durgunoglu et al., 1993). Thus, bilingual/multilingual children do have some advantages in learning to read; the nature of such advantage due to cross-linguistic transfer of language- and reading-related skills may be affected by factors specific to languages and/or writing systems (Bialystok, 2013). In a review of research on bilingualism and writing systems, Bassetti (2013) shows some positive consequences of biliteracy in respect of metalinguistic awareness, language production, reading and writing skills, and creative use of writing systems. Biliterates also have facility in acquiring an additional writing system (Bassetti, 2013) just as the bilinguals have advantage in acquiring a third or later language. It seems metalinguistic advantages, early development of prerequisite skills for reading and knowledge of different writing systems endow the bilingual/multilingual child with effective skills in language and reading acquisition. Understanding the Dynamics of the Multilingual Mind

Functioning in multiple languages confers some cognitive advantages associated with enhanced metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness. However, under specific task conditions, the performance of bilinguals/ multilinguals shows some disadvantages. Specific aspects of the meta­ linguistic ability of multilinguals seem to affect different aspects of cognitive and intellectual performance and also scholastic skills, including reading and discourse competence. Multilingual experience facilitates flexibility and creativity (Kharkhurin, 2012) while promoting cognitive control and metacognitive awareness. Bilinguals and multilinguals may have less proficiency in each language than monolinguals (Bialystok et al., 2012). A broad review of studies shows that the bilinguals are generally poor on certain verbal skills, such as language-specific vocabulary, in each language, which affects their performance on verbal tasks. Compared with their monolingual peers, bilinguals are found to be poor in verbal fluency, word production, receptive vocabulary size and comprehension in each language and have slower picture-naming times and lower accuracy. However, when one considers the total verbal repertoire, including conceptual vocabulary or available lexical concepts, in both or all the languages, bilinguals/multilinguals have an overall advantage in verbal skills. They also seem to compensate for language-specific drawbacks by putting in more cognitive effort in dealing with the languages and developing resourceful cognitive control. Bialystok (2001) suggests that bilinguals have superior selective attention, enabling them to focus on the relevant features of cognitive tasks. At the same time, their inhibition mechanism

64  The Multilingual Reality

enables them to ignore any conflicting or misleading information. ‘The cognitive advantage for bilinguals is that they have a superior ability to ignore misleading information and attend to relevant cues and structures’ (Bialystok, 2013: 644). The positive effects of bilingualism on a range of tasks requiring attentional and inhibitory control have been shown in a number of studies (e.g. Adesope et al., 2010; Blumenfeld & Marian, 2010). A review by Adesope et al. (2010) relates bilingualism to several cognitive outcomes, such as metalinguistic awareness, attentional control, working memory and representational skills. Dash and Kar (2014) examined the language control and cognitive control performance of four bilingual aphasics and found dissociation between the two control processes, namely, the bilingual language control and general cognitive control. The executive control advantage of bilinguals on attention control tasks is related to the level of bilingual proficiency (Mishra et al., 2012; Salvatierra & Rosselli, 2011). Singh and Mishra (2012) compared two groups of Hindi–English bilinguals13 with different levels of L2 (English) proficiency on an oculomotor Stroop task and found better inhibitory control of the high-proficiency bilinguals. In a further study, Singh and Mishra (2013) showed that Hindi–English bilinguals with high fluency have better interference control and modulation of selective attention in different monitoring contexts. Khare et al. (2013) administered an attentional blink task to Hindi–English bilinguals with different levels of bilingual proficiency and found that the executive control functions vary with levels of bilingual proficiency. Early studies, including our Kond studies, of multilinguals’ cognitive advantage suggested that they have greater cognitive control due to metalinguistic and metacognitive processes. Recent studies suggest that bilinguals and multilinguals have an efficient executive control process which manages attention to language and enhances cognitive efficiency. Research using fMRI techniques shows that on language-switching tasks bilinguals show distributed cortical activation converging in bilateral frontal areas of the multilingual brain. These areas are also critical for cognitive control and attention. Thus, there is a close association between attention, language switching and cognitive control mechanisms in terms of neural processing. This may explain the superior performance of bi­ linguals on non-verbal conflict tasks (Bialystok et al., 2012) and in respect of complex neuropsychological processes. It seems prolonged multilingual experience alters cognitive anatomical structures in addition to the cortical functions network. The multiple language systems of bilinguals and multilinguals are not independent; there is simultaneous activation of all their language systems and continuous interaction between them, even when they are operating in a single-language milieu, in which other language systems are not be required (see Bialystok et al., 2012). Activation of all the languages requires constant monitoring of language systems and their contexts,



Multilingualism: A Resource or Burden?  65

the interlocutors and multiple conflicting cues, and also inhibition of the language(s) not required at a given point in time. Because all the language systems remain active and interactive at all times, the chances of interference and errors are higher. But multilinguals have a fairly accurate system of selecting their target language and this helps minimise errors due to cross-lingual interference. These requirements of continuously selecting from multiple languages and also switching between them entail greater cognitive effort and enhanced attentional control mechanisms (Bialystok et al., 2012). These processes lead to the better control and efficient performance of multilinguals on a wide range of cognitive tasks. The need to manage multiple linguistic systems and to select the appropriate lexicon during language production endows multilinguals with cognitive control advantage and mental flexibility (Kroll et al., 2012). Dealing with different languages enhances executive control involving suppression of possible interference from other languages, which remain activated even in conditions of use of a single or target language (Blumenfeld & Marian, 2007). Furthermore, studies show that the parallel activation of the languages of bilinguals is stronger for proficient bilinguals (Guo et al., 2012; Sunderman & Priya, 2012). Bialystok et al. (2012) reviewed a number of neuroimaging studies to show how the experience of multiple languages shapes the human mind and brain for greater flexibility and neuroplasticity. They describe the mental flexibility eloquently: Bilinguals sometimes have an advantage in inhibition, but they also have an advantage in selection; bilinguals do sometimes have an advantage in switching, but they also have an advantage in sustaining attention; and bilinguals do sometimes have an advantage in working memory, but they also have an advantage in representation and retrieval. Together, this pattern sounds like ‘mental flexibility’, the ability to adapt to ongoing changes and process information efficiently and adaptively. (Bialystok et al., 2012: 247)

Many of the advantages of multilingualism continue into adulthood and protect against cognitive decline and decline in attentional control related to ageing. Multilingualism is also associated with better main­ten­ ance of white-matter structures in the brain. Bialystok et al. (2012: 246) view the multilingual experience as ‘one of the environmental factors that contribute to cognitive reserve or brain reserve’. Dealing with the complexity of multiple language systems involves stimulating mental activities which strengthen cognitive functions, limit the effects of age-related cognitive decline and delay the onset of dementia. Bialystok et al. (2007) examined the age of onset of Alzheimer’s disease in 91 monolingual and 93 bilingual patients and found a four-year delay for the bilingual patients despite the fact that their level of education was lower than that of their monolingual counterparts. In a comparison of 100 bilingual and 100

66  The Multilingual Reality

monolingual Alzheimer’s patients, Craik et al. (2010) noted a five-year delay for bilingual patients in the age of first experience of symptoms of dementia. Bialystok et al. (2012) point out that the average age of onset of dementia is 78.6 years for bilingual patients compared with 75.4 years for monolingual patients. In their review of the cognitive effects of bi­ lingualism and its protective influence in delaying symptoms of dementia, Bialystok and Barac concluded: evidence for the impact of bilingualism on mental functioning across the lifespan demonstrates the essential flexibility and plasticity of the mind. Experience shapes our mind, just as our mind selects from the array of experiences in which we potentially engage. We have come a long way from the pervasive assumption that bilingualism is damaging to children’s cognitive development to demonstrating a protective effect of bilingualism in coping with symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease. Experience is powerful, and bilingualism may be one of the most powerful experiences of all. (Bialystok & Barac, 2013: 209–210). Conclusion: Multilingualism as a Resource

Research on bilingualism and multilingualism has become both more focused and more diverse in recent years. This area of study has progressed significantly from the early debate on the general intellectual and scholastic consequences of bilingualism. The tasks to assess bilingual advantages have also become more process-oriented and theory-driven. While, broadly, the evidence for the positive effects of bilingualism has accumulated to substantiate the claims of Peal and Lambert (1962), half a century after the study which marked a turning point, our understanding of the specific processes responsible for the advantages of the multi­linguals and their strengths as well as weaknesses has become more refined and differentiated. There is now robust evidence of benefits associated with the experience of multiple languages in respect of cognition, creativity, metalinguistic awareness, and reading- and literacy-related skills. It is also known now that bilingual and multilingual children and adults do not show global advantages in respect of specific skills and developmental patterns; several factors mediate the relationship between multilingual experience and performance on different cognitive tasks. Such factors include: the degree of bilingualism or the level of competence in each of the languages; the nature of each language – its phonological, syntactic and semantic features – and the relationship between these languages, their similarities and dissimilarities; the reading and literacy experience of the multilinguals with different or similar writing systems; and the characteristics of the specific tasks for the assessment of different aspects of cognitive linguistic skills. Similar levels of proficiency in multiple languages, or ‘balanced bi­lingualism’, has often been used as a sampling criterion in studies



Multilingualism: A Resource or Burden?  67

comparing bilingual and monolingual groups and the obtained differences are held to be typical effects of balanced bilingualism. However, as noted above, given that multilinguals use their languages in highly domain-­specific manners, balanced bilingualism across all domains of language use is only a theoretical concept, often invoked as a methodological control. The selection of balanced bilinguals in research usually involves comparing proficiencies in a native or home or stronger language and another language and, therefore, very often balanced bilinguals have high degrees of bilingualism. Bilingual advantages are normally associated with similar levels of language proficiency rather than absolute levels. It seems we need more research to provide some clarity on this question. The advantages attributed to the experience of multiple languages and the challenges of dealing with the respective phonological, syntactic and semantic systems as well as possible interference between them are also moderated by the nature of and the relationship between the languages. While multilingualism and aspects of metalinguistic awareness foster early literacy and reading development, the nature of that influence seems to be affected by the writing systems of the languages. Thus, features of the language systems of multilinguals and similarity or dissimilarity between the writing systems for these languages are associated with the specific advantages of multilingualism. The different patterns of advantage for bilingualism noted in the literature are found to vary across different types of cognitive tasks. Multiple language experience seems to equip bilingual and multilingual children and adults with a greater capacity to selectively attend to relevant cues and information, while ignoring other relevant but misleading ones. As a result, multilinguals perform better on tasks which require inhibiting anomalous or misleading cues. Thus, multi­ lingual advantages are related to the characteristics and cognitive demands of a particular task. Experience of multiple languages definitely adds to human capacity in respect of cognitive, metalinguistic, metacognitive and creative functions, but the nature of the relationship is much more differentiated and qualified than what was believed earlier. There is appreciable progress in our understanding of the multilingual mind, although much more research is needed. There is robust research evidence to view multilingualism as a cognitive resource, even if there are variations in the performance of the multilinguals on different tasks under different conditions. The multilingual brain is protected from certain negative effects of ageing. Plasticity of the brain functions, in the face of constant complexities and challenges of negotiating multiple linguistic systems, makes multilinguals cognitively flexible, creative and resilient to cognitive conflicts and pressures. ‘More important, though’, as Bialystok (2013: 645) puts it, ‘bilingualism never confers a disadvantage on children who are otherwise equally matched to monolinguals, and the benefits and potential benefits weigh in to make bilingualism a rare positive experience for children’. The same is true of multilingualism.

68  The Multilingual Reality

Notes (1) Some of these studies have been reported in earlier publications; they are reviewed in Mohanty (1994a), Mohanty and Perregaux (1997) and Skutnabb-Kangas (1995). (2) There are various names used for the tribe: Kond, Kandha, Kanda, Kandh and Khond. Konds are further categorised into various subgroups, such as Kutia Konds and Dongria Konds, depending on their place of residence. (3) Odisha is a state on the eastern coast of India, the Bay of Bengal, with a coastline of 480 kilometres. It borders Andhra Pradesh to the south, Chhattisgarh to the west and north-west, Jharkhand to the north and West Bengal to the east and north-east. Odisha’s population is 43.73 million. Following a legislative decision, the writing of the name of the province was changed recently to Odisha from the earlier Orissa. Odia, an Indo-Aryan language, is the dominant majority language and also the official language of Odisha. It was earlier written ‘Oriya’; now it is written as ‘Odia’. (4) In 1981, the Kond population in Odisha was 507,000, constituting 1.94% of the state population. The present Kond population is 1,395,643 (2.95% of the population of Odisha). (5) The MLE programme in Odisha is discussed in Chapter 8. (6) Most of the tribal languages India (the exceptions include Santali) do not have an established or commonly used writing system of their own. They have adopted other writing systems, such as Devanagari or Roman systems or the writing system of the dominant contact language. For example, Tulu in Karnataka employs Kannada for its literary purposes. Konkani, which is spoken in Kerala, Karnataka, Goa and ­Maharashtra, employs different scripts in different states. As early as 1850, the Bible was translated into the Kui language and printed in the Odia script. Almost at the same time, in another part of Odisha, inhabited by the Saora tribe, the Bible was translated into Saora language and printed in Roman script. Similarly, in Odisha, Santali is written in the Ol Chiki script developed by a Santali leader, Pandit Raghunath Murmu, whereas it is written in the Devanagari script in Bihar and Jharkhand and in the Bengali script in Bengal. (7) The current literacy rate (among those aged seven years and above) for Kond males is 31.9% and for Kond females 18.0%. (8) The average income level in this part of India has increased over the years. Even in high-poverty conditions, as with the Konds, who are of very low economic status, the income figures for the families have increased without substantially altering their consumption patterns. Thus, the later samples in the series of Kond studies have a higher absolute family income than in the earlier studies. But the Konds in all the studies were extremely poor in terms of their economic power and consumption patterns. (9) Schooling was not compulsory at the time of these studies. At least 10% of the school-age children never attended school and from among those who joined grade 1, over 50% were pushed out (the government account branded them ‘drop-outs’) by grade 5 and 80% by grade 10. Compared with boys, fewer girls attended school and their push-out rate was usually higher than that of the boys. In most of the schools, the girls constituted around 30% of the total number of students. The girls usually left school in earlier grades and so the proportion of girls gradually decreased through the grades. On push-outs and drop-outs, see Chapter 6, note 14, p. 144. (10) There are two types of government school in Odisha. While most of the schools throughout the province are run by the Department of School and Mass Education for all children (non-tribal as well as tribal), some residential schools, called Ashram schools, in the tribal areas are run by the Department of Tribal Welfare specifically for tribal children. All schools follow a common curriculum of Odisha. (11) Interlanguage interference may happen when aspects of the formal system of one language are in possible conflict with the same in another language. For example, the S-O-V ordering of Indian languages can be seen as a possible source of interference



Multilingualism: A Resource or Burden?  69

for a learner of English (with S-V-O ordering). Bilingual or multilingual children with possible interlanguage interference between the features of their languages usually develop some strategies to deal with possible interference between languages. Inter­ language interference is often seen as being based on demands of ‘pure’ language and, hence, viewed as a negative phenomenon. However, in multilingual contexts, languages are sometimes used together or code-mixed as a deliberately planned communication strategy. García points out that bilinguals/multilinguals translanguage strategically to ‘facilitate communication’ (2009a: 45) and ‘to make sense of the multilingual worlds’ (2009b: 138). Interlanguage interference of multilinguals can, therefore, be seen as a positive phenomenon that leads to creative use of resources from any ‘language’ available to a person. (12) However, the advantages of bilingualism and multilingualism have also been reported in studies of non-balanced bilinguals/multilinguals and in studies which did not assess relative proficiency in languages. Some of the studies in Jyväskylä, Finland, in CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) contexts, show some advantages (e.g. a greater capacity for focusing) also in non-balanced bilinguals (Skutnabb-Kangas, personal communication). (13) The bilinguals were Hindi native speakers who learnt English in formal education. It should be noted that the ‘bilingual’ participants in this study and others from India, as well as in other multilingual contexts, are more appropriately characterised as multilinguals, since exposure to other languages is common. Unfortunately, because of the dominance of research on ‘bilingualism’, the multilingual participants in research from highly multilingual contexts are often misleadingly labelled ‘bilingual’.

4 Language, Power and Hierarchy: The Double Divide

Languages are social resources; many languages enrich society and individuals in multiple ways. In multilingual societies, the ability to speak many languages is a necessary aspect of life, complementing the fullness of communicative acts of individuals in families and communities. Unfortunately, the languages and their social roles are constructed in a manner that fails to recognise their inherent equality, their sufficiency as languages. Some languages are considered ‘better’ and others ‘inferior’; some are considered ‘languages’ with significance, others are stigmatised as ‘dialects’. When some languages are privileged over others, it triggers social discrimination, advantaging some at the expense of the others. In this chapter, I seek to examine the dynamics of such ‘othering’ of languages in multilingual societies. Why and how are the users of some languages disadvantaged, even if all languages are equally resourceful for their users? I argue that when some languages are socially neglected, it sets in motion a vicious circle of disadvantage and exclusion which weakens these languages, and such weakness is used to justify further exclusion. Exclusion is a process of cumulative disadvantage in which the languages and their users are victimised and, at the same time, blamed for their own victimised status. In my analysis of multilingual societies around the world I have tried to show a pattern of hierarchy in a pyramidal structure, typically with a double divide – between the most dominant language(s) and the major languages, on the one hand, and between the major languages and ‘other’ languages, usually the indigenous, tribal, minority and minoritised (ITM) languages, on the other. This double divide has implications for how a multilingual society and education are organised. Vanishing Voices of Kond Women

For our fieldwork among the Kond communities and school children in Phulbani district of Odisha (India) in the early 1980s, we spent about a 70



Language, Power and Hierarchy: The Double Divide  71

week in one school for data collection before moving on to another school. Our research team often had to stay in one or two spare rooms in the residential schools. Each area had a weekly market for the local villagers and during our visits we had to wait for the weekly market day to buy provisions. The local markets were festive places; almost all the villagers, colourfully dressed men, women and children, went to buy their provisions and also to sell their products – agricultural and forest products, handicrafts, handwoven clothes, hand-crafted agricultural tools, livestock and a few other goods. There were also small vendors and traders from towns who sold manufactured goods such as soaps and low-cost cosmetics, fancy dresses and dress materials, some toys, aluminium and brass cooking ware, and other consumer items. Sweets and snack shops were popular with women and children, while men spent time in the shops vending locally fermented alcoholic drinks made from mahua (Madhuca indica) petals, seasonally collected from the forest, and also from rice. Whatever a Kond family had to sell in the market would be carried there by the adult male member, but then the woman would take over the sale. The language of market trans­ action was Kui in the Kui-speaking areas of the district; even the outside traders spoke some Kui or engaged a local helper who provided menial and communicative support. Buyers like us with no or limited proficiency in Kui had to manage communication with the Kui-speaking Kond women sellers who always had the last word in the bargain since they had the power of communication in their language. It served their purpose to speak Kui even if quite a few of them, except those from remote or less accessible areas, could speak Odia as a second language. Over the long course of the studies, though, we noticed a gradual decline in the use of Kui, particularly among the women, and, by around 2007, Kui had disappeared from the marketplace. The Kond women sellers still spoke Kui in their home and village, but it had become an unspoken norm to use Odia for market trans­actions. The traders from the neighbouring state Andhra Pradesh could now manage using some Hindi and Telugu. In three decades, Kui had been pushed out of the market domain; the Kond women sellers have lost their language in the marketplace and, along with it, their power of bargaining and their economy. Kui, the indigenous language of the Konds, is no longer an economic resource. Disadvantaged Languages in a Multilingual Society

Maintenance of mother tongues and bilingualism in situations of language contact in a multilingual society fosters intellectual and educational development of children, as the Kond studies show (see Chapter 3). One expects all languages in a multilingual society to be developed, as social resources enriching the multilingual and multicultural mosaic. Stable maintenance of languages needs to be associated with recognition

72  The Multilingual Reality

of their inherent sufficiency and equality. Languages differ in their formal and structural properties; but they serve the communicative needs of their users in equally functional manners. No language is inherently deficient, illogical or primitive (Mohanty, 1990c). Edwards refutes the deficit view of language in the following way: Any deficit view of language is incorrect: no language, or language variety, has been shown to be more accurate, logical or capable of expression than another. Further, it is wrong to claim that some variations constrain basic intellectual or cognitive functioning. Rather, different language groups and sub-groups develop speech patterns that differ in their modes of expression, vocabulary and pronunciation. (Edwards, 2010: 117)

Disadvantages, usually associated with minor and minority languages, are socially constructed through a chain of unequal treatments in multi­lingual societies. In India, the ITM language users are further disadvantaged since they are generally from poor, rural and ‘backward’ segments of society. Multiple associations between these languages and disadvantage con­ tribute to their powerlessness and insufficiency. Statutory discrimination and language disadvantage

Discriminatory state policies and practices in respect of languages are responsible for the powerlessness and loss of ITM languages (SkutnabbKangas, 2000). In India, constitutional and statutory recognition of some languages and neglect of many others institutionalise linguistic inequality by creating several layers of languages for different official and quasi-official purposes. As mentioned in Chapter 2, the constitution of India recognises Hindi as the official language1 of the Union of India.2 English is recognised as an additional official language of the Union. The constitution lists in Schedule VIII only 22 of the Indian languages (including Hindi) as official languages (see Table 2.1, p. 19) for all communication between the states as well as between the states and the Union. The constitution provides for the states to declare additional languages as official languages of the state. A large number of mother tongues declared by the people as their language are grouped in the census reports somewhat arbitrarily (and politically) under the 22 scheduled languages. For example, 49 mother tongues (each with more than 10,000 speakers) are listed under Hindi. Further, at least 147 unnamed ‘other mother tongues’ (each with fewer than 10,000 speakers) are also grouped under Hindi. Bhojpuri, which is recognised as a language in Nepal and in Mauritius, is listed as a mother tongue under Hindi. Besides Bhojpuri, which has over 33 million speakers, 26 mother tongues with at least 1 million speakers each are grouped under Hindi. It should be noted that Maithili was grouped as a mother tongue under Hindi till 2003 but is now one of the scheduled languages. If other



Language, Power and Hierarchy: The Double Divide  73

mother tongues with a large number of speakers such as Bhojpuri are taken out of Hindi and declared as scheduled or separate languages like Maithili, Hindi would be reduced to a minority status in several states now considered part of the Hindi zone. More than 1% of India’s population do not even have their mother tongue declarations listed in the census reports. In the census of India of 2001, more than 1957 mother tongues were not even named but grouped under ‘other mother tongues’, since the number of speakers of these languages failed to reach an arbitrary criterion of more than 10,000. Statutory discrimination against languages is evident in socio-­ economic, educational, judicial and other spheres of activity. At the national level, English and Hindi are privileged, with widespread use as languages of administration, trade and commerce, law and judiciary; at the regional and state levels, majority languages are privileged as the official languages of the states, used mostly along with English, for all major state activities of governance and economy. Besides these languages with official status at different levels, some other languages are recognised for specific purposes such as literary awards and ethnic or folk activities. Many other languages, ITM languages in particular, are deprived of such recognition and privileges. Educational neglect of languages

Discriminatory treatment of languages is most visible and consequential in the educational use of languages, which is vital to language maintenance (Fishman, 1991; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). Apart from English and the 22 scheduled official languages, very few figure as languages of education. In fact, the number of languages used in Indian schools as languages of classroom teaching/learning or as language subjects in the curriculum is on the decline, and it is now down to less than half of what it was in 1970. India is not alone in showing this pattern of linguistic discrimination; ITM languages all over the world are subjected to it (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). In dominantly monolingual societies, the discrimination is more directly manifest, whereas in most multilingual societies (including India) there seems to be some kind of duality in declared and de facto policies (Shohamy, 2010) which leads to the same fate for the ITM languages as in monolingual societies, albeit in very different ways. At one level, ITM languages appear to be maintained; at another level, they are invisibilised by being pushed out of major domains of use, including education. ITM languages are marginalised to an extent which eventually affects the chances of their intergenerational transmission and survival. The irony of ‘maintenance’ of ITM languages in multilingual societies is their pro­ gress­ive invisibilisation. I will discuss the intergroup and social processes of marginalisation and maintenance of ITM languages in Chapter 5.

74  The Multilingual Reality

Marginalisation of ITM Languages and the Illusion of Maintenance

The displacement of the Kui language from the weekly markets in Phulbani district in Odisha illustrates how ITM languages are progressively pushed out of many domains of contact with the dominant languages of power. In her study among the Saora tribe in Gajapati district, also in Odisha, Panda (2004, 2007) noted extensive use of the Saora language and the Saora number system in the weekly market transactions in the rural Saora-speaking areas. She pointed out that the use of Saora and traditional knowledge systems empowered the people of the community in the marketplace. Such use is now on the decline. Most of the indigenous languages of the tribes in India exist only in the domains of home and in-group or community-level communication. Usually in multilingual societies, either there is complete shift of ITM languages or, as in India, there is progressive domain shrinkage and marginalisation, which are associ­ated with displacement of the languages from domains of resource, opportunity and power. Annamalai (2014: 3) writes of the ‘functional reduction of languages’ leading to situations in which a language is used for only limited purposes: ‘such a language survives but does not live’. The ‘natural’ bilingualism among the ITM speakers in situations of contact with dominant languages is more common among these speakers than among the members of the dominant contact language group (Abbi, 2008). Contact bilingualism is often seen as a first incremental step towards multilingualism in a larger society, facilitating communication links between different linguistic communities (see Chapter 2). However, the asymmetry in the incidence of such bilingualism among the dominant and dominated contact communities is indicative of a power hierarchy and it can be viewed as facilitating displacement of the dominated language from many domains of mutual contact. Bilingualism of the linguistic minorities in monolingual societies and among the ITM language communities in contact with dominant language communities is a likely strategy for minimising conflict and ensuring survival of the dominated languages in non-competitive domains. There is a parallel between such survival s­ trategies for ITM languages and the well known ‘anti-predatory ­strategies’ of threatened species in the sociobiology of an animal habitat (Mohanty, 2006, 2010a). When the survival of animals of subordinate species is threatened by the more powerful predators, the threatened animals engage in some typical antipredatory behaviour that gives them a strategic advantage and enhances their chances of survival. Such anti-predatory behaviours usually involve withdrawal into areas of limited access, low visibility and low resources, less preferred by the predators. For example, the widespread coral fish (Pemphris oualensis) escapes the attack of predators by withdrawing to well shaded holes, coral passages and caves. These hiding places restrict



Language, Power and Hierarchy: The Double Divide  75

their freedom of movement, limit their access to resources and even expose them to the danger of smaller predatory fish, but is used as a strategy because it nonetheless increases the chances of survival. In many such instances in the animal world, weaker animals survive by voluntary or instinctual curtailment of their own freedom and by withdrawal into areas that are less accessible and have fewer resources (Wilson, 1975). The commonly noted ‘maintenance’ of minor and indigenous languages in contact with major languages in Indian multilingualism is, ironically, comparable to the survival of weaker animals through antipredatory behaviour. In the face of onslaught from the dominant contact languages, most of the ITM languages seem to gradually withdraw into domains of lesser socio-economic significance. Bilingualism of tribal and other minority communities is adapted through a process by which indigenous languages are restricted to domains of lesser significance, power and visibility. It seems that a rapid language shift is averted through such ‘anti-predatory’ strategies3 in situations of contact, making multilingual societies appear to be maintenance oriented. In reality, however, main­ tenance of language only in the home and in-group domains does not completely stop the process of language shift – it only slows the process. Endangerment of many tribal languages in India is, in fact, related to a gradual decline in the rate of intergenerational transmission and the growing proportion of young children not learning their indigenous mother tongues. Therefore, the sociolinguistic view that in multilingual societies, as in India, language maintenance is the norm and language shift a deviation needs to be critically examined and qualified. With prolonged marginalised maintenance, the chances of revitalisation remain a possibility, but, at the same time, progressive loss of domains of use and decline in instrumental vitality4 leads to the impoverishment of ITM languages and loss of linguistic diversity. Impoverishment of ITM languages due to prolonged neglect and domain shrinkage is a cumulative process. The Vicious Circle of Language Disadvantage

Unfortunately, the weakness of the ITM languages, which is an outcome of long-term neglect, is used by policy-makers to justify further neglect. In India, educational use of tribal languages is shunned partly because these languages are deemed inadequate and too weak to be used as languages of formal education. I have often encountered senior bureau­crats and policy-makers in India who believe that tribal languages are not languages but ‘dialects’ because they do not have any indigenous or exclusive writing system. When told that a writing system is not an essential characteristic of a language and any of the writing systems can be used to write any language and that many major languages, such as English and French, are written in borrowed writing systems, such as Roman script, they reluctantly agree but still insist that the tribal ‘dialects’

76  The Multilingual Reality

The vicious circle

Educational and social neglect

Justification of further neglect

Indigenous/minority languages

Weakening of languages

Figure 4.1  The vicious circle of language disadvantage

are not suitable for teaching sciences, mathematics and other subjects in formal education. Stigmatisation of ITM languages as dialects is a global phenomenon and is common in multilingual societies. The prolonged neglect of ITM languages perpetuates a vicious circle of language dis­ advantage (Mohanty, 2013a, 2017; Mohanty et al., 2009a), as shown in Figure 4.1. Gross socio-economic and educational neglect leads to loss of instrumental vitality and cumulative weakness of ITM languages. With such loss of instrumental vitality, there is dissociation between the perceived instrumental and integrative functions of these languages. In Chapter 5, I will discuss our sociolinguistic surveys in Kui–Odia contact situations in Odisha which show that, in contexts of language contact, the dominant languages tend to take over instrumental functions, whereas the dominated languages may be considered necessary for integrative reasons. In any case, ITM languages, pushed out of use in significant socio-economic, educational and cultural domains over a long period, become weak and progressively restricted to particular domains. Chen (2010) shows how such cumulative weakness and loss of instrumental functions happened to Taiwanese languages when a Mandarin-only National Language Policy was imposed in 1946 by the Martial Law in Taiwan. Prohibition of Taiwanese languages in education and other public domains hampered their development. The Martial Law was lifted in 1987 and the language policy was liberalised to allow use of the indigenous languages in education



Language, Power and Hierarchy: The Double Divide  77

and other activities. However, as Chen (2010) points out, the actual use of these languages decreased, since the languages had become weak and large-scale language shift had happened in favour of Mandarin during the four decades of suppression of the use of these languages. Languages are important cultural tools for transmission of traditional knowledge systems in different spheres of activities of the language communities. When ITM languages are kept out of use in these spheres, the indigenous knowledge systems are endangered and languages weakened. Most of the ITM languages in the world today are subjected to the vicious circle of cumulative disadvantage and the gap between the dominant and the dominated languages continues to increase. Language, Power and Hierarchy in Multilingualism

The hierarchy of power and privileges associated with languages affects the fate of dominated language users and their chances of upward social mobility and development of capabilities. But it is also necessary to note that in normal day-to-day activities in grassroots-level multi­lingual contexts this hierarchy is not always visible, since in such situations languages are freely used, often without any overt signs of coercion or conflict. Even when a less powerful ITM language is pushed out of use in a specific domain, such as the marketplace, common people of the ITM language community usually seem to show some degree of openness to using the dominant contact language(s). This is at least partly because, with early multilingual socialisation, the norms of preference for a dominant language in certain domains are internalised by the ITM language users and perceived as legitimate. Further, the greater incidence of contact bi­lingualism among the ITM communities compared with the speakers of the dominant languages makes their use of the dominant language appear to be unconstrained and natural. The ‘free choice’ argument often advanced to account for the progressively limited use of ITM language and greater use of a dominant language is problematic, though, since it ignores the underlying dynamics of such ‘choice’. While languages and their speakers in multilingual societies may appear to be in harmony with the hierarchical positioning of languages in the society, the ‘choice’ of languages in different domains of use is deeply rooted in the discriminatory state policies and practices in respect of languages. The homogenising impact of state policies

The hierarchical treatment of languages and discrimination against ITM languages, as I have shown in the case of India, start with the statutory identification of some languages as ‘national’ and/or ‘official’, with associated privileges. With the growth of modern nation states and the presumption of one language for one nation, there is a tendency

78  The Multilingual Reality

to homogenise diversity by imposition of one or few of the languages for purposes of governance and other major state activities, including education (see Kalan, 2016: ch. 3). There are two types of state policies in respect of identification of the preferred language(s) for specific purposes of nation states. Mostly in dominant monolingual societies, such as France, the UK, Japan and the USA, there are unwritten but binding provisions and practices establishing a clear priority for one language; the position of other languages is politic­ ally debated, sometimes leading to some concessions such as limited use of the language(s) of certain minority communities. On the other hand, in most multilingual societies, particularly the post-colonial ones such as India, South Africa and most of the countries in Africa and South Asia, there are written constitutional or statutory provisions for the use of one or a few languages for official, educational and other state purposes while many other languages, ITM languages in particular, are neglected. The chosen languages of privilege invariably include the language of the colon­ isers. Thus, the state policies and plans for languages may be divergent in different societies, but the net impact seems to be practices which make it difficult for the ITM languages to develop; linguistic diversity is a casualty in the world of modern nation states. Dominance and hierarchy: A cursory look at the multilingual world

As I have pointed out, the constitution of India groups languages into categories – official, associate official and scheduled – for use in most spheres of governance, with some concessionary provisions for (other) ITM languages. This has clearly discriminated among the languages, creating and institutionalising a hierarchical relationship among languages in Indian society. Discriminatory treatment of languages in the constitutional and statutory provisions and, often, in the unwritten but binding conventions in the acts of governance seems to be a common feature of language policies around the world. Such policies are causes as well as consequences of the social positioning of languages and their power. In this section I take a cursory look at how languages are broadly placed in selected parts of the world. Work by de Varennes (1996) and SkutnabbKangas and Dunbar (2010) gives details of languages in the constitutions of many countries. de Varennes and Kuzborska (2016) discuss different international treaties in respect of the linguistic rights of minorities and analyse the provisions in international laws pertaining to mother tongue education of minorities. Africa

The post-apartheid South African constitution (Republic of South Africa, 1996) accords official status to 11 languages: English, Afrikaans and nine major South African languages – isiNdebele, Sesotho, Sepedi,



Language, Power and Hierarchy: The Double Divide  79

SiSwati, Xitsonga, Setswana, Tshivenda, isiXhosa and isiZulu. English is clearly dominant in all spheres, while the languages outside official recognition remain deprived. The growing influence of English in all spheres of South African society is seen as a drift ‘towards unilingualism in English’ (Kamwangamalu, 2013: 809). In the rest of Africa, the colonial languages dominate and the indigenous languages are relegated to lesser positions (Bamgbose, 2000; Makalela, 2015). As Makalela (2016) points out, typically, Africa is characterised by the dominance of the former colonial languages – English (in Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania and Zimbabwe), French (in the Congo) and Portuguese (in Angola and ­Mozambique) – recognised as an official language and favoured in education in post-primary, secondary and higher education. In his review of multilingualism in Southern African countries, K ­ amwangamalu (2013) suggests that the former colonial languages – English or Portuguese – remain the main language in each country in the region and monolingual education in these dominant languages is the norm. He points out that even when bilingual education is practised in countries such as Lesotho and Malawi, it is subtractive, not additive. Brock-Utne also expresses concern about the imposition of a foreign language in African nations: A state policy dictating that a foreign language, which does not belong to the repertoire of the speakers of a multitude of African languages, is the language of instruction in schools clearly works to the disadvantage of most African learners. While the children of the elites can cope in this system, the masses of African children cannot. (Brock-Utne, 2017: 73) Asia

Earlier in this chapter, I have shown how the constitution of India positions English, major Indian languages and ITM languages in a hierarchy dominated by English. Our analysis (Mohanty & Panda, 2016b; Panda & Mohanty, 2015) of language policy in different South Asian countries shows a similar hierarchical positioning of languages, with English as the most dominant language. For instance, the constitution of Pakistan recognises Urdu as the national language and English as the official language. English is the most dominant language. Urdu and a few major languages like Punjabi and Sindhi are at the next level of the hierarchy while nearly 70 other indigenous languages remain neglected and marginalised (Rahman, 1998). It is striking that English and other major colonial languages continue to dominate in post-colonial societies; ironically, in face of the conflict of multiple indigenous linguistic identities and competition among indigenous languages for national recognition, the colonial language emerges as a ‘neutral’ language of preference (for an example, see Phillipson et al., 1985). Statutory recognition of English or another dominant colonial language and some of the major national

80  The Multilingual Reality

languages in the state policy of former colonies seems to be a common pattern across the globe, placing languages in a hierarchy with the colonial language at the top. Since 2011, Sri Lanka has had a tri­lingual policy of Sinhala, Tamil and English as the official languages and also languages in education (Panda & Mohanty, 2015). While national strategies and policies in respect of the three major languages are being evolved, English has a preferential position as a language of the elites. English does not have any formal ‘official’ status in the remaining South Asian countries – Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Nepal. But, as the preferred language of law, economy, governance and education, it is the language of power, privileged access to jobs and popular aspiration. The nationalist movement in Bangladesh for separation from Pakistan was inspired by Bengali nationalism and rejection of Urdu dominance. Bengali became the only official language of Bangladesh after its independence, but English dominates as the language of official use and popular choice in education and other public domains. Bengali wields some influence as the official language of Bangladesh and Urdu is the preferred language of use among the Islamic people. But nearly 39 ITM languages in Bangladesh remain neglected. All the languages in Nepal are recognised as national languages. Nepal has over 100 languages.5 Nepali is considered the national-level language and dominates public domains of use. It is also the most common language in the public system of education (Awasthi, 2004). But English is the most preferred language in private education. Provisions regarding the right to language and education in the 2015 constitution of Nepal6 proclaim a community’s right to use its language (Article 32(1)) and to education in its mother tongue up to secondary level (Article 31(5)). With these provisions, over 100 other regional- and community-level languages, which remained marginalised earlier, now have a statutory place in Nepalese society and education, although the popular demand for education in English is on the rise (Awasthi, personal communication). English has a similar position of dominance in Bhutan, which has 30 indigenous languages. Dzongkha is recognised as the national language of Bhutan (Article 1(8) of the constitution of Bhutan7). English is viewed as the language of power and global economy and it has a major place at all levels of education along with Dzongkha. The remaining 29 languages are marginalised, with very limited use except among the respective language communities and, sometimes, these languages are used in pre-primary and primary education to facilitate transition to Dzongkha and English (Mohanty & Panda, 2016b). Afghanistan, another country on the Indian subcontinent, specifies in its 2004 constitution8 (Article 16) Pashto and Dari as national languages and a few other languages, including Uzbeki, Turkmani, Pachaie, Nuristani, Baluchi and Pamiri, as a third statutory language for the provinces. But the preference for English is evident in education despite the national emphasis on Islamic education. The School Education



Language, Power and Hierarchy: The Double Divide  81

Curriculum Framework in Afghanistan mandates Dari and Pashto as languages of education with a priority to moving towards English as the language of instruction in higher education. In the 10th to 12th years of education, English is a language of the curriculum, along with Pashto and Dari (Mohanty & Panda, 2016b). Most Asian countries are highly multilingual, with many indigenous languages. But all these countries are characterised by the dominance of one or a few national-level languages and relative neglect of other languages. As in South Asia, in other Asian countries, particularly in Eastern and SouthEastern Asia, English is becoming increasingly emphasised. Countries in Eastern and South Eastern Asia have a growing prominence of English even as some major national languages dominate the national scenario at the cost of many neglected languages. In the People’s Republic of China, Mandarin Chinese of the Han majority group is the most dominant language and English is the new craze for the entire nation. Ethnologue (20th edition) shows 299 languages in China. However, according to Zhou (2016), with centuries of linguistic assimilation, only 130 languages are now spoken in China. Only 55 in­digen­ous minority communities are ­officially recognised (Feng & Adamson, 2015) and the languages of these communities are the ones with some scope for educational use in tri­lingual education programmes involving Chinese (Mandarin), English and the ethnic mother tongue. English has continued to gain in significance in China as a language of social and economic mobility (Zhao & Campbell, 1995) and as a school subject (Feng & Adamson, 2015). With an official policy of English in education from grade 3 onwards and a rapid growth in the number of learners of English (Bolton & Graddol, 2012), English is now the language of major focus in Chinese education. English-language bilingual and trilingual programmes, however, are contested by some Chinese scholars on the grounds of legal provisions mandating the use of Chinese (Mandarin) in education and the possible negative impact of English on indigenous cultures, mother tongues and identities (Feng & Adamson, 2015). The situations in Taiwan, Macao and Hong Kong are similar. English and Chinese are the official languages in Hong Kong.9 No particular variety of Chinese is identified as the official language, but over 90% speak Cantonese (Zhou, 2016). Taiwan has 25 languages listed in the 20th edition of Ethnologue. Mandarin Chinese is the dominant language and English is increasingly important in education. English is taught as a language subject from grade 3 in public education and is the language of teaching in private schools. Lifting of the Martial Law in 1987 in Taiwan led to promotion of English and a drive for ‘internationalisation’ of Taiwan to make English a part of Taiwanese life. English is now a compulsory subject in elementary education and a medium of instruction in part of the higher-education curriculum. There is now a national project to promote the development of general English proficiency among the Taiwanese people (Chen, 2010).

82  The Multilingual Reality

Macao was a Portuguese colony for over 400 years. Till 1987, Portuguese was the sole official language. Subsequently Chinese10 was added as the second official language. Ethnologue (20th edition) shows six languages in Macao, of which Portuguese, English and Cantonese Chinese are the dominant languages in education. There is a wide range in the numbers of languages in a country within Southeast Asia, from as many as 719 in Indonesia to 15 in Brunei Darussalam (Ethnologue, 20th edition). Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, Myanmar and Vietnam have more than 100 languages each. All these countries, though, have just one to three dominant languages with a significant role in the state policies and practices; the remaining indigenous languages do not have much support from the state. Colonial languages – English and Portuguese – have a dominant presence in Southeast Asia. East Timor has 21 languages listed in the 20th edition of Ethnologue. Portuguese is the dominant language; it is the official language along with Tetum. Tetum is recognised as the lingua franca and the national language. English and Bahasa Indonesia have official status as working languages in East Timor. English is gaining in significance, particularly as a language in school education, across Southeast Asia. English has official status in Brunei, Singapore and the Philippines and has a significant presence in education in Malaysia. In addition to the dominant presence of English (and Portuguese in East Timor), teaching of the dominant national language to minorities is a common pattern in Southeast Asia (Benson & Kosonen, 2012). According to Kosonen (2016), imposition of the official or dominant language in educational practice despite protective and pluralistic written language policies is a characteristic feature of Southeast Asian countries. Central Asian countries continue under the dominance of the Russian language, although one national language in each country – Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Tajiki, Turkmen and Northern Uzbek in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, respectively – is the major language (along with Russian) dominating many minority languages, their approximate number ranging from six (Kyrgyzstan) to 14 (Kazakhstan) (20th edition of Ethnologue). Similarly, in most parts of Western Asia, some variety of Arabic is the dominant language, while English is rapidly becoming a language of preference. Many minority languages in the region are ignored in state practices and education. In some countries and regions other languages like Turkish, Hebrew, Armenian and Persian are languages of dominance. Most of the countries in the region are characterised by the dominance of one of the national languages and a growing influence of English. When one looks at the rest of the world, particularly the highly multi­ lingual regions of Europe, Africa, Latin America and Oceania, one finds the same trends of a hierarchical sociolinguistic structure of dominant and dominated languages with some international/colonial language occupying a prominent place in the hierarchy.



Language, Power and Hierarchy: The Double Divide  83

Latin America

Latin America has more than 500 indigenous languages (Lopez, 2015), dominated by Spanish and other European and colonial languages. Mexico alone has 281 indigenous languages (Ethnologue, 20th edition). Only 68 of these are recognised as national indigenous languages and others are either placed under major languages or left out. Despite official programmes for the promotion of indigenous languages, including inter­ cultural bilingual education, indigenous languages in Latin America continue to be displaced by Spanish and other dominant languages (Escobar, 2013; Sayer & López Gopar, 2015). At one level, the declared language policies of Latin American states appear to promote pluralism and, at another level, the actual practices are discriminatory. In discussing the education of indigenous people in Latin America, Lopez (2015: 592) speaks of the neglect of the language and culture of indigenous people: In recent decades, laws on education relevant to Indigenous culture, language and identity have been enacted, but have hardly been implemented. There are yawning gaps between policy and practice regarding the implementation of intercultural bilingual education. Politically and theoretically sound positions aligned with the ideal of cultural pluralism and of diversity as a resource do not necessarily match what one encounters at operational levels. Discrepancies can be abysmal and administrators, school principals and teachers in indigenous settings continue working towards monoculturalism and monolingualism (Lopez, 2013). Oceania

Lo Bianco (2015: 605) writes of the return to ‘English-centred policies’ in Papua New Guinea and other countries across Oceania. The region has over 1200 indigenous languages, seven creoles and pidgins, two colonial languages – English and French – and six major immigrant languages (Lo Bianco, 2015). Australia has 215 living languages and 44 immigrant languages (Ethnologue, 20th edition). It has a multilingual policy with large numbers of bilingual education programmes involving indigenous languages, but the high status of English has affected the success of these programmes. English, Māori and Sign language are official languages of Aotearoa/New Zealand. There has been a strong language revitalisation programme for Māori11 following the Māori Language Act of 1987. English, however, continues to be the dominant language (Benton, 1996, 2007). Papua New Guinea (PNG) is the world’s most linguistically diverse country, with 840 living languages (Ethnologue, 20th edition) and it ­officially claims recognition of over 800 languages in education (Lo Bianco, 2015). According to Lo Bianco (2015: 611), ‘English occupies an unassailed diglossic position as a code of elite functions, in national formal politics, higher education, high-level and international commerce, mainstream media, and most professions, especially the judiciary and legal domains

84  The Multilingual Reality

generally, except policing’. Similar diglossic separation between English and Samoan is noted in Samoa, with ‘English as H and Samoan as L’ (Lo Bianco, 2015: 614). Europe

Europe is a combination of several dominant monolingual or bilingual regions diversified by the inflow of many immigrant languages during the last 60–70 years. The multilingual character of Europe (as also the USA, Australia and other high-immigration regions) is sustained by a regular inflow of immigrants from all over the world. But, as Tabouret-Keller (2013) notes, for each generation of migrant communities, the dominant language of the host country in Europe takes over the immigrant language in three to four generations and multilingualism in the immigrant families ends. This process of language shift in immigrant families is gradually becoming faster, according to Tabouret-Keller (2013). The official policy of the European Union (EU) promotes diversity and multi­lingualism and several strategies are adopted to promote tri­ lingualism. The conclusions from the European Council, 2002, Barcelona, recommended teaching at least two foreign languages from a very early age (Council of the European Union, 2002). The Eurydice (2017) report on the teaching of languages at schools in Europe showed that 83.8% of all primary education students learn at least one foreign language and at least 90% of all lower secondary students learn English. According to that report, English is a compulsory subject in schools in half of educational systems in Europe and nearly all students learn English. An earlier Euro­ barometer survey (European Commission, 2012) in EU member states shows that 79% perceive English to be the most useful language.12 The growing influence of English in Europe (Phillipson, 2003) restricts the chances of other languages being learnt (Cenoz & Gorter, 2015). The USA and Canada

The USA is clearly an English-dominant country with a high degree of linguistic diversity attributable to a large number of Native American languages and languages of immigrants from different parts of the world. Ethnologue (20th edition) reports 231 languages for the USA, whereas the American Community Survey of the US Census Bureau (Ryan, 2013) reports 381 languages in 2011. The discrepancy is perhaps due to the inclusion of all the immigrant languages in the Community Survey. Ethnologue lists the immigrant languages separately. Mackey (2013) estimates that 10–15% of the speakers of English have competence in another language.13 According to Mackey, the incidence of bilingualism in the USA is unlikely to decrease. This, however, does not show that individual or community bilingualism continues unabated in the USA; as TabouretKeller (2013) points out in the case of Europe, the dominant language takes over and there is a language shift in the immigrant families in about



Language, Power and Hierarchy: The Double Divide  85

three to four generations. Thus, the US national figures for bilingualism are more a reflection of the periodic inflow of new immigrants than a high degree of language maintenance in the immigrant families and communities. The USA does not have a national language policy and English is not a declared official language. But several states have declared English to be an official state language.14 In recent years, there seems to be some ‘ambivalence’ between pluralistic and assimilative approaches to linguistic diversity in the USA (Palmer et al., 2015), but the predominance of English and its pressure on the non-English languages and communities – immigrants as well as Native Americans – is unmistakable. Wright and Ricento (2016) show that language-in-education policy in the USA has changed over the years in respect of bilingual education for both ITM children and majority children. The Bilingual Education (BE) Act of 1968 introduced bilingual support programmes for students unfortunately labelled ‘English non-proficient’ and it mostly supported transitional approaches (Wright & Ricento, 2016). This was followed by an anti-BE wave and a ban of BE in California, Arizona and Massachusetts, and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, by which ‘all direct references to “bilingual education” were stripped from federal education law’ (Wright & Ricento, 2016: 4). The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 sought to undo some of the limiting features of the NCLB and introduced some flexibility into the language education programmes for children with proficiency in their mother tongue but viewed as having ‘limited proficiency in English’.15 Despite the overt changes in the language policy in education in the USA, development of high levels of proficiency in English has always been considered a priority, at the cost of development of proficiency in children’s mother tongue. The English-dominant approach to diversity has resulted in the assimilation of Native American communities and shift of the Native languages of USA. The American Community Survey, 2011, of the US Census Bureau (Ryan, 2013) shows the presence of 169 Native languages out of approximately 300 before colonisation. The Survey shows that only 20% of the 65+ age group of the American Indians or the Alaska Natives speak a Native language at home; this figure declines to 10% in the 5–17-year age group, and the younger generation is clearly showing a rapid assimilation into English. It is, therefore, not surprising that 192 languages in the USA are in the endangered category, according to UNESCO’s World Atlas of Languages in Danger (http://www.unesco. org/culture/en/endangeredlanguages/atlas, accessed 17 November 2017). Concern about the rapid language shift in the USA and Canada involving Native or Aboriginal languages has been expressed by many (e.g. Bear Nicholas, 2009; McCarty, 2009; Ricento, 2015). Bear Nicholas (2009) shows that 29% of the Aboriginal people in Canada spoke an Aboriginal language in 1996 and this figure declined to 24% in 2001. She attributes the decline to the forced submersion education of Aboriginal children into dominant-language instruction in public

86  The Multilingual Reality

schools, along with other factors of language shift. Ethnologue (20th edition) shows 94 languages in Canada, out of which 77 are in­digen­ous. Prior to colonisation, there were about 63 languages of the First Nations people in Canada (Bear Nicholas, 2009); only 50 survive now (Ricento, 2015, citing Norris, 2007). Ricento (2015) shows that 87.4% of the Aboriginal population had an Aboriginal language as the mother tongue in 1951; this figure came down to 29.3% in 1981 and 21% in 2001. Again, the negative impact of dominant-language policy on ITM languages is clear in the case of Canada. The Official Language Act of 1969 declared English and French as the official languages of Canada and the Official Languages in Education Programme (OLEP) emphasised learning of the two languages. However, as Ricento (2015) points out, OLEP has not made much difference; the shift to English continues except in Quebec. Canada is an officially bilingual country with two monolingual populations; French–English bilingualism is decreasing (Ricento, 2015), more so in the Anglophone regions. Languages in the multilingual world: A recurrent pattern of hierarchy

The above broad analysis of the hierarchical structure of languages in multilingual societies shows a dominant presence of a powerful language, usually a colonial language like English or, in some cases, a major national language, at the top of the hierarchy. The hierarchy is characterised by a double divide, two major power cleavages – one between the most powerful language and the major national/regional languages, and the other between these regional languages and the ITM languages. The languages in the middle rung are under pressure from the language(s) at the top of the hierarchy, and are gradually pushed out of significant domains of use such as education. At the same time, these dominant regional languages at the middle level also exert shift pressure on the ITM languages, displacing them from the public domains of use and marginalising them in a vicious circle of weakness and neglect (Figure 4.1). Given the low vitality of ITM languages and disadvantaged conditions of their speakers, the rate of domain shrinkage and marginalisation is much higher for these languages than for the major languages higher up in the hierarchy. The economic value of languages in multilingual societies is linked to the power of these languages, which are hierarchically distributed. Access to privileges and instrumental benefits of using a language are associated with its relative position in the hierarchy. Ironically, the most powerful language in multilingual societies usually has a relatively small number of users. In India, less than 0.02% have English as their first language or mother tongue, and only about 10% know English through formal education (Mohanty, 2017). All the major regional languages of India,



Language, Power and Hierarchy: The Double Divide  87

constitutionally recognised as official languages, have a larger share of the population, but they are less powerful than English. In South Asian countries and in all the former British colonies, English is an exogenously imposed language with a very small number of native speakers. The number of people knowing English through formal education is growing in these countries, but such people still constitute a minority and, often, are in smaller numbers than the native speakers of indigenous languages of the country. And still English is the language of power. The other colonial languages, such as French and Spanish, have a similar impact in former colonies. Analysing the pattern of use of different languages in the European Union, Phillipson (2003) predicted a dominant role for English in Europe. The Eurydice (2017) report on the place of English in European education, discussed above, confirms Phillipson’s prediction. Cenoz and Gorter (2015: 478) report that English has become ‘the most commonly taught language in Europe’. The teaching of English is gradually moving to earlier school years, and even to preschool years in some cases. In India, more than 40% of school students are in Englishmedium schools and the number of such schools is growing by about 10% every year (Mohanty, 2017). As I have discussed in Chapter 2, the natural ecology of languages in multilingual societies is characterised by an unmarked and equitable distri­ bution of languages in different domains of use. However, as ­Phillipson (1992), Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) and many others point out, there are larger forces at work at the local, national and global levels which affect the equitable positioning of languages by imposed hierarchies. Sociopolitical and economic forces bring about changes at the grassroots level and obliterate the relationship between languages. The local economy of the weekly marketplaces in the Kui-speaking village areas in Phulbani, Odisha, for example, are progressively affected by the global economy, which takes the initiative away from the small farmers and producers and the demography of the weekly markets changes, with the increasing presence of external traders. The Kui woman who previously used her language to increase her bargaining power in market transactions (see Chapter 3) can no longer afford to let her language affect her chances in the changing context in which Odia, Hindi, Telugu and English become dominant languages associ­ated with the economic power of rich outside traders. Desperation for economic survival in the new dynamics of a competitive market seems to have motivated a change in the Kui-speaking women’s pattern of language use. Economic control at the wider levels and, along with it, dominance of the languages of the economically more powerful traders, demographic changes in the local contexts with the greater presence of upwardly mobile business classes and socio-political changes affected by global economic control do shift the nature of multi­ lingualism from equity to hierarchy of languages and widens the gap between the power of local ITM languages and the dominant ones.

88  The Multilingual Reality

The Double Divide in Multilingualism

In post-colonial countries there is a power gap between the dominant colonial language at top of the hierarchy and the major regional languages, and a second gap between these regional languages and the ITM languages. In her studies in India on how English is taught in different types of institutions to English-medium and Gujarati-medium students, Ramanathan (2005a, 2005b) pointed out that the different strategies in these institutions reflected the English–vernacular divide. Characterising the sociolinguistic divide as a hierarchical power divide, Mohanty (2010a; Mohanty et al., 2010) noted the second power divide, that between major regional languages (called vernaculars during the British rule in India) and ITM languages. This divide can be called the vernacular–ITM language divide or vernacular–other divide. The double divide in hierarchical multi­lingualism is shown in Figure 4.2. According to Annamalai (1986, 2001), Indian multilingualism is ‘bifocal, existing both at the mass level and elite level’ (2001: 35). Multi­ lingualism of the elites in India usually involves knowledge and use of English, mostly learned through formal education and use of other major regional languages. Mass or folk multilingualism, on the other hand, involves natural or informal multilingualism at the grassroots level acquired through language contact among the speakers of major regional and/or ITM languages. Thus, there are characteristic differences in multi­ lingualism between the English-knowing elites and the grassroots folks, ordinary people. Such differences correspond to the divide between English

Dominant languages Dominant language–vernacular divide or vernacular Major national languages (‘vernaculars)

Vernacular–Other language divide Indigenous, tribal, minority and minoritised (ITM) languages

Figure 4.2  The double divide in multilingualism



Language, Power and Hierarchy: The Double Divide  89

and other languages in India. Similar patterns, with elite bi­lingualism/ multi­ lingualism involving formal learning of a dominant colonial language along with natural acquisition of a native language and other indigenous languages through language contact are common all over the world. This is contrasted with grassroots mass multilingualism acquired through language contact, common in multilingual settings. Both elite and mass bilingualism/multilingualism are typical in post-colonial countries. Although mass or folk multilingualism is widespread, the multilingualism of the elites through formal education in the dominant colonial language is associated with greater prestige and privilege. The double divide leads to many such divergent patterns of language learning and use among individuals and communities in multilingual societies. The meaning and nature of the double divide and its actualisations in diverse contexts are socially constructed through various intrinsic and extrinsic processes through which languages are valued and sorted into different levels of a power hierarchy in a given society. They include complex sets of diverse socio-historical forces of linguistic imperialism, globalisation, economic and political processes in respect of languages and linguistic communities, dynamics of inter-cultural and inter-­ community relations, formation of social identity and ethnolinguistic vitality, forces of development and economy of the language communities and state policies and practices, to name only a few of myriads of factors. The power relations between languages and linguistic communities evolve through constant negotiation, resistance and contestation at different levels of multilingual societies and are transmitted through processes of language socialisation (Mohanty et al., 1999) by which children develop an early awareness of how languages are placed in society as well as implicit acceptance of the norms of the hierarchical power relationship of languages as legitimate. It should be pointed out that although the hierarchical organisation of languages in multilingual societies is characterised by two broad structural cleavages in the levels of power of languages located on different rungs of the hierarchy, there are also further divides in the power of languages within each of the three layers. Within the broad categories of the dominant, major and ITM languages in multilingual societies, it is possible to discern further differences in power and privileges associated with language use. The privileges associated with English as the most dominant language in India, for example, vary with the different levels of knowledge or learning of English. Mohanty (2010a, 2017; Mohanty & Panda, 2016a; see also Chapter 9) points to five different types of placement of English in schools across India which lead to different outcomes and privileges associated with learning of English. The power of English and the enabling role of learning English vary across different types of schools; Mohanty (2017) shows that the tribal children learning English in vernacular-medium public schools do not have the same privileges as those

90  The Multilingual Reality

learning English in the most prestigious English-medium schools. Formal education in the dominant colonial languages in post-colonial multi­ lingual societies leads to different power outcomes for people belonging to different socio-­economic segments of society. Similarly, within the major and ITM language categories, some languages and varieties can be seen as more prestigious and powerful than others. Complex conditions of social construction of languages in multilingual societies and processes of negotiation of linguistic identities seem to locate languages and varieties in layers of relative power and prestige –high and low, standard and nonstandard. However, for the purposes of our analysis of the broad features and implications of multilingualism, the double divide in the three-tiered hierarchy of languages is of significance for linguistic diversity, the future of languages and the development of linguistic communities. Implications of the double divide

Dominance of some powerful languages over others is a major factor in loss of linguistic diversity around the world. English and other dominant colonial languages have been called ‘killer languages’ (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000) in view of their adverse impact on the maintenance of less powerful languages. The spread of English is clearly linked to loss of linguistic diversity. By its control over socio-economic resources and the capacity to take over significant socio-economic functions from other languages, the dominant language in hierarchical multilingualism affects the language ecology of a society and disturbs the balance of complementarity among languages. In India, English is taking over major communicative functions in different socio-economic spheres, undermining the role of regional and ITM languages. Apart from the technology-driven domains of computer applications, the internet and the electronic and print media, many other domains of functioning, such as entertainment, trade and commerce, banking, travel and tourism, law and judiciary, aspects of governance and higher education, are almost completely dominated by English. As a result, regional majority languages are losing functional significance in many domains. This has given rise to apprehensions about these languages becoming weaker and about younger generations losing their competence in writing and reading skills and gradually their oral communication skills in these languages. A large number of urban middle- and upper-class children in India from regional or state majority language communities and educated in English-medium schools cannot read and write their parents’ mother tongue(s). At the same time, tribal languages in India are also threatened by the dominance of the state-level majority languages. With the imposed submersion education of tribal children in the regional majority languages, there are signs of loss of competence in the tribal languages and decline in inter-generational transmission. Strangely, the people who bother about the growing impact of English and the declining



Language, Power and Hierarchy: The Double Divide  91

standards of proficiency in the regional majority languages in India do not show similar concerns about the loss of tribal languages. The hierarchical pecking order in multilingual societies is initiated with the dominant languages gradually usurping instrumental values of the less powerful languages. In India, English is increasingly seen as the language which gives privileged access to higher and technical education, jobs and social mobility. Indian education makes competence in English a minimum condition for success. Perception of the relationship between English, educational success and access to jobs has reinforced the instrumental value of English in Indian society. Vernaculars or the major regional languages are considered necessary but insufficient for educational success; the ITM languages do not even figure in this relationship, since, albeit with a few exceptions, they have no place in formal education nor in employment. In multilingual societies, as in monolingual ones, proficiency in the dominant language enables success in education and access to jobs and other economic resources and privileges. The major regional languages in multilingual societies have some economic significance, although they often have to compete with the dominant language for access to specific economic benefits such as jobs. The ITM languages may have some instrumental value in limited zones of their operation and community-level domains such as participation in local governance. But the instrumental value of ITM languages is minimal compared with that of the regional majority languages, which, in turn, have much less instrumental value than the dominant language, at the top of the hierarchy. Thus, as one moves down the hierarchy, from the dominant to the regional majority and ITM languages, there is a sharp decline in the instrumental functions of language. Such disparity between languages in their instrumental significance has resulted in an unequal form of multilingualism, with dissociation between the perceived instrumental and integrative functions of languages. ITM languages, at the bottom of the double divide, may have high integrative significance but little instrumental value for their users. Our sociolinguistic surveys (Mohanty, 1994a; Mohanty & Parida, 1993) among the Kond tribes and non-tribal adults in Phulbani, discussed in Chapter 5, showed that the Kui and Odia languages were clearly separated in terms of their perceived instrumental value for education, employment and economic benefits. The double divide in multilingualism is related to the instrumental and integrative functions of languages at different levels of the hierarchy. A dominant or foreign language may be of instrumental value for its users. These users may perhaps not derive much integrative support from the language though, since in most cases, and particularly in post-colonial societies, it is not a language of national or community identity; it is a language with economic value in a globalised world but not one that supports the sense of belonging of a community. This is where there is a clear divide between the dominant language and the regional majority and

92  The Multilingual Reality

ITM languages. The languages on the middle and lower rungs are native languages for most of their speakers, giving them a sense of identity. Thus, in the hierarchy of languages in most multilingual societies, the most dominant language has instrumental significance but little integrative value. The regional majority and national languages, on the other hand, have some instrumental significance along with integrative value for their users. The ITM languages have minimal instrumental value for their users but, as identity markers, they are important for group identity and sense of community belongingness. With educational use, languages not only acquire instrumental value but also become more developed and strong. Use of a language in education facilitates continued use by cumulatively adding to its instrumental value and vitality. On the other side of this relationship between education and language, neglect of a language in education, as discussed above, weakens the language, deprives it of opportunities to develop and to acquire instrumental value. Discrimination and hierarchical positioning of languages in a multilingual society are reflected in schools. Panda and Mohanty discuss how the social inequalities in respect of languages are reproduced in the educational system in India: In the hierarchical power structure of languages in India, with a double divide between English and regional majority languages and between the regional majority languages and languages of the indigenous tribal minorities, languages in education can be seen as a basis of power, control, discrimination and perpetuation of inequalities through schools which, unfortunately, have become the institutionalised instruments for exclusion. Monolingual school practice in a multilingual society is the first step in this process of exclusion. (Panda & Mohanty, 2014: 113–114)

In most, if not all, countries, major languages at the national level have some presence in school education. But university education is in many countries dominated by a foreign/colonial or international language like English,16 while the languages of the indigenous peoples and even ­minorities are neglected in education. Expert papers for the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (Dunbar & Skutnabb-Kangas, 2008; Magga et al., 2005) and several writings of Skutnabb-Kangas (2000, 2015; Skutnabb-Kangas & Dunbar, 2010), the world’s leading expert on linguistic human rights (LHR), show how the neglect of ITM languages constitutes a violation of LHR in education and (linguistic) genocide according to the definitions of genocide in the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (see https:// treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%2078/volume-78-i-1021english.pdf). Skutnabb-Kangas (2015) sums up the adverse effects of a dominant language education on children of the ITM language communities:



Language, Power and Hierarchy: The Double Divide  93

It is clear that ITM children who have been taught in a dominant foreign language which they, at least initially, did not understand, have NOT had access to education, even if it should have been their basic human right. The result of this foreign- or dominant-language-medium education has in most cases been that they have not learned to read or write their own language; often their competence in the dominant language has not reached the level that dominant-language peers have; their school achievement at least at a group level have been low, and many have been ashamed of their language and culture, and have therefore not taught it to their children, in the mistaken belief that this would help the children. This vicious circle has also in most cases been the main reason for the present need for language revitalization. Those children who have succeeded as a group have done it despite the way their formal education has been organized, not because of it. (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2015: 193)

The linguistic double divide is reflected in the role of languages in education. The importance of languages in education varies with their position in the hierarchy. The dominant or the colonial/foreign language at the top of the hierarchy remains the most important language in education; other languages are seen only as soft routes to promotion of a high level of proficiency in the dominant language. Even when tribal or indigenous languages find a place in education, this is justified not as an end in itself, meaning as a self-evident linguistic human right, but as a means to facilitating learning of a regional majority language and, finally, to high proficiency in the dominant foreign language. This also explains why the number of languages gradually declines over the levels of education. Early education may yield a place for an indigenous language just because it is deemed necessary for the early learning and the development of pro­ficiency in other (more important) languages. Often, as pupils move beyond the primary level of education, the indigenous language (the mother tongue of tribal/indigenous children) is dropped. The regional majority languages are also dropped by the time of higher education (beyond the school years); higher, technical and university education in many parts of the world today is in a dominant international language like English. It seems that the double divide in multilingual societies is critical in understanding the processes of discrimination against ITM languages, the role of formal education as an instrument perpetuating inequalities and the loss of linguistic diversity in the world. Notes (1) Hindi is sometimes wrongly labelled the ‘national’ (rather than ‘official’) language of India. Indeed, some label both Hindi and English (see Bhatia & Ritchie, 2013: 846–847) ‘national’ languages. But the Indian constitution does not recognise any language as the national language. (2) Article 343(1) of the constitution of India states: ‘The official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script’. English is not an ‘official’ language of India; it is

94  The Multilingual Reality

usually referred to as an associate or additional official language. Article 343(2) of the constitution initially provided for English ‘to be used for all the official purposes of the Union’ (in addition to Hindi) for a period of 15 years from the commencement of the constitution (i.e. till 25 January 1965). Later, a constitutional amendment lifted this time limitation, allowing the indefinite continuation of English as an additional official language. (3) Use of animal imagery and biological metaphors to capture human linguistic processes may be seen as problematic. But, against the backdrop of a growing body of literature relating linguistic and cultural diversity to biodiversity, the metaphor of anti-predatory strategies, drawn from sociobiology, seems to aptly characterise the plight of en­dangered languages, besides being appropriate to the imagery invoked by the concept of ‘killer’ languages and the notion of a ‘hierarchical pecking order’. I concede, however, that over-reliance on metaphors drawn from the animal world may rob language users and linguistic communities of their agency in the process of language use; it may also be seen as inappropriately underscoring the inevitability of the loss of linguistic diversity. (4) The vitality of a language is its status and functional strength, which make its users behave as a distinct and collective entity. High vitality enhances the chances of survival and the development of a language in contact. Ethnolinguistic vitality is discussed in Chapter 5. (5) As Nurmela et al. (2010) point out, 92 languages were listed in the 2001 census of Nepal, 124 appeared in the 16th edition of Ethnologue and 143 were claimed in YonjanTamang (2006). (6) See http://www.constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/2017-07/Constitution-of-Nepal-​ English-with-1st-Ammendment_2_0.pdf (accessed 17 July 2017). (7) See http://www.nab.gov.bt/assets/templates/images/constitution-of-bhutan-2008.pdf (accessed 17 July 2017). (8) See http://www.afghanemassy.com/afg/images/pliki/The Constitution/pdf (accessed 17 July 2017). (9) Ethnologue (20th edition) shows seven languages in Hong Kong. See also http://www. gov.hk for details on language policy in education. (10) In Macao as well as Hong Kong, no specific variant of Chinese is mentioned as the official language, although a majority of people in these areas are Cantonese-speakers. As a result, the issue of the variety of Chinese in official and educational use is often debated. (11) See Benton (1996, 2007) for discussion of language policy and status of Māori. Also see Skutnabb-Kangas (2000: info box 8.2, pp. 603–604) for a short account of Māori revitalisation. (12) According to Extra (2016) there is resistance to learning any additional language other than English. (13) However, the 2013 data of the Census Bureau (cited in Camarota & Zeigler, 2014), show that 21% of the US population speak a language other than English at home. The survey data show a steady rise in this figure over the years and, therefore, the current figure may be higher. (14) Thirty-two US states had declared English to be their official language by 2017 (see http://www.usenglish.org, accessed 3 January 2018); Michigan legislature has a pending bill to make English an official language of the state. (15) See Skutnabb-Kangas and McCarty (2008) for a critical analysis of different labels and concepts associated with BE. (16) Many universities in Japan, Europe, China and other non-English-speaking countries, including some with high international rankings for quality education, mainly use the national languages.

5 Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Societies: From Marginalisation/ Assimilation to Assertive Maintenance

‘Why should people give up their languages?’ Four decades ago Pandit (1977) suggested that this is the question that Indian sociolinguists must ask (see Chapter 2, p. 27). He thought this question was compelling in multilingual societies like India where, according to him, language mainten­ance is the norm and shift a deviation. There are two issues with Pandit’s question. From a linguistic human rights perspective, people do not ‘give up’ their languages voluntarily; it is the dominance of some languages over others, perpetuated by state practices (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000), that impels a shift to a dominant language. The second issue, inter­related to the question of imposed shift in monolingual societies and maintenance norms in multilingual ones, is that the dominance hierarchy and stable maintenance of languages do not go together. Skutnabb-­ Kangas shows how linguistic practices have ‘hierarchised’ languages ‘so that speakers of some languages and varieties have more power and material resources than their numbers would justify, simply because of being speakers of those languages and varieties’ (Skutnabb-­Kangas, 2000: 374). According to her, at an individual level, people may see the benefits of shift and ‘volun­tarily’ assimilate into dominant languages. But, in reality, these benefits are effected by broader social and state-controlled processes of linguicism, some of which she calls ‘sticks, punishment, or carrots, economic or other benefits, or ideological persuasion, hegemonic mind-mastering’ (Skutnabb-­Kangas, 2000: 374). As I will show in this chapter, the move towards a ‘voluntary’ shift happens with individual identity strategies of assimilation, and not as collective strategies. Further, the assimilative option of the members of 95

96  The Multilingual Reality

a dominated language community in multilingual societies is related to their perception of the instrumental benefits associated with dominant languages even as they identify with their own languages. The dissociation between the instrumental and the integrative functions of languages for their users raises another issue: Do people give up their language (ostensibly for instrumental benefits) even when they identify with their own language? As I have argued in Chapter 2, in hierarchical multi­lingualism the dynamics of language change, shift and maintenance are complex processes; language shift or maintenance can be partial when a language is excluded from domains of significance. In Chapter 4, I have shown that sometimes languages appear to be maintained even while they are pushed out of significant domains of use such as the marketplace. In fact, hierarchisation of languages materialises through social practices and state policies by which less powerful languages are excluded from the significant and resourceful domains. As I have shown, in multilingual societies in­ digen­ous, tribal, minority and minoritised (ITM) languages continue to be used in limited domains, where direct conflict with dominant languages is avoided; pressure on the marginalised languages to shift are not eliminated but averted. In most cases, marginalisation may lead to language shift over a long period and, therefore, characterising a situation of marginalisation as ‘maintenance’ is perhaps misleading. In some cases, however, marginalised languages are revitalised and assertively maintained. In this chapter I will discuss our studies in Kui–Odia and Bodo– Assamese contexts of language contact in Odisha and Assam, respectively, in an attempt to understand the dynamics of language marginalisation/ shift and assertive maintenance. The nature of intergroup relations and negotiation of cultural and linguistic identities will be analysed in terms of their relationship to different patterns of collective strategies. I will reflect on the conditions under which different identity strategies are invoked, leading to either marginalisation/assimilation or to collect­ ive action and assertive maintenance. The dynamics of social identity formation, culture/language contact attitudes and strategies of language and culture maintenance are addressed through several theoretical approaches in social psychology and sociolinguistics. I will begin with a brief overview of some of the salient theoretical positions. Identity and Intergroup Processes: Some Theoretical Perspectives

The outcomes of language contact and cultural relations in multilingual societies are associated with individual and group identities and attitudes towards the maintenance of cultural and linguistic distinctiveness of the communities in contact. These processes can be examined through various social psychological and sociolinguistic theories (see Mohanty, 1990a; Mohanty & Perregaux, 1997; Mohanty & Saikia, 2007).



Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Societies  97

Model of cultural relations in plural societies

Berry’s model (Berry, 1990, 2001; Berry & Sam, 1997) of cultural relations in plural societies is widely used to understand the outcomes of culture and language contact in plural societies. The model is based on analysis of acculturation attitudes or ‘the ways in which an individual (or a group) of culture B wishes to relate to culture A’ (Berry, 1990: 244). Acculturation attitudes of the contact communities depend on their choice along two dimensions: (1) maintenance and development of own-group identity, culture, language and ways of life; and (2) establishing and maintaining a positive relationship with the other group with an orientation of acceptance and tolerance (Berry, 2003). Attitudes in respect of each of the two dimensions can vary on a continuum, which is simplified in the model as a yes/no dichotomy. Depending on these choices, the model proposes four possible contact outcomes: assimilation; integration; segregation/ separation; or deculturation/marginalisation. When a group values its relationship with the other group in contact, but does not value maintenance of its own culture, identity or language, the group tends to assimilate into the dominant group. When, on the other hand, a group values maintenance and development of its culture, language and identity and, at the same time, values a positive relationship with the contact group in a larger social mosaic, the situation is one of integration. However, integration also depends on reciprocation by the contact group, particularly when it is a majority or dominant group. A group may value maintenance of its culture and identity while it also seeks to reject its relationship with the contact group. Intergroup relationship in such contexts is characterised either by segregation or separation, depending on whether the dominant or non-dominant group has control. When the dominant group has control and chooses to keep the other subordinate contact group in its own space, segregation is the outcome of contact. When the non-dominant group has greater control, for example when it is in a collective separatist movement, the outcome is separation. In some cases, a group in contact may neither value maintenance of its own culture and identity nor value a positive relationship with the other contact group. This case is characterised by alienation, acculturative stress and absence of effective contact of an individual or a community with its own culture and traditions as well as with the larger society. When members of a community choose to reject their own culture as well as the contact group’s culture, the relationship is characterised as deculturation (Berry, 1984) and when it is encouraged or imposed by the dominant contact group, the situation is seen as one of marginalisation.1 As Mohanty (1994a) and Mohanty and Perregaux (1997) have shown, Berry’s model provides a framework for understanding the sociolinguistic outcomes of language contact. Viewed in the framework of this model, a stable form of multilingualism, in which languages are maintained

98  The Multilingual Reality

and developed, is an integrative outcome of contact. Assimilation as an outcome involves transitional bilingualism/multilingualism, leading to gradual domain shrinkage, marginalisation and, finally, language shift for the subordinate contact group. The dominated language communities tend to accept the dominant position and instrumental significance of the dominant languages and favour a positive relationship with the dominant language communities through contact bilingualism/multilingualism, which may be a process of transition from their own language(s) to the dominant language(s). Monolingual societies are often characterised by some pressure on the immigrant and minority language users to give up their own language and culture and to make early transition to the dominant language. In multilingual societies, ITM language communities perceive the lack of instrumental value of their own languages and show a passive acceptance of the dominance of major languages; assimilation appears to be voluntary, although it is clearly triggered by several social conditions responsible for the loss of the instrumental value of ITM languages. Under certain conditions, the ITM language communities may view the dominance hierarchy in multilingual societies as unjust. They may resist such dominance and make efforts to maintain their own group’s language. The marginalisation outcome in Berry’s model is characterised as a situation in which members of a minority language community lack identification with and development of their own language as well as the language of the dominant contact group. Such a situation is predicted in the model as leading to the development of limited proficiency in two or more languages. However, in contexts of multilingual contact, communicative proficiency of the members of a dominated linguistic community in their languages remains distributed across the domains of use; the home language or the mother tongue (MT) of the community is used in close in-group domains of communication whereas the dominant languages tend gradually to take over the socially significant domains. Under such conditions of marginalisation, language-specific indicators of proficiency, such as vocabulary, may show lower proficiency (when compared with ‘native speaker’ norms), but communicative effectiveness in diverse domains is not necessarily impaired, as all the languages of the users may play a mutually complementary role in communication. Subtractive learning of the MT is possible among children from ITM communities when formal schooling imposes a dominant-language-medium sub­mersion education. Such an unfortunate outcome of education in a dominant language limits development of the MT, with a possible negative impact on the development of multilingual proficiency among children from ITM communities. In hierarchical multilingual societies, use of languages is constrained by factors of dominance and imposition. The dominant languages are used almost exclusively in domains of socio-economic significance, such



Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Societies  99

as education, governance and trade and commerce, while the dominated languages are used in personal and in-group domains. As we have seen in Chapter 2, this relationship between hierarchy of languages and their preferred use in certain domains is socially transmitted through processes of multilingual socialisation. There is a growing trend in formally educated middle- and upper-class families in India to socialise children for use of English in cognitive and academic domains while other languages, including an MT or home language, are used and promoted in affective and interpersonal or in-group domains of communication. Such patterns of diglossic multilingual socialisation sometimes deter children’s develop­ment of age-appropriate proficiency in their languages. In disadvantaged linguistic communities, such as the ITM language users, the relationship between language hierarchy and power effectively pushes their languages out of the significant social, educational and economic domains, confining their use to personal and in-group domains, where they have limited impact. Marginalisation of dominated languages in multilingual societies is a more complex process than simple rejection of own and other languages (as in Berry’s model); it is a reflection of the relationship between the social power of languages and their preferred allocation to domains of use. The generalisability of Berry’s model to complex multilingual social contexts is limited, however, since acceptance or rejection of languages as mutually exclusive binary positions in such contexts is problematic. Nevertheless, the model has been seen as useful in predicting the intergroup relationship and sociolinguistic processes in some situations of multilingual contact. In his discussion of a study by Ward and Hewston (1985) on ethnicity, language and intergroup relations in Malaysia and Singapore, Triandis (1985) has shown the applicability of Berry’s model for understanding such relationships in multilingual and multicultural societies. Analysis of the outcomes of language contact in multilingual societies focuses on the choices of non-dominant groups and individuals, their attitudes towards maintenance of their own group’s language and culture and their relationship with the dominant contact group. This focus on nondominant groups is problematic. The non-dominant groups, in most cases, have little freedom to choose their intercultural orientation; the dominant group or the lager society often enforces certain kinds of relations or constrains the choices of the non-dominant groups by long-term neglect and cumulative impoverishment of the non-dominant languages and cultures (Berry et al., 2002). The ability to choose an integrative relationship, for example, is possible only when the larger society and the dominant groups accept openness with a positive orientation towards linguistic and cultural diversity. Thus, the outcomes of language contact in multilingual societies are dependent on mutual choices by the dominated and dominant groups. Schermerhorn (1970) and Bourhis et al. (1997) have suggested acculturation models of cultural relations in plural societies which consider the

100  The Multilingual Reality

acculturation attitudes of the larger society as well as those of the nondominant minority communities. Like Berry’s model, ­Schermerhorn’s (1970) model of ethnic relations (for discussion, see Mohanty, 1990a, 1994a; Skutnabb-Kangas & Toukomaa, 1976) is based on mutual atti­tudinal reactions of minority and majority groups in terms of the centripetal (Cp) trends of both groups’ acceptance of common values and lifestyle, or centrifugal (Cf) trends of divergent values of each group seeking to maintain its own culture, language and lifestyle, and to separate from the other group. Depending on congruent (both groups showing either Cp or Cf trends) or incongruent orientations (the groups showing different trends of relationship, either Cf – Cp or Cp– Cf ), integration, assimilation, separation or segregation types of relations are possible. SkutnabbKangas and Toukomaa (1976) have developed Schermerhorn’s model and applied it in their study of Finnish immigrant families and children in Sweden; Skutnabb-Kangas (1994) has applied it further. Some studies in Indian language contact situations (e.g. Srivastava, 1989) have used ­Schermerhorn’s model to analyse outcomes of language maintenance and shift. Berry (2001) has also extended his model to consider acculturation strategies in non-dominant ethnocultural groups and the larger society. Berry and Kalin (1995) conducted a national survey of multicultural ideology in Canada and assessed the acculturation strategies of various non-dominant groups and of the larger society. Social identity theory of intergroup relations

The process of social identification with one’s own group or social categoris­ation of an individual as a group member leads to social identity or group identity. Social identity begins with categorisation of oneself as a member of a group and then social identification with the group. Such identification is both cognitive and emotional; it involves knowledge of group membership and values or emotions associated with the same. According to Tajfel (1974, 1978a, 1978b), when members of one group (A) interact with those of another group (B), they compare themselves with group B on a number of value dimensions which are likely to enhance group distinctiveness. This is achieved by searching for favourable characteristics of one’s own group in group B and selecting favourable dimensions of comparison for positive group distinctiveness. Favourable comparison leads to positive esteem and enhances satisfaction in one’s own group membership. Brewer (1991) proposed that social or group identity satisfies the need for social inclusion as well as social differentiation. Group membership is not always associated with positive social identity, however. Membership of a minority group can be distinctive and meaningful but, when a group has low status and power, such as minorities and dominated linguistic communities, group membership can be associated with disadvantage and stigma. Tajfel’s work focused on the strategies used by disadvantaged



Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Societies  101

groups to cope with their low status and negative social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and to change their low-status position (Tajfel, 1978a, 1978b). Tajfel and Turner (1979) and Ellemers (1993) discussed the options available to low-status dis­advantaged groups, depending on their appraisal of the range of such options and the strength of their group identity. One option is social or individual mobility to a higher-status group if the group boundaries are permeable. Non-permeability of boundaries, for example a gender-group boundary, limits such mobility. Mobility to a dominant contact language, however, is possible. Social mobility is an individualistic strategy of some (or most) members of the dominated group and it leads to assimilation (as in Berry’s model discussed above). Individual and assimi­lationist strategies do not change the dominance hierarchy, but help only a few who choose mobility to a higher-status group (Wright, 1997). As discussed above, assimilation is associated with a negative attitude to maintenance of one’s own group culture and language along with the choice of a positive relationship with the dominant contact group. As such, individual mobility and assimilation involve weak group identity with a preference for membership of the dominant group. Group-level strategies, on the other hand, are likely when group identity becomes more salient and group members believe that the status of the dominated group vis-à-vis the dominant group can be changed. Thus, group-level strategies are based on a social change belief, that is, the belief that alternatives to the status quo are desirable and feasible. When members of minority groups perceive their disadvantaged status to be illegitimate and changeable, they are likely to challenge the existing hierarchy (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Usually, such social change initiatives are resisted by the dominant group. According to Turner et al. (1987), the choice between the individual identity strategy of assimilation into the superordinate group (in the case of linguistic groups, language shift in favour of the dominant language) and the group identity strategy of resistance to domination depends on the relative salience of personal/individual identity or group identity. Identity salience, in turn, is affected by self-categorisation in different comparative contexts. Oakes (1987) suggested that perception of a particular social category as salient depends on psychological predisposition or perceptual readiness to view a particular category as more salient than others. Under certain conditions, group membership is perceived as more important than self, and group identity tends to move to extreme positions of group polarisation (Turner, 1991). Such polarisation, according to Reicher (1987), is not a loss of one’s identity, but involves a move to social identity being more salient, which can strengthen conformity to group norms. Assertion of group identity such as emphasis on linguistic divergence and striving to challenge the dominance of a contact language is a process of negotiation to contest reality when individuals of the subordinate group are empowered by the co-presence of many others with a strong

102  The Multilingual Reality

group identity (Reicher & Levine, 1994a, 1994b). Drury and Reicher (2000, 2009) proposed an elaborated social identity model to show that collect­ive action for assertion of one’s group identity is transformed through practices of coordinated group actions (such as group songs and slogans, group uniform or other group symbols and activities). Collective action shapes and strengthens group identity by the co-presence of many, and reinforces a sense of efficacy of such action. Discrimination by the out-group, and in-group perception of illegitimacy of such discrimination, further polarises in-group identity. Individuals’ willingness to engage in a collective movement for assertion of group identity involves cognitive evaluation of the illegitimacy of unequal power relations and the perceived strength, efficacy and feasibility of collective action. It also involves an emotional state of rejection of the out-group (Smith, 1993). Tajfel’s social identity theory (1978a, 1978b) provides a framework for understanding the nature of intergroup relations, particularly from the minority group perspective. The theory has evolved through many elabora­ tions and new approaches to focus on different outcomes of intergroup processes under conditions of inequality, discrimination and dominance. Social structures characterised by unequal power relations are perpetuated through enforced acceptance of dominance by the subordinate groups, as well as individual identity strategies which lead to marginalisation, assimilation and loss of diversity. In the case of linguistic communities in hierarchical multilingual societies, this leads to a vicious cycle of dis­ advantage and weakness of dominated languages (see Chapter 4), domain shrinkage and language shift. In contrast, social inequalities and unjust power relations are, sometimes and under certain conditions, resisted by the emergence of a strong group identity, enabling the members of the dominated group to resist the hierarchical social structure and engage in collective actions to change the status quo. In his overview of the social identity perspective on intergroup relations, Spears sums up the role of group identity in social change in intergroup relations in multicultural and multilingual societies: Status hierarchies and intergroup power relations form the social structure in which individuals are located, but group identity forms the agency (collective efficacy) that brings the structure alive, and enables individuals to mobilise this structure. Group identity is thus not just a cognitive representation or a way of identifying with a social reality, but also a means to challenge and change that social reality. (Spears, 2012: 220) Ethnolinguistic vitality and language maintenance

Giles et al. (1977) proposed a model of ethnolinguistic vitality and ethnic group identity of linguistic minorities in contact with dominant language groups. The vitality model extended the early work on social identity and intergroup relations theory (Tajfel, 1974) to explain the



Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Societies  103

conditions under which ethnolinguistic minorities tend to develop linguistic group identity and maintain their languages. The ethnol­inguistic vitality model considers language to be an important dimension of intergroup comparison. Language maintenance or shift attitudes of linguistic ­minorities depend on the strength of ethnolinguistic identity, which is related to ethno­linguistic vitality. Ethnolinguistic vitality is the socio-­structural status and functional strength of the language of an ethno­ linguistic group, which affects the likelihood of the members of the group engaging in collective actions in language contact situations. According to Giles et al. (1977: 308), ethnolinguistic vitality ‘makes a group likely to behave as a distinctive and collective entity in intergroup situations’. Giles et al. (1977) identified three sets of group vitality factors or social, institutional and structural support variables to account for maintenance or shift of languages in situations of language contact: status, d ­ emography and institutional support. Status factors include: (1) economic status, or the degree of economic power and control of an ethnolinguistic group over resources and life in society; (2) social status, or the degree of esteem of a group ascribed by the out-group and the larger society; and (3) sociohistorical status of a language, in terms of its recognition and importance in different social institutions. The demographic factor refers to the strength in number and distribution of the speakers and ethnolinguistic group members. The size of the population of speakers of a language and their concentration in a geographical area in relation to the other contact languages are related to the demographic strength of a language. Institutional support for a language and its users in terms of its recognition and use in different public and intergroup domains affects the vitality of a language. Use of a language in education, institutions of governance, mass media, domains of economic and commercial activities and social domains such as religion are institutional support factors. These three factors combine to determine ethnolinguistic vitality and, according to the model, ethnolinguistic groups with high vitality are likely to display strong language maintenance pressure, indicated by collective patterns of behaviour and speech divergence tendencies. In addition to the objective indices of ethnolinguistic vitality, Bourhis et al. (1981) proposed the use of subjective vitality measures based on group members’ perception of such vitality. In a number of studies, Giles and his colleagues (Giles & Johnson, 1981; Ryan et al., 1984) have shown that subjective vitality has an important mediating role in an explanation of intergroup relations and language attitudes. The usefulness of the notion of subjective vitality has been demonstrated in a number of studies, which have shown its relationship to in-group identification (Abrams et al., 2009; Johnson, 1984), the desire to learn one’s in-group language (Sweeting, 1982), second-language acquisition in a contact situation (Giles & Byrne, 1982) and attitude of tolerance towards the use of the dominant language by out-group members (Bourhis & Sachdev, 1984). There have

104  The Multilingual Reality

also been several cross-national comparisons (Giles et al., 1985; Sachdev et al., 1988). In a study of subjective ethnolinguistic vitality and language revitalisation in Bashkortostan, Yagmur and Kroon (2003) showed that subjective vitality indices were associated with a strong revitalisation movement for the Baskir language in contact with the dominant Russian language. Giles et al. (1985) showed that there is an isomorphic relationship between indices of objective/factual ethnolinguistic vitality and subjective judgements of vitality. In a study of the relationship between linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality, Landry and Bourhis (1997) showed that the visibility and salience of a language on public and commercial signs are related to subjective ethnolinguistic vitality. Edwards (1992) extended the ethnolinguistic vitality model with a typology of various objective vitality factors and classified a number of variables relevant to language contact contexts along two parameters – group characteristics and individual characteristics of group members. Edwards’ typology includes 33 items concerning demographic, socio­ logical, educational, psychological, economic, political and historical aspects of language contact situations. In his evaluation of various models of language maintenance and shift, Clyne (2003) suggested that Edwards’ (1992) model may be particularly suitable in a variety of minority language situations. Despite some initial reservations about the viability of ethnolinguistic vitality (Hamers & Blanc, 2000; Hoffman, 1989; Husband & Khan, 1982), the model has been widely used to understand the dynamics of intergroup relations in language contact situations, sociolinguistic processes leading to language maintenance and shift, and collective actions for the revitalisation of a language. These theoretical positions have significant relevance for understanding the processes of maintenance or shift of languages in contact in multilingual societies in which languages are hierarchically situated, with shift pressure on the dominated ones. One of the indicators of shift pressure is asymmetrical bilingualism in the context of language contact. Almost all the adult speakers of non-dominant languages in contact with dominant ones are multilinguals or, at least, bilinguals, using the dominant language in addition to their native language. The frequency of such bilingualism in the contact language(s) is generally much less in the dominant language community. Leontiev (1995) shows that less than 1% of Russians in the former Soviet Union (USSR) living in the Russian Federation or in the former Soviet republics speak a language other than Russian, whereas nearly 79% of the native speakers of a non-Russian majority language of the republics are fluent speakers of Russian. As I have pointed out, bilingualism in the dominated language community is a strategy for language maintenance. In multilingual societies, the shift pressure on the dominated languages in contact is also evident in their progressive displacement from significant domains of use. In most cases, the dominated languages in contact are



Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Societies  105

marginalised and remain confined to close in-group domains of com­muni­ cation. Such marginalisation of dominated languages seems to slow the processes of language shift, but it does not rule out possible shift and total loss of a language. In fact, my work with the communities of speakers of Kui and of other tribal languages in India over four decades shows that there is a concern in the communities about the falling rate of intergenerational transmission of marginalised languages such as Kui. Our studies on intergroup relations and attitudes towards language and culture maintenance in situations of contact between dominant language groups and dominated tribal language communities show that the chances of the dominated language communities passively accepting marginalisation (and, possibly, shift/loss) or assertively seeking revitalisation and maintenance of their languages depend on their social identities, perception of ethnolinguistic vitality and intergroup relations. Contact situations between ethnolinguistic groups are sites for constant negotiation of group and individual identities based on perceptions of group distinctiveness, vitality of languages (and cultures) and the mutual acculturation attitudes of the groups in contact. These factors affecting the orientation of individuals and groups towards maintenance of their languages and cultures are highly interrelated. Identity Negotiations in Multilingual Contact: Studies in Odisha and Assam

Prolonged social contact between linguistic groups is a common phenomenon in multilingual societies. As we have seen above, the nature of intergroup relations in such contact and the attitudes of the members of the contact groups towards maintenance of their own language and culture as well as their relationship with the other contact group and language are related to the processes of language change. Our studies (Mohanty, 1994a, 1994b; Mohanty & Parida, 1993; Mohanty & Saikia, 2007) undertaken from 1987 to 2009 in tribal and non-tribal language contact situations in two states of India – Assam and Odisha – focused on the relationship between acculturation attitudes, group identity and ethno­linguistic vitality, on the one hand, and maintenance, shift or marginalisation of the dominated languages, on the other. Acculturation attitudes, vitality perception and marginalisation of Kui: Dynamics of language choice among the Konds in Odisha

Our studies on intergroup relations in Kui–Odia contact were conducted in different areas of Phulbani district of Odisha to explore in-group and out-group language and culture maintenance attitudes and perception of integrative and instrumental values of the languages.2 The sociolinguistic context of contact between Kui–Odia bilingual and Odia

106  The Multilingual Reality

monolingual Kond tribal people with non-tribal Odia communities in Phulbani has been discussed Chapter 3. The studies to be discussed here involved questionnaire-based interviews of Kond and non-tribal villagers from Kui–Odia bilingual3 and Odia monolingual areas and informal observations of collective activities of the Kond people. Our first study (Mohanty, 1987) was conducted in 1987 with a sample of 120 adult male villagers (aged 25–50 years) from Kond (tribal) and nontribal communities. In the bilingual areas, the Kond adults in the sample were fluent users of Kui and Odia and the non-tribal adults were native speakers of Odia with some competence in Kui, ranging from passive understanding to occasional use. Kond and non-tribal adults from the monolingual areas were native speakers of Odia and did not use any Kui. However, the Kond people even in these monolingual areas identified with the Kui language, calling themselves Kui people (Kui loku), and most of them had some exposure to the language through occasional contact with other Kui-speaking members of their community from bilingual areas. The adults in the study were classified as bilingual or monolingual. But all the inhabitants in the area had some exposure to other languages, such as Hindi, English and Telugu, through their contacts in government offices and other public places, media exposure, formal education of the school children and occasional marketplace contact with speakers of Telugu and other languages. The adults in the sample were of very low socio-economic status and had little or no formal education.4 The Language and Culture Maintenance Attitudes Questionnaire (Mohanty, 1987) was used to assess their attitudes to maintenance of both their own and the other group’s language and culture. The items sought to tap both instrumental and integrative attitudes towards the respondent’s own and the contact group’s language and culture. There were 12 items in the questionnaire, six each for the respondent’s own group and the outgroup’s language and culture maintenance attitudes. Half of the items in each category represented integrative grounds (ideological or value-based effects relating to identity and cultural reproduction as a group) and the other half instrumental grounds (tangible benefits such as job, economic prosperity, political influence) for the attitude in question. The responses were recorded on a five-point scale (strongly disagree, disagree, not sure, agree, strongly agree) for each item. The items presented a statement of a positive view of maintenance of the respondent’s own and the contact group’s language and culture, based either on instrumental grounds (e.g. ‘Education in Kui will bring economic prosperity to Kui people’; ‘Our children should learn Odia to get better jobs’) or on integrative grounds (e.g. ‘Development of Kui language and culture is necessary for unity among Kui people’; ‘Language, lifestyle and culture of Kond people can be developed by a close relationship with Odia people’). The attitudes of the Konds (bilinguals and monolinguals combined) towards maintenance of the Kui language and culture on integrative



Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Societies  107

grounds were slightly positive. They favoured maintenance of their Kui language and culture for their group identity, pride and for group development. However, instrumental attitudes for Kui language and culture maintenance were low. Most of the Kond respondents, bilingual as well as monolingual, felt that the use and development of the Kui language could not bring economic prosperity to the Konds. The Konds showed positive attitudes towards the Odia language and culture for better relations in society and also for instrumental benefits. Thus, in terms of the fourfold classification of acculturation attitudes in Berry’s model, the Konds in the contact situation showed an integration orientation with positive attitudes towards maintenance of their own language and culture and positive relations with the Odia out-group. Within the tribal groups, the bilinguals displayed a greater tendency towards integration, with positive attitudes to both their own and the other group’s language and culture maintenance. The Odia monolingual Konds, on the other hand, had a slightly negative attitude to the maintenance of Kui and a more positive attitude to the relationship with Odia language and culture. Thus, the acculturation attitude of the Odia monolingual Konds can be said to be assimilation-oriented. The non-tribals from the Odia monolingual areas as well as bilingual areas showed a highly positive attitude to the maintenance and development of the Odia languages. All the non-tribals agreed that the Kui language had little instrumental value. However, the non-tribal adults from bilingual areas, that is, those in contact with Kui–Odia bilingual Konds and with some ability to understand and occasionally use Kui, had favourable attitudes to the maintenance of the Kui language and culture, particularly on integrative grounds. Thus, in Kui–Odia bilingual areas, the non-tribal contact group’s attitude was geared to integration. Their prolonged social contact with Kui-speakers and some passive knowledge of Kui seem to have led to an integration orientation which was reciprocated by their bilingual Kond counterparts. In the Odia monolingual contact areas, on the other hand, the non-tribals had a segregation orientation in their intergroup relationship attitudes, with a favourable view of the Odia language and culture and unfavourable attitudes to the maintenance of the Kui language and culture. The study shows dissociation between instrumental and integrative aspects of acculturation attitudes of the Konds, who perceived their own language, Kui, as significant for their group identity, for the development of their language and culture and also for the preservation of group distinctiveness. At the same time, they did not see any instrumental benefits of Kui for the educational or economic development of the Konds. The Odia monolingual Konds, in particular, had a very negative view of the instrumental power of the Kui language, although they did identify with the language as necessary for the maintenance of Kond culture and unity. It seems such dissociation between integrative and instrumental functions leads to a passive identity strategy of low motivation for active language

108  The Multilingual Reality

maintenance despite perception of the language as a marker of group identity. At a cognitive level, identification with own-group language and culture along with perception of low instrumental strength or vitality of the same is a dissonant condition manifested through a passive identity strategy in which the marginalised status of the own-group language is accepted as a fait accompli. A similar sociolinguistic survey (Mohanty & Parida, 1993) was conducted in 1993 with 320 adult villagers from bilingual and monolingual areas of Phulbani district. Again, the Language and Culture Maintenance Attitudes Questionnaire (Mohanty, 1987) was used for the study. In addition, the Kond participants were asked a set of questions to indicate if they wanted education of their children in their own language and also if they would send their children to Kui-medium schools if such schools were started by the government. Surprisingly, all the 160 Kui–Odia bilingual and Odia monolingual tribal adults gave negative responses to these questions. As in the earlier study, the language and culture main­ tenance attitudes of the Kond adults in the 1993 survey showed a positive integrative and negative instrumental orientation for their Kui language and culture, indicating a clear dissociation between the instrumental and integrative attitudes. The survey revealed the same trends as in the earlier study in respect of language and culture maintenance attitudes among the tribal and non-tribal contact communities. In bilingual areas, the Konds and the non-tribals displayed a positive integrative attitude towards maintenance of their own language and culture and positive attitudes towards the other contact group. Thus, the tribal and non-tribal contact in bilingual areas was characterised by a mutual integration orientation. The Konds in the monolingual contact regions, on the other hand, remained assimilation-oriented, with a negative attitude towards maintenance of the Kui language and culture and a positive attitude towards the contact language, Odia. The non-tribals in the monolingual areas demonstrated a segregation orientation, with a favourable view of their own Odia language and culture and unfavourable attitudes toward the maintenance of Kui. Taken together, the two surveys showed: (1) perception of a low instrumental significance of Kui; (2) dissociation between instrumental and integrative values of Kui; (3) positive intergroup relations in Kui– Odia bilingual contact regions; (4) assimilation orientation among the Konds in the monolingual regions; and (5) segregation attitudes towards the tribal contact group among the dominant Odia non-tribal adults in the mono­lingual regions. The findings from these studies in respect of the nature of intergroup relations in Phulbani revealed ‘some underlying tension and resistance in the relationship between the Konds and the nontribals in the monolingual areas’(Mohanty, 1995: 231), whereas a more positive integrative relationship between the communities was found in the bilingual areas.



Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Societies  109

In a sad development, during the months of April to June 1994, nearly eight months after our second study, there was some tension between the Konds and the non-tribal lower-caste communities in Phulbani district, escalating to large-scale violence, armed conflict and riots. The conflict started in a particular village in the monolingual area and spread to other regions in the district. However, the communal tension between the contact groups remained confined to the monolingual areas, while the bilingual areas remained peaceful. Early in the month of June 1994, I travelled in the bilingual areas in the district to participate in some school and social activities and found normal interactions among the members of the two communities while armed conflict continued to be reported in the monolingual regions for about three more weeks. This violence in an otherwise peaceful area was unexpected and saddening, but it validated our findings of tension in the monolingual areas and a mutual relationship of integration in the bilingual areas of the district. That none of the Kond adults in our study was in favour of education in Kui for their children, even when they loved their language as a marker of their identity, is somewhat disconcerting. Why is it that the Kond people, who identified with Kui regardless of whether they used the language, were indifferent to its maintenance and development? My years of extensive contact with the Kond villagers had made me realise that Kui was central to the Kond psyche, even when the people in the monolingual areas did not use the language. They all called themselves Kui people, adhered to the traditional cultural practices and rituals of the Konds and rallied around their social organisation, Kui Samaj (the Society of Kui People). But when it was a question of choosing the language for education of their children or, even, seeking to revive the language in the monolingual areas, where the ‘Kui’ people spoke only Odia, they all seemed unconcerned about the language issues and happy with the status quo. Even the bilingual Konds seemed content to use the language in limited domains (their in-group communication). Periodic meetings of the Kui Samaj were sites for collective ex­pression of the Kui identity. I sat through some of these meetings in which a number of Kond leaders spoke. While most of the leaders spoke in Kui, at least 40% of the speakers used Odia only or mixed some Kui with Odia. Until about 2005, contrary to my expectations, these speeches did not project any demand for education in the Kui language, although almost all the speakers exhorted their people to remain united, speak Kui, transmit the language to children and to uphold Kui traditions and culture. These meetings usually continued till the late afternoon, with a number of speeches, while a community lunch was cooked and people left the meeting to eat their lunch in batches. Sporadic language development efforts were also displayed at these gatherings. Occasionally, some Kui people showed off their literary writings in the Kui language and a collection of Kui folksongs and folktales written in the Odia script. In a

110  The Multilingual Reality

couple of such meetings, one school teacher and another local leader with high-school education, both from Kond communities, showed me two idiosyncratic writing systems for the Kui language they had developed. I was told that there were others who also claimed to have developed some script for Kui. None of these was ever put to wider use and Kui continues to be written in Odia script. Some of the leaders in these Kui Samaj meetings had high-school and college education and they were aware of the low vitality of the Kui language. However, during two and half decades from 1978, I did not notice any organised voice for the development and use of the language beyond the in-group domains of communication. The contradictions in the Kui Samaj meetings between vociferous plea for maintenance of the Kui language and cultural traditions for unity of the Kui people, and near silence on the use of Kui in education and other public domains were striking. At one level it simply meant that the Konds had made their choice and were willing to prefer Odia (and other dominant languages) to Kui. But the observed dissociation between the integrative and instrumental attitudes of the Kui people towards their language made me realise that the complete absence of preference for the use of Kui in education and other significant domains was not a matter of free choice. Unfortunately, when languages are hierarchically placed in a society, the instrumental values of a language in the lower order are extrinsic; they are externally controlled by the societal power relations even when in­trinsic­ ally people do value their language. The Konds believed in the integrative power of their language as a marker of their identity, one that kept them together as a community. But the realisation that they had no control over the instrumental values of their language triggered a pragmatic reaction of choosing a dominant language for its instrumental benefits. It is not surprising that when people are led to believe that they have to make an either/or choice (instead of both/and) between their language and the future of their children they naturally choose the latter. In most of her books and articles Skutnabb-Kangas (e.g. 1984, 1998, 2000) has discussed this unfortunate false belief. As I continued my work among the Konds, I did not notice any visible change in the sociolinguistic scenario for the Kond people and Kui until the end of last century. Around 1999–2000, with international pressure for education through the medium of the mother tongue and recommendations of several national experts and researchers, the government of Odisha, under its District Primary Education Project (DPEP), commissioned some experts to work with selected groups of school teachers, language experts, artists and craft workers and other indigenous knowledge-holders to develop primers for early primary education in six of the tribal languages in Odisha. I was asked to work on two languages – Kui and Kuvi. The primers were developed, reviewed and printed, but unfortunately never put to formal use. Some teachers, who were aware of these primers in the tribal mother tongues, managed to obtain copies



Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Societies  111

for informal use with their primary-level tribal children (for details, see Mohanty et al., 2010). These initiatives generated awareness of the possible use of Kui (as well as other tribal mother tongues) in early education and one could notice some discussion of the educational use of Kui in the Kui Samaj and other social fora of the Konds by around 2005. From 2006–2007, multilingual education (MLE) programmes based on the mother tongue (MT) started in Kui and other tribal languages (see Chapter 8 on MLE) in primary grades in some schools. This led to the development of a large number of textbooks and other teaching/learning and language develop­ ment materials in Kui. It seems that the success of the MLE programme generated positive attitudes in the Kond community towards the educational use of Kui. This and other developments generated demands in different social organisations of the tribal people such as the Odisha Adivasi Mancha (the Odisha Forum for Tribal People) for the use of Kui as well as other tribal languages in education. This also influenced the government of Odisha’s Policy for Mother Tongue Based MLE for Tribal Children in the state (Department of School and Mass Education, 2014) and the national government’s National Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) Policy (Ministry of Women and Child Development, 2013), which mandated the education of three- to six-year-olds in their mother tongue. Despite these developments, Kui as well as most other tribal languages in Odisha and the rest of India, barring a few like Bodo and Santali, remain endangered or, at least, marginalised. Kui is an interesting example of the conditions under which languages are marginalised in hierarchical multilingualism. Kui remained neglected in all spheres of socio-economic life in Odisha with the dominance of Odia, the state majority and official language, and the dominance of English and Hindi at a broader level. As a result, the Konds saw a very low instrumental value of Kui, although the language was perceived as having integrative functions for the Konds. With a current population of over 1.6 million Konds, including 900,000 speakers of Kui, the language is not particularly endangered,5 but the perceived vitality of the language remains low due to its lack of instrumental values. Thus, for the Kond people, Kui is a language of identity and integration but not one of aspiration or mobility. This stance of the Konds towards their language can be viewed as a passive identity strategy in which the language is held to be important as an essential marker of identity of an ethnolinguistic community but, at the same time, it is also considered too weak to resist the dominance of the contact language(s). In terms of the objective indicators of vitality, Kui was low on economic and social status variables and had no institutional support, being without any role in education, media or governance. The vitality of Kui rested solely on the number and concentration of Kond people who spoke and/or identified with the language. Despite the

112  The Multilingual Reality

demographic strength and the Kui identity of all the Konds in Phulbani, objective and perceived vitality of the language remained low. The relationship between the strength of a dominated contact language (including its ethnolinguistic vitality and the strength of language identity) and the chances of its maintenance can be conceptualised in a dual-threshold framework.6 A minimum degree of strength of a language is necessary for it to avoid endangerment and shift, and a higher level of strength, above the higher threshold, is necessary for the language to go beyond marginalisation to possible assertive maintenance. The zone between the two thresholds can be described as one of marginalisation of a dominated language. It seems that Kui was above the lower threshold in how it was objectively placed and perceived by its users. However, it was still not viewed by the Kond people as strong enough to be a language of vitality, for it to go above the higher threshold to trigger collective action for assertion of the language beyond its marginalised status. Thus, the marginalisation of Kui can be viewed as positioning of the language above the language shift threshold and below the threshold for assertive language maintenance. Since the beginning of the current century, various developments involving Kui have added to the strength of the language and to the collective voice for its wider role. But the language is yet to gather momentum to go beyond its present marginalised status. Identity, acculturation attitudes and intergroup relations in Bodo– Assamese contact: The dynamics of collective action for assertive maintenance

The Bodos are a major tribal group in Assam with a population of 1.75 million, constituting nearly 5.5% of the state’s population (over 31 million in the census of 2011). They are mostly concentrated in the Bodo autonomous regions of Kokrajhar, Chirang, Udalguri and Baksa districts of Assam. The language of the Bodo people is Bodo (or Boro), which belongs to the Tibeto-Burmese language family. Assamese (in the Indo-Aryan language family) is the dominant language in Assam and is recognised as an official language in Schedule VIII of the constitution of India. Bodo was listed as an official language in the year 2003, following a Bodo movement that called for assertion of their linguistic rights. The assertive language maintenance effort of the Bodo community in Assam is evident from the fact that census declarations of Bodo as a mother tongue increased by 4169.47% over the decade 1981–1991 (Mohanty & Saikia, 2007): in the 1981 census of India, 28,619 persons declared Bodo as their mother tongue, whereas in 1991 the figure was 122,881. In terms of their number, Bodos are the majority group in Bodo Territorial Council (BTC) areas7 and a minority in other parts of Assam. Our studies of the changes in the status of Bodo and identity strategies in Bodo–Assamese contact situations involved looking into the history



Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Societies  113

of the Bodo movement and the developments that led to granting of territorial autonomy and formation of the BTC, as well as the nature of intergroup relations between the two contact communities after the end of the Bodo movement. Our first work was a case study of Mr BN, a leader in the Bodo movement. Sharing the biographical perspective of BN gave us valuable insights on the transformation of the Bodo people from individual identity strategies of assimilation to collective action and resistance. I interviewed BN as a prominent member of the executive of the BTC in the year 2006, nearly two and half years after its formation. Identity negotiation of Mr BN: From passive acceptance of domination to active militant resistance

As a child, BN grew up in the Kokrajhar area of Assam, India. His parents, family members and villagers spoke to him in Bodo, the language of his tribe. Besides his mother tongue, he was occasionally exposed to Assamese, the dominant and official language of Assam, through his interactions with non-tribal Assamese people in the weekly markets in the area and other public places of contact between the two language communities. He had to learn Assamese better when he went to school. Like most other children in the local school, he had initial difficulties with school learning in a language he was not too familiar with. Gradually, he was able to understand his teachers and do his school work in Assamese. As a high-school student in the 1960s, he became aware of some tension between his own people and the dominant Assamese people. A prominent organisation of Bodo writers and littérateurs, the Bodo Sahitya Sabha (BSS; Organisation for Bodo Literature), had started pressing for schooling in the Bodo language. During this period, BN also read some collections of Bodo folktales and some writings by contemporary Bodo writers. Bodo was then written in Assamese8 script.9 That was also a period of liberal reforms in traditional Bodo religious practices. The majority of the Bodos followed Bathouism which involved worship of nature and forefathers and many rituals dominated by animistic beliefs and traditions. Some prominent Bodo leaders, intellectuals and thinkers of the time were influenced by the Brahmo Samaj10 movement, and sought to liberalise aspects of animistic practices in Bathouism among the Bodos. Brahmo Dharma, which some of the Bodos preached, had a reformative impact on Bathouism and promoted liberal thinking and education among the Bodos. This had two major impacts on Bodo society – it deterred the spread of Christianity11 and promoted spread of education in Assamese and English among the Bodos. Growing up during this period of reform and liberalisation in his community, BN passed the High School Examination and went to the capital city of Assam, Gauhati,12 for higher studies and obtained his bachelor’s degree from the University of Gauhati. By then, the movement for the Bodo language and Bodo-medium education for Bodo children had

114  The Multilingual Reality

gathered some momentum. Bodo was introduced as a medium of instruction (MoI) up to grade 3 in primary schools in 1963, and as MoI up to grade 12 in 1968. While some Bodo children joined these Bodo-medium sections, the majority of the Bodo parents preferred the Assamese medium, since higher education and job opportunities were available in Assamese only. Like many other young formally educated Bodos of the time, BN was aware of and concerned about the discrimination against the Bodos and was sympathetic towards the growing Bodo movement. But, also like many others, BN decided to move on; for him, socio-economic progress as a Bodo was necessary. His education in English and Assamese enabled him to seek such progress and he was happy to get a government job in Delhi. Settled in Delhi, BN kept track of his people and the Bodo movement. He knew that the future of his people depended on the spread of education, economic progress and social mobility, rather than on prolonged agitation. He noted with great interest each new development in the agitation of his Bodo people. The movement was initially spearheaded by the BSS, pressing for use of the Bodo language in education and the assertion of Bodo culture and identity. It gradually led to rejection of the Assamese dominance over the Bodo people and socio-economic exploita­tion of the Bodos. This rejection of Assamese was reflected in a demand in 1974 for the replacement of Assamese script13 by Roman script in writing the Bodo language. The movement was met with tough resistance from the state government and the conflict resulted in several deaths and thousands of arrests. This led to a gradual increase in the prominence of hardliners in the Bodo movement, particularly the All Bodo Students Union (ABSU), which had become a broad-based organisation representing the cause of the Bodo people. The movements of the 1970s saw the BSS and the ABSU leaders come together. But, gradually, the ABSU hardliners took over the agitation and, on 2 March 1987, ABSU, under the leadership of Upendra Nath Brahma, proclaimed its demand for a separate Bodoland. Gradually, with strong leadership, the secessionist movement became more vigorous but also violent. In 1996, an armed insurgent group called the Bodo Libera­tion Tigers14 (BLT) was founded and it worked closely with ABSU.15 Mr BN watched the development of the Bodo movement from a safe distance in Delhi. He had weighed his options carefully and had chosen a safe path of social mobility, away from the discrimination and dis­ advantage that the Bodos were subjected to. His language and culture were important to him and his family; all of them used Bodo in their family as well as with Bodo friends. At the same time, the dominance of Assamese was real and accepted. He was a Bodo at heart; but he was happy in his safe position of privileges, like his Assamese counterparts. While he did nurture a Bodo identity he was also at peace with the prospects of his gradual assimilation into mainstream Assamese society. Back home in Assam, the Bodo people were forcefully rallying behind the leaders and the grassroots Bodo movement was gathering momentum.



Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Societies  115

The collective action of his people and the prolonged movement compelled BN to reappraise his passive support for the cause. The formation of the Bodo Liberation Tigers as a militant group working with the leaders of the ABSU, created a strong collective identity, a resurgence of the Bodo people and a formidable resistance to Assamese dominance. The chances of successful resistance to the Assamese dominance had greatly increased. Soon after the formation of the BLT, BN quit his job and joined it, taking to arms and becoming part of a ‘terrorist movement’. He became an active leader in the BLT and continued the violent resistance to the forces of the governments of Assam and India. The subversive activities of the BLT and the mass resistance of the Bodos made the state government of Assam and the government of India agree to partial autonomy for the Bodos. A tripartite agreement was signed between the BLT, the government of Assam and the government of India on 10 February 2003 for partial autonomy to the Bodos and recognition of Bodo as an official language in Schedule VIII of the constitution of India. The agreement also stipulated affirmative provisions for the Bodos and for those involved in the militant and the civil movement. An Autonomous Area Council for Bodos was formally announced and a constitutional amendment for the inclusion of Bodo as an official language16 was passed in the Indian parliament in December 2003. More than 2600 cadre members and leaders of the BLT, including BN, laid down their arms on 6 December 2003 in Kokrajhar. The BTC was formed the next day, under the leadership of Hagrama Mohilary, and an interim 12-member executive council was formed. BN became a member of the executive council in charge of some important portfolios in the BTC governance. I met Mr BN in 2006 for an interview and, in the course of our discussion for over three hours in his BTC office, he narrated his life story and shared his perspectives on the changes in the status of the Bodo language during his lifetime. What struck me most was his account of the major turn in his life, moving from a position of stable social mobility away from discrimination and disadvantage to his decision to join the collective Bodo movement as a cadre member of the BLT, a militant group. All along, BN was aware of the disadvantages of his people and their stigmatised status in the Assamese society. He also knew that the hierarchy in the Assamese– Bodo relationship was unjust. But, like most other Bodos, he had accepted the socio-economic and linguistic dominance of Assamese as a reality, and he believed that, under the circumstances, higher education in Assamese and English was necessary for his people to become a part of the broader Assamese society. He had a strong Bodo identity, but he had also opted for assimilation into mainstream Assamese society, accepting the marginalised status of Bodo culture and language as a fait accompli. He shared the Bodo cause and was conscious of the injustice in the socio-economic, cultural and linguistic domination of Assamese over Bodo. However, for him, at that time collective action and resistance were not viable options,

116  The Multilingual Reality

until the day he decided to quit his job and join the BLT. From a stance of passive acceptance of the unjust social hierarchy he moved, rather suddenly, to a collective strategy of assertion and resistance. The collective movement of the Bodos turned the tide and BN and all others who joined the movement in different groups and roles were successful in restoring the Bodo language and culture to a position of respect and recognition. In most cases of language contact between a dominant language and non-dominant ITM languages, there is a progressive domain shrinkage, marginalisation and shift of the latter, as we have noted in case of Kui. The experience of BN and his involvement in the collective assertion of the cultural and linguistic rights of the dominated Bodo community shows the other side of the complex outcomes of language and culture contact in multilingual societies. The dominated language community is able to assert its linguistic rights through collective action, as is evident from the course of the Bodo movement and the revival of Bodo. Unlike most other ITM languages in contact, the Bodo language has been assertively maintained (Dorian, 2004). Intergroup relations and language maintenance attitudes of Bodo and Assamese students

Our second study in Assam (Mohanty & Saikia, 2007) was conducted during 2005 and 2006, when the Bodos were in a post-movement phase of transition and receding tension. They were in a process of reorganising from the aftermath of mass agitation and consolidating the newly bestowed autonomy, privileges and responsibilities. It was still a period of confusion and uncertainty, since the administrative, fiscal and governance jurisdictions of BTC were still being worked out in ongoing negotiations with the state government. The social relationships between the Bodos, Assamese and other indigenous communities in the Bodo Territorial Area Districts (BTAD) continued to be fluid and unstable. Our study of Bodo and Assamese high-school students (grades 9 and 10) in the Bodo majority BTC areas and the Assamese majority areas in Assam sought to assess the nature of intergroup and language contact outcomes in these areas. A sample of 217 high-school students aged 14–16 years, drawn from six government schools in BTC region and Assamesemajority areas of Assam, was administered a questionnaire to assess own-group maintenance and out-group relationship attitudes. The sample consisted of 147 Bodo and 70 Assamese students from three BTC area schools and three Assamese-majority area schools with parallel sections in each grade for Bodo- and Assamese-medium instruction. All Assamese students in the sample were in Assamese-medium classes, whereas in the Bodo student sample 73 were in Bodo-medium classes (36 in the BTC area and 37 in the Assamese-majority area) and 74 in Assamese-medium classes (36 in the BTC area and 38 in the Assamese-majority area). The groups were administered an in-group maintenance and intergroup relationship



Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Societies  117

questionnaire (Saikia, 2004) in two parts to assess their attitudes towards their relationship with the contact group (Part A) and towards main­ten­ ance of their respective group language and culture (Part B). This was based on the Language and Culture Maintenance Attitudes Questionnaire (Mohanty, 1987) used in our earlier studies in Odisha (see above). The questionnaire consisted of 16 statements in each part, representing positive integrative attitudes (nine items) and instrumental attitudes (seven items) towards intergroup relationships and in-group maintenance. The questionnaire was in both the Bodo and the Assamese languages and respondents were free to choose between the two parallel forms. They were asked to indicate their agreement/disagreement with each statement on a seven-point scale ranging from –3 (indicating strong disagreement) to +3 (indicating strong agreement), with a neutral 0 point. The findings showed that Assamese students, from BTC as well as Assamese-majority areas, had a separation orientation, with a positive attitude to maintenance of their in-group language and culture and a negative attitude to their relationship with the Bodos. The Bodo students, from both the areas combined, had an integration orientation in the contact situation, with a positive in-group language and culture maintenance attitude and a positive attitude to maintaining a relationship with the Assamese. In the BTC area, however, the attitude of the Bodo students towards intergroup relationships with the Assamese was negative, showing a separation orientation, with positive in-group and negative out-group attitudes. A subsequent study by Saikia (2007) showed the same patterns of in-group maintenance and out-group relationship attitudes among the Assamese and Bodo students in the BTC and Assamese majority areas. Further, the study showed significant positive relationships between social identity, subjective ethnolinguistic vitality and in-group language and culture maintenance attitudes. The perceived ethnolinguistic vitality of Bodo was higher in the BTC areas than in the Assamese majority areas. Saikia (2007) concluded that ethnolinguistic minority groups with low subjective vitality of in-group language tend to assimilate into the dominant group and, at the same time, discrimination and coercive assimilation into the dominant group can lead to collective assertion of linguistic rights, as was the case with the Bodo movement. Our studies show that, with Bodo autonomy in the BTC areas achieved through prolonged intergroup tension and assertion of in-group identity and ethnolinguistic rights by the Bodos, the mutual separation orientation in intergroup relationships between the two contact groups had not been fully resolved. However, during our frequent visits17 to the BTC areas between 2007 to 2009 in connection with work on a different project, we noticed a clear change in the nature of intergroup relations: with increasing stability, autonomy in local governance and restoration of linguistic rights of the Bodos, mutual attitudes of separation among the Bodo and the Assamese people in the BTC region were changing in the direction

118  The Multilingual Reality

of mutual acceptance by the two communities. Such normalisation of relationships was also reflected in the Bodo students’ integrative attitude towards the contact group in the Assamese-dominant areas in our study. Marginalisation and Assertive Maintenance: Negotiation of Identities

Mohanty and Skutnabb-Kangas (2013: 171–173) discuss three strategies of negotiation and assertion of identities by dominated linguistic minorities in the hierarchical power structure of multilingual societies: (1) collective strategies, sometimes leading to language movements, assertive maintenance and revitalisation of languages; (2) passive acceptance of dominance and the status quo, which may also be associated with dissociation between instrumental and integrative functions of the minority language; and (3) ‘Individual level assimilation into the dominant language (and culture) and “invisibilisation” of (their) indigenous languages, accepting language shift and dominance by the major languages’ (Mohanty & Skutnabb-Kangas, 2013: 173). Developments with respect to Bodo demonstrate how these strategies at different periods have affected the course of the language. The history of the Bodo movement shows the conditions under which a language remains marginalised in hierarchical multilingualism or rises from marginalisation to assertive maintenance and revitalisation. Like Kui and most other ITM languages, Bodo had a history of prolonged neglect, which cumulatively weakened the language, leading to depletion of the number of speakers and possible language shift among the relatively isolated Bodo communities. Progressive reformation movements starting in the 1920s and the gradual spread of formal education among the Bodo people aroused a sense of Bodo identity. This led to many local initiatives for the development of the Bodo language and literature, its standardisation, and acceptance of a script (Assamese) for writing of Bodo. Perhaps the first major expression of the emerging Bodo identity was the Bodo Maha Sanmilani, convened by Gurudev Kalicharan Brahma in 1921.18 These early initiatives triggered many other attempts to develop the Bodo language and literature, gradually adding to the vitality of the language although the dominance of Assamese was accepted in education, economy and governance. Despite the growing activism, Bodos were neglected in all spheres of socio-economic life in Assam. The Bodo language remained marginalised with the dominance of Assamese, the state majority language, and also the importance of English under the British rule. However, since the Bodos were concentrated in their settlements in Assam and there were growing efforts to preserve the socio-cultural and literary traditions of the community, by the last phase of the British rule in India the Bodo identity and the ethnolinguistic vitality of the Bodo language had gathered some strength. When India gained its independence in 1947, the Bodos were



Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Societies  119

a politically active group.19 The formation of BSS in 1952 was a major develop­ment; it led the resurgence of Bodo linguistic identity. However, until the early 1950s, the Bodo language and identity did not have the strength and readiness to effectively contest the prevalent sociolinguistic hierarchy and dominance of Assamese. Assamese dominance was re­ inforced by the linguistic reorganisation of the states in India in 1954, which affirmed the position that states were linguistic units. Assamese became the dominant language in Assam, even if the state itself was not reorganised at that point. The ‘one state, one language’ principle reinforced the view that the states in the Union of India were uniform linguistic (monolingual) units and this effectively reduced Bodo to a clear minority status in Assam. With the Assam Official Language Act of 1961, Assamese become the only official language of Assam.20 Until the early 1960s, the Bodos seem to have generally engaged in a strategy of passive acceptance of the status quo and the dominance of Assamese in education, governance and major socio-economic domains. They were a low-status disadvantaged group with a salient Bodo identity. Bodo was a major regional language with a literary tradition and increasing vitality. There were no immediate threats to the survival and continued maintenance of Bodo, even if it remained marginalised in many significant spheres of social activity. Like the Kui language until now, Bodo remained marginalised and disadvantaged during the early 1960s as a language out of use in education and other domains of socio-economic significance; it had low instrumental value for its users. It can be said that both Bodo and Kui were similarly placed, albeit in different points in time, chronologically set apart by about 50 years. Like the present-day Kui, Bodo of the 1960s was clearly above the minimum threshold of subjective and objective vitality and user identification necessary for a language to rise above endangerment and language shift. But it was still not in a position of sufficient strength for its users to resist dominance and collectively assert their linguistic rights. For a couple of decades after the early 1950s, Bodo identity was sub­ordinate to Assamese and the perception of the higher status and instrumental significance of Assamese was a social reality. As pointed out by social identity theorists (Ellemers, 1993; Tajfel & Turner, 1979), social or individual mobility to the high status group is a viable option for the members of the low-status group, provided the group boundaries are permeable. This is precisely the option which Mr BN had exercised in moving on to higher education in Assamese and English and taking up a government job away from the disadvantages of his Bodo people. Like him, many other Bodo people chose the individual mobility option of assimilation into the dominant group. As Wright (1997) pointed out, seeking mobility through assimilation is an individualistic strategy of identity negotiation which does not change the hierarchical social order and the status quo. Individual mobility to the dominant language group

120  The Multilingual Reality

of Assamese is a position of out-group assimilation, even with a strong in-group Bodo identity. The assimilationist approach was evident during 1960s, even as Bodo identity was gathering strength. With persistent demand from BSS and other Bodo activists, Bodo-medium sections started in grades 1–3 in some primary schools in Bodo areas in 1963 and in secondary schools in 1968. However, a majority of Bodo parents preferred to send their children to Assamese-medium sections, since Assamese was the language of higher education and employment. The assimilationist strategy accepts the reality of the dominance of the out-group language in major domains, keeping the in-group language marginalised. This is also the case with Kui in contact with the dominant Odia language. The second option for the members of the lower-status group is one of resistance and collective action for assertion of in-group identity and rejection of the out-group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). According to Tajfel and Turner (1979), a group-level identity strategy begins with perception of the illegitimacy of the dominance hierarchy and own-group dis­advantage, and a belief in the desirability and feasibility of change. As we have seen, during the 1970s there were visible signs of rejection of Assamese dominance. BSS persisted with its demand for Bodo in education and for assertion of the cultural and linguistic rights of the Bodo people. Socioeconomic exploitation of the Bodo people became a major rallying point for the ABSU. The coming together of the ABSU and BSS marked the beginning of mass action and resistance to the dominance of Assamese. The large-scale movement of 1974 demanding that Bodo be written in Roman script (replacing the Assamese) was the first major sign of linguistic divergence and a process of identity negotiation to contest reality, empowered by the collective presence of many others with a strong group identity (Reicher & Levine, 1994a, 1994b). Until that point, however, the individual identity strategy of assimilation into the mainstream of the dominant Assamese continued to be a preferred option for Mr BN and many others. As Turner et al. (1987) argued, the choice between an individual or a group strategy depends on the relative salience of individual and group identities. In the case of Mr BN, there was a continuous process of cognitive evaluation (Smith, 1993) of the illegitimacy of the social and linguistic hierarchy and dominance of Assamese and the strength of collective action. He decided to join the collective movement when he shared the widespread belief in the feasibility of change of the unjust social order and when the relative salience of group identity became higher than his individual identity. Increased salience of group identity strengthens conformity to group norms (Reicher, 1987). This was evident in BN’s active participation in the subversive resistance activities of the BLT. It seems that ritualistic practices of coordinated action by a militant group, such as group uniforms, slogans and songs, further transformed his assertion of group identity (Drury & Reicher, 2000, 2009). With forceful collective action and mass participation in the Bodo movement, the Bodo language



Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Societies  121

was able to resist marginalisation and go beyond the passive identity strategy of its users. In fact, by the 1970s, the Bodo language had crossed the higher threshold of marginalisation (the dual-threshold framework is discussed above, p. 112) and moved into rejection of Assamese dominance and collective action for assertive maintenance of Bodo. The collective action succeeded in getting Bodo recognised as an official language of India and in revitalisation of the language. Bodo is now a medium of instruction at all levels of education. In 2009, Bodoland University21 was established in Kokrajhar (the head­ quarters town of the BTC) with doctoral programmes in Bodo, a Centre for Bodo Studies, a Department of Bodo, a Department of Assamese and programmes in sciences and other faculties. At least five daily newspapers and a number of periodicals and magazines and thousands of printed texts and literary writings in Bodo are published annually from Kokrajhar and other places in the BTAD region. The number of commercial feature films in Bodo has increased over the years. As many as 22 Bodo films were released in 2016, compared with only one in 1984. Production of Bodo music, songs and other forms of art performance, videos and various other commercial productions in the Bodo language have greatly increased over the years, along with a large number of literary awards and language development activities. Bodo is now an illustrious example of language revitalisation for other ITM languages in India. Summing Up: The Dynamics of Marginalisation and Assertive Maintenance

A social structure of hierarchy of languages, with the dominance of some over others, is a reality in multilingual societies. Therefore, issues of language choice and attitudes are inseparable from societal power relations, political processes, language ideologies and identities. In contexts of language contact, inequalities among language users on the grounds of the language(s) they speak and use or do not speak and use (i.e. ‘­linguicism’ – Skutnabb-Kangas, 1988) inevitably lead to constant negotiations of identities. Along with such negotiations, the nature of the languages and social relations among individuals and groups, placed differently in terms of linguistic inequalities and their own sociolinguistic identities, continue to evolve. In order to understand and predict the processes of language change and the role of languages in society, it is necessary to take note of how people relate to their own and others’ language(s) in terms of their choices and attitudes, and how people in different linguistic communities relate to each other on the basis of the relationship between their language(s) and control over resources. The studies described in this chapter sought to understand the dynamics of social relations among linguistic groups in contact within a broader social structure characterised by inequalities, and how such relations between

122  The Multilingual Reality

languages and their users are mediated by negotiations of linguistic identities over time. Specific findings of the studies with respect to the nature of intergroup relationships in Kui–Odia contact in Odisha and Bodo– Assamese contact in Assam have been discussed. The central concern of this chapter was to understand the conditions under which some dominated low-status languages in multilingual contexts are (further) marginalised whereas others are a­ ssertively maintained. Our studies in the two situations of multilingual contact led to comparative socio-historical analyses of identity strategies and negotiations under different contexts and conditions. Some insights from our analyses will be briefly stated here as a suggested framework22 to understand the processes of marginalisation and assertive maintenance of ITM and other low-status languages in multilingual societies. The social macro-structure in multilingual societies is one of power asymmetry between languages, involving systematic discrimination of the dominated (usually ITM) languages disadvantaged by low status and stigmatisation. Sometimes, a disadvantaged group may accept the low status as a fait accompli, a given, necessary and inevitable condition. Often, such groups may be too impoverished to have conscious awareness of discrimination. However, in most dominated groups there is awareness of the hierarchy, low status and discrimination. For these dominated groups, the social macro-structure of dominance and the relationship between the power of languages and access to resources are psychological (and, of course, socio-economic) realities, often associated with low self-esteem and stigmatisation. Membership of a dominated linguistic group entails material dis­ advantages (e.g. denial of both educational opportunities and economic re­sources) and psychological difficulties (e.g. stress, stigmatisation, low self-esteem) which, in turn, force the members of the dominated group to evaluate their options for amelioration of their disadvantaged status. Assimilation into the dominant group or resistance to dominance are possible options, as we have seen in case of Mr BN. Some groups, like the Konds in Odisha, end up accepting their marginalised status and attempt assimilation, whereas others, like the Bodos, choose the option of resistance based on their evaluation of the chances of assertion of collective identity. The parameters of such evaluation include a set of interrelated conditions associated with the net strength of the dominated language (and linguistic community) vis-à-vis the dominant language (and linguistic community) and the relative salience of the collective or group identity of the dominated linguistic group compared with individual identity. The dominated language (including its linguistic community) derives its collective strength from a host of conditions, such as ethnolinguistic vitality, group identity and positive maintenance attitudes and other ­context-specific conditions. When the net collective strength of a language is below a lower threshold, that is, when the language is too weak



Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Societies  123

(compared with the dominant contact language), it is located in a zone of language shift and the members of the dominated linguistic community accept assimilation as their option even if, in some cases, linguistic identity of the community may be high on integrative grounds, as is the case of the Kui identity of the Odia monolingual Kond people. When the net collective strength of the dominated language is above this lower threshold (of language shift), the language is in a zone of marginalisation. Members of a marginalised language community usually opt for individual identity strategies of assimilation,23 seeking social or individual mobility away from disadvantage and acquiring dominant group traits. However, with increasing collective strength of the dominated language (as is case with the proactive initiatives for reform and development of Bodo) and under conditions of high salience of group identity, perceptions of illegitimacy of the hierarchical social structure, belief in the desirability and feasibility of resistance to dominance, and favourable conditions for collective action (such as a large number of people joining a mass movement, presence of strong leadership, favourable political climate), a marginalised group may seek assertive maintenance and revitalisation of the dominated language, as with Bodo. It is also possible that a dominated language may have a high collect­ ive strength (such as demographic strength, economic and social status, rich literary and historical tradition, existing institutional support, strong linguistic identity of its users), even compared with the dominant contact language. In such cases, the dominated group may not experience material and psychological disadvantages and may seek to ensure stability in its sociolinguistic position in a multilingual social structure. In the case of a typical multilingual hierarchy with a double divide (Mohanty, 2010a; see also Chapter 4), some of the languages at the second level of the hier­ archical structure may have a relatively high collective strength vis-à-vis other dominant languages; these languages may not experience the dis­ advantages typically associated with low-status dominated languages. Some state majority languages in India, such as Bengali and Tamil, and classical languages, like Sanskrit, can be thought of as dominated languages in the multilingual social structure of the double divide in India. However, the vitality of these languages is high on many dimensions. As such, they are already above the threshold of marginalisation and their users may not experience psychological disadvantage. Such languages are in a position of stability, despite being dominated by more powerful languages. To conclude our discussion of the conditions of marginalisation and assertive language maintenance, it can be said that the framework suggested above involves broad statements of relationships between different sociolinguistic and psychological parameters of language change based on our studies and comparative analyses of the dynamics of language contact in different multilingual contexts. The variables in

124  The Multilingual Reality

the proposed framework need to be operationalised with some precision for further refinement. The framework is only intended to generate some hypotheses for further analyses and verification under diverse conditions of language contact and change. Admittedly, like most theoretical models, the suggested framework is an oversimplification. The realities of language change, language contact, shift, marginalisation and maintenance in multi­lingual societies are more complex. Notes (1) As early as 1935, sociologist Stonequist (1935) discussed the problems of marginal individuals. (2) Mohanty and Skutnabb-Kangas (2013) mention similar distinctions in linguistic human rights discourse. Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson (1994) distinguished between ‘necessary’ and ‘enrichment’-oriented rights which correspond closely to RubioMarín’s (2003) distinction between ‘expressive interest’ and ‘instrumental interest’ in language. The former is related to the function of language as an identity marker and as a means of cultural reproduction. The latter refers to functions of language associated with education and socio-economic opportunities. (3) In fact, all the areas in which our Kond studies were undertaken were multilingual areas, with the presence of many other languages (such as Hindi, English, Telugu) besides Odia and Kui. The Kond and non-tribal people did have multilingual exposure to varying degrees. However, we have described the people and the sociolinguistic areas in the district of Phulbani as Kui–Odia bilingual or as Odia monolingual on the basis of the wide presence of one or both languages in the milieu and in actual use by the Kond and non-tribal people in these areas. The presence of other languages and their use in these areas are minimal. (4) The number of years of formal school education of the adults in the sample varied from 0 to 5. (5) During the 1980s and 1990s, the Kond population was around 1 million and the number of speakers of Kui was around 600,000. Census of India 2011 data show the Kond population at 1,627,486 and the number of Kui speakers at 916,222. (6) This idea of two thresholds is reminiscent of the threshold theory of the relationship between the degree of bilingual competence and the cognitive benefits of bilingualism suggested by Cummins (1976) and Toukomaa and Skutnabb-Kangas (1977). The threshold theory postulates that a minimum level of bilingual competence is necessary to avoid possible negative cognitive consequences of bilingualism and a higher level of bilingual competence is necessary for positive benefits. (7) Four districts of Assam – Kokrajhar, Udalguri, Baksa and Chirang – constitute the Bodo Territorial Area Districts (BTAD) under the administrative jurisdiction of the BTC. (8) The Assamese writing system evolved out of the Kamrupi system in Assam, which also led to the development of Bengali and some other regional writing systems. Thus, the modern Assamese and Bengali writing systems are similar. The writing systems in most of the Indian languages, including those for Assamese and Bengali, have descended from the Brahmi script of ancient India. (9) During the Bodo movement, which started in the early 1960s and became more vigorous in the 1970s, leading to the demand for a separate Bodo state (Bodoland), the Bodos rejected the prevalent socio-economic and political dominance of the Assamese people and, as a token of their protest, the system of writing Bodo in the Assamese script was also rejected. During the later part of the movement and for few years after it, Bodo was written in Roman script. Later, the BTC, formed on the basis of a peace accord in



Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Societies  125

2003 granting the Bodos partial autonomy over regional governance, undertook wider consultations on the issue and decided in favour of Devanagari script for writing of Bodo. Now Bodo is written and printed in Devanagari script, with minor modifications. Thus, printed and handwritten materials in Bodo are available in three writing systems – Assamese, Roman and Devanagari. (10) Brahmo Samaj was a monotheistic Hindu reformist movement of 19th-century India. It was started in the year 1828 by two eminent proponents of Brahmoism – Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Devendranath Togore – as a reformation of the prevailing Brahminic practices of the Hindus. The Brahmo Samaj movement is considered a significant religious and liberal movement in India, promoting social reforms and modern education. A prominent Bodo reformer, Kalicharan Bramha (b. 1860), was initiated into Brahmoism in 1907 and he preached Brahmo Dharma among the Bodos. Popularly known as Gurudev, Kalicharan Brahma also started a literary movement for the develop­ment of the Bodo language, literature and its standardisation. He adopted Assamese script for writing Bodo and convened the first Bodo Maha Sanmilani (Grand Alliance of Bodos) and organised its first conference in 1921; this played a major role in the crystallisation of Bodo identity. (11) In the 2001 census of India, 90.31% of the Bodos declared Bathouism and 9.40% Christianity as their religion. (12) The Anglicised name of the city has now been changed to its indigenous form – Guwahati. (13) This was the first major sign of the Bodo people’s rejection of Assamese. During the 1920s, there were many signs of the emergence of Bodo identity and growth of political consciousness among the Bodos. However, at that time they had shown their preference for Assamese over other communities in contact. In fact, when the Simon Commission of the British government sought to reorganise the province of Bengal and there was a suggestion that the Bodo areas might be merged with Bengal, the Bodos submitted a memorandum to the Commission in 1929 expressing their resentment of the proposal; there was a clear preference for Assamese over other communities in contact during the period. (14) The group was also called Bodo Liberation Tigers Force (BLTF). It was founded on 18 June 1996 under the leadership of Prem Singh Brahma. The BLTF or BLT became known as a terrorist group operating in Assam during this period. (15) Later, the BLT and ABSU formed a political alliance called the Bodo People’s Pro­ gressive Front. (16) Along with Bodo, three other languages – Dogri, Maithili and Santhali – were included as official languages in Schedule VIII of the constitution, raising the number of official languages to 22. For the first time since the promulgation of the constitution, two tribal languages – Bodo and Santhali – were included in Schedule VIII. (17) One of the researchers, Ms Jayashree Saikia, lived in the BTC headquarters town of Kokrajhar during 2007–2009 as the manager of a project undertaken by us. (18) There were many signs of emerging political consciousness among the Bodos by the end of the 1920s. During this period, Bodos presented a number of memoranda to the government of India (then under the British rule). In 1929, they made a representation to the Simon Commission, seeking privileges, jobs and higher education for Bodos and also challenging the proposed transfer of Bodo areas to Bengal. In 1924, Assam Bodo Chhatra Sanmillani (the Assam Bodo Students Convention) published the first Bodo magazine, Bibar. Earlier, in 1915, the first printed book in the Bodo language, Bodoni Phisa O’Aiyen, had been published, stating the customs and rules for the Bodo community. The emergence of Bodo identity saw some political activism by the Bodos during the 1930s and afterwards. Some Bodo leaders initiated the formation of the All Assam Tribal League in 1933, with the active participation of Bodos, which sought political privileges and reservations for the plains tribes, including Bodos. This was granted to them in the Government of India Act, 1935, under British rule.

126  The Multilingual Reality

(19) On independence, leaders of the All Assam Tribal League, mostly Bodos, joined the Indian National Congress Party hoping for greater autonomy and power for the Bodo people. (20) Language issues became significant in Assam during the 1960s. Assamese became the medium of higher education in addition to English and also the compulsory third language in secondary schools. (21) The earlier Kokrajhar Campus of Gauhati University was upgraded for this new university. (22) The framework discussed here is developed on the basis of an earlier analysis (Mohanty, 2007). (23) The assimilation option depends on permeability of boundary of the dominant group. In some cases, the dominant group may keep the subordinate group members in segregation or the group may have distinctive traits, such as racial features. In such conditions, the intergroup boundary is impermeable and the dominated group may seek other options for mobility.

6 Language Disadvantage, Capability Deprivation and Poverty

I met Mr Lakheshwar Khudram in Raipur, Chhattisgarh (India), in 2006 at a teachers’ workshop on multilingual education (MLE) for tribal children based on their mother tongue (MT). Lakheshwar, an assistant teacher in Netanar Middle School in Chhattisgarh, was from a Halvi-speaking tribal community. I was surprised to note how readily he accepted my rationale for MT-based education. In fact, even if he himself was a teacher in a Hindi-medium government school, he showed us some teaching/learning materials such as songs, number rhymes and games that he had developed in Halvi for use with Halvi-MT children whom he taught. When I discussed his use of Halvi in his teaching, Lakheshwar narrated his ex­ perience, which he later wrote down for me in Hindi. The following is my translation of Lakheshwar’s story,1 which I reported in my Introduction to the 2007 edition of Bilingualism or NOT: The Education of Minorities by Tove Skutnabb-Kangas (2007: xvii–xxvi): I must have been about six years old. My father got me admitted to Class I of Janapad Prathamik Sala (Primary School) in Nangur. Our teacher did not understand Halvi at all and I did not know Hindi except for two words – ānā (coming) and jānā (going). The classroom was a burden to me. I never liked anything in the school, but I was under pressure from my father to keep going to school. So, I would leave home for school but spend time in the jungle till school got over. One day my father found out. Despite his strong reprimand, mine was an emphatic ‘no’ to the school and finally, I was let off. After about six months, a new teacher joined the school. He spoke Halvi. But I was out of school enjoying myself. Then came a regional level inter-school games and sports competition and the school needed some winning athletes. I was good at frog race (medhak doud in Hindi). The new teacher found out and called for me. I was back in the school on the pretext of participating in the competition. At our first meeting, I liked the new teacher instantly; he spoke to me in my language. Suddenly, the school became more attractive. The competition was for three days which meant a new beginning for me. My heart had changed and I stayed on. Whatever I am today I owe to the teacher who spoke to me in my language. 127

128  The Multilingual Reality

Lakheshwar moved on to pass his High School Examination and then obtained a bachelor of arts degree followed by a teacher training diploma and a diploma in folk music, and became a successful teacher. Not many among the tribal children in India have as lucky a break as Lakheshwar. Most of them just drop out of school and do not go back. The few who remain somehow make it through the high school but cannot go much higher. They end up where their parents had been, unable to break the shackles of poverty. Their language seems to have defined the limits of their destiny. Analysis of the educational and economic profile of the tribal peoples of India shows how the close links between language, schooling and capability deprivation perpetuate poverty. In multilingual societies as well as in the dominant monolingual ones, some languages are privileged whereas others are neglected. Languages in multilingual societies are invariably organised in a hierarchy of power and status, in which some languages enable privileged access to power and resources while others are marginalised through prolonged neglect and discriminatory state policies. The less powerful marginalised languages may continue to survive, but they are pushed out of major domains of use, restricted mostly to domains of home and community communication and robbed of their instrumental vitality. In Chapter 4 I discussed the dynamics of marginalisation of languages and their continued neglect through a vicious circle of disadvantage. One of the outcomes is prolonged educational neglect of indigenous, tribal, minority and minoritised (ITM) languages, on the lowest rungs of the hierarchy in multilingual societies. Neglect of ITM languages in education leads to impoverishment of these languages, language disadvantage of the ITM communities and educational failure. This chapter shows the relationship between neglect of MTs in education, educational failure and poverty of the ITM communities using Amartya Sen’s welfare economics framework. The neglected position of ITM languages in education and the consequences of education in an imposed dominant language are examined in the context of India and other multilingual countries. Submersion education in a dominant language, it is argued, has a subtractive effect on children’s MTs and it leads to educational failure and capability deprivation. The relationship between education in the dominant language, educational failure, capability deprivation and poverty is demonstrated through an analysis of tribal communities in India. Poverty and Capability

Poverty is not just the absence of economic resources. It is related to a lack of effective opportunities for an individual or a community to be or to do what the individual (and/or the community) wants. In other words, poverty is absence of capability development. Amartya Sen, the Nobel laureate and welfare economist, defines poverty as ‘capability deprivation’



Language Disadvantage, Capability Deprivation and Poverty  129

(Sen, 1985, 2001; Dreze & Sen, 2002). The capability of an individual is related to effective opportunities to be who he or she wants to be or to engage in activities that he or she wants to do. Thus, poverty is relative absence of capability for functioning or for engaging in pursuit of some desired outcomes such as working, having some leisure, leading a life of health, relating to others or to a community in a certain manner, or being literate. Capability is defined as ‘the ultimate combinations of functioning from which a person can choose’ (Dreze & Sen, 2002: 35). The essence of capability is freedom to choose. Freedom is ‘the range of options a person has in deciding what kind of life to lead’ (Dreze & Sen, 2002: 35–36). In this sense, poverty is ‘unfreedom’ (Sen, 1985) or curtailment of ­capabilities. In the capability approach, the nature and causes of poverty are best understood in terms of lack of real social opportunities rather than the conventional economic indicators such as low income, inadequate consumption or impoverished life conditions. Dreze and Sen (2002: 6) point out that social discrimination leads to lack of social opportunities ‘to expand the realm of human agency and freedom, both as an end in itself and as a means of further expansion of freedom’; lack of freedom of choice, in turn, is related to a state of capability deprivation and poverty. In an analysis of the worsening situation of poverty in India, Sampath (2015) also emphasises human agency rather than the simple income/ consumption aspect of poverty: There is no axiomatic or natural reason why poverty needs to be defined by measures of income or consumption. It could also be defined in terms of a people’s political agency – how much control they exercise over the factors that determine their life chances, which may or may not be linked to a money economy. (Sampath, 2015: 11)

Thus, expansion of human agency and capabilities, rather than economic growth as such, can be seen as fundamental to development and alleviation of poverty. It is necessary, therefore, to ask: ‘What is the most critical (and costeffective) input to change the conditions of poverty, or rather to expand human capabilities?’ (Misra & Mohanty, 2000: 265). There is a general consensus in the social sciences that education is the most critical input for capability development. Poverty involves a set of contextual conditions and certain processes which lead to limited capabilities, with a negative impact on performance of the poor. It is also true that the aspects of human performance most closely linked to upward socio-economic mobility are cognitive, intellectual and scholastic functions. The capability approach is viewed as a powerful interdisciplinary tool to deal with issues related to poverty and the well-being of marginalised communities (Robeyns, 2010). Robeyns (2010) suggests that an analysis of capability inputs and obstacles

130  The Multilingual Reality

to the realisation of capability is necessary to understand the problems of discrimination and the marginalisation of communities. In Sen’s view, education and health are significant capability inputs for development. Education is an enabling factor for economic development, and illiteracy is seen as ‘unfreedom’ which is an obstacle to realisation of the capability for economic development. Formal education2 provides economic opportunities through access to employment and income and, more importantly, it empowers the individual, and adds to social and cultural freedom and the capacity for democratic participation. More recently, another welfare economist and Nobel laureate, Angus Deaton, has also emphasised the significant role of social inequalities and dis­ crimination in economic development (Deaton, 2013; Deaton & Dreze, 2002). Social discrimination and inequalities limit freedom, opportunities, scope for democratic participation and economic development. In traditional hierarchically organised societies such as in South Asia, discrimination and subordination on the basis of caste, class, culture, religion and language lead to disadvantages and problems of ‘voicelessness’ (Dreze & Sen, 2002) which are associated with illiteracy3 and educational failure. ITM children all over the world suffer from various forms of discrimination and exclusion, limiting their development of capabilities and economic growth. In discussing the role of education as a critical input for development out of poverty, Dreze and Sen (2002) point out that lack of formal education of the disadvantaged communities in India cannot be attributed to parental indifference to the enabling role of education, nor to purported child labour. Instead, they speak of a host of ‘discouragement effects’ which are responsible for educational backwardness of the disadvantaged communities. Such discouragement factors include alienating curricula, classroom inactivity, social discrimination in the classroom, poor teacher quality and other conditions of linguistic and cultural discrimination leading to devaluation of the languages and cultures of ITM communities. Neglect in education of ITM children’s home language is one of the major discouragements triggering educational failure and illiter­acy, contributing to loss of freedom, capability deprivation and poverty. ‘While formal education is the enabling factor for economic development, language is the enabling factor for access to quality education, and often to any school education’ (Mohanty & Skutnabb-Kangas, 2013: 162). Education and Languages in Multilingual Societies

The hierarchical positioning of languages in multilingual societies typically characterised by a double divide between the dominant, major and ITM languages (see Chapter 4) is evident in how education is organised in these societies. While some languages dominate education at all levels, there is usually a pyramidal structure of presence of languages at different levels of education. In most cases, compared with the higher



Language Disadvantage, Capability Deprivation and Poverty  131

levels of education, early primary education accommodates a larger number of languages, including the dominant, major and some of the ITM languages. The number of languages declines sharply from primary to secondary and to higher education. With higher levels of education there is progressive invisibilisation of ITM languages and university education is almost exclusively in the dominant language(s). Chapters 2 and 4 have discussed Indian multilingualism and the multiple layers of linguistic discrimination and inequalities. We have seen how exclusion of the dominated ITM languages weakens them, leading to a vicious circle of further exclusion on the grounds of their weakness; the very processes weakening the ITM languages are further reinforced on the grounds of such weakness. As pointed out in the case of India, the educational exclusion of languages, particularly tribal languages, is striking. The constitution of India mandates the state and the local authorities to ‘provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother tongue at primary stage of education to children belonging to minority groups’ (Article 350A). But the actual number of languages used as languages of teaching/learning or medium of instruction and as school subjects has been declining over the years and ITM languages are conspicuously absent from public education in India. Less than 1% of tribal children have an opportunity for such an education. In higher education, there is minimal presence of regional majority languages, and tribal languages are completely absent. Further up, university and technical education are almost exclusively in English. Nearly 60,000 primary schools4 (grades 1 to 5) in India have over 90% children from ‘Scheduled Tribes’ (STs – see below, under ‘The Tribes in India’, p. 135), and in over 100,000 schools ST children constitute the majority. In view of this, it is unfortunate that, except in some special programmes, there is no regular provision for the education of ST children in their MTs, despite the constitutional guarantee. In fact, the Government Information System (District Information System for Education) does even not keep any data on the first language or the home language of children (including ST children). Therefore, there is a general lack of appreciation of the magnitude of the educational problem due to the mismatch between home language and school language of ITM children. In discussing the language-in-education policy and practice in South Asia, Panda and Mohanty show that ITM languages in this part of the world are progressively excluded from education at higher levels: ‘Out of nearly 660 languages in South Asian countries not more than 50 are used as languages of teaching or medium of instruction (MoI) in schools’ (Panda & Mohanty, 2015: 545) and university education is primarily in English. It should also be pointed out that although English is the most dominant language in higher and university education in India and other South Asian countries, as also in Africa and many other Asian countries, informal use of other languages is not uncommon in the classrooms;

132  The Multilingual Reality

teachers and students often use other languages to communicate effect­ ively and to compensate for inadequate proficiency in English. All over the world, the speakers of ITM languages suffer the consequences of neglect of their language in education, which denies them of their linguistic human rights, has negative effects on their educational performance and leads to loss of linguistic diversity (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). State policies and practices in respect of languages in education in most parts of the world force children from ITM language communities into submersion education in dominant languages, with the mismatch between home and school language leading to large-scale educational failure, push out, capability deprivation and poverty (Mohanty, 2009a; Mohanty & Skutnabb-Kangas, 2013). Such education has a subtract­ ive effect on children’s linguistic repertoire. As the dominant/majority language is learnt in school, it gradually displaces the MT, initially leading to a diglossic pattern of language use and then often to a loss of MT proficiency and also inadequate development of the dominant language. Neglect of the Home Language in Education: Some Consequences

Education of the ITM children in a dominant language is a violation of the right to education. It also leads to progressive weakening, domain loss and shift for the ITM languages. As noted in Chapter 4, Skutnabb-Kangas (2000; Skutnabb-Kangas & Dunbar, 2010) has argued that denial of the right to education in one’s own language can be seen as ‘a crime against humanity’ and linguistic genocide as defined in various United Nations documents and provisions of international law. Submersion education in a dominant language is a major factor in large-scale school failure, high ‘push-out’ rates, capability deprivation and poverty in India and Nepal (Mohanty, 2009a; Mohanty & Skutnabb-Kangas, 2013). Coleman (2010) points out that poor academic achievement and the school failure of a large number of children in Pakistan can be attributed to the language barrier that these children face in non-MT-medium schools. Many other researchers from Pakistan (e.g. Rahman, 2008; Shamim, 2008) have also pointed to poor educational development of the linguistic minorities in the country due to the neglect of MTs in education. As Mohanty and Skutnabb-Kangas point out in the context of Nepal: Teaching Indigenous, tribal and minority (ITM) children through the medium of a language that they do not understand obviously contributes to the low literacy rates. One of the major causes of children’s ‘dropout’, class repetition and failure is attributed to the use of Nepali (or English), instead of children’s mother tongue in early grades of school education. (Mohanty & Skutnabb-Kangas, 2013: 179)

The Educational and Developmental Service Centre (EDSC) of Kathmandu undertook a study of the national achievement level of



Language Disadvantage, Capability Deprivation and Poverty  133

grade 3 students in 1997 which pointed out the language-in-education disadvantage of non-Nepali-speaking children in schools in Nepal. The report showed that the parents of the top 10 achieving schools were from Nepali MT areas, whereas those from the bottom 10 schools were non-Nepali-speaking (EDSC, 1997: 95). Earlier, the National Language Policy Recommendation Commission in Nepal had indicated in 1994 that children at primary grades tend to ‘drop out’ and even when the ‘dropouts’ enrol again it takes them 9–12 years to complete primary education (Yadava & Grove, 2008: 24). Yadava and Grove (2008) also pointed out that the maximum rate of ‘drop out’ is in grades 1 and 2, which shows early problems of non-comprehension for children who do not speak or understand Nepali. In his elaborate dis­cussion of the monolingual school practices in multilingual Nepal, Awasthi (2004: 286) (reported in Mohanty & Skutnabb-Kangas, 2013) speaks of the consequences of having the dominant language as the medium of instruction for non-Nepali-speaking children: The existing medium of instruction (MOI) practices do not allow NNS [non-Nepali-speaking] children to receive education through their mother tongues […]. Teaching in schools operates in Nepali despite the fact that a majority of school children in non-Nepali speaking areas speak other language(s) than Nepali. […] My evidence suggests that the Nepali-only practice in classrooms has devastating effects on NNS children’s school performance and on their self-esteem.

In fact, in Nepal as well as in other countries, the consequences of submersion education of ITM children in a dominant language goes beyond educational non-attainment: it also has negative effects on children’s identity and cultural pride (Hough et al., 2009). Mohanty and SkutnabbKangas (2013) point out that feelings of humiliation, inferiority and loss of identity associated with neglect of MTs are common. Similar negative consequences were reflected at the International Hearing on the Harm Done in Schools by Suppression of the Mother Tongue in Mauritius, 20–24 October 2009 (see the Report, Findings and Recommendations, at http:// www.lalitmauritius.org, 27 October 2009, Documents). In her exhaustive analysis of the consequences of the dominance of some languages in multilingual societies, Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) shows how the dominance of Nepali contributed to invisibilisation of the language resources of the ITM groups in Nepal. I have noted the problems of tribal children in India who find themselves compelled to attend schools in which the language of instruction is not their MT but the dominant language (Mohanty, 2000, 2009a). I point out that they begin with little comprehension of the language of school education. These children ‘take at least two to three years to under­stand the language of the teachers and textbooks’ (Mohanty, 2010b: 272). It is,

134  The Multilingual Reality

therefore, not surprising that a large number of children leave school in the first and second years, as has also been noted in the case of non-Nepali children in Nepali-medium schools in Nepal. As stated earlier, the ‘pushout’ rate for tribal children in India is more than 50% by the fifth year of schooling. Jhingran has pointed out the problem of non-comprehension among tribal children facing a language barrier in the classroom. He describes a classroom in a tribal area school in Chhindwara district in Madhya Pradesh, India, during a field visit to the school, where the language of teaching was Hindi, the dominant state language but which the tribal children did not understand at the point of school entry: The children seemed totally disinterested in the teachers’ monologue. They stared vacantly at the teacher and sometimes at the blackboard where some alphabets had been written. Clearly aware that the children could not understand what he was saying, the teacher proceeded to provide even more detailed explanation in much louder voice. Later, tired of speaking and realizing that the young children were completely lost, he asked them to start copying the alphabets from the blackboard. ‘My children are very good at copying from the blackboard. By the time they reach grade 5, they can copy all the answers and memorise them. But only two of the grade 5 students can actually speak Hindi’, said the teacher. (Jhingran, 2005: 1)

Jhingran (2005) organised a field study in four states in India – Assam, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Odisha – to assess the nature of language disadvantage of ITM children in primary schools at which the medium was the dominant state language. He pointed out the ‘double dis­advantage’ of ITM children: one disadvantage being unfamiliarity with the school language and the other the difficulty of culturally alien new information and concepts being ‘thrown’ at them in the classrooms. The field study found that, after about six months in grade 1, children had no recognition of alphabets in the dominant language except when the alphabets were sequentially presented. Children did not have any oral participation in the classroom; they mostly copied from the blackboard or textbooks. They continued to show very poor levels of performance even in grade 5. According to Jhingran’s (2005) findings, grade 5 children from tribal communities ‘read with a lot of effort, mostly word by word’: Their oral skills in the second language are poor and they are definitely more comfortable speaking in their mother tongue. Such children cannot frame sentences correctly and have a very limited vocabulary. While they can partially comprehend text (of grade 2/3 level), they were unable to formulate answer to simple questions in the standard [sic5] language. In most schools, the tribal language speaking children could not score a single mark in the reading comprehension test. (Jhingran, 2005: 50)

Jhingran (2005) also points out that the children’s performance was a little better when the teacher could speak the home language of the pupils.



Language Disadvantage, Capability Deprivation and Poverty  135

These studies show that early schooling and literacy instruction in a dominant language which is not the MT of children has adverse effects on literacy development and classroom learning; it leads to high ‘pushout’ rate and educational failure. Large-scale national studies in India examining classroom achievement also show poor educational performance of tribal children. The National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) in India undertook a study (Singh et al., 2004) of the learning achievement of pupils at the end of grade 5 with a national sample of 88,271 children, including 11,824 from STs. Compared with the non-ST children, the ST children had significantly lower scores on tests of achievement in mathematics, environmental studies, language, reading comprehension, grammar and language usage. It is evident that neglect of the home language at school makes it difficult for children to cope with the learning requirements. The mismatch between home language and school language creates a major challenge in communication and comprehension.6 The burden of non-comprehension of the language of teacher and textbooks makes curricular learning nearly impossible, while the child struggles with the challenges of communication in an unfamiliar school language. In the following section, I will take a closer look at the tribal population in India, exploring the links between the neglect of their language in education and poverty. The Tribes in India: Languages and Education

Different indigenous tribal communities in states and union territories (UTs) in India, identified on the basis of some essential characteristics (see Chapter 1, note 1, p. 8), are declared by the government of India to belong to the state- or UT-specific tribes called Scheduled Tribes (ST) under the provisions of Article 342 of the constitution. In view of some special affirmative provisions for the STs, in relation to public service jobs, admission to educational institutions and the availability of government grants and support, sometimes communities stake a claim to be listed under the ST category and lobby for it. Thus, the government of India, after consideration of the claim and applicability of the criteria for such recognition, notifies additional communities to be listed under the ST category for a particular state or UT. There are 705 tribes or ethnic groups so far listed as ST for the 30 states and UTs.7 Some of the major STs have a number of different groups included within them. For example, the Kuki tribe in Assam includes 37 groups with different community/group names. Further, 75 of the STs are identified as Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTG).8 With a population figure of 104,281,034 reported in the census of 2011, the STs constitute 8.6% of the population of India. The People of India (POI) survey by the Anthropological Survey of India reported that 218 languages were used by the STs; 159 of these languages are exclusive

136  The Multilingual Reality

to the tribal population (Singh, 2002). Most of the ST communities use an indigenous tribal language, some of which are shared by several tribal communities. Contact bilingualism/multilingualism is common among the STs. The POI survey (Singh, 2002) identified 500 bilingual tribal communities. However, bilingualism is more common among the male adults than among the women and children, partly because of the limited mobility of the women and the young children and thus they have less contact with speakers of the dominant contact language. Thus, by school age (six years), some of the tribal children have had no or little exposure to the dominant school language. Unfortunately, there is a widespread misconception among Indian politicians, bureaucrats and policy-makers that the tribal languages are ‘dialects’, not languages. This belief is related to a lack of printed materials in most of the tribal languages and to the absence of any exclusive writing system for them. There is a lack of understanding that having a script or a writing system is not an essential feature of a language. Many major languages in the world (including English) are written in many different and, often, borrowed scripts. Further, the same script is and can be used to write many languages. I will briefly discuss the writing systems in India, with focus on the writing of tribal languages. Tribal languages in India: Scripts and conventions in writing

The linguistic design of the writing systems or scripts of the major languages in India – the Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages – have evolved from the Brāmhī script9 of ancient India (Bright, 2000; Daniels & Bright, 1996; Patel, 2004). The orthographic units in the Brāmhī system are known as akshara (Padakannaya & Mohanty, 2004; Padakannaya & Ramachandra, 2011). Currently, 11 different Brāmhī-based writing systems or orthographies are used for writing all the major languages in India. The same scripts or writing systems are used to write many different languages. For example, Devanagari script is commonly used for writing Sanskrit, Hindi, Nepali and, now, Bodo10 and Bengali/Assamese script is used for writing Bengali, Assamese and Manipuri. Also, in some cases, the same language is written in different scripts. As pointed out in Chapter 5, Bodo has been written in Assamese/Bengali script, Roman script and now in Devanagari script. Similarly, Santali is written in Ol Chiki script11 in Odisha, Bengali script in Bengal and Devanagari script in Jharkhand and Bihar. Saora is written both in Roman and Odia scripts and there is now some organised use of a Saora script developed in the community. Barring a few, the tribal languages do not have an independent or indigenous script and are usually written or printed in the script of the dominant regional language or a major language. Some tribal languages such as Santali have their own writing system. In most cases, early writing and printing of the tribal languages were in some dominant language’s



Language Disadvantage, Capability Deprivation and Poverty  137

writing systems. For example, the Bible was translated to the Kui language in 1850 and printed in Odia script, whereas a similar translation of the Bible to Saora was printed in Roman script. Thus, there is a great deal of diversity in how the tribal languages are written/printed. Attempts are often made by different people or organisations to develop special scripts for the tribal languages. The People’s Linguistic Survey of India (Devy, 2014) located 64 scripts or writing systems, including the 11 major scripts mentioned above. Most of the remaining scripts are the result of local initiatives of the tribes across India for their indigenous languages, such as the Ho, Saora, Kui and Oraon, primarily for assertion of linguistic identity (Rebello, 2015). In the MT-based MLE programmes in India, all the tribal MTs are written in the major state language, in Odia in Odisha (except Santali, which is written in Ol Chiki) and in Telugu in Andhra Pradesh. Exclusion of Tribal Languages and Educational Failure

I will discuss some selected indicators of educational failure of the STs and then look at their economic development and poverty. The literacy rate (percentage of literates among the population aged seven years and above) is 58.96% for the STs compared with 72.99% for the total population and 66.07% for the Scheduled Castes (SC).12 Literacy rates for the STs are much lower if one takes out the three north-eastern states – Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland – in which the population share of the STs is more than 85% and the literacy rates for the STs are much higher than the national average (74.5%, 91.5% and 80.0%, respectively, for Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland).13 The percentages of ST children enrolled in schools by age group, the gross enrolment ratios (GER), are given in Table 6.1. Table 6.1  Gross enrolment ratios (%) Age group (years)

Grades

ST boys

ST girls

ST boys and girls

6–10

1–5

137.2

136.7

137.0

11–13

6–8

 90.7

 87.0

 88.9

14–15

9–10

 57.1

 49.1

 53.3

16–17

11–12

 32.7

 24.8

 28.8

Note that some children appear on the rolls of multiple schools and the GER for early grades can be higher than 100%.

As Table 6.1 shows, with each higher level of school education, there is a sharp decline in the GER and less than a third of the boys and a quarter of the girls are in higher secondary education, which is a critical stage for entry into higher and technical education. It is also notable that a large proportion of ST children who enter grade 1 leave school before completion

138  The Multilingual Reality

of the secondary stage of school education (grade 10). Table 6.2 gives the percentage of ST children joining grade 1 who leave school by grades 5, 8 and 10. Clearly, the ‘push-out’ rate14 is quite high for the STs. Table 6.2  Percentage of grade 1 children leaving school by different grades Grade

ST boys

ST girls

ST boys and girls

5

37.2

33.9

35.6

8

54.7

55.4

55.0

10

70.6

71.3

70.9

As Table 6.2 shows, out of every 100 ST children attending grade 1, only about 64 complete primary education and 29 go on to grade 10, when they can take the High School Examination. It should be pointed out that, due to special programmes of the national and state governments in recent years, all the ST children join grade 1, but most of them are out of school by grade 8. For the ST children, who struggle to continue in schools despite the language barrier and a host of other discouragements, the level of classroom achievement is low. I have discussed some studies in India which show the poor classroom achievement of these children compared with the SC and other social groups. It is significant that the level of performance of the ST children who manage to stay in school to take the High School Examination at the end of secondary education (grade 10) is much below that of the SCs and other groups. Mohanty (2009a) shows that in the state of Odisha,15 the performance of ST students is much lower than that of the SCs. In the years 2003–2005, the rates of failure16 of ST students taking the High School Examination each year were, respectively, 63.69%, 59.77% and 56.13%, compared with 61.54%, 58.40% and 55.15% for the SCs. The level of performance of the STs has remained equally low over the years in Odisha as well as in the rest of India. Among the ST students who took the annual High School Examination during these years, less than 4% scored above 60% (categorised ‘first division’), less than 16% scored 45–60% (‘second division’) and less than 25% scored 30–45% (‘third division’). The percentage of students securing first and second division was higher among SC students than among the STs. The low level of achievement of the ST students who pass the High School Examination limits their chances of entry into higher education. Panda and Mohanty discuss the national figures for the push-out rates at different levels of school education and show a dismal rate of school success of the STs: ‘for every 100 tribal children joining school (in grade 1), less than 24 actually appear in the High School (grade 10) Examination, and only 9 out of them pass’ (Panda & Mohanty, 2014: 113). In her Report of the Task Force on ‘Issues in Education of Tribal Children’ (12th Five-Year Plan) to the



Language Disadvantage, Capability Deprivation and Poverty  139

Planning Commission of India, Panda (2012a) points out that with only nine out of 100 ST children passing the High School Examination there is a wastage of 91% in the existing system of school education for ST children. According to her, such wastage of national resources shows the failure to provide quality education for the ST children and is a violation of their right to education as indicated in the Right to Education Act of India, 2009 (see discussion in Chapter 7). With only about 9% of the ST children who join grade 1 passing the High School Examination at the end of grade 10, not many go to higher secondary levels (grades 11 and 12). Figures from the national government’s Department of Tribal Welfare for 2013 (http://www.tribal.nic.in/ WriteReadData/userfiles/file/Statistics/StatisticalProfileofSTs2013.pdf, accessed 3 September 2015) show that the cumulative percentage of ST students who discontinued studies at different levels from grades 1 to 12 was 86.2% by grade 12. Approximately 40% of the remaining ST students pass the different examinations at the end of higher secondary education, but most of them with very low levels of performance. It is, therefore, not surprising that the STs are also grossly under-represented in higher and technical education. As I pointed out (Mohanty, 2009a), enrolment of ST children at the primary level is proportionate to their population share. But the figures for the higher secondary level show a much lower representation of ST students (5.37% of the total enrolment) than their share of the population. The representation of the ST students in higher and technical education (including postgraduate education) is even lower. The All India Survey of Higher Education undertaken by the Ministry of Human Resource Development of the Government of India, 2011–2012 (http://www.mhrd.gov.in/upload_files/mhrd/files/statistics/AISHE.pdf, accessed 2 September 2015) shows that the GER for the 18–23-year age group is 4.17% for STs and 12.47% for SCs. The total enrolment in higher and technical education (including postgraduate education) was 28.56 million throughout the country, including 1.28 million STs and 3.48 million SCs. Poor educational performance of the STs at all levels of education is thus evident; the STs have a lower level of literacy and educational success than the other social groups in India and they compare poorly with the other major disadvantaged group, namely the SCs. Failure of the STs to enter higher and technical education is particularly significant, since such education is critical for upward socio-economic mobility; without it, people in the ST communities continue in the unskilled labour force as marginal workers.17 As economists Radhakrishna and Ray point out in the Handbook of Poverty in India, ‘Due to low educational and skill levels, majority of tribal workers are involved in low quality of employment such as agricultural and non-agricultural casual labourer’ and the ‘proportion of regular workers is abysmally low at merely 4 per cent among the STs’ (Radhakrishna & Ray, 2005: 23, 24). Government of India (2004) figures

140  The Multilingual Reality

show that 31.1% of the STs (27.0% of the SCs and 19.8% for the others) are marginal workers who do not find work for more than six months a year. There are of course many factors which contribute to educational failure. But considering its crucial role in early education, neglect of language is a major factor. The large-scale educational failure of the STs leads to capability deprivation, economic underdevelopment and general poverty. Poverty is a multidimensional and complex phenomenon and educational failure and illiteracy constitute integral aspects of poverty. Exclusion of children’s home language remains central to this relationship between poverty and education, since education in a dominant language limits access to resources and denies not only equality of opportunity but also, crucially, equality of outcome. As I have noted: Language(s) that people speak or do not speak can and do contribute directly to poverty in many other contexts of discrimination and the perpetuation of inequality by deprivation of linguistic human rights, democratic participation, identity, self-efficacy and pride. In the case of the tribals in India, linguistic discrimination forms a core of their capability deprivation through educational neglect and in many other complex ways, all of which contribute to their poverty in a vicious circle. (Mohanty, 2009a: 118) Some Indicators of Poverty Among the Tribal Peoples of India

The STs constitute the poorest social group in India. In rural areas 47.4% of the ST population is below the poverty line (BPL),18 compared with 36.8% in the SC population and 16.1% in population of other castes and groups. The corresponding figures for the percentage of people BPL in different groups in the urban areas are 30.4% for the STs, 39.9% for the SCs and 16% for the other castes or groups. Radhakrishna and Ray (2005) reported that the decline in the percentage of the poor (i.e. those in the BPL category) has been slower for the STs than for the SCs and other categories. They also pointed out that, compared with other social groups, a majority of the STs belong to a lower consumption class. In fact, the Tribal Profile of the Government of India (Ministry of Tribal Welfare) shows that 37.3% of the ST households do not have any durable assets; these households do not have a bank account nor do they have any assets such as a television, bicycle or any two- or four-wheeled vehicle, computer, mobile (cell) phone or landline phone.19 The same figure for the total population is 17.8%. The STs also have a poorer nutritional status than the SCs and other social groups in India. The prevalence of anaemia of any type is 68.5% among ST women and 76.8% among ST children aged 6–59 months, compared with 58.3% among SC women and 72.2% among SC children. The mortality rate for 1000 live births among infants (aged up to one year), children aged one to five years and all children under five



Language Disadvantage, Capability Deprivation and Poverty  141

years are 62.1, 35.8 and 95.7, respectively, for STs whereas the respective figures for the total population are 57.0, 18.4 and 74.3. Taking various indices of poverty, the tribal communities are found to be suffering from poor economic development and deprivation, even compared with the other main disadvantaged group, the SCs. Health, nutrition, infant and child mortality rates and other indices of human development also show the deprived status of the STs. ­Radhakrishna and Ray (2005: 21) point out that ‘the deprivation and exclusion’ of the tribals are ‘multidimensional and the factors that perpetuate deprivation are intrinsically interlinked and reinforce exclusion’. They go on to sum up the trends of poverty and deprivation among the STs in the following words: Macro-level data substantiate the fact that the tribals in the country constitute the poorest category not merely in economic terms but in all aspects of human development. They are deprived of access to quality education and health care; they are resource poor and their traditional sources of livelihood are dwindling; labour market discrimination and lower skills only afford them occupations with low productivity and limited scope for diversification. Therefore, the slow pace of development among the tribals in India, need to be contextualised in the vicious cycle of deprivation and poverty. This not only impedes their engagement with mainstream development, it also keeps their entitlements and capabilities low. (Radhakrishna & Ray, 2005: 29) Conclusion

Submersion education of ITM children in a dominant language fails to provide high-quality education and enhance their cognitive and intellectual capabilities. It has a subtractive effect on children’s MT competence, leads to loss of their linguistic capital and their cultural and linguistic identity and it limits their choices and freedom. Neglect of ITM languages in education prevents the benefits of education from percolating into human development and development of capability. Large-scale educational failure and an inability to move into higher levels of education and technical training necessary to join the skilled workforce limit the chances of upward socio-economic mobility, thus perpetuating poverty. Unfortunately, educational policies and planning in India, as in many other parts of the world, are based on an assumption of inherent deficiencies among the disadvantaged groups; the victims of social neglect and exclusion are blamed for their performance deficiency. This remains the dominant assumption, even when educators look for the reasons for school failure of the ITM children in poor teacher quality, parental apathy and other immediate conditions associated with teaching/learning processes. The persistence of educational failure among the ITM children despite many cosmetic and policy changes shows that, in order to get out of the vicious circle of educational failure, capability deprivation and

142  The Multilingual Reality

poverty, it is necessary to tackle the problems of linguistic and cultural discrimination and unequal access to power and resources. Educational and socio-economic inequalities are perpetuated when the languages that people speak or do not speak become instruments of power, control, discrimination and access to resources. Education in English or any other dominant language imposed on ITM children seriously disadvantages these children, causing mental harm and loss of identity, and stigmatisation of their own languages. Exclusion of the ITM languages in education is a denial of equality of opportunity to learn, a violation of linguistic human rights, and a threat to linguistic diversity. Loss of linguistic diversity is happening at a rapid pace, although many are apathetic to this grim reality. The last speaker of a language is dying in some corner of the globe every two to three weeks and, according to some of the most pessimistic estimates, at this rate of loss of languages, we may be left with about 10% of the languages at the turn of this century. Mohanty and Skutnabb-Kangas ask some questions in relating the loss of linguistic diversity to education in a dominant-language medium: Submersion education may lead to the extinction of indigenous/tribal/ local languages, thus contributing to the disappearance of the world’s linguistic diversity. It is important for the future of the planet to maintain all the languages in the world; much of the most sophisticated knowledge about how to live sustainably, in balance with the ecosystem, is encoded in them, and disappears if the languages (are made to) disappear. Is this loss of languages inevitable, as commonly believed? Or, are there alternatives? Is it unavoidable that the less powerful ITM language speakers continue to be deprived of any opportunity to develop their capability through severally imposed systems of subtractive education in a dominant language, which perpetuates the existing inequalities, pushes them into a vicious circle of poverty and accelerates the loss of linguistic and cultural diversity? (Mohanty & Skutnabb-Kangas, 2013: 175–176)

The answers to these questions are interlinked and the discussion in this chapter has attempted to find some answers by analysing the critical role of the children’s home language in high-quality education and capability development. Notes (1) Lakheshwar’s story was also published in the ‘MLE – voices’ column in Swara, October 2009 (volume 1, issue 1, p. 6), a newsletter of the National Multilingual Education Resource Consortium (NMRC) (http://www.nmrc-jnu.org) in India. (2) Often only formal education is seen as ‘education’, whereas most of our effective life skills are developed through informal education, mostly in family and community. Any assumption that formal education is a superior process and has greater legitimacy is uncalled for and biased (see Mohanty & Skutnabb-Kangas, 2013). (3) It has been suggested (e.g. Nurmela et al., 2010: 166–169) that depiction of people in



Language Disadvantage, Capability Deprivation and Poverty  143

oral cultures without formal education as ‘illiterate’ is biased since it raises an undue comparison between what some people have (e.g. literacy of the ‘literates’) and some others do not have (‘illiteracy’ as absence of literacy among people from oral cultures). In our opinion (see Mohanty & Skutnabb-Kangas, 2013), it is more appropriate to speak of people as orate and literate in terms of their dominant patterns of proficiency in language and communication. People who communicate through speaking and listening but not reading and writing need to be identified as orate; they usually have strong memory-based verbal processing. Skutnabb-Kangas and McCarty (2008) speak of orature as oral literature. (4) As per data from the District Information System for Education (DISE) of the national Ministry of Human Resource Development, by the year 2005 there were 103,609 primary schools with more than 50% ST children, 76,458 primary schools with more than 75% and 58,343 primary schools with more than 90% of the children from Scheduled Tribes (see Mohanty, 2009a). The proportion of enrolment of ST children in schools has increased since then. (5) There is no compelling reason for referring to the dominant state language as ‘standard’ language. When a particular variety of a dominant language is referred to as ‘standard’, it implies that all other varieties are ‘non-standard’. Such a distinction has no logical or linguistic basis; a variety usually used by some powerful groups and propagated through media and textbook use (and, in India, often the highly Sanskritised and Anglicised varieties) are branded as ‘high’ or standard varieties and accorded an undue preferential status, further disadvantaging the so-called ‘non-standard’ speakers. (6) Linguistic mismatch between home language and school language per se cannot be held to be the cause of poor academic achievement. The Canadian immersion programmes in which language-majority children are taught through the medium of a second language have reported high degrees of success. The level of linguistic competence of a child rather than the linguistic mismatch is more important in predicting the success of school education. (7) Unless stated otherwise, the demographic and economic figures for the STs in this section are based on data available from the web­site of the government’s Tribal Welfare Depart­ ment, http://www.tribal.nic.in/WriteReadData/userfiles/files/Statistic/ Tribal%20Profile.pdf (accessed 22 August 2015). (8) These were earlier termed Primitive Tribal Groups. (9) Features of the Brāmhī script and its distinction from other writing systems and principles are described in Coulmas (1989), Joshi and Aaron (2016) and Patel (2004). (10) As I have discussed in Chapter 5, Bodo was written in Assamese script and later in Roman script. Now it is written in Devanagari. In fact, there is a great deal of flexibility in choice of scripts for writing languages in India. Devanagari script is widely used in India for writing Sanskrit, but for functional reasons it is also written in regional scripts such as Odia and Bengali, particularly when the readers in a particular region are not familiar with Devanagari. (11) A writing system for Santali, called Ol Chiki script, was developed by an enlightened Santali leader Pandit Raghunath Murmu of Odisha. The Ol Chiki writing system is widely used in Odisha and among Santali people in other states. (12) Generally the STs are compared with other social groups, particularly the Scheduled Castes (SC) in India. The STs and SCs constitute the two most disadvantaged groups in India, typically characterised by poor economic development. Article 341 of the constitution of India provides for identification and listing as Scheduled Castes of certain ‘backward’ groups belonging to the lower rungs in the caste hierarchy in Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist religions. The SCs, particularly the rural majority, generally use some varieties of the regional majority language, which is often characterised as a ‘nonstandard’ or ‘low’ variety. Thus, at the point of school entry, most SC children who understand the language of the classroom initially have problems with the use of the

144  The Multilingual Reality

‘standard’ variety by teachers and textbooks. The priority given to the ‘high’ variety of the regional majority or the dominant language in schools is being severally questioned as biased and there is a new trend towards gradual acceptance of the different varieties of the dominant language in schools. It should also be pointed out that the SCs are marked by a negative comparison in the traditional caste hierarchy (although caste discrimination in any form is illegal in India). On the other hand, in most cases, the STs are not a part of the caste-based hierarchy and, hence, they are less stigmatised. (13) Widespread Christianity and Christian missionary activities during the 19th century led to the spread of literacy among the people of the north-eastern states in India. (14) The government records and reports always refer to ‘drop-out rate’ (DOR), whereas it is more appropriate to refer to the phenomena of children leaving schools as ‘pushout’. (15) Odisha has a large ST population, representing 22.8% of the state population. The population of Odisha is 41,974,218 (2011 census), out of which 9,590,756 belong to the ST category. (16) Subject to certain special provisions, generally the students who fail to secure 30% in the papers are declared to have failed the examination. (17) Marginal workers are those who get less than six months of employment in a year. (18) The figures for people below the poverty line (BPL) reported here are based on Tendulkar criteria of per capita expenditure of 27 Indian rupees (INR) per day (approximately US$0.42 or £0.31) in rural areas and INR33/day (approximately US$0.51 or £0.37) in urban areas. Subsequently, the government of India used a different (­Rangarajan) methodology for calculation of people in the BPL category as those with a per capita expenditure of INR32/day (approximately US$0.50 or £0.36 in rural areas and INR47/ day (approximately US$0.72 or £0.54) in urban areas. The latter criterion thus includes more people in the BPL category. (19) See the web­site of the government’s Tribal Welfare Depart­ment, http://www.tribal.nic. in/WriteReadData/userfiles/files/Statistic/Tribal%20Profile.pdf (accessed 22 August 2015).

7 Multilingualism and Language Policy in Education

Formal institutionalised education all over the world tends to standardise and homogenise linguistic diversity. The patterns and varieties of language use at the grassroots level of any society do not usually get fully reflected in the educational use of languages. Schools reflect and reinforce the dominance hierarchy among languages in a society (a phenomenon termed ‘linguicism’) and also impose some languages or varieties on pupils, to the neglect of others, thus, causing educational failure, capability deprivation and poverty, as discussed in the previous chapter. The status of the indigenous, tribal, minority and minoritised (ITM) languages and their possible role in education remain neglected. In post-colonial societies, the dominance of the language of the colonisers persists in different forms decades after independence and the ITM languages of the smaller and less powerful communities have remained invisibilised. Education has been a powerful institutional device of the hierarchical societies, perpetuating social and linguistic inequalities and legitimising the dominance of major languages. In this chapter, I will discuss aspects of India’s language-in-education policy to illustrate how the dynamics of sociolinguistic hierarchies have shaped both policy and practice, contributing to the neglect of ITM languages. Analysis of language-in-education policy shows that education in post-independence India has reflected the underlying tensions and ambiguities in respect of different languages in the hierarchy and their role in the multilingual mosaic of the country. Such tensions and tentativeness have contributed to the failure of India’s language-in-education policy. In fact, India’s language policy and practices have treated languages as problematic and there is a clear absence of a language-as-resource perspective (Ruiz, 1984). And, because the many languages have not been seen as resources, the practices in respect of languages in education have contributed to impoverishment, marginalisation and endangerment of languages, the ITM languages in particular. 145

146  The Multilingual Reality

Language, Hierarchy and Education in India

Despite multilingualism at the grassroots level, the sociolinguistic scenario in India at different points in history has typically reflected the hierarchy characterised by the double divide noted in Chapter 4. At different times, languages like Sanskrit, Persian or English have emerged as the most powerful, deriving their power and dominance from the patronage of the rulers – the Hindu kings, the Persian invaders and the Moguls, or the British, respectively. The patronage of the rulers during the respective periods of history gave rise to groups of privileged elites who actively learned, cultivated and propagated the privileged language as the language of power. The dominant languages not only allowed their users greater privileges and control over resources but also exerted considerable sociolinguistic influence on the languages of the masses through processes of dominant contact, linguistic convergence, mutual borrowing and language change. The languages of the masses, the majority languages, positioned on the middle rung of the three-tiered hierarchy of languages, were subordinate to the most dominant language of power. The languages of the masses had some presence in education and literacy instruction but development of high levels of competence in the respective dominant language was always considered more prestigious and was targeted as the endpoint of education. The minority, low-caste, indigenous or folk varieties of language used by the disadvantaged segments of society, located at the lowest levels of the sociolinguistic hierarchy, had marginal use for limited social communication; they had no presence in education and other scholarly activities. It is, therefore, not surprising that these ITM languages, excluded from formal and even informal education, did not need and did not develop any writing system or orthography. Before British rule, education in India was broadly multilingual in a nominal and informal sense (Mohanty, 2008). Early education for children, mostly of the majority communities, started in their mother tongue. When a pupil or a learner moved to the higher levels of scholarship, learning involved a more powerful language of dominance, such as Sanskrit or Persian, which became the language of teaching of religious texts and philosophical treatises. Mass education in pre-colonial India was localised (Annamalai, 2005) and there were centres for higher levels of learning of the religious texts and philosophical discourse in Sanskrit or Pali, but only for specialised education, mostly for Brahmins who were to perform religious functions in the society. Thus, before British rule, education involved learning of the mother tongue1 and other languages at different levels of education. At each level, the target language was also the medium of teaching. The distinction between language as a medium of teaching and language as a school subject started only during the British period, when English was introduced in schools – as a language of teaching in private



Multilingualism and Language Policy in Education  147

schools2 and as a school subject in other schools, where the teaching was in Indian languages, including Sanskrit.3 The need to promote English necessitated a distinction between Sanskrit as a classical language and other major Indian languages (which were labelled vernaculars). The colonial rulers sought to impart education in English in order to have a class of people with ‘modern’ European values and the ability to render administrative assistance to British governance in India. Annamalai (2001, 2005) points to three strategies debated within the British administration as possible options for realisation of the objective of bringing English into education in India. One was called the Orientalist position, which advocated continuation of mass education through the vernacular media and modernising the content and the teaching of the classical languages like Sanskrit and Persian, by incorporating into them modern European knowledge and values. The second strategy, called the Anglicist position, was specialised English-medium teaching, to develop a small group of elites with European values instilled into them and with the capacity to aid in colonial governance. The third strategy, according to Annamalai, was to continue with education in the native languages and native cultural content, but modernised by adding European knowledge and values. The Anglicist position of Thomas Macaulay, who headed the Committee on Public Education in British India, was declared the official policy in 1835. Unfortunately, the Anglicist position of creating a special group of English-educated elites with easy access to power, continues to be the dominant position in post-colonial educational practices in India (Annamalai, 2001; see also Chapter 9). Education in the pre-independence period usually involved the use of one language as the medium of instruction (MoI) and that language was also taught as a school subject. When additional languages were targeted as school subjects, they became the MoI for teaching those languages. This pattern continues in post-colonial India, although the tension between the dominant languages at the national level and the regional or state-level majority languages also surfaces occasionally as a political strategy to incite local linguistic identities. Thus, in the states and union territories (UTs), the regional majority language, also recognised as an official language of the state/UT, becomes the rallying point to press for a more prominent role for the language vis-à-vis English (in most states) or Hindi (in the southern states). Ironically, these regional language movements are projected as promother tongue movements because they reject the dominance of English, as a foreign language, or the dominance of Hindi, as a national-level or official language imposed on the non-Hindi states. These political movements hardly ever project the tribal and other minority languages as deserving the same consideration or status as the ‘majority’ mother tongues. In the process, the ITM languages, at the lowest strata of society, are kept out of formal education. These ITM languages survived during

148  The Multilingual Reality

earlier periods of history because their speakers were socially segregated; they survive now, despite cumulative neglect and marginalisation, not by segregation, but simply because they do not come into any conflict with the dominant languages. Thus the hierarchical power structure of languages with the double divide continues with complex processes of negotiation of linguistic identities. Unfortunately, language-in-education policy in India has remained unclear due to a continued ambivalence with respect to Indian languages vis-à-vis English. This ambivalence is evident in the striking gaps between the declared language-in-education policies (including the constitutional proclamations), emphasising equality of status to all languages, and the actual practices, which clearly favour the dominant languages at the expense of the non-dominant and ITM languages. Language-in-Education Policy and Practice in Post-colonial India

In the quasi-federal structure of the Republic of India, legislation regarding education is a concurrent responsibility of the states and the Union government, as per the provisions of the Indian constitution. The national legislation and policy recommendations are not always binding on the state governments; although uniformity in the broader patterns of education and curricular parity across the country are accepted as general guidelines, the states are free to modify any legislative actions and specific recommendations from the Union government in respect of education. This duality of responsibility and decisions in the management of educational programmes in the country needs to be understood to appreciate why many of the policy provisions in education have not been pushed assertively nor implemented uniformly across the country. As we will see, many provisions of the periodic national educational policies remain unimplemented in the states/UTs. A further duality arises from the presence of two parallel systems of education – private and public. The policies and directives of the Union government or the state/UT governments are applicable to the public schools, which are directly controlled or supported by the respective Union or state/UT governments. However, the private schools are relatively free from direct control by the government, although the general laws of the states/UTs or the Union government are applicable to the private educational institutions. The language-in-education policies of the private schools are often different from those of the public schools. The three-language formula

In response to the concerns raised by the states about the lack of uniformity in respect of languages in school curricula throughout the country, the national Ministry of Education undertook several consultations soon



Multilingualism and Language Policy in Education  149

after independence. A major attempt to deal with inequalities among the Indian languages in schools across the country was made by the Central Advisory Board on Education (CABE) in 1956. It proposed a three-­language formula (TLF), a set of principles for languages in school education (Meganathan, 2011). This was incorporated into the annual report of the Ministry of Education in 1957, in an attempt to rationalise the role of different languages in school programmes. The TLF was revised several times, to offer some clarity regarding the positioning of languages in school education and also to ensure some uniformity across the country in the interpretation and application of the TLF. Nonetheless, the TLF failed to achieve its objectives. The CABE recommendation in 1956 was that three languages be taught in school education in both Hindi-speaking and non-Hindispeaking areas. It suggested that the first language to be taught should be the mother tongue (MT) or regional language (RL), or a composite course should be delivered on a combination of the two, or of the MT and/or RL along with a classical language (e.g. Sanskrit). In respect of the second and third languages in schools, the CABE had two alternative suggestions. The first alternative was the teaching of Hindi or English as the second language, and a modern Indian or European language (not covered as the first or second language) as the third language. The other alternative was teaching of English or a modern European language as the second language and teaching Hindi (for non-Hindi-speaking areas) or another modern Indian language (in Hindi-speaking areas) as the third language. Evidently, the formula was complicated and it was simplified and approved in the Conference of Chief Ministers of the States in 1961. This simplified TLF recommended the following use of three languages (Ministry of Education, 1962: 67): (1) the RL or the MT when the latter is not the RL; (2) Hindi or any other Indian language in non-Hindi-speaking areas; (3) English or any other modern European language. The recommendation envisaged the use of the RL or MT as the MoI. The recommendation did refer to the MT as being different from the RL. But the two were not explicitly treated as distinct options. That led to a convenient imposition of the majority language of the state on the linguistic minority children. Since a majority of the state population had an RL as their MT, the state governments found it convenient to accept the ‘regional language’ as the MT of all children, including the tribal and other speakers of minority languages. The recommendation of ‘regional language or mother tongue’ as the first teaching language made it possible for state governments to impose the RL as an alternative to the MTs of the ITM communities. Adding to the anomaly, the TLF was applicable only to the government-run or government-sponsored schools. The privately

150  The Multilingual Reality

managed educational institutions were free to choose the language of teaching as well as other languages in their school programmes. Further, as Annamalai points out, the TLF was a ‘formula’ for languages in education, but the actual practice remained flexible ‘because of historical and political reasons’ (Annamalai, 2005: 28). Subsequently, the TLF was modified by various bodies of the Ministry of Education, such as the CABE and the Education Commission (between 1964 and 1966). A modification in 1964 specified the three languages to be studied as school subjects (regardless of the MoI): (1) the MT or RL, (2) Hindi or English, (3) one modern Indian language or foreign language not covered under (1) and (2) and not used as a MoI. This modification4 implicitly sought to deal with the resistance to Hindi from the non-Hindispeaking states and also kept in view the reality of the dual school system, comprising the private (mostly English-medium) schools and the public schools (mostly RL-medium schools). Thus, with this modification, Hindi was no longer compulsory for schools in non-Hindi areas and English could replace Hindi or be taught as a foreign language. It may be noted that, at that point in time, English was viewed as a ‘foreign language’. This is significant since, in current government policy documents, English is no longer referred to as a ‘foreign’ language; it is now widely recognised as an Indian language. Despite the implied reference to English as a foreign language, the 1964 modification of the TLF started a process of devaluation of Hindi and the promotion of English in school curricula. English was chosen as a language which could replace Hindi from school curricula. The modified TLF also proposed a transitional bilingual/­multilingual education for tribal children, and recommended the use of the tribal MT as the language of teaching, and oral instruction in the majority RL for the first couple of years, followed by use of the majority RL as the MoI from the third year onwards. As I will show in Chapter 8, this part of the recommendation in 1964 led to a failed experiment with an early-exit bilingual transfer model (see Skutnabb-Kangas & McCarty, 2008) implemented in some states by the Central Institute of Indian Languages. Apart from the initial failure to distinguish between RL and MT in the early pronouncements of the TLF, frequent modifications added to the confusion rather than offering any clarity. These modifications were variously interpreted by the state governments. That gave rise to diverse applications of the formula, even when its purpose was to ensure some uniformity. Further, by the time some new modification was formally communicated by the national Ministry of Education, the state-level school language curricula were often already being designed on the basis of earlier recommendations. The states’ implementation of a set of recom­ mendations by a restructuring of the curricula usually took more than a year and, as a result of this time lag between formal communication and implementation, the gap between the TLF as modified at a given point in time and the actual practices in different states gradually became quite



Multilingualism and Language Policy in Education  151

large. As a result, the TLF lost its significance as a policy recommendation and it is now reduced to a set of historical pronouncements without any practical relevance. During the period of early evolution of the TLF, particularly between 1957 and 1966, suggestions regarding the place of English in Indian education are noteworthy. The conference of the Ministers of Education of the States in 1957, published in that year’s annual report of the Ministry of Education, recommended that ‘English should not be introduced earlier than class V’ (Ministry of Education, 1957: 98); the point of introduction of English after class V (i.e. grade 5) was left to the states. It should be mentioned here that in 1904 the Viceroy of British India, Lord Curzon, also made a relevant recommendation for the late introduction of English: It is equally important that when the teaching of English has begun, it should not be prematurely employed as the medium of instruction in other subjects. Much of the practice, too prevalent in Indian schools, of committing to memory ill-understood phrases and extracts from textbooks or notes may be traced to the scholars having received instruction through the medium of English before their knowledge of the language was sufficient for them to understand what they were taught. As a general rule the child should not be allowed to learn English as a language (i.e., as a subject) until he has made some progress in the primary stage of instruction and has received a thorough grounding in his mother-tongue. (Cited in Evans, 2002: 277).

English was also recommended to be taught as a compulsory language both at the secondary and at the university stages so that students could become competent to receive higher education in the universities in English. The Education Commission of 1964–1966 had a clear focus on MT-based education. It seems the Commission expected a change with respect to the role of English, which, as mentioned above, was to cease to be an associate official language of Indian Union from 1965. The Education Commission observed that English had a higher status as the medium of education in the universities and as a language of governance (Ministry of Education, 1966). But, at the same time, it expected the English dominance in education to go, and projected RL-medium higher education in Indian universities. Nevertheless, the Commission suggested that, even after the change from English-medium to RL-medium education in the universities, English should be given some place in education since knowledge of English was ‘a valuable asset’ (Ministry of Education, 1966: 192) for the students in India. Looking at the present strength and dominance of English in education in India and its exclusive place in university education, it is evident that the Com­mission was quite mistaken in its reading of the future of English in India. Through diverse applications of the TLF, regional majority languages in each of the states and UTs became the first language and the MoI in

152  The Multilingual Reality

state-sponsored public schools, with English as the second language, commonly followed by Hindi or Sanskrit as the third language. Almost all the private schools, on the other hand, continued to be English-medium schools, with English as the first language; some combination of the regional majority language, Sanskrit, Hindi and foreign languages (other than English) took the place of the second and third (in some cases the fourth) language in these schools. The Kendriya Vidyalaya (or central school) system of the government of India, which has over 1000 schools throughout the country, uses Hindi and English as the MoI. Thus, the evolution of language-in-education policy in the schools in India was initially affected by the TLF. But the TLF was too superficial and inconsistent to offer a comprehensive policy framework for India. Reducing the complex relationship between education and multilingualism of India to a simple ‘three-language’ formula was an unrealistic goal right from the beginning. Therefore, it is not surprising that despite frequent attempts to be responsive to divergent conditions, resistance and negotiations, the TLF failed to achieve a common language-in-education policy for the whole country. It shows that any attempt to reduce a complex multilingual social reality to a ‘three-language’ formula in education is self-defeating. However, the shadow of the TLF continues to linger in Indian education; school education in ‘three languages’ is taken as a starting point in the current discourses on education in India. Gradually, divergent school practices emerged through various processes of negotiations between forces in support of English and those in support of the RLs or MTs. While Hindi was acceptable to the states in the fluid Hindi-, Urdu- or Punjabi-speaking areas, those in the southern region rejected Hindi5 in favour of English. This contributed to the dominance of English in India, while Hindi was pushed back to the periphery. Clearly, the confusions created by the TLF contributed in many ways to the growing prominence of English in Indian school curricula. Looking Beyond the TLF and the Evolution of Educational Language Policy A languages-as-problem orientation in policy and the invisibilisation of MT and ITM languages

While the implicit tension between the relative positions of English, Hindi and the regional majority languages continued through divergent school practices in India, the ITM languages were treated with indifference in practice. Often, there were politically motivated policy statements catering to the MT identity of the ITM communities. But these were not implemented, partly because use of a tribal MT as the language of teaching in the TLF framework would have meant increasing the number of languages in schools to four (MT, regional majority language, English



Multilingualism and Language Policy in Education  153

and Hindi). The 1986 National Policy on Education (NPE) and several earlier education commission reports recommended education in the MT. As a follow-up on the NPE of 1986, the national Ministry of Human Resource Development appointed the Acharya Ramamurti Committee. In 1990 the Committee recommended the use of tribal or other minority language as the MoI in those primary schools with at least 10% minoritylanguage children. It also suggested that sections using an ITM-language medium or regional majority language medium be opened in the same schools, to avoid segregation of the ITM children. Like most earlier recom­mendations on the use of the MT as the MoI, this recommendation was not implemented. The 1992 Programme of Action of the government of India, based on the 1986 NPE, stated the following in respect of MT education for linguistic minorities: However, the need to provide education through the mother tongue, which may be different from a modern Indian language included in the VIII Schedule, is recognised on academic grounds. The Constitution of India recognises, in respect of linguistic minorities, the desirability of providing instruction through the mother tongue for first five years of education (Article 350-A). Every effort is, therefore, required to implement this obligation, although a number of difficulties are likely to be en­countered: administrative and financial feasibility of providing instructional facili­ ties through a variety of mother tongues, difficulty to use some tribal languages as media of education etc. In the context of these difficulties switch over to a modern Indian/regional language has to be ensured as early as possible. (Ministry of Human Resource Development, 1992: 149)

This is a clear example of treating languages as problems rather than resources. The Programme of Action did refer to MT education for the linguistic-minority children for five years of primary education as a constitutional ‘obligation’. At the same time, it shows the usual pattern of subversion of constitutional provisions by policy-makers in pointing to difficulties in implementation as a pre-emptive excuse. Prejudicial approaches to tribal languages, citing ‘difficulties’ in their use as an MoI, is also evident. It is unfortunate that the body responsible for preparing the Programme of Action had little understanding of the nature of languages and the pedagogic principles of language teaching and multilingual education. In any case, this part of the Programme was also not implemented. Only in 2004 were there some national government initiatives leading to experimental programmes of MT-based multilingual education in some states in the following years. We will discuss these programmes in India in Chapter 8. It is evident that TLF and other policy recommendations fell far short of providing a comprehensive language-in-education policy framework for India. The TLF itself created more problems than it solved. The other policy documents made concrete recommendations in respect

154  The Multilingual Reality

of languages in education, but they lacked any effective follow-up and implementation. Lack of evidence-based expert analysis and the absence of any comprehensive framework for language-in-education policy, along with the growing impact of private English-medium schools in India, have led to the hegemonic position of English in schools and higher education, undermining the role of Hindi and other regional languages, and nullifying any possibility of educational inclusion of tribal languages. Panda and Mohanty make the following observation in respect of the growing role of English in Indian education: At all levels of educational planning, while the policy rhetoric is guided by the political compulsions to assert national and indigenous identities, the ground-level decisions in respect of languages in education are influenced by the market forces in favour of English (Illich, 1980). In most of the states in India, English is now taught as a school subject as early as Grade I. Some states, like Andhra Pradesh in South India, have gone one step forward and decided to introduce English medium sections in Government schools. (Panda & Mohanty, 2014: 111) The National Knowledge Commission and early English in schools

In a more direct attempt to reinforce the role of English in Indian education, the National Knowledge Commission (NKC) (2009) recommended teaching English from grade 1 in all government schools in order to ‘democratise’ English and to make early teaching of English available to all social classes. Such a recommendation shows that, like many such policy recommendations, the NKC’s suggestion was advanced without any understanding of the pedagogic principles of language learning in a multilingual framework (Panda & Mohanty, 2014). The basic logic in the NKC’s suggestion was flawed, since equality of opportunity is not realised by providing everyone the same treatment; it is achieved by enabling maximal benefits for all. Such recommendations are populist measures. It is not surprising that most states and UTs have moved the teaching of English to grade 1. It is a matter of concern that the planners and apex bodies of education have done little to counter such moves or, at least, to have them evaluated by experts. The National Curricular Framework, 2005: The built-in contradictions

Even the major curricular recommendations prepared by experts and statutory and legal provisions have proven to be too weak to provide pedagogically sound alternatives. In 2005, the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), the apex body for planning the course of school education and teacher training in the country, came up with a revised National Curricular Framework (NCF) for school education.



Multilingualism and Language Policy in Education  155

The NCF 2005 (NCERT, 2005) was projected as a landmark document on school education in India. One of its major recommendations was for use of MTs for the early education of children. This was ostensibly based on the research evidence showing the cognitive and social benefits of multilingualism and MT-based education. In justifying these recommendations, the NCF 2005 stressed the constitutional commitment (Article 350A) for education in the MT for the linguistic-minority children and also referred to the TLF. The NCF 2005 made two significant recommendations: (1) ‘children will receive multilingual education from the outset’; and (2) ‘home language(s) of children … should be the medium of learning in schools’ (NCERT, 2005: 37). However, the document as a whole was based on a very superficial understanding of the principles of MT-based multilingual education. And, although it made several references to the notion of cross-linguistic transfer (based on the linguistic interdependence view of Cummins), several of its other recommendations contradicted the principles of MT-based learning and the positive transfer to other languages of competence developed in the MT. A close examination of the NCF 2005, along with the accompanying position papers on various aspects of the curricular framework, exposes such contradictions. Moreover, while the NCF began with a strong commendation of the principles of early education based on the MT or other home language, it failed to confront the growing impact of English-medium schools. The NCF 2005 was further elaborated through a series of position papers of the national focus groups formed by the NCERT which prepared the NCF 2005. The National Focus Group – Position Papers on Curricular Areas (NCERT, 2006) dealt with the teaching of Indian languages and English, and exposed the shallowness of the recommendations for education in the MT. It emphatically reiterated the NCF 2005 in suggesting that an MT should be the MoI in all grades (throughout schooling) and recommended the late introduction of English, based on the rationale of cross-linguistic transfer, as supported by the work of Jim Cummins (e.g. Cummins, 1984). But the position paper on teaching English not only failed to reject the current practice of using English as the language of teaching and early literacy development from the beginning in Englishmedium schools, but also recommended that this practice continue. Other school practices, such as the Kendriya Vidyalaya or the Central School system (where English and Hindi are used as the languages of teaching regardless of the MT), were accepted in the NCF 2005 and the subsequent position papers. Further, in the section on ‘second-language acquisition’ of the NCF 2005, English was discussed as the second language in utter disregard of the sociolinguistic reality that English cannot be treated as a ‘second language’ of millions of ITM children, nor for most of the children from majority RL groups. Thus, the NCF 2005 lacked a consistent position in respect of languages in school education in India and could not synthesise the robust research

156  The Multilingual Reality

support for MT-based education, the theory and practice of bilingual/ multilingual education and the complex sociolinguistic reality of India’s multilingualism. In an exhaustive analysis on this language policy, Panda and Mohanty make the following observation: The NCF 2005, when read along with its position papers, remains a bundle of contradictions. Despite the initial wave of excitement that it generated, the NCF 2005 has not been able to trigger substantive changes in the nature of school education and in the positioning of languages in the school systems across the country, because the framework itself lacked a clear direction on languages in education. It failed to project a clear vision in respect of the role of home language(s) vis-à-vis other dominant languages including English. In fact, in our view, English has turned out to be the Achilles’ heel for NCF 2005. (Panda & Mohanty, 2014: 112) The Right to Education Act of 2009: The missing links to MT and multilingualism in education

In 2009, the Indian parliament passed the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (commonly referred to as the Right to Education Act, or RTE) to regulate the nature and quality of school education. The RTE was a major national pronouncement, with implications for language-in-education policy. But, like the NCF, 2005, it has inherent weaknesses and contradictions. When the constitution of India was promulgated in 1950, the private English-medium schools could not be subsumed under a single school system despite the widespread anti-British and anti-English position implicit in India’s freedom movement. It seems that the Constituent Assembly, which deliberated on the constitutional provisions, had groups of elites who were educated in and influenced by English. Together they were able to withstand the pressure for a common school system. Fiftynine years later, the RTE also failed to bring in a common school system, despite the initial consensus when the draft of the Act was prepared. This remains a major weakness of the RTE, since a common school system had been recommended in the earlier national policies on education, including the 1968 National Policy on Education (NPE) as well as the NPE of 1986 and its modification in 1992. Despite these earlier recommendations, the 2009 Act could not ensure elimination of the existing dual system of private English-medium schools for the privileged and public RL-medium schools for the disadvantaged. The RTE declared education of all 6–14-year-olds as a right and mandated a minimum quality of education to be available to each child. Unfortunately, it falls short of ensuring the right to education in the MT. Article 29(2)(f) in Chapter V of the Act says: ‘medium of instruction shall, as far as practicable, be in the child’s mother tongue’ (emphasis added).



Multilingualism and Language Policy in Education  157

The caveat weakens the RTE’s capacity to bring about any effective changes in the education of linguistic minorities. The RTE has been criticised (see Panda & Mohanty, 2014) for its failure to bring in a common school system, non-inclusion of provisions for early childhood care and education for the 0–6-year age group and absence of a clear MT-based multilingual education perspective which had been advocated, albeit in­ effectively, by the NCF 2005. Panda (2009) critiqued the RTE for its failure to take note of the strong evidence in support of education in the MT and the relationship between the length of MT-medium education and scholastic achievement. Thus, the RTE has not succeeded in providing a clear language-in-education policy and a vision for education in a rightsbased inclusive society. Procrustean Solution to the Problem of Languages in Education

Does India have a language-in-education policy? As is evident from the above discussion, from the constitutional guarantee of education in MTs and many other constitutional provisions for linguistic minorities, to the TLF, NCF and RTE, attempts have been made to align education with India’s multilingualism. But the failure to offer a unified and consistent set of guidelines for languages in education in India and the lack of any serious effort to relate the policy recommendations to ground-level educational practice weakened their role as language policy. As Spolsky (2004) has pointed out, language policy is not just a set of written recommendations or documents: language practices, beliefs and management of linguistic communities can also be considered aspects of language policy. But, unfortunately, actual educational practices in India seem to have subverted most of the documented recommendations on the roles of different languages in education. It seems the formal policy pronouncements, including the constitutional provisions for minority education, are ideologically based on the primacy and significance of MT in education. All the education commission reports, the national policy on education announced from time to time, the major curricular framework of the NCERT and the RTE have recommended early education in the MT, particularly for ITM children. However, the declared policies are clearly constrained by non-­ implementation, the growing influence of English and the dominance of particular languages. The dominance hierarchy is deeply rooted in how languages and their roles are construed in society. The social constructions of languages do not, of course, materialise endogenously; the global economic and political processes as well as state policies do impinge on how languages are situated in society and in education. As Shohamy (2010) argues, the gap between the declared and de facto policies needs to be understood in terms of the social dynamics of languages. The declared

158  The Multilingual Reality

language-in-education policies in India have been broadly very liberal, ostensibly positioning all the languages at the same level and severally reiterating the constitutional obligations for MT-based education. But, at the same time, the sociolinguistic hierarchy and the double divide, and the micro-level socio-economic and political forces which shape popular attitudes of discrimination against some languages create a gap between the ideologically driven declared policies and the de facto policies translated into actual educational practice. Proliferation of language categories in educational policy discourse

Panda and Mohanty (2014) point out that languages are often consigned to different levels in a hierarchy by the way they are labelled. The persistence of the colonial categories, such as vernaculars, classical languages, modern Indian language, mother tongues, home languages and tribal languages in the language-in-education policy discourse in India as well as in the social sciences dealing with issues of languages in education has led to a legitimis­ation of the hierarchy and to discrimination. The use of these terms in the constitution as well as other statutory documents carries the legacy of British rule and creates a space for the hierarchical positioning of languages in education. The TLF, for example, perpetuated the distinction between English, Hindi, RLs or vernaculars and MTs in its failed attempts to find an acceptable solution within the framework of ‘three’ languages. The more recent policy documents have continued with these usages and also with a fossilised notion of ‘three languages’ in school education, without any critical engagement with their historical roots and implications. Commenting on the implications of such usages in the NCF 2005, NKC 2009 recommendations and 2009 RTE, Panda and Mohanty make the following observation: Instead of deconstructing these terms and replacing them by more egalitarian terms, these three documents provide legitimacy to the commodification of languages. There is a fear that these policies may work against the interests of the less powerful minority language communities. (Panda & Mohanty, 2014: 104)

The terminological weaknesses in the policy documents definitely led to divergent construal of languages in Indian multilingualism and to lack of clarity, which, in turn, created confusions and contradictions in the recommendations. The TLF created the confusion between RL and MT, the two central concepts in language-in-education policy in a multilingual society. Subsequent policy documents continued with the same usages and did little to offer clarity. It is difficult to take a collection of these documents and statutory provisions as a statement of a coherent language-in-education policy because they fail to project a unified set of



Multilingualism and Language Policy in Education  159

principles and recommendations in respect of languages in education and, more importantly, have not substantively influenced practice. Multilingualism and the problem of numbers in language-ineducation policy

The Indian language-in-education policy, as it has evolved through several modifications and policy documents, seems to have taken the notion of three languages in school education as a starting point. Hindi and English were presupposed to be necessary for all children in India and, as such, the fixed three-language solution left room for only the regional majority language. The ITM children were clearly seen as peripheral and problematic for this formula and, hence, a new category, ‘mother tongue’, was added as an alternative to the regional language. This ad hoc solution was flawed on two counts. Firstly, in the concentric layers of multilingualism in India, the home language of the ITM children cannot be seen as an ‘alternative’ to regional languages since these children need both to develop as competent multilinguals. Secondly, the label ‘mother tongue’ was used and treated in a manner which implicitly accepted the peripheral status of the ITM languages; too many ‘mother tongues’ were viewed as a problem in the post-TLF policy documents, which repeatedly sought a transition to the regional language as soon as possible (see the dis­cussion above), assuming that the mother tongue of each ITM child is only a stepping stone or a ‘bridge’ to the regional or other dominant language (Panda, 2012b). The weakness of the fixed quota of ‘three’ languages was exposed when Hindi was not accepted even as a third language in most of the non-Hindi states and the expected learning of an Indian language such as a South Indian language as a third language did not happen in the Hindi states; Sanskrit was the only Indian language in the ‘third language’ spot in school education. The TLF had to be severally modified to accommodate to these divergent preferences. In the process, new categories, such as ‘foreign language’ and ‘modern Indian language’, were used to somehow remain faithful to the fixed ‘three language’ formula. Use of the term ‘modern Indian language’ excluded the tribal languages and, thus, it conveniently bypassed any possible claim of ITM languages for a formal place in school education. Use of languages in education is a powerful process in strengthening languages and adding to their vitality (Fishman, 1991; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). Unfortunately, educational planners in multilingual societies, as in India, seem to have viewed the presence of many languages as a burden, as a messy affair. The three-language formula, as an attempt to impose a solution of uniformity in a societal context of natural diversity, may have been a typically Indian ‘formula’, but it resonates in many other multilingual polities around the world. The reductionist approach to

160  The Multilingual Reality

multi­lingualism, by limiting a complex reality to numbers, hierarchies and priorities, sets in motion a vicious cycle of disadvantage and discrimination that percolates into all facets of society, including language-in-education policies. Reducing linguistic diversity to numbers is often the first step toward homogenisation and denial of the natural ecology of languages. The predicaments of the TLF in India’s educational language policy show that the challenges of promoting multilingualism through education are not met by imposition of numbers and priorities among languages. Imposition of a forced choice of sets of one, few or a limited number of hierarchically constructed languages in education, disregarding the complex diversity and needs of all segments of a multilingual society, is a Procrustean solution; it negates the basic multilingual ideology of the system of education and disregards the prevalent diversity in the socio­ linguistic background of the learners in classrooms. Multilingual Society and Monolingual Practices in Education

When languages in multilingual societies are treated as commodities with market values (Illich, 1980), they are necessarily placed in a hierarchy which is reflected in language practices in schools. Education all over the world caters to the market demands for the dominant languages like English and to the need to move a dominant language progressively to the centre in a curricular structure that is under pressure to accommodate to the multilingual social reality. In the process, education has a focus on the development of competence in the most powerful language, while, as mentioned above, the ‘other’ languages are slotted into hierarchies of ­politicised categories (Pelinka, 2007). In India, English not only occupies the central position in school education, but also progressively displaces (and, later, replaces) other languages, to become the sole language in university education. This has a ‘wash-back’ effect, ensuring high demand for early development of competence in English to enable students to succeed at higher levels of education. Dominance of one language in education at the cost of others in multilingual societies leads to a system that causes educational failure for the ITM-language students. It also fails to develop multilingual competence among pupils. Unfortunately, education in many multilingual societies organised around the hierarchical sociolinguistic structure fails to capitalise on the linguistic diversity as pupils’ resources. Educational practices with a focus on one language or a few dominant languages lead to monolingual outcomes in a multilingual society. Notes (1) Formal education among the tribal communities was rare in India prior to British rule. Thus, education in the mother tongue usually involved the major Indian languages in different regions of the Indian subcontinent.



Multilingualism and Language Policy in Education  161

(2) These private schools, ironically, were called ‘public schools’ (as in the UK) during the period of British rule. Even after independence the private schools were often called public schools and the schools run by the government were called government schools. (3) In most of the common schools, Sanskrit was taught as a school subject. There were special schools or centres of learning like Nalanda for development of Sanskrit (and Pali) scholarship from early school years and in such Sanskrit schools the language of teaching/learning was Sanskrit. (4) This modification based on the recommendations of the Education Commission 1964–1966 was published by the Ministry of Education in 1966. (5) Hindi was rejected by the southern states primarily because of the apprehension that it gives an advantage to the people from the Hindi-speaking states as their first language. English was considered a ‘neutral’ language, giving equal advantage to people from all the regions in India. This has now become a political issue, with different parties aligning themselves with the pro-Hindi or pro-English positions.

8 Educational Models in Multilingual Societies: Rethinking Multilingual Education

It was another school day; September 24, 2009. Panchu left his village Srilijhujadi for a 5 kilometre forest walk to his Sapeli Primary School where he learns in Class II in his language Kui. Sapeli School is an MLE Plus school. Four other friends join Panchu for the usual walk and they move on as the seven-year-old Panchu slows down a bit. His friends turn back to his sudden scream and, to their horror, find Panchu being dragged by a prowling hyena and struggling hard to survive. His friends do not run away; they give chase pelting stones at the heinous animal and shouting for help. Deterred by their persistent chase and Panchu’s forceful fight, the hyena yields and flees leaving behind the bleeding prey. Soon some villagers gather and after initial care Panchu is taken by his father Kundul Majhi, mother Raja Majhi and other villagers to the hospital in Tumudibandha, Kandhamal District in Odisha. He undergoes treatment and gradually recovers in a few days. Panchu is shaken by this dreadful experience, but he musters courage to return to his school. (From the newsletter of the National Multi­lingual Education Resource Consortium, Swara, January 2010, p. 1)

Panchu participated in the mother-tongue-based multilingual education (MLE) programme in Odisha as a primary school student. His school was a part of the special ‘MLE Plus’ programme that was run by the present author and his colleague Minati Panda. Panchu was one of the children whose parents were persuaded by the MLE Plus team to send their children to grade 1 at Sapeli Primary School. The incident happened nearly 16 months after Panchu started school. We did not expect Panchu to be back in school after the trauma he had been through and were planning to bring him back slowly, after a few weeks of post-trauma counselling. Panchu surprised all of us by getting back to school on his own even before complete recovery. Minati Panda, one of the directors of the MLE Plus 162



Educational Models in Multilingual Societies  163

project and the editor of Swara, the newsletter of the National Multi­ lingual Education Resource Consortium (NMRC) in India, decided to feature Panchu’s story on the editorial page of the January 2010 issue of Swara.1 The following is an extract from her accompanying editorial: Those who think that bringing mother tongue based education is an exercise in futility should look beyond the unfounded, impressionistic and biased views into concrete evidence which shows that mother tongue based MLE works. And, more meaningfully, they should visit MLE schools to see the transformations in the child, the smiles in her face, joy and hope in her eyes. There is no substitute for the callings of mother tongues luring children into schools and engaging them. The seven-year-old Panchu Majhi badly mauled by a hyena on his way to school, fights the horror and braves back to the school where he participates in the MLE Plus classroom in his mother tongue Kui. Swara salutes Panchu’s spirit and happily shares the editorial page to bring his story to our readers. (p. 1)

At the time of writing, Panchu was in grade 9 at the local Odiamedium high school, where he was learning English and Hindi as school subjects. Early education in his mother tongue (MT) did not limit Panchu’s education only to his MT. It gave him the initial head-start to develop his cognitive and academic skills necessary for school success and learning other languages. Classroom transactions in the MT empowered Panchu and all other children in MT-based education to be able to participate in the classroom, to easily bring in and use their cultural experiences and everyday concepts for effective school learning of academic and scientific concepts, to affirm their cultural pride and sense of identity and to have a sustained engagement with literacy. Except for the few tribal children in the experimental programmes of MT-based MLE in Odisha, all other tribal children in Odisha have their early schooling in the dominant state language, Odia, in which they have little competence when they come to school. It is not surprising that these children avoid coming to school on any pretext. That Panchu was undeterred by the trauma and had the courage and intrinsic motivation to come back to his school is a testimony to the power of MT in the early education of children. Multiple languages in different domains of social activities constitute the social reality in multilingual societies. People do need many languages for democratic participation in socio-economic and political processes and they develop functional levels of multilingual competence depending on their social contexts and communicative requirements. Formal education in these societies needs to promote multilingualism for all. As the world continues to become increasingly multilingual, diversity of multilingual societies is an asset and a challenge. The opportunities and challenges of multilingualism in any society are most significant and consequential in education. How do the systems of education in linguistic­ally diverse societies meet the challenges of multilingualism? With the forces

164  The Multilingual Reality

of globalisation and the spread of global languages like English, state policies and systems of education all over the world tend to be homogen­ is­ing, leading to loss of linguistic diversity, as Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) shows. At the same time, there are also attempts in many multilingual countries, including India, to provide MT-based education, particularly for the ITM language groups, with the objective of developing multi­ lingual competence through schooling. This chapter seeks to discuss aspects of multilingual education in India and to examine how the system of education has responded to the challenges of India’s multilingualism. I will also broadly look into some selected multilingual contexts and the nature of multilingual education in other parts of the world. My analysis will focus on how the hierarchical relationship between the dominant international or colonial languages, major national languages and ITM languages has affected languagesin-education practices in multilingual societies and to what extent multilingual education for ITM children has succeeded in challenging the sociolinguistic hierarchy in these societies. Multilingualism in Indian Schools: Forms of ‘Multilingual’ Education

As discussed in Chapter 7, the three-language formula (TLF) in India was floated with several modifications to accommodate the perceived need to bring some uniformity to the place of languages in school education. The formula could not produce any consistent and substantive changes although it did underscore the need for educational promotion of pro­ ficiency in languages of functional significance. The TLF was too limiting to cater to the needs of ITM children. These children have a functional requirement for education in at least four languages: the home language, the major regional language (such as Marathi or Bengali), a national language (Hindi) and English. Proficiency in multiple languages can be developed through high-quality school education; MLE can be built on a strong foundation of MT literacy through prolonged use of the MT in schools as the medium of instruction (MoI) and gradual introduction of other languages as school subjects and then as the MoI. Use of two or more languages as the MoI (for subjects other than the languages themselves) either simultaneously or at different points in education is a defining feature of multilingual/multilingual education (Andersson & Boyer, 1978). Mohanty et al. (2009b: xvii) extended this notion and defined multilingual education (MLE): as meaning the use of two or more languages (including Sign Languages) as media of instruction in subjects other than the languages themselves (Andersson & Boyer, 1978) and with (high levels of) multilingualism and, preferably, multiliteracy, as a goal at the end of formal schooling.



Educational Models in Multilingual Societies  165

We included bilingual education under the broader rubric of MLE. Using the term ‘bilingual education’ as ‘an organised and planned programme that uses two (or more) languages of instruction’, Paia et al. (2015: 146) also accept that the two terms can be used interchangeably. They agree that use of languages ‘to teach subject matter content rather than just the languages themselves’ (Paia et al., 2015: 146) is the main defining feature of bilingual or multilingual education. Skutnabb-Kangas and McCarty (2008) endorsed the criterion of use of multiple languages as the MoI as a distinctive feature of bilingual/multilingual education and differentiated between non-forms, weak forms and strong forms of bilingual/­multilingual education. They suggest that only the strong forms of bilingual/­multilingual education ‘lead to high levels of bi-/multilingualism and are associated with greater academic success for language minority students (Thomas & Collier, 2002)’ (Skutnabb-Kangas & McCarty, 2008: 4). School education in India does involve multiple languages but mostly offers non-forms of multilingual education, as elucidated by SkutnabbKangas and McCarty (2008). Two or more languages sometimes formally appear in schools not as the MoI but as school subjects. Besides, multiple languages are also informally used in school settings, particularly when children belong to different MT communities. Srivastava and Gupta (1984) have discussed various patterns in India of informal communication in multiple languages in classrooms that are, formally at least, monolingual. In my discussions of languages in Indian education I have analysed different forms of education to show that common multilingual practices in Indian classrooms can be characterised as being only nominally multi­ lingual education, since, even when multiple languages are present in the classrooms, there is no systematic use of these languages as MoIs. Further, the linguistic practices in these classrooms do not promote high levels of multilingualism among pupils (Mohanty, 2006, 2008). Given the widespread grassroots multilingualism in India, the com­ position of classrooms in local areas is heterogeneous and multilingual. As we show elsewhere (Mohanty et al., 2010), teachers often negotiate the linguistic diversity in the classrooms by informally using pupils’ MTs or local languages of mutual communication in order to enhance the effective­ness of teaching, which is otherwise mandated by the state or school policy to be in one of the dominant regional, national or international languages. Classroom use of language(s) other than the MoI is usually purported to be necessary for effective communication and teaching. These informal and strategic uses of different languages turn classrooms de facto into multilingual spaces. However, the degree to which these classrooms can become multilingual, even in an informal sense, depends on several factors, including differences in the types of schools, the contexts of schooling and also teachers’ multilingual competence. Further, curricula in Indian school systems invariably involve a distinction between use of language(s) as the MoI or as school subjects.

166  The Multilingual Reality

Often, claims to multilingual education emanate from the formal teaching of multiple languages as school subjects, even when only one language is used as a language of teaching in subjects other than the languages themselves. In some cases, multiple languages are formally used as the MoI. But, as I will show, the manner of such use of multiple MoIs fails to support any claim to multilingual education in a strong sense. Given the various formal and informal uses of multiple languages in classrooms with a single or multiple languages as the MoI, education in India involves divergent forms of multilingualism and ‘multilingual’ education, which can be broadly categorised as formal or informal forms of multilingual education with single or multiple languages as the MoI. Informal multilingual practices in single-MoI classrooms Support multilingual education

Sometimes the MoI in schools is a language in which the pupils have no or very low proficiency and, often, with which they have little familiarity. This is often the case with English-medium schools in India, particularly for children from low economic and disadvantaged backgrounds. Children from all socio-economic levels have the same problem of unfamiliarity with English used as the MoI, but the home environment of most of the upper-class children provides support for English through early socialisation practices (Bujorbarua, 2006; Mohanty et al., 1999; see also Chapter 2) fostering some competence in English, at least in the academic domains. The upper-class families also provide various kinds of additional support (such as home-based tutoring) to scaffold school learning in English. Parents from the lower strata, on the other hand, usually have no or low proficiency in English and home-based support for the language is unavailable. Low-cost English-medium schools for such children declare English as the formal MoI, but the teachers provide informal support by using children’s MT in classrooms to communicate with their pupils. Our analysis of the classroom practices in English-medium schools for Hindispeaking children from lower socio-economic families (Mohanty et al., 2010) shows various strategies that teachers use to support children’s lack of proficiency in English (see Chapter 9 for details). Lessons are read from English textbooks and, after each sentence, teachers translate the same into Hindi and follow this up with drilling of some key English words to enable pupils to answer relevant questions. Teachers are aware that the formal MoI is English, but they justify the use of Hindi for classroom communication.2 Unlike the schools for children from upper economic strata, the schools for children from lower socio-economic backgrounds accept pupils’ classroom communication in their home language. As we show (Mohanty et al., 2010; see discussion in Chapter 9), teachers in these schools use several other strategies to facilitate school learning in an



Educational Models in Multilingual Societies  167

unfamiliar language through the selection of certain types of textbook, patterns of examination and various code-switching and trans-languaging practices. Informal use of language(s) other than the MoI is also common in schools using the the dominant regional language as the MoI for ITM children whose home language is different from the school language. When teachers know the MT of the children, they tend to use the language for effective classroom communication and to support children’s learning. For example, Odia-medium schools in Kond tribal areas in Odisha have Odia as the formal MoI, as in all other government schools in the state. Kond children, at least in early primary grades, have low proficiency in Odia as a second language. It is not uncommon for the teachers who know Kui, the MT of the Kond children, occasionally to use Kui in classrooms along with Odia to support children’s comprehension and to foster understanding of academic concepts. Formally, these, as well as the English-medium schools for the lower socio-economic groups, are monolingual programmes, but classroom communicative problems due to the discrepancy between the expected and the actual proficiency of pupils in the school language makes the teachers use a second language to complement teaching in the MoI, transforming the classroom space into an informal type of bilingual or multilingual educational context. Partial multilingual education

As in the above case, children’s lack of adequate proficiency in the formal MoI calls for use of their MT for effective teaching/learning transactions. However, teachers do not always fall back on the use of pupils’ MT to facilitate classroom communication, even in classrooms where the pupils share an MT; quite often teachers may not know the MT of the children or may have limited proficiency in it. In such cases, pupils may use their MT for their mutual communication and classroom responses, whereas the bulk of teaching is done by the teacher using the formal MoI. Often, submersion programmes of education in a dominant regional majority language as the MoI for tribal children have non-tribal teachers with little knowledge of the pupils’ MT. In such cases, along with the formal use of the dominant language as the MoI, teachers may use a simplified and local variety of the dominant language to communicate with the pupils. Occasionally, as we have shown (Mohanty et al., 2010) in the case of Odia-medium classrooms for Kui-speaking tribal children, the non-tribal teachers solicit support of Kui–Odia bilingual children to help clarify academic concepts in Kui for Kui monolingual children with limited proficiency in Odia, the MoI. Thus, classrooms with a single dominant language as the formal MoI may support the learning of children from non-dominant ITM language communities by various forms of occasional use of children’s MT or a simplified local variety for occasional classroom communication in addition to the formal MoI.

168  The Multilingual Reality

Formal multilingual practices in single-MoI classrooms Majority language MT programmes

All the state and union territory (UT) government schools in India, with a few exceptions, use the state/regional majority language as the formal MoI. For most of the children in the state or UT, the majority language or the MoI is their MT, whereas for the ITM-language children in the state, these schools are submersion programmes in a non-MT language. In addition to the dominant state language as the MoI (and also as a language subject), other languages are usually taught as school subjects in these programmes. English happens to be the most common language subject taught in these schools from early primary grades, in most cases from grade 1. In addition, one or two other languages, such as Hindi or Sanskrit or other Indian languages, may be taught as other language subjects in different grades. Although multiple languages constitute part of the school curriculum, the dominant regional language is used as a single MoI and other languages are only school subjects; thus, these are not MLE programmes. However, in these programmes, as in the two categories of informal multilingual practice above (support and partial MLE), classrooms in the majoritylanguage MT programmes sometimes have children belonging to other major language communities or to ITM language communities. In such cases, teachers may engage in support MLE if they know the language(s) of the children whose MT is not the MoI, or otherwise utilise a partial support strategy, as in the partial type of informal multi­lingual practice above. Furthermore, it is a common practice in all the majority-language MT programmes to use pupils’ MT in teaching language subjects, although the school systems in India usually mandate using the target language as the MoI in all teaching/learning trans­actions in the language subject classrooms. Except in the high-cost English-medium schools, it is common classroom practice in Indian schools to use the local language for the teaching of English. Non-MT-medium programmes

All the private English-medium schools3 in India are non-MT-medium programmes4 and teach children with different non-English MTs from different socio-economic strata in English. Other languages, such as Hindi, Sanskrit, state majority languages and other national/international languages, are also taught as school subjects. As single-MoI programmes in English, these are not MLE programmes either.5 Some special schools with Hindi and another major language as the MoI for children who belong to other MT groups have the same structure as the English-medium schools; they use one language as the MoI and teach other languages as school subjects.



Educational Models in Multilingual Societies  169

The single-MoI school programmes (either in the MT of the pupils or in a non-MT language), as described above, are not MLE programmes since they use only one language as the MoI, even if multiple languages may be part of the curriculum, albeit as language subjects. Formal multilingual practices in multiple-MoI classrooms

In some school programmes two or more languages are formally used as the MoI, either simultaneously at the same level/grade or at different grades. Simultaneous dual-language MoI programmes

Over 1000 Kendriya Vidyalaya or Central Schools are run by the govern­ment of India. They use both English and Hindi as languages of teaching from grade 1 onwards. Thus, formally these schools are dual-language programmes in which both English and Hindi are used simultaneously for teaching – some school subjects in English and others in Hindi. However, any claim to bilingual or multilingual education in these schools is constrained by two factors. First, the two languages – Hindi and English – are used as the MoI in all the Kendriya Vidyalaya or Central Schools throughout the country, regardless of the MT of the pupils in these schools or classrooms. These MoIs are independent of the pupils’ MT. English and Hindi are chosen just because, as dominant languages in India, they are considered important for education. Second, the two languages as MoIs are not used as languages of teaching across all domains of classroom communication. Rather, the hierarchical relationship between English as a preferred and prestigious international language and Hindi as a less preferred national language is reinforced by assigning English to the teaching of ‘more important’ subjects like mathematics and science (and, of course, English) and Hindi for the teaching of social sciences (and Hindi). It is evident that the selection and positioning of the languages of teaching in these schools is not based on the pedagogy and structure of dual-language bilingual or multilingual education as this is understood (Flores & Baetens Beardsmore, 2015), nor designed to promote multi­lingual competence among the pupils, since the development of MT competence is not targeted in the programme (as it is in Western dual-­language programmes). Thus, even if two languages are used simultaneously for classroom communication, textbooks and other teaching/ learning materials, the Kendriya Vidyalaya programme cannot be viewed as an ‘acceptable’ strong form of bilingual or multilingual education. Apart from the Kendriya Vidyalaya, there are some other private schools which also offer programmes with two languages used as MoIs without any systematic basis for choice of teaching domains in which these languages are used.

170  The Multilingual Reality

Successive dual-language MoI programmes

Some of the majority-language MT programmes (as in the majority language MT single-MoI programmes discussed above) use a majoritylanguage MT as the MoI from early grades and gradually introduce teaching of English and other languages as school subjects. In higher grades, these schools switch to a second language (English in most cases) as the MoI. Usually, such successive change in the MoI happens between secondary (grade 10) and senior secondary (grade 12) levels; that is, these are very late-exit transitional programmes (for definitions, see SkutnabbKangas & McCarty, 2008). It is quite likely that in these programmes pupils benefit from the development of high proficiency in their MT before they switch to another language as the MoI. These programmes are common in India. But they are not based on any systematic assumption of a positive relationship between developed proficiency in the MT and in the second language, and are not planned as MLE. The assumption in these programmes is that English is a more suitable language for higher levels of education and, therefore, pupils need to switch over to English as the MoI in higher grades. It must be noted that higher, technical and university education in India is almost exclusively in English as the MoI. Most students are educated in their MT or in a non-MT language as the MoI up to high school and then on starting technical, higher or university education switch to English as the MoI. However, since the changes in the MoI across the different levels of education do not target the development of multilingual proficiency and do not occur within the same institutional set up, one cannot claim there is an institutionally planned MLE structure in such cases. Transitional language-support programmes for ITM children

Children from ITM language communities typically show poor academic achievement in government schools with the dominant state language as the MoI. In view of their difficulty in these submersion programmes in a non-MT language, some schools provide additional support to the ITM children in their MTs in the early years of primary education. Regular school textbooks and classroom teaching in the school language are supplemented by books, teaching/learning materials and additional teaching in pupils’ MTs, usually outside the regular school hours. The objective of the support programmes for the ITM children is to facilitate their school learning and to foster a smooth transition to the dominant school language. These language-support programmes can at best be characterised as weak forms of MLE; they do not provide strong support for the development of ITM children’s MTs and are not intended to develop competence in multiple languages. During the 1980s, the Central Institute of Indian Languages (Mysore) started an experimental programme called the Bilingual Transfer Model



Educational Models in Multilingual Societies  171

(a kind of early-exit transitional model) for identified groups of tribal and linguistic minority children in six states and UTs. The programme prepared bilingual textbooks which began with a tribal MT and progressively increased the regional majority language content in the same textbook. Teaching was aimed at making children comfortable at the point of entry into formal education and gradually making them learn in the dominant language as they progressed through the first year of schooling. The programme was designed for smooth transition of children from their MT to the dominant school language by the end of grade 2, so that they were able to continue in regular schools with the regional majority language as the only MoI. Clearly, in these ‘bilingual transfer’ programmes, there was little ‘transfer’ from the children’s MT to the dominant language and the programme did not target development of the children’s MT; it only sought to use their familiarity with the MT to facilitate early and soft transition to the dominant language. The Bilingual Transfer Model did not achieve any success (see Mohanty, 1989b) and was discontinued. However, the early-transition approach continues in various other forms of language-support programme for ITM children in which the MT is used only as a support for the development of proficiency in the dominant school language. The linguistic diversity in Indian classrooms has led to some multilingual practices in teaching. However, the manner in which multiple languages are represented in these classrooms, both formally through the presence of languages in the curriculum as well as informally through functional communicative practices in the classrooms, reflects the hierarchy of power and the societal double divide in the positioning of languages in society. English occupies a prominent position in the school curricula all over the country. It is used as the single MoI in English-medium schools and as a major language subject quite early in primary education in all the public or government schools in which the national or the regional dominant languages are used as the formal MoI. Even when the ITM languages on the lowest rungs of power hierarchy are used in schools (mostly informally), the purpose is not to develop competence in these MTs of the ITM children, but to use them (mostly informally) only as a support for the targeted development of proficiency in the major languages. Fortunately, the critical link between education in an MT, high-quality education and school achievement of the ITM and other disadvantaged children has led to some recent initiatives in India to offer more systematic forms of MT-based MLE. These experimental programmes do use MTs, as well as another (dominant) language as the formal MoI. Some of these programmes use early exit from MT to the dominant language as the MoI (during the primary grades), whereas others are not so early exit (if not clearly late-exit programmes). We will discuss aspects of these programmes under a fourth category of multilingual education in India.

172  The Multilingual Reality

Formal multilingual education with multiple MoIs

The formal MLE being tried in India primarily as experimental or pilot programmes begin with MT as the MoI. The state majority language and English are taught as school subjects early in the primary grades. By the third or the fourth year of primary education, the dominant state majority language becomes the second MoI, with the MT used to teach some subject areas. Gradually, the use of the MT as the MoI is reduced and the dominant language becomes the sole MoI by grade 5 or 6. Recently, some MLE programmes have been modified to continue with the MT as the MoI up to grade 5. Early-exit transitional-type MT-based multilingual education

In 2004, the state of Andhra Pradesh started an experimental MLE programme in eight tribal languages in 240 primary schools. Odisha started the programme in 2006 in 195 primary schools and 10 tribal languages (for details of the early phase of MLE in these states, see Mohanty et al., 2009a).6 In both states, tribal children’s MT is used as the language of teaching/learning transactions and literacy development during the early years of primary education. Teachers belong to the respective tribal communities and can use the target tribal language for teaching. Textbooks follow the common state curriculum and they are prepared in all the tribal languages in the programme. These textbooks are developed by teachers and community members from the target language group, working with experts. The content of the textbooks is based on indigenous cultural knowledge systems, children’s life experiences in their community, and songs, stories and games from their cultural practices. The majority language of the states, Telugu in Andhra Pradesh and Odia in Odisha, is taught as a language subject in the second year (grade 2) with initial emphasis on the development of oral skills before formal literacy instruction. English as a school subject is introduced in grade 3 in Odisha and grade 1 in Andhra Pradesh.7 Odia is used as an MoI along with the tribal MT from grade 4 in the Odisha8 programme and the same pattern continues in grade 5. The MLE programme in Andhra Pradesh follows a time-sharing system in which Telugu and the tribal MT are used as the MoI, each for 50% of the assigned class time in grade 3, changing to 75% for Telugu as the MoI and 25% for the tribal MT in grade 4, followed by Telugu as the sole MoI in grade 5. In both state programmes, the majority language is the sole MoI from grade 6 onwards and the MT is not used at all. Table 8.1 shows the nature of the MLE programmes in Andhra Pradesh and Odisha with curricula details and MoIs at different grades in primary education. The programmes of multilingual education in these states are clearly early-exit programmes in which MT is used as the MoI for three to four years, to be replaced by the state majority language as the MoI.



Educational Models in Multilingual Societies  173

Table 8.1  MoI and language subjects in MLE programmes in Andhra Pradesh and Odisha State

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Tribal MT

Tribal MT

Tribal Tribal MT 25%, MT 50%, Telugu 75% Telugu 50%

Telugu 100%

Odisha

Tribal MT

Tribal MT

Tribal MT

Tribal MT for environmental studies and science, Odia for maths a

Tribal MT: environmental studies and science, Odia for maths a

Andhra Pradesh

Tribal MT

Tribal MT

Tribal MT

Tribal MT

Tribal MT

Odisha

Tribal MT

Tribal MT

Tribal MT

Tribal MT

Tribal MT

Andhra Pradesh

X

Telugu

Telugu

Telugu

Telugu

Odisha

X

Odia

Odia

Odia

Odia

Andhra Pradesh

English

English

English

English

English

Odisha

X

X

English

English

English

Medium of Andhra instruction Pradesh

Language subject 1 Language subject 2 b Language subject 3 b

a

Grade 4

Grade 5

Maths, environmental studies and science are taught as subjects in the primary grades (1–5).

In languages 2 and 3, oral competence is developed before the teaching of reading and writing.

b

Nevertheless, several evaluations of these programmes in Andhra Pradesh and Odisha have noted positive effects on children’s classroom achievement, school attendance and classroom participation, and teacher and community attitudes (Panda et al., 2011). An evaluation of the Odisha programme undertaken by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (2011) showed that, compared with the children in Odiamedium non-MLE schools, the children in MLE schools had significantly higher achievement scores. The MLE children showed increased selfrespect and self-confidence, and greater interest and participation in classroom learning. School enrolment, attendance and retention also increased in MLE programmes. As mentioned above, Mohanty and Panda (Mohanty & Panda, 2007; Panda & Mohanty, 2011) implemented a special programme called MLE Plus in Odisha in eight schools, using two tribal languages – Kui and Saora (for details of the programme, see Panda & Mohanty, 2011, 2014). Several evaluations (Manocha & Panda, 2017; Nag, 2017; Panda et al., 2011) show the positive effects of the MLE Plus programme and significant gains compared with both non-MLE and other MLE programmes in Odisha. Late-exit transitional-type MT-based multilingual education

The Odisha MLE programme was recently revised and extended to 21 tribal languages in 1485 primary schools with over 140,000 tribal MT

174  The Multilingual Reality

children in grades 1 to 5 and 3533 teachers from the target-language communities. This expansion of the MLE programme in Odisha followed the policy of the government of Odisha notified on 1 July 2014 for MT-based multilingual education for all tribal children in the state (see http://www. odisha.gov.in/schooleducation/resolution/2014/14118). In this new programme structure (implemented from the year 2015), as per the recommendations of the policy framework (Mohanty et al., 2014), the MT is used as the MoI for the five years of primary education in Odisha. The state majority language, Odia, is taught as the second language subject from grade 2 onwards. English is taught as the third language subject from grade 3 onwards, as is the case with all the government schools in Odisha. From grade 6, children join a post-primary school along with other non-tribal and tribal children from primary schools, with Odia as the MoI. As such, the use of the tribal language as MoI is discontinued after primary education (grade 5). However, the policy framework has recommended that the tribal languages be continued as a language subject at post-primary level, starting with grade 6. MLE in India: Still a Bridge Too Far?

The new late-exit transitional programmes in Odisha do not meet the ideal of continuing with the MT as the MoI for at least six to eight years, but the programmes can still be expected to show better outcomes than the earlier programmes. At the same time, it must be pointed out that, due to various political and bureaucratic processes and impositions, the experimental MLE programmes in the states in India and their implementation are often subjected to various unplanned modifications. The MLE programme for tribal children in Andhra Pradesh is being reviewed by the government. It is likely that it will be discontinued even if it has been shown to be effective. Such uncertainties in programme implementation led to the develop­ ment of the policy in Odisha, the first state in India to have such a policy, with a hope that a ‘policy’ will have a sustaining effect. However, despite the declared policy, the implementation and the delivery of the MLE programmes in Odisha are under bureaucratic control and constant review; the programmes are also seriously constrained by their limited funding. The unpredictability and resource constraints are likely to create discrepancies between the declared policy and what is implemented on the ground. The MT-based programmes in India are affected by the primacy often accorded to English as well as to the regional dominant languages. The double divide in Indian multilingualism is a major factor undermining the role of ITM languages in education. From a macro-level perspective, the different forms of ‘multilingual education’ in India as described above seem to be tentative responses to assuage the negative consequences of the



Educational Models in Multilingual Societies  175

double divide without questioning the double divide itself. As Panda and Mohanty point out: In a way, MLE is a form of negotiation to meet the discriminatory fallouts of the de facto language policy in education, but … it does not contest the double divide. The current form of MLE in India, therefore, remains a weak model; it helps tribal children to circumvent the language barrier and negotiate the double divide, but it does not challenge the double divide. MLE in India is a local response. It is not a resistance programme to the unjust hierarchy of languages. (Panda & Mohanty, 2014: 124–125)

All multilingual societies are characterised by such hierarchies. Unfortunately, education in multilingual societies seems to reproduce and perpetuate the hierarchy. In the next section, I give a quick overview of educational practices in some other multilingual societies by way of example (rather than as critical instances) to show how education, particularly multilingual education, gets trapped in the uncertainties and tentativeness arising out of inequalities among languages in multilingual societies. I look only at the broad patterns of education in some multilingual countries to point to gross generalities; it is likely, of course, that within these regions there are specific programmes which may be very different from the broad national trends described here. Languages in Education and MLE in Some Multilingual Societies

In South Asian countries with nearly 660 languages, only about 50 are actually used as an MoI. While English-medium schools are popular, other schools are primarily in the dominant national languages. As in India, private schools in most South Asian countries use English and some dominant languages as the MoI and as language subjects. Private schools in Pakistan are English-medium schools and are growing in demand; government schools are Urdu-medium. The national education policy of the Government of Pakistan (2009) recommends greater emphasis on English in the government schools. English is proposed to be taught from grade 1 and used as the MoI for teaching m ­ athematics and science. In addition to Urdu and English, one regional language can be taught as a school subject. The policy also suggests MT-based multi­lingual education (Shamim, 2011); a local MT can be used for early education and literacy, along with Urdu and English as language subjects. Urdu and English should replace the MT as the MoI by grade 4. Thus, the proposed programmes, if implemented, would offer weak and early-exit forms of MLE for some of the local languages. Education in Bangladesh is dominated by Bengali, English and Urdu, while over 30 ITM languages are neglected. Experimental MT-based MLE programmes have started in some of the ITM languages (see Rahman, 2010), but with an emphasis on early transition to the dominant languages.

176  The Multilingual Reality

Sri Lanka has a trilingual policy and it is planning implementation of MLE, beginning with Tamil or Sinhala as MTs, with emphasis on the development of competence in English and Sinhala (for Tamil MT children) or Tamil (for Sinhala MT children). English is considered the major ‘link language’ in Sri Lanka and has a growing impact in education at all levels. Sri Lanka has five indigenous languages (see http://www.ethnologue.com, accessed 22 April 2016) which have no place in education. Hough, Yonjan-Tamang and colleagues (Hough et al., 2009; YonjanTamang et al., 2009) describe Nepal’s pilot programme of MT-based MLE in eight ITM languages from grades 1 to 3, following which Nepali and English become the major languages in education. Nurmela et al. (2010) examine the way forward beyond the MLE pilot programmes and express concerns about the fallacious notions regarding the advantages of early education in English, which have led to the growing choice of Englishmedium instruction early in children’s education. Tension between English and the indigenous languages of Nepal in MLE is captured in the apprehension of Lava Deo Awasthi, the Director General of Education in Nepal (now the Chairperson of the National Language Commission): MLE classrooms are priorities in the policy documents but English has been overemphasised in public debates and forums. Even the research reports appear to glorify English and English-only school practices. (Personal communication, 15 April 2013)

In his review of MLE pilot projects in Nepal, Kadel outlines several concerns regarding the successful implementation of MLE programmes. ‘Attractiveness of English-medium education’ and ‘Uncertainty about the value of using the mother tongue’ (Kadel, 2017: 198) are two major concerns. In their study of one English-medium school in Nepal for children with a lower socio-economic background, Sah and Li (2017) conclude that the use of English as the formal MoI has had negative consequences. The South Asian context seems to have one common feature across all the countries. Multilingualism in these societies calls for some form of multilingual practices in education. But such practices are affected by the dominant presence of both English and the national dominant language(s), and the relative powerlessness of the ITM languages. Even when ITM languages are given some space in early education, this is done not to promote and develop these languages but to use them as ‘bridges’ for the development of pupils’ competence in the dominant language and English. In this process, bilingual/multilingual education is often euphemistically used as a label for a system that promotes English with subtractive effects on indigenous languages. Lee (2015) shows that in South Korea the mainstream English–Korean bilingual education targets development of English, which is used to teach mathematics and science even when Korean is the MoI. Further,



Educational Models in Multilingual Societies  177

differential access to private English-language schools in South Korea has led to an ‘English divide’ across different income groups and the rural– urban populations (Lee, 2015: 510). In Cambodia the dominant Khmer language is the MoI in public schools and English is taught from grade 4 as a school subject. The growing popularity of private English-medium elite schools and after-school private coaching for English in Cambodia (Wright & Boun, 2015) also indicates a significant role of English in Cambodia’s education. Cambodia has 19 indigenous languages and, in 1997, it started an MLE programme in four of these, using the MT as the MoI in grade 1, with 20% content in Khmer. Gradually the Khmer content is increased to 70% by grade 3. From grade 4 onwards, Khmer becomes the MoI, with support in the MT as needed. English is also taught from grade 4 as a language subject. Thus, the MLE in Cambodia is an early-exit transition programme. MLE is a part of the national educational plan of Cambodia, but Khmer and English remain the main target languages (Wright & Boun, 2015). A pattern of education in the dominant national language(s) and English, with relative neglect of indigenous languages, is thus typical in Asian countries; in some cases, MLE is floated as a special programme for the ITM children, beginning with the MT, but making a quick transition to the dominant languages, including English. The dominance of English and other colonial languages is also evident in the highly multilingual African countries. In South Africa, the earlier apartheid policy of MLE for the indigenous children involved initial literacy in MT with early transition to English and/or Afrikaans; in effect, such education was an instrument for subtractive bilingualism (Makoni & Makoni, 2015: 559). Post-apartheid South Africa has a multilingual language policy of English, Afrikaans and nine other African official languages. In their analysis of the problems and issues with MLE for children from different language communities in South Africa, Makoni and Makoni conclude that there is no parity of languages in South Africa, and ‘ultimately, it is one’s ability to communicate in English that counts, although this is not articulated’ (Makoni & Makoni, 2015: 560). Typically, the MT is used as the MoI for three years of early education, before a transition to English ‘with no opportunity for cross-African language acquisition’ (Makalela, 2015: 572). Educational practices in sub-Saharan Africa are also dominated by English and other colonial languages, such as French and Spanish. Following independence, most of the African countries adopted a language-in-education policy of early education in indigenous MTs, with transition to dominant colonial languages in secondary and higher education. Botswana, Kenya, Nigeria, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zimbabwe and some other former British colonies have a form of MLE beginning with the MT as the MoI for one to four years in early primary grades and making an early transition to English as the MoI in late primary

178  The Multilingual Reality

or secondary education. Burundi, Republic of Congo and Rwanda follow a similar policy of early transition from the MT to the colonial language, French, as the MoI from primary grades. However, Comoros, Ethiopia, Madagascar and Somalia have a practice of primary education in a national or regional language followed by a late transition to English (in Ethiopia and Somalia) or French (in Comoros and Madagascar). In contrast, countries like Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Mali and Mozambique have followed a practice of mono­ lingual education in the dominant colonial language – French, Spanish or Portuguese. With over 600 indigenous communities and 500 languages, Latin American countries also constitute a linguistically diverse area. A long history of European colonisation has led to the dominance of several languages – Spanish, Portuguese, French and, later, English – over the in­ digen­ ous languages and cultures in the region. More recently, the dominance of the USA has contributed to the growing role of English in educational practices in Latin America. Sayer and López Gopar (2015) refer to three different forms of bilingual education in Mexico: (1) Spanish–English bilingual education; (2) public primary English language schools; and (3) bilingual schools for indigenous education. The first two categories promote education in the dominant languages but still give emphasis to English. Schools of the third type are run either as indigenous-language maintenance programmes of bilingual education in the indigenous MT and Spanish in areas where the indigenous language is widely used, or as language revitalisation programmes in areas with language shift in favour of Spanish. However, the dominant presence of Spanish and English in the broader educational scenario of Mexico raises doubts about the effectiveness of the bilingual indigenous-language programmes in bringing about a parity between the indigenous languages and the dominant languages (Hamel, 2008; Hornberger, 2008), particularly because these programmes are centrally controlled and influenced by the mainstream Spanish dominance. Lopez (2015) also shows that in the rest of the Latin American region, where indigenous languages are recognised as ‘national’ languages, as in Guatemala and Mexico, these indigenous languages are subordinated to Spanish, which is recognised as the ‘official’ language. In other countries, such as Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Peru, where the indigenous languages are recognised as ‘official’ languages, their use is mostly confined to early years of schooling. On the whole, it seems, educational practices in Latin America, including bilingual and indigenous-language programmes, are affected by the dominance of the colonial languages, as in other post-colonial societies. There seems to be a similar pattern in many parts of the world: indigenous-language education and MT-based MLE have the potential for the development and empowerment of the ITM languages and their



Educational Models in Multilingual Societies  179

speakers. But, unfortunately, the burden of the dominant languages and the national compulsions to develop competence in these dominant languages at the earliest stage of formal education affect the nature of the MLE programmes and weaken them substantially. In post-colonial societies, the dominance of colonial languages has created a further divide between the colonial language, the dominant national language(s) and the indigenous languages. As a result, indigenous-language education or MT-based MLE programmes are conceptualised and planned as transitional programmes in which the use of indigenous language in early education is viewed only as means to facilitate the development of literacy in the dominant national and colonial languages. Moving from Bilingual Education to MLE: Some Issues

In the current applications in different multilingual contexts, the key concepts and principles of bilingual education are appropriated and extended to multilingual education in linguistically diverse societies. However, uncritical extension of bilingual education to MLE programmes in multilingual societies may be problematic. I have discussed some limitations of ostensibly powerful explanatory concepts and assumptions in the theory of bilingual education, such as ‘balanced bilingualism’ (Mohanty, 2011; see also Chapter 3) in multilingual contexts and pointed out that early exposure to multilingual oral traditions and frequent movement across languages in multilingual societies lead to the early development of cross-linguistic and metalinguistic skills which are likely to facilitate emergence of cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) in children even before formal schooling. The possibility of early development of CALP has implications for scheduling the introduction of second, third and other languages in the structure of MLE. This needs to be explored further in planning for MLE in multilingual contexts. Further, in extending the principles of bilingual education in multilingual societies, it is necessary to go beyond the assumptions of discrete languages and categorical distinctions between monolingual, bilingual and multilingual proficiency. Given the ‘squishiness of linguistic boundaries’ in multilingual contexts (Mohanty, 2011), communicative competence in different domains is likely to be distributed across languages and, as such, development of language proficiency in MLE needs to be viewed holistic­ ally as enhancing learners’ total linguistic repertoire rather than any language in isolation. Often the curricular objectives in MLE programmes emphasise independent and exclusive standards of proficiency in different languages and tend to ignore multilingual pupils’ total communicative competence across their languages. The current programmes of MLE in India and other multilingual societies are applied to classrooms with children with a single MT, which is sought to be strengthened through its use as the MoI before a transition

180  The Multilingual Reality

to a second language as the MoI. However, linguistically heterogeneous classrooms with children from different MT communities are typical in multilingual societies; some children also join school with competence in other languages in addition to their MT or home language. In fact, in India and in other multilingual countries it is not uncommon to find classrooms with three to five MTs. There are serious limitations in the use of the single-MT model of bilingual education for MLE in multi­lingual classrooms shared by children from different language communities. Such an MLE programme cannot deal with the need to strengthen a number of MTs simultaneously. The challenges of teaching multilingual classrooms with children with different MTs have not been taken seriously anywhere in the world. Some school programmes with children from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds in the same classroom seek to promote a sense of pride and identity through special activities involving the use of children’s cultural experience and MTs (e.g. Hélot, 2008; Hélot & O’Laoire, 2011; Hélot & Young, 2006). However, the broader objective in these programmes is to foster the development of a dominant target language. An MLE programme which targets the simultaneous development of multiple languages as MTs of different pupils in the classroom has not been attempted except in some experimental projects (Mohanty, 2013b). Based on some preliminary attempts and analysis of what is known about how languages support each other, the dynamics of multilingual communication, and the processes of transfer across languages (e.g. García, 2009a; Hélot, 2008), I have suggested some pedagogic strategies for effective MLE in multilingual classrooms (Mohanty, 2013b). These strategies focus on: (1) targeting the simultaneous development of multiple MTs of pupils; (2) the development of multilingual awareness and crosslinguistic reflections; and (3) the development of progressive engagement with classroom curricular learning in the second language based on developed MT proficiency as well as multilingual communicative skills. Thus, besides the focus on transfer from the MT to a second language, as in bilingual education, MLE in multiple-language classrooms involves possible movement between different MTs and the use of children’s multilingual experience as additional resources for fostering high levels of metalinguistic and cross-linguistic awareness. MLE in multilingual societies needs to move away from conventional language pedagogy, which seeks to develop competence in a target language in isolation. Children’s MTs and other languages constitute overlapping and mutually supportive aspects of total communicative acts and, therefore, the classroom use of the MTs and other languages of familiarity as cognitive tools to foster the development of multilingual proficiency in MLE can be an effective strategy (Mohanty, 2013b). In fact, as I will show in the next chapter, it is a common classroom strategy in schools in India to bring in pupils’ MT in teaching English. As Cummins points out:



Educational Models in Multilingual Societies  181

When students’ L1 is acknowledged within the classroom as a potent cognitive tool, students are likely to engage with reading and writing more rapidly than when monolingual instructional assumptions dominate teacher–student interactions. (Cummins, 2009b: 337)

Further, models of MLE in multilingual societies need to recognise that multiple-language classrooms offer a rich context which is more typical of the multilingual social reality and in which languages can be used as resources for better classroom learning. Conclusion

Multilingual education with early transition from the indigenous language to the dominant colonial language is often an instrument for subtractive multilingualism. Among the colonial languages, English has the most dominant and widespread presence. Concerns about the growing international role of English have been expressed by many. The end of formal colonialism and the independence of the colonies did not end the dominance of colonial languages. At one level, the linguistic and socio-cultural diversity of these societies is necessarily characterised by pluralistic world-views of languages as resources and multilingualism as a positive force. Such views of cultural and linguistic pluralism may have contributed to the post-independence openness to and acceptance of the colonial languages. At another level, conflicting linguistic identities in multilingual societies and tensions around the dominance of major national languages within each of the new post-colonial nations seem to have facilitated, by default, not only acceptance of but in fact the preeminent positioning of the colonial languages, because they have been seen as ‘neutral’ compromises in the new nation states; the continued presence and dominance of the colonial languages obviated possible conflict between the national languages. The post-independence Constituent Assembly in India, for example, debated the possible role of several languages (e.g. Hindi, Hindustani, Urdu, Bengali, Tamil) to be recorded in the constitution as official and national languages. The Constituent Assembly finally steered clear of the conflicting claims by deciding not to give constitutional recognition to any language as the national language of India. It bestowed official language status to Hindi for the Union of India and sought to mitigate the conflict over Hindi by providing for English to be used, along with Hindi, but not as the ‘official’ language. Similar claims and counter-claims over the recognition of languages for state and inter-state official communication led to the incorporation of Schedule VIII in the constitution, which listed 14 dominant regional languages as official languages for federal purposes. That this list was not comprehensive is evident from the fact that the constitution was amended several times after 1950 to gradually stretch the

182  The Multilingual Reality

number of scheduled languages from 14 to 22, with some further claims still pending consideration for similar status. Overt or covert conflicts over identity, and recognition of national and local languages in the making of the new nations following the end of colonial rule, is a common historical feature of language policies in the multilingual post-colonial societies. But it cannot be ignored that the continued dominance of the colonial languages served the neo-colonial goals of linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 1992, 2009a). One cannot deny the compelling scientific and practical evidence of the efficacy of MLE in promoting better academic achievement and school learning of ITM children in multilingual societies. Even in the early transitional forms, in which minimal and short-term support is available for the development of the indigenous MTs of children, MT-based MLE is better than the forced submersion education from the beginning in a dominant language. It is also well established that the positive results of MLE are directly related to the general academic achievement of children. This includes positive results in respect of the dominant colonial languages. But the nature and role of MLE for ITM children must go beyond the classrooms. High-quality education and enhancement of children’s classroom achievement are grounds for MT-based MLE for children. But with the sole objective of enhancing academic achievement, MLE fails to empower and to question the unjust hierarchy of languages; rather, it becomes an instrument for social exclusion (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). Cummins (2001, 2009a; Cummins & Early, 2011) has repeatedly argued that education with the MT as the only MoI is not sufficient; bilingual or multilingual education must assert identities, empower through collaborative creation of power. It must challenge the societal and linguistic power relations of dominance, hierarchy and discrimination. As Flores and Baetens Beardsmore (2015) suggest, to what extent MLE programmes can effectively challenge the relationship of sociolinguistic dominance in multilingual societies depends on how such programmes are organised and structured. The top-down pedagogic and curricular planning of MLE programmes as marked interventions for indigenous children, the lack of community involvement and initiative, and the non-availability of teachers from indigenous language communities (leading to the overwhelming presence of teachers from dominant linguistic groups) are some major issues. These issues and indirect segregation of the children for the special MT-based programmes are some major concerns regarding these educational programmes, undermining their potential role in empowering languages and communities in multilingual societies. The MLE programme in Odisha, discussed above, has been implemented in selected schools or classrooms where nearly all the children belong to one tribal MT community, so that the MT can be taught as the first language and MoI in the programme. This, in effect, necessarily leads to a separation of the tribal children in the programme from others



Educational Models in Multilingual Societies  183

in the locality. Primary schools with MLE programmes now running from grades 1 to 5 usually have only one or two MLE teachers who belong to the trial language community; the remaining teachers are mostly from the dominant Odia-language communities. While the MT-based education does enhance tribal children’s academic achievement and their classroom participation by making them feel comfortable and somewhat empowered in their own language, the structure of the early-exit programme fails to achieve the broader objective of triggering collaborative creation of power (Cummins, 2001) to be able to challenge the hegemonic status of the dominant languages in education. It is unfortunate that in most societies with multilingualism as the norm, positioning of languages in education subscribes to hierarchy and hegemony. Schools perpetuate the socio­linguistic inequalities by reinforcing the linguistic divides. Multilingual education with what García (2009a) characterises as mono­glossic ideology promotes subtractive learning and monolingual outcomes. Even when languages are learnt additively in the late-exit type of MLE, without pluralistic or heteroglossic ideology and egalitarian vision, sometimes what may be promoted is multiple monolingualisms (of L1, L2 and L3 etc.), or what Makoni and Makoni (2015: 562) characterise as ‘pluralisation of singularity’, rather than composite multilingualism. Development of literacy and educational skills in the MT as a ‘bridge’ to learning of dominant languages continues to subjugate the MTs to dominant languages. The segregation of MLE programmes (where they are offered only to the ITM groups) and the urgency with which these programmes all over the world seek to superimpose the dominant languages on the MTs and replace them as soon as possible are some indications that the structure of education in multilingual societies is inherently aligned with the hegemonic position of some languages over others. It is unfortunate that the ITM languages remain peripheral in education in multilingual societies and that this orientation dominates how education for the ­minorities and MLE have been planned and executed. It is also a common pattern in multilingual societies that MT-based MLE for the ITM groups continues in the form of top-down programmes often managed by the dominant linguistic groups with a minimal role for the ITM communities. It is necessary to rethink the current structure and organisation of MLE programmes so that the ITM communities and languages are moved to the centre. Multilingual societies need MLE not because it facilitates learning of other and ‘dominant’ languages, but because it is high-quality education which can be empowering. Notes (1) A film, My Voice, My Identity, My School, based on Panchu’s story gives some details of the MLE Plus programme in Odisha. It can be viewed in YouTube at https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=VW-Z5SwDao8.

184  The Multilingual Reality

(2) Sah and Li (2017) show the same pattern in an English-medium school for lower-class children in Nepal, with the result that the children learn neither English nor MT literacy, and most fail in their exams. (3) Some state governments, such as the governments of Odisha and Andhra Pradesh, have recently started public English-medium schools in a few select locations. (4) Less than 0.02% of people in India declare English as their MT. Thus, there are few children for whom English-medium schools can be viewed as MT programmes. (5) Some of the private English-medium schools claim to be close to immersion programmes of bilingual education. However, since these programmes lack the structure, goals and methodology of bilingual immersion programmes and do little to promote bilingual or multilingual competence among the pupils, such claims are not justified. (6) A UNICEF film on an MLE programme in Odisha can be viewed in YouTube at https:// youtu.be/bK1jnwi-eSE. (7) When the MLE programme started in Andhra Pradesh, English was introduced in grade 4. Subsequently, the government of Andhra Pradesh decided to introduce English as a school subject from grade 1. (8) Initially, the MLE programme in Odisha was planned to continue with the tribal MT as the MoI for five years of primary education, that is, up to grade 5. However, during the third year of implementation of the programme, when the first batch of MLE pupils was in grade 3, there was an administrative decision by the Odisha Primary Education Programme Authority (OPEPA), which was responsible for programme implementation, to bring in Odia, the state majority language, as the sole MoI from grade 4. However, in actual implementation, Odia was used as both the MoI for teaching mathem­atics and a language subject, and the tribal MT was used as the MoI for teaching environmental studies and the tribal language subject.

9 English in Multilingual Societies: The Dynamics of Dominance

On 30 April 2010, the people of Banka Village in Lakhimpur-Kheri district of Uttar Pradesh, India, gathered for a different kind of religious event. An idol of Goddess English was ceremonially consecrated and deified in the village, and the foundation stone for the Temple of the Goddess was laid, in the presence of the villagers, guests from different parts of the country and abroad, journalists and the key mover of the idea of the English Goddess, Mr Chandra Bhan Prasad, an alumnus of a premier liberal institution of India, Jawaharlal Nehru University. Mr Prasad believed that English is the language for emancipation of the dalit or downtrodden people of India, who need a divine symbol to reinforce and affirm their faith in the power of English. Through the faith-based symbol of the English Goddess, he sought to arouse aspiration of the dalit people to learn English and to instil among them a strong belief in the emancipatory power of English. The foundation stone for the temple described it as ‘Dalit Goddess English Temple’. The bronze idol of the English goddess, vaguely modelled on the Statue of Liberty, holding a pen high in her raised right hand and a book in the left and donning an English hat and a gown, was unveiled and worshipped at a temporary site in the village, awaiting construction of the temple. Land had been donated for the temple by a friend of Mr Prasad and construction materials procured. However, following some con­troversies over the proposed site, the ‘goddess’ is still waiting in some corner of Banka village for the temple to be built. The Goddess of English is the creation of a growing belief in India (as in most parts of the multilingual world) that English is the language of libera­tion, progress and prosperity. The rhetoric of English and development is pervasive and entrenched in a popular perception of the significance of English (e.g. Focho, 2011), leading to its projection as a global language (Graddol, 2000) that bestows a competitive edge in a globalised world. This projection and the imagined benefits of English have resulted in its pre-eminent positioning among the languages in multilingual societies, often at the cost of other languages. One of the many manifestations of 185

186  The Multilingual Reality

the growing significance of English is its dominance in education in many multilingual societies. As Coleman points out: Globalisation and competitiveness are associated with a need for English and then the need to use English as a medium of instruction, although the logical relationships between these concepts remain unclear. (Coleman, 2011: 102)

This chapter examines critically the nature and consequences of English in post-colonial multilingual societies and its projection as a language of emancipation. It is noted that in India, as in most post-­colonial societies, the privileged position of English in education has led to elite formation and social exclusion: the nature and quality of education in English available to different segments of the population has created a new ‘caste system’. Perception of English and Its Power

English has been projected as an instrument of the global economy, trade and commerce, science and technology (Graddol, 2000; Seidlhofer, 2003) and media, entertainment, tourism and diplomacy (Negash, 2011), as well as international migration, particularly to the UK, the USA and other countries where English is the dominant language (Capstick, 2011) and for national unity. Claims regarding the relationship between English and development range from assertions of English as a ‘global’ language facilitating within-country unity and cross-border communication to a language that actually causes development out of poverty. Perpetuation of beliefs in the power of English

The installation of the English Goddess in Banka Village shows how the rhetoric of the relationship between English and opportunities for development get reified. Similarly, the Visa Bhagwans (Visa Gods) in India, with many temples as popular shrines, worshipped for the grant of a visa for international migration (mostly to the USA, the UK, Australia and other advanced industrialised countries), such as the Chilkur Balaji temple in Hyderabad, Telengana, a specialised Visa Bhagwan for granting a US visa, are symbols of the belief in the gate-keeping function of English. In effect, such reification and progressive internalisation of the values of English are critical for transformation of the ideology of English into linguistic hegemony. The growing craze for English seems to be unaffected by the fact that several practices involving English are prejudicial and often lead to a violation of human rights. For example, lack of proficiency in English prevents non-English-knowing family members of immigrants from



English in Multilingual Societies: The Dynamics of Dominance  187

joining them in the host country. Thus, in its gatekeeping role, English disunites families and violates human rights. The popular myths about the value of English seem unaffected by ethical concerns and negative evidence. The complex dynamics of the socio-political processes in multi­ lingual societies transform these beliefs and values into a widespread general view of English as ‘a political imperative’ (Williams, 2011: 50). ‘English for unity’ is one such contrived ‘political imperative’. Views of English as a language of unity are reiterated by social and educational planners and policy-makers in different parts of the post-colonial world. English is seen as a language of reconciliation in Sri Lanka, with its history of tension between Sinhala and Tamil. Kennett, the team leader of an internationally funded performance improvement project in Sri Lanka with a goal of promoting ‘English as a link language and a tool for conflict transformation and development’ (Kennett, 2011: 320), argues that English does have a peace-keeping role in ‘conflict-prone societies where national languages have traditionally become social and ethnic dividers’ (Kennett, 2011: 321). In fact, English is sometimes projected as the sole language of higher education in Sri Lanka (see Perera & Canagarajah, 2010). The realities, however, are very different; English serves the needs of local elites and the global economy, and contributes thus to a widening gap within society. The claims regarding the role of English as a lingua franca in multilingual societies also need to be interrogated in socio-economically and linguistically diverse contexts. According to Phillipson: Labelling English as a lingua franca, if this is understood as a culturally neutral medium that puts everyone on an equal footing, is therefore simply false. It is an invidious term if the language in question is a first language for some people but for others a foreign language. It is misleading if the language is supposed to be disconnected from culture and very specific purposes. It is an inaccurate term for a language that is taught as a subject in general education. (Phillipson, 2009b: 86)

The extent to which English functions as a lingua franca in multilingual societies varies across class, caste, gender, geographical location, language communities, identities and other sociolinguistic contexts. In India, multiple varieties of languages are used as lingua francas by people in rural and urban localities, different socio-economic and caste groups and in formal or informal contexts. These varieties include regional languages, Hindi, Hinglish and English – with underlying continuities between them. Therefore, characterisation of English as lingua franca in multilingual societies is inaccurate. It must also be recognised that the claimed relationship between English and development is more rhetoric than substance; the findings of studies of the relationship are not unequivocal and the demonstrated

188  The Multilingual Reality

relationships are context-specific and correlational, not causal. A critical analysis of the socio-economic impact of the dominance of English in post-colonial societies shows English to be divisive: it is linked to social stratification, elite formation and exclusion of the masses (see e.g. Heugh, 1999; Kayambazinthu, 1999; Phillipson, 2009b). Williams (2011: 44) points out that ‘Far from being a source of unity, the use of English in education in Africa has become a factor in national division, while the distribution of English proficiency in society is an indicator of the extent of this division’. Heugh (1999: 306) similarly points out that, in the African context, ‘the superimposed international languages’, including English, ‘serve only the interests of the elites’. The dynamics of dominance of English and the search for agency

Conflicting identities and aspirations of different indigenous linguistic communities for official/constitutional recognition and relative national-level dominance have led to the acceptance of English as a ‘neutral’ language of unity in many South Asian countries (Mohanty & Panda, 2015; Panda & Mohanty, 2015) and African countries (Arkorful & Adger, 2015; Kamwangamalu, 2015). With the rejection of colonial rule, rejection of the language of the colonisers was expected. But, to the contrary, dominance of English (as well as other colonial languages) was institutionalised by default in the post-colonial societies due to the complex dynamics of multiple linguistic identities. The influence of the former colonial masters on the newly independent countries was re­ inforced by their role as ‘advisers’ and through ‘aid’ and ‘donor’ agencies. Phillipson (1992) shows how the dominance of the colonial languages in post-colonial societies was strengthened through such ‘helping’ functions of the colonisers. As social identity theorists have shown (Reicher & Hopkins, 2001), entrepreneurs of identity manipulate social identities to create social categories and conflicts. Identity entrepreneurship analysis suggests that political entrepreneurs of linguistic identities divide a multilingual society and then promote English for unity as a ‘political imperative’. Often these ‘political imperatives’ are excuses that serve the interests of some and disqualify others. This ignores the fact that social cohesion is promoted by recognition of linguistic human rights (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000) and not by exclusion of languages. Discriminatory and hierarchical language policies imposing dominance of English or any other ‘global’ language divides a society (for several chapters subscribing to and elaborating on this view, see Coleman, 2015). The end of colonial rule and the political independence of multi­ lingual and multicultural societies usually ignite national, regional and local aspirations for identity assertion and a political role for communities in the new nation states. During the early post-monarchy days in Nepal,1



English in Multilingual Societies: The Dynamics of Dominance  189

as the country was preparing for a democratic set-up and a new constitution, the regional communities showed unprecedented levels of activism for assertion of their democratic rights. In 2009, during our interactions with different linguistic communities, leaders and policy-planners in Nepal for the development of a national framework for mother-tonguebased multi­lingual education (Skutnabb-Kangas & Mohanty, 2009), we saw enthusiastic claims of different language groups for inclusion of their languages in mother-tongue-based education in the country.2 The claims for recognition of indigenous languages in post-colonial societies need not be viewed as unusual and problematic. The real problem lies in how English (or any language) has established its dominance by being projected as a language of reconciliation and conflict resolution. Unfortunately, the post-colonial political leaders (and entrepreneurs of identity) in most former British colonies were invariably educated (and ideologically indoctrinated) in the dominant colonial language and, therefore, showed some self-serving inclination and complicity in supporting the continued dominance of English. The case for the colonial language was rationalised as a political compromise in the face of conflicting claims of the indigenous national languages. Half-hearted attempts were made to appease and accommodate the regional claims through some provisions in the new framework of governance and the national constitution for recognition of linguistic rights of the national/regional languages. In the process, the post-colonial states institutionalised the societal double divide (see Chapter 4) in these multilingual societies. Despite the declared language policy of equal rights for all the languages in India (see Chapter 7), in Nepal3 and also in many other post-colonial countries, the de facto policy created three tiers of languages: the colonial language maintained its pre-eminent position; the major national/regional languages, which had the vitality and lobbying powers to stake claims for recognition in the post-colonial structure of the new nation, managed to get some status; while many other languages, the indigenous, tribal, minority and minoritised (ITM) languages in particular, were neglected. The socio-historical processes leading to decolonisation and building of the new nation states and the imperialistic designs of the colonial languages (Phillipson, 1992) have contributed to the language divide.4 A second aspect of the English-and-development discourse relates to the agency in its spread. In his influential work Linguistic Imperialism, Phillipson provides a theoretical framework for analysis of the dynamics of the imperialistic spread of English. He defines English linguistic imperialism as the processes by which ‘the dominance of English is asserted and maintained by the establishment’ and the processes of ‘continuous reconstruction of structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages’ (Phillipson, 1992: 47). He shows how material, cultural and ideological inequalities are created to enhance the dominance of English and ‘benefit those who are proficient in English’ (Phillipson, 1992: 47).

190  The Multilingual Reality

The theory of linguistic imperialism has offered a general paradigm for analysis of linguistic inequalities across the globe and the dominance of English as well as other major colonial languages. In Linguistic Imperial­ ism Continued, Phillipson (2009a) shows how the theory of linguistic imperialism continues to be relevant in the 21st-century globalised world and responds to the critiques of the theory. However, the implication of some agency promoting English and benefiting from it has been contested by those who view the spread of English as a hegemony involving the ‘free choice’5 of world Englishes without any active agent promoting the language. In what seems to be a parochial reading of colonial history, Brutt-Griffler (2002) goes to the extent of suggesting that English was not imposed on the colonies but was ‘wrested from an unwilling imperial authority as part of the struggle by them [the colonial subjects] against colonialism’ (Brutt-Griffler, 2002: 31). Brutt-Griffler seems to be unaware of several aspects of the history of India’s freedom movement, and the long period of struggle based on Gandhian views (Gandhi, 1909 [2010]) regarding rejection of British rule, the misuse and imposition of the English language on the local cultures of India and resistance to imperial rule (see Phillipson, 2004, 2009a, for critique of Brutt-Griffler, 2002). In the African context, Rubagumya refutes Brutt-Griffler’s reading of colonial history and points out that the colonial languages were ‘imposed’ on the African colonies during the period of colonial rule (Rubagumya, 2004: 134). Spolsky (2004)distinguishes between active promotion and imposition of English in the form of linguistic imperialism to serve Anglo-American interests and a mere hegemonic spread. He labels the former a conspiracy theory and asks ‘Was or did English spread?’ Phillipson (2007, 2009a) rejects the distinction as a false dichotomy. According to Phillipson, Spolsky’s analysis demonstrates how a conspiracy accusation diverts attention away from social realities. Interestingly, in elaborating the ­theoretical foundations of linguistic imperialism, Phillipson (1992) seems to have accepted that English is in a position of hegemony, and seeks to examine its dynamics through analysis of British and American promotion of the language while concluding that English (as well as English language teaching) has ‘not been promoted globally as a result of a master-minded plan’ (Phillipson, 1992: 307, emphasis added). It seems that Phillipson anticipated the dichotomy between the imperialistic spread of English as a deliberate Anglo-American policy and its hegemonic positioning and offered a pre-emptive clarification: ‘Hegemony does not imply a conspiracy theory, but a competing and complementary set of values and practices, with those in power better able to legitimate themselves and to convert their ideas into material power’ (Phillipson, 1992: 74). When the social and economic resources associated with a dominant language are unequally distributed and when people with proficiency in the language have privileged access to such resources, those denied these



English in Multilingual Societies: The Dynamics of Dominance  191

resources tend to aspire to proficiency in the language to gain access to resources rather than questioning the bases of inequality. In my analysis of the processes of development of linguistic identities in Chapter 5, I have discussed the conditions in which members of a dominated lin­ guistic community tend to identify with and assimilate into the dominant language. In such conditions, the inequality is perceived as given and legitimate. The symbolic power of English resides in the perception of its legitimacy by those subjected to it or by the victims of the inequality and discrimination. Even if it is true that the inequalities across languages and their relative powers have their origin in some active forces promoting the links between languages and power, progressive internalisation of the dominance hierarchy as a given reality makes any such external force less visible. When dominance becomes a part of the values of the dominated, a search for a single causative agency becomes redundant. The hegemonic position of English involves blurring of the dichotomy between active agency and ‘natural’ spread of the language. It also implies that dominant ideas are usually taken for granted and, hence, a search for an active agent seems not to be needed. For example, in India and in many other former British colonies, it is often assumed that English-medium education is high-quality education. An uncritical acceptance of this proposition influences a set of practices in society and education that reinforce the dominance. Further, with internalisation of dominance, the processes of active imposition of English by external forces, such as the British and American promotion of English, which Phillipson (1992) documented in support of linguistic imperialism, have become more implicit and indirect. This, however, does not mean that external promotion of English has ceased (for discussion of the new forms of promotion of English, see ­Phillipson, 2016); its dominance is due to both exogenous and endogenous factors. The progressive internalisation of the dominance and its perception as endogenously driven makes the external forces less evident in the subjective reality of the dominated. English in a Multilingual Ecology Whose English?

English is often claimed to have become a part of the multilingual ecology in post-colonial societies. The idea of world Englishes seems to have made it easier for English-knowing elites to dispense with its characteris­ation as a ‘non-native’ language and stake claims to ownership of English. From the indigenous perspective, English is perceived as a ‘foreign’ language, but the idea of world Englishes facilitates its projection as a ‘native’ language. Phillipson attributes the expansion of English to its capacity to accommodate to changing contexts:

192  The Multilingual Reality

Its expansion is all the more insidious when ‘experts’ declare that the language now ‘belongs’ to all its users and has become detached from its Anglo-American roots and serves all equally well. This is a fraudulent claim that is as untrue in York as New York or New Delhi. (Phillipson, 2009b: 89–90).

Phillipson cites Wierzbicka’s (2006) view that ‘it is Anglo English that remains the touchstone and guarantor of English-based global communication’ (Phillipson, 2009b: 14). The claim that a language belongs to its users is misleading in case of English in the former British colonies since its norms are clearly exogenous. Dasgupta (1993) shows that ‘Indian English’ is not an autonomous variety, as its norms are externally enforced: English is not a space. It is a piece of real estate. Its owners – whose biological identities keep changing, as in the case of any real estate – enforce normative spelling, punctuation, grammar, and phonological and lexical limits (within which accents and dictions may vary) throughout the domains of English discourse. Indian use of English will forever remain a tolerated, degenerate variant of the norm in the eyes of the owners.… You and I may coin a new expression for our private games in the language; but our coinage will not be part of the language unless the Anglo-American mint canonizes our doings in standard reference works. (Dasgupta, 1993: 215–216)

The question of ownership of English is linked to the debate over whether English should be taught as a second language or a foreign language. In India, the proponents of Indianness of English consider the language to be rooted in Indian culture, having permeated into the local communicative varieties. Often, the use of many English words and expressions in Indian languages and local varieties is cited as evidence of the ‘Indianness’ of English and as justification for teaching English as a second language rather than as a foreign language. This claim is misleading. All languages in the world, including English, have a large number of words and expressions borrowed from other contact languages which constitute (and enrich) the language located in its own culture and context. Such borrowings cease to be ‘foreign’ or ‘alien’ and do become a part of the language in use even if, historically, its roots can be traced to the source language. The English language, for example, has a very large number of lexical items and expressions from Latin, Greek and many other world languages which have become a part of English (the word lexical itself is of Greek origin) in its current use. The presence of words and ex­pressions from many languages in English does not endow native speakers of English with any special propensity to learn these other languages except in a superficial sense. Because of prolonged and extensive contact with English, Indian languages have borrowed and adopted many words and expressions from English. This in itself does not make English an Indian



English in Multilingual Societies: The Dynamics of Dominance  193

language or a language rooted in Indian culture. The foreignness of a language is not just a question of its origin or use: it is dependent on the extent to which the language is rooted in the daily life cultural experiences of the users of that language. In this sense, English as a language is quite alien to Indian life and culture, especially rural and tribal India. English and its impact on other languages

In all post-colonial societies, the growing significance and power of the colonial languages, in form of greater instrumental control over resources, pushes all other languages into positions of lesser significance. The impact is more immediate for the major languages, which also have more to lose. These major languages strive for some power and push the ITM languages further down the pecking order. Annamalai speaks of neo-vernacularisation of Tamil due to the growing functional significance of English, and points out that ‘People want to acquire this language [English] at the cost of everything else, including their inherited language’ (Annamalai, 2014: 14). As a result of limited functional literacy in Tamil, the language shrinks, according to him, to the domains of ‘in-group communication, entertainment and day to day politics’ (Annamalai, 2014: 14); the economic, political and cultural value of Tamil is reduced to ‘near zero…. Such a language survives, but does not live’ (Annamalai, 2014: 3). Apprehensions among cultural elites about the marginalisation of the major regional languages and the political expediency of symbolic support for majority languages have triggered some resistance to English6 and movement for education in the mother tongue. However, the demand for English has nonetheless grown, along with this symbolic resistance, since, as Annamalai (2014) points out, people want English even at the cost of their own language. The decline in readership of writings in the major Indian languages while the readership of English shows a sharp rise is an area of tension. The publishing industry in India is dominated by English, causing concern over the future of publication in Indian languages. The dominance of English and the popular craze for it affect the ITM languages, tribal education and culture. In fact, it is a matter of concern that, in India, the tribal communities have started turning to English-medium schooling. Between submersion education in the dominant state language and (submersion) education in English, they seem to prefer English if it is affordable. In some states, the elected governments have responded to the popular demands for English by opening English-medium schools for tribal children and others. Tribal communities see better opportunities for their children in these free or low-cost English-medium schools and have started demanding them. Odisha, the only state in India with a policy of mother-tongue-based education for tribal children and an acclaimed multilingual education programme in 21 tribal languages (see Chapter 8

194  The Multilingual Reality

for details), has also opened some ‘model’ English-medium schools for children in the state (including tribal children) and floated a special scheme, called Anwesha (‘Talent Search’) for government sponsorship of 5000 tribal children annually for their studies in private English-medium schools.7 These are some instances of public policy and practice succumbing to the dominance of English due to what has been called a ‘political imperative’ in post-colonial nations. Non-material aspects of multilingual cultures are broadly affected by greater Anglicisation and Westernisation and there are rapid and un­settling changes in the beliefs, attitudes and values associated with languages which impinge on the maintenance and development of languages and linguistic diversity. Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) has discussed the mechanisms through which globalisation has affected languages, linguistic human rights and linguistic diversity. The dominance of English does not just happen through control of material resources and their allo­cation purportedly by some imagined or real agency (such as British or American promotion); it happens through complex cultural dynamics and becomes psychologically real through the beliefs and values that language users hold and transmit across generations. English and the Transmission of Values and Affective Orientations

The belief system germane to the hierarchy and dominance of English and other languages and for their appropriate use in multilingual contexts is developed in the processes of early socialisation, which vary across different socio-economic classes, as I have discussed in Chapter 2. It also continues to evolve through various social processes beyond the period of early socialisation. English figures more overtly and prominently in the child-directed speech of adults in the process of language socialisation of children from middle- and upper-class families; such interactional processes are almost absent in the family-level language socialisation of children from the lower socio-economic strata. However, regardless of the extent of use of English in family interactions, children from all socio-economic strata develop awareness of the prestige of English and its preferred status. I have shown that socialisation practices, mostly among the Englishknowing upper- and middle-class parents, emphasise use of English for early literacy and academic activities and disciplining functions, and use of the mother tongue (MT) for expression of nurturance, caring and personal support, and informal interpersonal communication. English, MTs and other languages in multilingual societies are thus associated with different world-views and children develop these world-views in the process of growing up in multilingual societies. Annamalai (2005) argues that English-medium education is associated with different world-views, aspirations and learning styles compared with education in the medium



English in Multilingual Societies: The Dynamics of Dominance  195

of Indian languages. In a series of ongoing studies in Gorakhpur (Uttar Pradesh, India) on the use of languages for priming different orientations to self-construal, Singh (2017) shows that English is associated with the construction of an autonomous/individualistic self, whereas use of the Bhojpuri MT primes a relational, interpersonal or collective self-construal. Along with the family and neighbourhood, schools also play a significant role in multilingual socialisation. They transmit values and attitudes towards languages and perpetuate the linguistic hierarchy in society. It is, therefore, necessary to critically examine the role and impact of education in English in multilingual societies. In the following section I analyse the role of English in education with a focus on India and ask whether the use of English in schools and education promotes development. English and Education in Multilingual Societies

Dominance of a language is not necessarily related to the number of users or native speakers. In the former British colonies, English is a dominant language but demographically a minority language. Ironically, in many multilingual societies the dominant languages have relatively few users; the other languages have been minoritised. Less than 0.02% of the population of India have English as their first language or mother tongue and only about 10% know English through formal education8 (see also Mohanty, 2017). All major regional languages of India or the languages mentioned as official languages in Schedule VIII of the constitution have much larger shares of the population, but they are less powerful than English. Over 40% of school children in India are in private Englishmedium (EM) schools and the number of children in these schools is projected to increase by over 10% every year.9 This is primarily because of the general public impression that these schools are better and more effective than the mother-tongue-medium (MTM) or vernacular-medium (VM) schools and also that children for an EM school have a better future. In the popular view, ‘English equals education’ (Williams, 2011). However, the assumption that EM schools constitute a uniform group and that they are all equally effective is not true; they vary widely in their quality and cost. And, more importantly, there are clear social class differences among children in different types of EM school and across all schools in India. There are differences in how English is placed in the schools in India and how it affects the learning and life of children in these schools. English in schools: The new caste system

As pointed out in Chapter 7, after India’s independence, private EM schools continued along with government or public schools and the number of schools in both categories increased greatly with wider access to education and greater demand for school education. The schools in

196  The Multilingual Reality

Table 9.1  Categories of private and public (government) schools in India: From Doon schools to doom schools Category

Social classes predominantly served

Cost (US$)

Exclusive English-medium residential schools (e.g. Doon School)

Elite

20,000 per annum

High-cost English-medium schools

Privileged classes

2000–6000 per annum

Low-cost English-medium schools

Less privileged classes

100–400 per annum

No-cost vernacular-medium government schools, either MT medium for the regional majority language groups, or non-MT medium for the ITM language groups

Poor social status

Free, with mid-day meal in primary grades

India are grossly categorised in Table 9.1 (Mohanty, 2010a, 2017). This broad categorisation is only indicative of the range of variations across the different schools in India, and the categories are not mutually exclusive. The public schools offer almost free education to children; parents do not pay any school fees and school uniform and textbooks (as well as a mid-day meal in primary grades) are supplied by the government. The private EM schools charge fees which vary from school to school. With the rising demand for EM schools, large numbers of schools are run as private business initiatives by educational entrepreneurs as profit-making ventures. The fees are market-driven and linked to public demand and school facilities. High-cost schools have better infrastructure, high-­salaried teachers and high-quality learning facilities such as libraries, laboratories, computer centres, modern teaching aids, playgrounds and sports fields. In the urban posh areas and in special locations, such as hill stations, the private EM schools are elitist and very high-cost; parents pay for many additional facilities, including residential programmes and special activities and training. In recent years, many lower-cost private EM schools with minimal facilities have been opened in urban, semi-urban and rural areas. Thus, there is a range of private EM schools in different areas, varying in cost and quality of education and catering to a wide range of socioeconomic levels. Some schools like the famous Doon School in Dehradun and other international schools with residential facilities are examples of prestigious high-cost EM schools for children from super-rich elite families. In major cities and urban centres, there are also good-quality costly EM schools for the upper classes. The cost of these private EM schools is much higher than what working-class parents can afford. The low-cost EM schools cater to the lower strata, semi-urban and urban slum and rural populations and have a low-quality teaching-learning environment. I have labelled the different types of EM schools as well as the public schools as ranging from ‘Doon schools to Doom schools’ (Mohanty, 2012, 2017).



English in Multilingual Societies: The Dynamics of Dominance  197

A major segment of the lower-class parents and families cannot afford any fee-paying EM schools and they send their children to free public schools run by the state governments and some other public organisations. The number of these is very large; they are generally poorly managed and have minimal facilities. The level of classroom achievement is generally low.10 These schools are major state language schools for all children regardless of their MT. These schools offer MT-medium education to majority-language children only and impose submersion education on ITM children. They teach English as a school subject from the early primary grades (from grade 1 in most states). A dual system of private and public schools and the premium on English as a language of schooling in multilingual societies combine to make schools instruments for social stratification and discrimination. This is evident in Indian multilingualism in the manner in which English has affected the school system in the country, contributing to perpetuation of the disadvantage and poverty for those who cannot own English. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of India, was deeply aware that the dominance of English as a medium of education could only divide a multilingual country. In 1956, he made the following observation: I am convinced that real progress in India can only be made through our own languages and not through a foreign language. I am anxious to prevent a new caste system being perpetuated in India – an Englishknowing caste separated from the mass of our public. That will be most unfortunate. (Cited in Phillipson, 2009b: 80)

Nehru’s concerns reflected his belief in the potential of indigenous languages for development and in the role English plays in dividing society between those who know English and those who do not; he labelled this social division ‘a new caste system’. But, with proliferation of private EM schools of different qualities, separated from the government schools, English now divides society further. It is no longer the gap between the English-knowing and ‘English-ignorant’ – the new caste system that ­ Nehru referred to. Now there are different layers of English-knowing people educated in EM schools of different levels, varying in cost and quality, and in public schools with English as a school subject. With varied layers of school quality and quality of English teaching, some learn English and other school subjects with proficiency whereas others do not, as will be shown later in this chapter. Thus, there are now sub-categories of ‘English-knowing’ people. The EM schools and the role of English in public and private schools have led to a new caste and sub-caste system in India, differentiated on the basis of the quality of English proficiency. Examples of the working of this new ‘caste’ system can be found in the matrimonial columns in newspapers. There are solicitations of castebased marriage proposals and also many which solicit a bride educated in EM schools.

198  The Multilingual Reality

Further, with EM schools of various kinds, we have school divides corresponding to social divides, as shown in Figure 9.1, in which the three broad types of private school, labelled A, B and C, correspond to different socio-economic levels. The poor (who cannot afford even the cheapest of the EM schools) send their children to government schools, where the teaching languages are the major regional languages. The number of schools in the country declines as one moves up the categories from the public schools to the elitist private EM schools, as shown in Figure 9.1. With social class and cultural differences in children’s early socialisation in English and in the diverse categories of schools of different quality and cost, the contexts of literacy development in English as a school language in multilingual societies is complex and the nature of school practices divergent. How do the schools, the teachers and children in different kinds of schools negotiate the language barrier between English and home language? Our studies of school practices in the teaching of English sought to find some answers.

The school divide

Elite English-medium private schools

Good-quality Englishmedium private schools

Poor-quality Englishmedium private schools

Public schools

Public schools

The social divide

A

B

Extremely rich

Upper and middle class

C

Lower class

Poor-quality vernacular-medium MT schools

Poor-quality vernacular-medium non-MT schools

Figure 9.1  English, schooling and social class in India (Mohanty, 2017)

Poor

Poor



English in Multilingual Societies: The Dynamics of Dominance  199

Teaching English: Negotiating the language barrier

Our studies in different types of EM and government school (Mohanty et al., 2010; Pal Kapoor & Panda, 2016, and ongoing studies) began with observations of the broad school and classroom practices relating to school culture and use of English and other languages. This was followed by specific observations of school and classroom practices and teacher and pupil interviews in those schools which permitted us to observe them. Our classroom observations were in grades 4 and 5 in two low-cost EM schools in Delhi, run by private trusts and with children from lowermiddle-class and poor families (parents of most children did not complete High School education), and in six government schools in rural and tribal areas in Odisha. Most children in the Odisha schools were first-generation learners from poor tribal families with their MT either Saora (Saora tribe in Gajapati district) or Kui (Kond tribe in Kandhamal district). Our observations in a range of EM schools in India relevant to the present discussion are also briefly presented here. Our initial observations of the high-cost EM schools show that they have a distinctly W ­ esternised/ Anglicised culture (material and non-material), values and school practices. Classroom transactions are in English. Before our observations, some of the schools had the practice of penalising and/or imposing fines for the use of any non-English language in the school. While this is reportedly now discontinued, children are still not permitted to use their MTs or any other language at school and are encouraged to use English even outside school. Schools expect parental support for the teaching of English as well as school subjects in English.11 Most parents supplement the teaching of and in English through their own efforts, private tuition, coaching and other support, including availability of additional books and reading materials. In contrast, most of the classroom transactions and children’s mutual conversations in and outside the classroom are in their MT in the low-cost EM schools in Delhi; the schools are English medium only in a formal/ declared sense. These schools attempt a cosmetic Anglicisation of the school culture – English prayers in chorus, formal (Western) behavioural routines, such as welcoming ‘Good Morning’ routines in chorus (often, even when one visits late in the afternoon), and Western school uniforms (usually including a tie) as in the more prestigious high-cost EM schools. The textbooks are in English, but classroom transactions are nativised and hybridised, with unrestricted use of non-English languages or MTs even in the teaching of English (for details of the classroom practices, see Mohanty et al., 2010). The teachers from the low-cost EM schools interviewed for our study,12 including English-language and other subject teachers, were aware that the formal medium of teaching in the school was English. But they reported using ‘mostly Hindi in the class to make the students understand the subject matter’. Typically the teachers, including the English teachers,

200  The Multilingual Reality

read from a textbook in the class, usually one sentence at a time, and translated the text and elaborated the theme in Hindi, with the main English content words also translated before being used in code-mixed Hindi–English format. The key English words in the text were spoken in a louder voice and drilled in question–answer format, in which a question is asked and a model answer (usually a single sentence) is given for the students to repeat in chorus and memorise. Teachers justify transgression of the norms of the EM schools by pointing to students’ lack of comprehension of English. As one teacher put it:13 Whenever we use only English in the class, after some time, the students sit with blank faces with no participation or interaction waiting for the bell to ring for the next period. However, if the same concept is explained in Hindi, students not only look curious and alert but they also participate and interact more actively in the classroom. They give more input, raise doubts, ask questions, and gain some knowledge and understanding of the main ideas.

Class examinations avoid questions that require pupils to write full sentences or long answers; a multiple-choice format is usually preferred. Parents do not know English and cannot afford private tuition for their children. Teachers in these schools emphasise the need for students to ‘remember’ the correct answers. As one teacher in a Delhi school explained: We have to get the children to repeat the correct answer several times in the classroom so that they remember how to write an answer correctly in English. They do not study much in their homes. They cannot write correctly in English even if they understand. Their parents cannot teach them. So we have to do this in the classroom.

Students’ limited proficiency in English weighs heavily in assessment practices in the low-cost EM schools. The schools have an unwritten norm of setting questions for the monthly tests mostly in multiple-choice formats, which require little writing. The tests include some direct questions which are already drilled in the class. Teachers justify the multiple-choice questions in the assessment by pointing to the importance of understanding the concepts rather than writing skills as such. The classroom transactions are textbook-focused. Teaching/learning processes emphasise learning and rote memorisation of the main information in the textbooks.14 The textbooks selected by these schools are also cheaper and simpler than the ones used in high-cost EM schools (see Mohanty et al., 2010). One of the teachers in a low-cost EM school described the science textbook as ‘very easy’ and justified its selection. Another teacher elaborated on the choice: In good-quality English-medium schools, teachers cover the basic concepts and leave the rest to the students and their parents, who work with them to



English in Multilingual Societies: The Dynamics of Dominance  201

develop better understanding. In their science textbook there are projects for students. The parents help the children with project work and explain it to them. The parents of our children are not educated. So they cannot help them with English books. We have to accept that.

It is evident that the teachers and students in the low-cost EM schools collaborate to negotiate (and also resist) the English–vernacular divide by several strategies, including hybridised classroom communication, supportive teaching/learning practices, assessment techniques intended to heighten the chances of success and choice of appropriate teaching/ learning materials (TLM) in consideration of the language and learning contexts of the pupils. In our analysis of the social context of the pupils and school practices in the low-cost EM schools, we made the following observation: The school system and the teachers recognise the need to scaffold the learning experience of their students in their mutual effort to circumvent the English–vernacular divide. The divide, however, is more complex than a language divide; it is deeply rooted in the social macrostructure within which languages, schools, and social classes are themselves embedded. The power of English in instilling learning aspirations among students (to be empowered through it) is the cause, as well as consequence, of social class differences in the Indian society. (Mohanty et al., 2010: 219)

In her analysis of the teaching/learning practices in respect of English in India, Ramanathan (2005a) shows how these practices are influenced by the vernacular. At the same time, we also need to recognise that the relationship between English and vernaculars and the English–vernacular divide are socially constructed. Therefore, how the relationship between English and vernaculars or MTs is mediated and the divides between English and the vernaculars and other languages negotiated depend on a host of social conditions, such as the social class of the English-learners and their learning contexts, which Ramanathan describes as a range of local ways. According to her: Medium of instruction, then, is only one social cog indexing very different social worlds, with divergent ways of producing and consuming knowledge. While the degree to which the Vernacular is embedded is relative, being more heightened in some contexts than in others, the fact remains that the Vernacular informs ELTL [English language teaching and learning] realities in a range of local ways in multilingual contexts that are not necessarily apparent in Anglophone countries. (Ramanathan, 2005a: 87)

The students in high- and low-cost EM schools have a major regional language like Hindi as their home language (except the few from English MT or ITM languages). But their socialisation experiences in respect of

202  The Multilingual Reality

home-based support for English are very different; the students in the highand low-cost EM schools, therefore, are placed differently in respect of the English–vernacular divide. The divergent school practices continuously evolve to negotiate very different sets of challenges faced by the students in the different types of EM schools and lead to different learning outcomes. These practices need to be understood in the divergent contexts of multi­ lingual societies in which the English language and its users are located. The relationship between multilingualism, English, the language barrier for children from different social classes and the pedagogic practices for teaching English in different types of schools were summed as follows by Mohanty et al.: The meaning and implications of the English–vernacular divide are quite different across different levels of social class. Differences are rooted in early socialisation processes with different levels of material, and social and parental support for English in different social strata. In fact, it can be said that children from the privileged classes and those from the less privileged ones are already located in different sides of the English–vernacular divide by the time they enter formal schools – the former on the other side of the divide already with the early advantages of a home environment in which English is amply supported and the latter still trying to scale the divide because English is alien to their early experiences. The schools and teachers in this latter group have a difficult task in devising strategies for their students to negotiate the divide. The pedagogic practices in the English-medium schools for the less privileged are to be appreciated from the problem-solving perspective that the schools and teachers assume in recognition of resources and limitations of students. (Mohanty et al., 2010: 219)

Our second set of observations (Mohanty et al., 2010) focused on teaching English to tribal children in Odisha government Odia-medium primary schools. These children enter school with their tribal MT (Kui or Saora) and with little or no proficiency in the school language, Odia. They are required to develop language and literacy skills in Odia from grade 1 and learn English as a school subject from grade 4.15 The tribal children struggle to learn the Odia language and to engage in the early school learning of mathematics and environmental studies in Odia. With the requirement for classroom teaching/learning of English in grade 4, these children and their teachers have a formidable problem with a foreign language, English, twice removed from their reality. As pointed out in Chapter 6, a large number of tribal children leave school early since they cannot cope with the demands of learning through the medium of Odia. Those who manage to reach grade 4 have an additional task of learning English as a school subject. Unlike Odia, with which the tribal children gradually come into contact as they move out of their home and immediate neighbourhood, English has no presence in the tribal areas except the occasional road sign or commercial sign. Teachers have very low proficiency



English in Multilingual Societies: The Dynamics of Dominance  203

in English, although, in their formal education (which ranges from high school to bachelor’s degree), they had English as a subject. Classroom practices in teaching English to the tribal children are deficient. Teachers read from the English textbook a single word or a sentence at a time and immediately translate it into simple Odia. Most of the teachers do not know the tribal languages (those who do know Kui or Saora mix Odia with it). The teachers engage children in choral practices and drilling to have them memorise English alphabets and numbers in sequence, and some textbook words and conversational routines in English (‘What is your name?’, ‘What is your father’s name?’, etc.).16 Learning to write English mostly involves copying alphabets (tracing each letter repeatedly on writing boards) while letter names are spoken aloud and, later, copying some words written on the blackboard. The classroom practices in these schools for teaching English show only a symbolic effort to meet the curricular requirement. Lack of substantive learning targets is reflected in very casual assessment of pupils’ learning of English. The teachers, local school supervisors, parents and community members agree that not much is expected from teaching English to the tribal children, at least not in the primary grades, when they are already struggling to learn in Odia. One of the teachers of Kui-speaking Kond children told us in Odia: Sir, these children do not even understand Odia. What English will they understand? We somehow manage by using sometimes Kui and sometimes Odia. Luckily they are not failed if they fail in English.

Clearly, in teaching English to tribal children in state schools using the dominant language as a medium, the priorities are on negotiating the divide between vernacular and other language, deferring negotiation of English. This is accepted by the schools, teachers, parents and communities as a reality in learning a ‘foreign’ language. The classroom processes of teaching/learning of English respond to the pupils’ realities and readiness and are understandably quite divergent. The outcomes of school learning of English are also very different. The poor parents sending their children to public VM schools (mostly because they cannot afford private EM schools) as well as the teachers and schools seem to be reconciled to the prospects of poor learning achievement in English. Most of the children in these schools at least manage to achieve a minimum level of proficiency in other subject areas taught in a language of their familiarity, if not in the language of their home. The outcomes are more disastrous for the fee-paying pupils in the poor-quality EM schools. The children in these schools are subjected to poor-quality teaching in a language for which they get minimal school support and no home-based support. They not only fail to learn English well but also fail to achieve grade-level proficiency in the school subjects taught in English. They are the ones doomed to failure. Evidently, EM

204  The Multilingual Reality

schools teach some and fail others and this is related to the quality and cost of the schools. This observation is also valid in many other multilingual societies where a colonial language like English dominates education. The promises of the dominant colonial language and the aspirations that it arouses among the masses are deceptive. The imposed dominance of an alien language like English in education, in particular, fails to emancipate; it fails all but a few. Instead of fostering maximal realisation of potentials for human development through equitable education to bridge social gaps, it widens the gaps between the social classes, between the rich and the poor, between the English-rich and English-poor. Dominance of English in these multilingual societies and in education at the cost of indigenous languages amounts to promotion of inequity and denial of social justice. Considering the quality of EM schooling and the educational cost to the parents, Mohanty (2017: 273) asks: ‘Whom do English medium schools teach and whom do they cheat?’ We have seen that the poorquality, low-cost EM schools, the cost of which the parents from the lower social classes struggle to meet, have problems with teaching English and other subject areas in English. Indian parents, from all levels of socioeconomic class, generally spend approximately 5–10% of their income on each child’s education in private EM schools (Mohanty, 2017). In terms of the percentage of their income, the expenditure of lower-class or poor parents is of course higher than that for their high-strata counterparts (who, though, spend a lot more on optional home-based support). The relative burden of expenditure for a child’s EM schooling is substantial for the parents from the lower strata. But they do not get the expected returns; their children do not get high-quality education. These children’s school achievement in subject areas remains poor; they fail to develop adequate proficiency in English which is the raison d’être for the parents’ spending on EM schools (Annamalai, 2005). More importantly, they also fail to develop high-level competence in their MT. Those who finish these low-cost EM schools have little chance of success in higher education or good employment. The expected advantages of learning English are lost. Nehru’s ‘English-knowing’ caste is further differentiated into sub-castes based on the quality of English. It is not uncommon for children from lowincome families to struggle through 10 years of low-cost EM schooling with internal assessment in the school showing adequate achievement and, then, failing the common board examination at the end of high school; the parents feel cheated but it is too late for them and their children. The myth of English-medium superiority

The popular comparison of EM and MT-medium schools assumes that the medium of formal teaching is the sole difference between them; comparison between these schools is often interpreted as showing the



English in Multilingual Societies: The Dynamics of Dominance  205

difference between English and MT as languages of teaching/learning. In reality, however, the quality of schooling varies along with the medium. The comparison, thus, confounds the effect of language (as medium of instruction) with quality of schooling (as a system that uses some language for teaching/learning). As a result of such confounding, in popular perceptions (and, sometimes, also in research), differences observed in children’s performance in EM and MT-medium schools are attributed to the effect of language of instruction as such, rather than to the joint effects of language of instruction and other variables. I will briefly summarise some studies in India which have controlled for the relevant school-related variables in order to compare the medium of instruction and to examine the popular notion of EM superiority. Studies in different parts of India comparing children from EM schools with those from MT-medium schools (e.g. Mohanty, 1990b, 1990d, 2003; Nayak, 2007; Sema, 2008; Srivastava, 1990) show that when the quality of schooling and socio-economic status of the parents are controlled, MT-medium children perform better than their EM counterparts on measures of academic achievement, understanding of science and maths concepts and skills in language use. A study by Nayak (2007) (planned and conducted along with the author as the supervisor) compared grade 3 and 4 Odia-MT children from Odia MT-medium and EM schools in semiurban areas of Balasore in Odisha on a number of classroom achievement measures. All the measures, except the ones for language proficiency, had parallel forms in Odia and English. The children were given a choice between the Odia and English versions of the achievement measures. All of them, however, chose their own teaching language or the (medium of instruction, MoI) for the achievement measures. Language proficiency measures in Odia and English were administered to both the EM and MT-medium groups. The measures included tests of mathem­ atics, environmental studies or science (grades 3 and 4, respectively), graded oral reading, graded reading comprehension, a cloze reading test, conversational skills, expressive vocabulary, picture-story narration and test of understanding of maths concepts. The EM and MT-medium schools were matched on the Quality of School Index,17 on which the selected schools were rated as poor quality (category C, the second lowest category in a system of A, B, C and D categories). The samples from the EM and MT-medium schools were also matched for family income and parental education. The total sample consisted of 60 children from EM and MT-medium schools. The findings showed that the MT-medium children performed better than their EM counterparts on all measures of academic achievement. The MT-medium children showed better understanding of mathematical concepts and had better skills in use of language in conversation, expressive vocabulary, and picture-story narration and reading tasks. The EM children performed better than the MT-medium group on language measures in English. Tasks of Odia language proficiency (conversational

206  The Multilingual Reality

skills, vocabulary, picture-story narration) showed the subtractive effects of the school learning of English on EM school children’s competence in the MT (Odia). A similar study comparing EM and MT-medium schools, in Zuzheboto and Dimapur Districts of Nagaland, India, was undertaken by Toinali Sema (planned and conducted with the author as the supervisor). Sema (2008) compared children in grades 3 and 4 in Sema-medium schools (Sema MT children), Nagamese-medium schools and EM schools. Nagamese is a lingua franca in Nagaland, but the children in the Nagamese-medium school in the sample spoke Kachari or Bangla or other MTs. Thus, Sema (2008) compared school children educated in a medium of English or Sema as the MT or Nagamese as the non-MT regional dominant language (the last group had early contact with Nagamese but it was not their home language). The three groups were compared on classroom achievement in tests of mathematics, environmental studies or science (grades 3 and 4, respectively), graded oral reading, graded reading comprehension, cloze tests of reading, conversational skills, expressive vocabulary, picture-story narration and understanding of maths concepts. The three types of schools were matched on their score on the Quality of School Index, in which the selected schools were rated as poor-quality (category C). The children belonged to the lower economic strata and their family income and parental education were in the same range for all children in the study. The study sample consisted of a total of 180 children from the three types of school. The MT-medium children performed better than their EM counterparts on all measures of academic achievement, including understanding of mathematical concepts, and had better skills in the use of language in conversations, expressive vocabulary, picture-story narration and reading tasks. The difference between the MT-medium and Nagamese-medium children were not consistent across the various measures. The EM children performed better than the MT-medium group on language measures in English, but they had poor understanding of mathematical concepts and lower scores on measures of conversational and language use in their MT. Thus, the findings of the studies both in Odisha (Nayak, 2007) and in Nagaland (Sema, 2008) are similar in showing that when the quality of schools and parental socio-economic status are controlled, the MT-medium children perform better on a host of measures of academic achievement and language skills. Studies among Bodo children in Assam (Panda & Mohanty, 2011; Saikia & Mohanty, 2004) also showed that Bodo children performed better in Bodo-medium schools than in Assamese- or English-medium schools. A study by Patra (2000) in Odisha compared grade 6 and 8 Odiamedium children with late exposure to English as a school subject (from grade 4 onwards) and EM children from the same grades who had studied in English from grade 1. The MT-medium children had poorer English



English in Multilingual Societies: The Dynamics of Dominance  207

reading, writing and comprehension skills than their English-medium counterparts at grade 6. But in grade 8, the two groups did not differ on the measures of proficiency in English (except for the verbal fluency measure). The MT-medium children, who learnt English only from grade 4, took four years to catch up with their English-medium counterparts, who learnt English from grade 1. It seems that when children learn English after development of their MT proficiency, they learn English at a faster rate and, within about four years of exposure to English, they are able to achieve the same level of competence in English which the Englishmedium children attain in eight years of learning through the medium of the language. As Cummins (1984, 2009a) suggested in his linguistic interdependence theory, early development of MT proficiency in schools comes at no cost to effective learning of English and other languages at later points in school. Indian studies as well as many from Africa (including the major Ethiopian study) and other parts of the world (see Heugh & Skutnabb-Kangas, 2010) show that education in the MT as the medium of teaching/learning is more effective than education through the medium of English or other unfamiliar language. The superiority of English-medium education is a myth; it is not supported by empirical evidence. It is perpetuated because of the confounding effects of quality of schooling and socio-economic status. With the early socialisation for academic use of English, development of positive attitude towards learning the language and continued home support in school learning, along with the quality of schooling in high-cost EM schools, children from the upper classes generally perform better. In contrast, the children from the lower classes lack the home-based support and end up in low-cost, poor-quality EM schools; they are clearly dis­ advantaged. English, then, does not enhance the quality of education for children in multilingual societies. Conclusion: English in a Multilingual World

English is a symbol of unequal power relations in post-colonial societies. The role of English in schools and formal educational systems is orchestrated in a manner that perpetuates inequality. In her incisive analysis of the relationship between language and power and the role of education in the alarming loss of linguistic diversity across the world, Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) shows how education invalidates the linguistic and cultural capital of the dominated language communities. In a global­ ised world, some languages, like English, are socially constructed as languages of development and emancipation, languages of science and technology, languages of unity and reconciliation, while the languages of the dominated majority are devalued and stigmatised. Educational systems are social instruments for propagating and rendering legitimacy to unequal access to resources. Schools perpetuate

208  The Multilingual Reality

social inequalities by foregrounding and glorifying the languages and cultural capital of the dominant social class and invisibilising and stigmatising the languages and cultural resources of the dominated as backward and useless. Our studies on how schools function in contemporary India support Skutnabb-Kangas’s analysis of the relationship between linguistic dominance, education and devaluation of minoritised languages. Our studies on language socialisation in India show that children’s participation in family and cultural practices systematically cultivates their understanding of the status and values of English as a cultural capital. There are also social class differences in the processes of multilingual socialisation in the degree of centrality of English in the multilingual world-view projected for the child. In upper-class homes, children’s early socialisation ex­periences are more focused on priming early readiness for learning of formal and academic English and fostering a positive orientation for school learning of English. On the other hand, English is peripherally located in the early socialisation of children from the lower social classes. The children in privileged families grow up with attitudes, predispositions and cultural habits which are further cultivated by the schools to ensure success in developing English as a form of cultural capital. In contrast, the multi­lingual socialisation of children in less privileged families and the teaching/learning practices in schools for them combine to increase the chances of under-achievement at school in respect of English as well as other subject areas. Social practices and schools complement each other to reproduce inequalities and widen the gap between the haves and have-nots. Children from the privileged classes come to school with material, attitudinal and socialisation support in their home for English, and they benefit further from classroom teaching/learning. Children from less privileged homes do not get such support for their development of English and schools devalue their cultural and linguistic capital. The privileged already have more support (material and non-material) for English and they get more out of schooling in English, while the less privileged, who do not have such support, get less of the benefit. And the difference between the two groups widens the educational and social inequality in a process of cumulative disadvantage, which has been called Matthew effect.18 Lamb (2011) analyses the Matthew effect in English-language education and discusses some processes through which learners’ socio-economic background influences the learning of English. According to Lamb, socio-economic conditions and cultural capital nurtured through the early home environment and education ensure that some learners benefit more from English-language education than others and the gap between the advantaged and the disadvantaged increases over time. Studies of the Matthew effect in Africa and elsewhere and the Indian studies discussed in this chapter show that EM schooling benefits the English-rich more than the English-poor and further augments the differences in social class.



English in Multilingual Societies: The Dynamics of Dominance  209

The children from the disadvantaged segments of society, whose parents believe in the emancipatory power of education in English and acquiesce to invest a major share of their limited resources in such education, end up with poor English and low academic competence. The promised benefits of English elude the less privileged, who continue with limited opportunities despite their education in ‘English-medium’ schools. The exclusive ‘­ English-knowing caste’ in post-independence India is now fragmented into English-knowing sub-castes, differentiated on the basis of com­petence in English – those with excellent English, average English and poor English distributed. Whose development does English promote? Does English unite or divide society? The questions are relevant and significant for all postcolonial English-dominant multilingual societies as well as for all others in which colonial languages continue to dominate. The contexts differ, the hierarchies differ; if not English, it is some other language at the top – Spanish, French, Portuguese or Persian or any other – but a critical look beyond the English juggernaut reveals the reality of discrimination, denial of social justice and subversion of linguistic human rights, not just in India but all over the world. Skutnabb-Kangas, Phillipson, Panda and Mohanty point to the far-reaching implications of the dominance of English: The prevalent use of European languages worldwide, and especially English, in high-prestige domains has major implications, for democracy, a well-informed public sphere and population, and social cohesion. The prominence given to English is problematical wherever local languages are also not used, especially in education. This applies in Europeanised settler countries worldwide (like Canada and Peru…). It also holds for former colonies, which as independent countries have generally maintained English as the language of power and privilege. It increasingly also holds in continental Europe, where English is used not only in international links but also within countries in several key domains. (Skutnabb-Kangas et al., 2009b: 317–318)

Dominant languages in the world are held responsible for loss of linguistic diversity by displacing minor contact languages. Major international languages, such as Spanish, English and French, are commonly seen as belonging to this category. There are also many more dominant languages within different countries causing language shift, language death/murder and loss of diversity. The major international languages including English have been called ‘killer languages’19 (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000) for their impact on other languages. The image of English as a ‘killer language’ conveys the power of English to destroy smaller languages and the balance of a multilingual ecology. Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) distinguishes between two paradigms of loss of languages and linguistic diversity: linguistic genocide and language death. According to her, using the concept of language death implies a passive and ‘natural’

210  The Multilingual Reality

process of decay of languages as a result of voluntary language shift. She justifies the use of the concept of linguistic genocide or language murder as a paradigm which implies an active process of enforced language shift or language murder. Interestingly, the power of English as a killer language resonates with similar images used recently to characterise English as a powerful serpent devouring other languages. Bunce et al. (2016) in Why English? Confronting the Hydra (also Rapatahana & Bunce, 2012) describe English as ‘hydra’, a many-headed serpent of Greek mythology. In the volume edited by Bunce et al. (2016), Robert Phillipson discusses the impact of the English hydra: This English Hydra is still vigorously alive worldwide. However, intriguingly, the monster is understood by many as a universal need in the modern world. This misunderstanding obscures the reality that English opens doors for the few and closes them for the many. English plays a central role in servicing a capitalist system that serves the interests of a tiny fraction of the world’s population. The wealth of the transnational élites accumulates in ethically indefensible offshore banks, while the rest of the world attempts to survive onshore. In countries known as ‘Englishspeaking’, a label that airbrushes speakers of many other languages, the rich have become much richer in recent decades, while conditions for the rest of the population have deteriorated. The English-language Hydra services this injustice at home and abroad…. (Phillipson, 2016: 35)

In the same volume, Hywel Coleman uses the image of a naga20 (a voracious serpent) drawn from Indonesian iconography to show the destructive impact of English and Indonesian, the dominant national language of Indonesia, in the multilingual country: … English, Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian, the national language) and the local languages of Indonesia can be likened to nagas. All have important roles to play but – in the cases of English and Indonesian – they are also potentially destructive.… English poses a serious threat to the status of Indonesian, while at the same time Indonesian threatens the local languages. It is as if English, the most voracious naga, is consuming Indonesian tail first. At the same time, Indonesian, the intermediate naga, is busily devouring the local languages, unaware that it is, itself, being consumed by English. (Coleman, 2016: 59)

Coleman’s description of Indonesian language situation using the naga image reflects the pecking order in multilingual contexts with a doubledivide structure. In India, as I have shown, English constitutes a major immediate threat to Hindi and other major regional languages, which, in turn, threaten to displace the ITM languages. In another coincidental serpent imagery for the role of English, Mohanty and Panda (2016a)



English in Multilingual Societies: The Dynamics of Dominance  211

describe this serial process of threat to dominated languages by drawing from an Odia poem in which the poet describes the rainy-season scene of a pond in which a snake captures a frog and, at the same time, the frog, in the snake’s mouth and about to be devoured, jumps up to capture a dragonfly. The parallel use of similar images conveys a strong message about the common perception of the power of English to destroy multilingual structures and linguistic diversity. It also shows how similar are the processes associated with the dominance of English in post-colonial societies. The evidence showing the divisive and negative impacts of English in education and in society in all the English-dominant multilingual countries in the world is compelling. But the craze for English continues as a post-truth phenomenon, as a national compulsion that refuses to see the writing on the wall. And yet, it does not have to be so, as Mohanty (2009b) points out. In a true multilingual society, all languages can have their legitimate place: mother tongues, regional and national languages and international languages like English. English and all other world languages can have complementary roles; they can be healer languages and not ‘killer’ languages (Mohanty, 2009b). The role of English, including its political consequences in multilingual societies, needs to be assessed critically and not only politically. Viewing English as a ‘political imperative’ has unwittingly synergised linguistic imperialism. Eminent researchers, educators and practitioners (Jim Cummins, Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, Robert Phillipson, Ofelia García, Nancy Hornberger, Teresa McCarty, Kathleen Heugh, Carol Benson, to name only a few) have made evidence-based recommendations for re­locat­ing teaching/learning of English in the framework of MT-based multilingual education (see Skutnabb-Kangas et al., 2009a; Mohanty, 2013a). Large-scale assessments of educational practices and recent programmes of MT-based multilingual education have shown success in fostering better classroom achievement and participation and effective learning of English (see Heugh & Skutnabb-Kangas, 2010). Finally, without going further into the details of the framework and the positioning of English in MT-based multilingual education (see Chapter 7), the discussion in this chapter can be concluded in the following words from Skutnabb-Kangas, Phillipson, Panda and Mohanty, : Seeking to constrain English should not be understood as meaning that people have anything ‘against’ the language English, which, of course provides access to an infinite range of information, positions of influence, and material well-being. What needs to be resisted and counteracted is policies that privilege English at the expense of other languages. English opens doors, yes, but it closes others. English is an open sesame for some people and some purposes, it serves to condemn others to poverty and oblivion. A lot of the advocacy in favour of English is one-sided misrepresentation. (Skutnabb-Kangas et al., 2009a: 319)

212  The Multilingual Reality

Notes (1) The end of the monarchy in Nepal was announced on 24 December 2007. It was formalised on 28 May 2008, when the newly elected Constituent Assembly declared Nepal a republic. The new constitution became effective in 2015. (2) The Nepali language had a strong claim to being a language of national unification, but its dominance in Nepal had been at the cost of the other indigen­ous languages and it had failed to provide relevant education for the masses. (3) Article 6 of Nepal’s constitution declares all mother tongues spoken in Nepal to be ‘national languages’; the constitution recognises the rights of every community to education in its mother tongue up to secondary level (Article 31(5)) and to use their language (Article 32(1)). (4) Several chapters in Language, Nation and Development in Southeast Asia (Guan & Suryadinanta, 2007) discuss historians’ perspectives on how the processes of de­colonis­ ation led to polarisation of language divides in Southeast Asian countries. (5) See Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) for an exhaustive analysis and critique of the ‘choice’ argument in respect of languages. (6) The use of English in government offices and in official and legal documents is being resisted in several states in India. The Odia Language Movement, for example, succeeded recently in getting the state government of Odisha to revive the Official Language Act to enforce the use of only Odia in all public documents and official transactions. The Movement continues to demand punitive provisions in the Official Language Act for those who violate this provision. Similar movements continue in other states where English is widely used for public transactions in the state administration. Introduction of compulsory English in the examination for recruitment to national civil services has also been successfully resisted in recent years. (7) I have critiqued the English promotion programmes of the government of Odisha and those of other states in India in several of my weekly newspaper columns in Odia (e.g. Mohanty (2016a, 2016b). (8) In the 2011 census of India (http://www.censusindia.gov.in), out of the total population of 1,210,569,573, the number of persons declaring English as their mother tongue was 226,449. The most common estimate of the proportion of English-knowing people in India (including those who can speak it as their first language) is 10% of the population. However, there is a wide variation in the level of proficiency among these people; the number who use English to communicate is much lower. (9) The figure of 40% is a projected figure for 2016–2017. In 2013–2014, as reported in the Ministry of Human Resource Development figures placed in Parliament (reported in the Indian Express, Delhi, 21 December 2015), 34.30% of elementary (grades 1–5) students and 37.01% of high-school students were in private schools (almost all of which are English-medium schools). The estimate of 10% annual growth in the number of students in English-medium schools is based on the fact that numbers nearly doubled from 15 million in 2008–2009 to over 29 million in 2013–2014 (reported in the Times of India, Delhi, 28 September 2015). The growth rate of students in English-medium schools during this period was particularly high in Hindi-speaking states. For example, the number of students in English-medium schools during the five years from 2009 to 2014 increased by 1000% in Uttar Pradesh and by 4700% in Bihar. (10) See the Annual Status of Education Reports (ASERs), which are based on annual national surveys of education of the PRATHAM organisation in India (http://www. asercentre.org). ASER 2014: Annual Status of Education Report shows extremely low achievement and poor school facilities. For example, almost half of grade 5 children cannot read at grade 2 level. There are also many other assessments of the level of academic achievement of children in the government schools in India with similar findings. (11) Selection for admission into these schools is often based on interviews and assessment



English in Multilingual Societies: The Dynamics of Dominance  213

of parental education (in English) and their ability and availability to support the child’s school learning. Parental interviews (and different forms of assessment) for admission of children to EM schools are common in India, although judicial intervention and directives have prohibited such practices in major cities. But in most other parts of the country, high-cost EM schools in demand conduct informal interviews of parents for a child’s admission. In some cases, parents are also required to offer donations or other funding support to schools in addition to the school fees. (12) Interviews were held in a normal conversational mode. The interviewer used English to present the main questions but mixed Hindi and English in elaborating them. The teachers were instructed to speak in any language of their choice and they mostly used Hindi with some English words in a code-mix. (13) Quotations from the teachers’ responses here and below are close English renderings of the response in Hindi or other languages, usually code-mixed. (14) Kumar (1987), a former director of the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) in India and an eminent educationalist, speaks of a general ‘textbook culture’ in Indian schools, particularly the government schools, in which structured examination and lack of availability of other books for children promotes undue emphasis on textbooks, which usually are the only books used in the classrooms. In contrast, students at high-cost EM schools have wider exposure to other books, both at school and at home. (15) English was introduced in grade 4 in all government schools in the state of Odisha during the period of our observations. English is now taught from grade 3 in Odisha’s public schools (the only state in India where this is so – in all other states it is taught from grade 1 or 2). (16) In one of the classrooms I visited, all the children responded to the question ‘What is your father’s name?’ by saying in chorus ‘My father’s name is Dhani’. Apparently the teacher had given them a model answer (with ‘Dhani’ as a name) which all the children memorised through repeated drilling without any understanding. (17) The Quality of School Index used in the study was the same as the one used by the state government for its schools. (18) The name ‘Matthew effect’ is taken from the biblical citation ‘For unto everyone that hath shall be given and he shall have abundance; but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath’ (Matthew XXV: 29). (19) Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) attributes the term ‘killer language’ to Anne Pakir, who used it in 1991 in respect of English in Singapore. However, Hywel Coleman (2017) traces the origin of the term to Glanville Price, a Welshman, writing in 1984 about English as the ‘killer’ of the indigenous languages of the British Isles. The term has now been used by many researchers, including Skutnabb-Kangas, who has popularised the term in the context of her work on linguistic genocide. The term ‘killer language’ is appropriate to describe the role of the dominant languages like English causing ‘linguistic genocide’ in many parts of the world. (20) In Sanskrit, Hindi and many other Indian languages, nãga is the generic name for dangerous snakes but also refers more specifically to the cobra.

Afterword E. Annamalai

Multilingualism itself is minoritised in the sense that it is not the mainstream in the research paradigm emanating from early-industrialised countries, which put a premium on the linguistic homogeneity of their societies. This paradigm is sustained by a theory that multilingualism is a marked language situation in any state and that it is a phenomenon that hinders the development of an industrial economy. This is because this economy requires a centralised mode of production and a hierarchical channel of communication to be efficient. The factory floor, for example, disfavours multiple languages and so does the state. According to this paradigm, multilingualism should be cast off in the forward march of the economy; any residue of multilingualism that remains is marked. The focus of the early multilingual research in the Western academic world was on language diversity in post-colonial countries (­Ohannessian et al., 1975) – those that had gained their independence from European powers following the Second World War. This research presumed a conflict between multiple language development and unitary economic development in the political project of nation building in the newly in­dependent countries. Consequently, the policy often promoted one language (or a couple of languages) as the national language to inculcate national pride and allegiance to the nation among the citizens transformed from their colonial status of subjects in order to transform a political entity, a ­historical accident of colonial expansion, into an integrated nation. This policy imperative introduced an extraneous dichotomy between the national language and the other languages of the new nation. Other categories of language that were created in language planning were the official or administrative language of the state, the language of juris­ prudence, the language of science (all of which often forced the retention of the colonial language), the language of education and so on. This kind of language planning created new language hierarchies in the multilingual societies of the new nations. This research paradigm for multilingualism inevitably included the question of the role of multiple languages in education. This was in­ evitable because education is the pivot of the project of nation building and economic development. The policy on the use of languages in 214



Afterword 215

education, as could be expected, reflected the new language hierarchy created outside the school. This language-in-education policy mostly looked at multi­lingualism as a historical relic to be dealt with somehow. The policy favoured the choice of the language(s) considered conducive for the economic development, which requires the highly skilled use technology and top-down communication. Any concern in this policy for the minority languages manifested itself only as a concession to those languages at worst or as political expediency at best. This derivative policy and the project of education with regard to minority languages – which cover indigenous, tribal, minority and minoritised (ITM) languages – are challenged in this book on the basis of the natural rights of the speakers of these languages, which are taken to be inalienable. The place of ITM languages in education is not given from above, but is demanded from below. This foundational principle dictates the nature and purpose of mother-tongue-based multilingual education in policy formulation. The Second World War brought working-class migrants to the industrialised countries to meet their problem of shortage of labour. The educational needs of the migrants brought the languages of minorities into focus in education. This was another route for the research interest in multilingualism in the Western academic world. Education of the minority children at the school level was bilingual in the nominal sense that the majority language was taught as a second language, in order to make up their ‘language handicap’. The goal was for the minority students to learn the language of the majority as soon as possible, with no con­sideration for the cost to the minority languages. Faced with the multifaceted problems of this model of education for the minority children with regard to their competencies in their first and second languages and to their attitudinal relationship with both of them, bilingual education was experimented with; in that model there is a dual medium of instruction (for definition and models, see Andersson & Boyer, 1978). The primary goal of bilingual education in most programmes was social and cultural assimilation with the majority society; it could be linguistic assimilation also. The minority languages, however, had a limited role as the medium of instruction, and instead largely served as a prop to learn the dominant language (Skutnabb-Kangas & Cummins, 1988). The goal of assimilation was justified by the belief, mentioned above, that multiple languages are a problem for the economic progress of the society and also for the speakers of minority languages themselves. The subsidiary goals of the bilingual education programmes were essentially societal goals, such as integration and accommodation with the majority society. All these societal goals had the common feature of not foregrounding the rights of, and justice for, the speakers of minority languages. This book gives a central place to this in multilingual education and includes the assertion of their language rights by linguistic minority communities as the measurement of the success of these programmes.

216  The Multilingual Reality

The fundamental problem with bilingualism research was the assumption that multilingualism was a simple numerical extension of bilingualism (more languages). Multilingualism, whether in cognitive or pedagogical research, was considered just a special case of bilingualism. The distinctive properties of multilingualism were not taken into cognisance. This book, on the other hand, argues successfully, on the basis of empirical observation and experimental results, that multilingualism at the societal level is the unmarked phenomenon and bilingualism is the marked one, and monolingualism is an artificial construct, especially when one takes into account the multiple varieties of a language a normal speaker handles in everyday life. At the individual cognitive level, bilingualism is a qualitatively circumscribed case of multilingualism, as the psychological experiments reported in the book show. This book thus represents the new paradigm of the study of multilingualism, which is, incidentally, true to the experience of the people living in prototypically multilingual societies, which is the majority of societies in the world. Starting the study of society and the mind from the vantage point of multilinguals questions some of the fundamental conceptual formulations in the study of bilingualism. And it leads to some new conceptual formulations. One of those advocated in this book is that language competency is a relative concept; it is relative to the functional need it fulfils. The language functions are distributed among the languages in the linguistic repertoire of a multilingual individual and a multilingual community. The idea of equal native competence in both languages promoted as the ideal bilingualism is a special case, not a universal one. The functional relativity of languages is even more true of multilingualism, whether it is acquired in the community through the socialisation process at home and at the workplace or acquired through formal instruction in school. The language hierarchy in society and in policy does play a role in determining the nature of the differential competencies obtained through either means. The outcome in the latter could, however, be influenced by the model of multilingual education, through the choice of appropriate goals for the use of languages and the pedagogy chosen to achieve them. The concept of differential competencies in languages, thus, has significance in the design of language policy in a multilingual society, which will be implemented through education. The model described in the book deserves to be tried elsewhere, with necessary modifications to suit the specifics of the societal multilingualism present in other places. This idea of the distributive functionality of languages in a multi­ lingual society relates to the notion of a hierarchy of languages in society. Language hierarchy is not reflective of a linguistic relation between languages but it is constituted by the sociopolitical hierarchy, which is shaped by extra-linguistic factors. A requirement of multilingual education is that the language, any language, should not hinder access to societal resources, be it receiving services provided by a society to its members,



Afterword 217

accessing good education, using economic opportunities, participating in the political process or enjoying the rights of individuals in a civil society. The linguists, formal as well as anthropological, hold on to the axiom that all languages are equal in their grammatical complexity and in their potential for expressibility and so are not disadvantaged on this ground from having equal rights to resources. Dixon (2016) hypothesises that languages are different from each other grammatically and lexically, and that they have evolved to perform certain communicative tasks more efficiently than others. He goes further to claim that the differences could be placed on a scale of weighted efficiencies. Putting aside the nagging question about the scale being arbitrary in terms of the privileged features as well their assigned weights, the purported efficiencies are not innate and are transient, and they develop based on the demands made on them, such as their use in education. There is no language that is permanently inefficient to do science, for example. The ideology of equality of languages gives the rationale for the requirement for multilingual education to provide equal opportunity to the speakers of different languages; it also may make linguistic justice appear unproblematic. But the problem comes from the fact that a language hierarchy exists as a structural consequence of the social hierarchy of the speakers of the languages, which is determined by tradition, politics and wealth. This hierarchy is sustained by the speakers of the dominant languages striving to maintain their advantageous position in society through the use of their language in the domains of power. This is often done by attempting to keep others from sharing these domains for the use of their languages. In this situation, education is the crucial means to counter the operation of social selection among languages and hence it has a central role to play in mitigating the problem of the language hierarchy in any policy promoting multilingualism. Multilingual education has the promise of being the agent of societal equaliser. This book demon­ strates this ability of multilingual education when it is correctly and fairly designed, and shows how it could successfully deal with the conflict between hierarchy and equality, socio-economic and linguistic. The right and fair model of multilingual education, particularly in the early stage of education, has to interact with the existing hierarchy of languages. The basic issue is about ensuring social justice for individuals and communities situated in the entrenched power structure of the larger society. This book recognises that the linguistic hierarchy is not linear but is multi-nodal. It also shows that the hierarchy is multilayered when it discusses the concept of the ‘double divide’, which is about the play of international, national and regional languages against the minority language. Social justice is to be achieved through linguistic justice in this overwhelming context. This book demonstrates the possibility of doing this through a well designed mother-tongue-based multilingual education that prevents appropriation of education by one or two languages, and

218  The Multilingual Reality

that builds accommodation of many languages into education. The resolution of the conflict between the objective of social justice and the persistence of unequal power lies in the model of early education that is sensitive to structuring the progression of learning, medium of instruction and curricular content. The pragmatic need for a pyramidal structure of education with regard to the use of multiple languages will meet the requirement of social justice only if the foundation of the languages that students bring to the class – the languages of their early childhood – is solidly laid and strengthened in such a way that they can grow organically inside the school as a language of academic subjects and outside school as a tool of social solidarity, cultural practice and aesthetic creativity. Transiting from school to a successful life in the world should not be at the cost of any students having to give up their languages. It means ensuring differential functions and rewards to all languages after school. Rewards are not just economic but they are also of personal dignity and free will. It is very important that the school itself does not curtail the choices of the speakers of the minority languages before they leave school. This will be the case when the expansion of the use of the minority language is denied by the school itself. Education policy should not give schools the option to do this. Choice between the majority and minority languages is a false one, for various reasons. One reason is that the choice between instrumental gains and integrative gains is not mutually exclusive, as this book argues. For the majority-language students, for example, the two are not divergent. They learn their majority language for economic mobility as well as for cultural integration within society. For the minority-language students, the choice of the two motivations does not have to be mutually exclusive. It is not a zero-sum game for anyone. This brings to the foreground the need of minority-language students to learn the majority language well. When their competence in it is high, along with their competence in their mother tongue, they will have the instrumental advantage of ‘language plus’; for example, they will have ‘English plus’, while the majority students will have only ‘English’. This will make them competitive in the market, provided the advantage of the social and cultural capital of the upper segments of the majority-language students is neutralised by political means. The lived experience of multilingual societies is that the grammatical boundaries between languages are porous. Speakers slide smoothly from one language to another in the course of their daily living; the languages do not have any inherent mechanism to prevent grammatical features sliding imperceptibly from one language into another. This lived experience is contrary to the model of education, which puts a premium on the grammatical standards of the taught languages. Insulating languages from one another, particularly the powerful languages (such as English) from the powerless, runs counter to the multilingual reality. This is not about creative intervention after school with, or resistance to, the speakers



Afterword 219

of minority languages, or about the gatekeeping of the standards of the powerful language. The gatekeeping talked about here concerns pedagogical control of the language in the school by those in power (with regard to essay-writing, see Canagarajah, 2011). This is about preventing the minority students from speaking out and participating on equal terms in classroom inter­actions with the teacher. To be flexible with the standard of the dominant language of the school was a challenge to many earlier models of multilingual education; these models could not repudiate the entrenched philosophy of standards in education. The experiments reported in this book meet this challenge by being flexible about the form of the language used in interactions in the classroom and it is about letting language use in the classroom flow from the students rather than being prescribed by the authority of the classroom and the textbooks. The practices of multilingual education will gain legitimacy with a language-in-education policy that encourages those practices. There is no one size that fits all in making a uniform policy across countries and cultures. A critical evaluation of these polices in the post-colonial multilingual countries for their strengths and weaknesses, as done in this book, is an important step towards making multilingual education a global enterprise. This will bring multilingual education to the mainstream of research on general educational policies and practices. This will be the desideratum of education not just in the developing world, or for the minoritised sections of the societies anywhere, but everywhere and for everyone. This book gives hope that we will reach there one day. References Andersson, T. and Boyer, M. (1978) Bilingual Schooling in the United States (2nd edn). Austin, TX: National Educational Laboratory. Canagarajah, S. (2011) Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and pedagogy. Applied Linguistics Review 2, 1–28. Dixon, R.M.W. (2016) Are Some Languages Better Than Others? Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ohannessian, S., Ferguson, C.A. and Polome, E.C. (eds) (1975) Language Surveys in Develop­ing Nations and Reports on Sociolinguistic Surveys. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. and Cummins, J. (eds) (1988) Minority Education: From Shame to Struggle. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

References

Abbi, A. (2008) Tribal languages. In B.B. Kachru, Y. Kachru and S.N. Sridhar (eds) Language in South Asia (pp. 153–174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Abrams, J.R., Barker, V. and Giles, H. (2009) An examination of the validity of the Subject­ ive Vitality Questionnaire. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 30 (1), 59–72. Adesope, O.O., Levin, T., Thompson, T. and Ungerleider, C. (2010) A systematic review and metaanalysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of Educational Research 80, 207–245. Andersson, T. and Boyer, M. (1978) Bilingual Schooling in the United States. Austin, TX: National Educational Laboratory. Annamalai, E. (1986) The sociolinguistic scene in India. Sociolinguistics 16 (1), 2–8. Annamalai, E. (2001) Managing Multilingualism in India: Political and Linguistic Mani­ festa­tions. New Delhi: Sage. Annamalai, E. (2003) Medium of power: The question of English in education in India. In J.W. Tollefson and A.B.M. Tsui (eds) Medium of Instruction Policies: Whose Agenda? Which Agenda? (pp. 177–194). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Annamalai, E. (2005) Nation-building in a globalised world: Language choice and education in India. In A.M.Y. Lin and P. Martin (eds) Decolonisation, Globalisation: Languagein-Education Policy and Practice (pp. 20–37). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Annamalai, E. (2008) Contexts of multilingualism. In B.B. Kachru, Y. Kachru and S.N. Sridhar (eds) Language in South Asia (pp. 223–234). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Annamalai, E. (2014) Death by any other means: Neo-vernacularization of South Asian languages. In H.C. Cardoso (ed.) Language Endangerment and Preservation in South Asia (pp. 3–18). Language Documentation and Conservation Special Publication No. 7 (January). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Arkorful, K. and Adger, C.T. (2015) Language-in-education policy and practice in Ghanaian classrooms: Lessons from School for Life’s complementary education programme. In A. Yiakoumetti (ed.) Multilingualism and Language in Education: Sociolinguistic and Pedagogical Perspectives from Commonwealth Countries (pp. 31–47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Awasthi, L.D. (2004) Exploring monolingual school practices in multilingual Nepal. Phd thesis, Danish University of Education, Copenhagen. Babu, N. and Mohanty, A.K. (1982) Detection of syntactic ambiguity by unilingual and bilingual tribal children. Indian Psychologist 1 (2), 25–30. Bain, B. (1975) Towards integration of Piaget and Vygotsky: Bilingual considerations. Linguistics 160, 5–19. Bain, B. and Yu, A. (1978) Towards an integration of Piaget and Vygotsky: A cross-cultural replication (France, Germany, Canada) concerning cognitive consequences of bi­ linguality. In M. Paradis (ed.) Aspects of Bilingualism (pp. 113–126). Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press. Bain, B. and Yu, A. (1980) Cognitive consequences of raising children bilingually: ‘One parent, one language’. Canadian Journal of Psychology 34, 403–313. 220



References 221

Baker, C. (2011) Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (5th edn). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Balkan, L. (1970) Les effets du bilingualisme Francais–Anglais sur les aptitudes intellectuelles. Brussels: Aimav. Bamgbose, A. (2000) Language and Exclusion: The Consequences of Language Policies in Africa. Hamburg: LIT Verlag Munster. Bassetti, B. (2013) Bilingualism and writing systems. In T.K. Bhatia and W.C. Ritchie (eds) Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism (2nd edn) (pp. 649–670). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Bear Nicholas, A. (2009) Reversing language shift through a native-language immersion teacher-training programme in Canada. In A.K. Mohanty, M. Panda, R. Phillipson and T. Skutnabb-Kangas (eds) Multilingual Education for Social Justice (pp. 200–215). New Delhi: Orient Blackswan. Benson, C. and Kosonen, K. (2012) A critical comparison of language-in-education policy and practice in four South-East Asian countries and Ethiopia. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas and K. Heugh (eds) Multilingual Education and Sustainable Diversity Work: From Periphery to Center (pp. 111–137). New York: Routledge. Benton, R.A. (1996) Language policy in New Zealand: Defining the ineffable. In M. Herriman and B. Burnaby (eds) Language Policies in English-dominant Countries: Six Case Studies (pp. 62–98). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Benton, R.A. (2007) Mauri or mirage? The status of the Māori language in Aotearoa New Zealand in the third millennium. In A.B.M. Tsui, B.M. Amy and J.W. Tollefson (eds) Language Policy, Culture, and Identity in Asian Contexts (pp. 163–181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ben-Zeev, S. (1972) The influence of bilingualism on cognitive development and cognitive strategy. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago. Ben-Zeev, S. (1977a) The influence of bilingualism on cognitive development and cognitive strategy. Child Development 48, 1009–1018. Ben-Zeev, S. (1977b) Mechanisms by which childhood bilingualism affects understanding of language and cognitive structures. In P.A. Hornby (ed.) Bilingualism: Psychological, Social and Educational Implications (pp. 29–55). New York: Academic Press. Berko, J. (1958) The child’s learning of English morphology. Word 14, 150–177. Berry, J.W. (1984) Cultural relations in plural societies: Alternatives to segregation and their sociopsychological implications. In N. Miller and M. Brewer (eds) Groups in Contact (pp. 11–27). New York: Academic Press. Berry, J.W. (1990) Psychology of acculturation. In J. Berman (ed.) Cross-cultural Perspectives: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (vol. 37) (pp. 201–234). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Berry, J.W. (2001) A psychology of immigration. Journal of Social Issues 57, 615–631. Berry, J.W. (2003) Multicultural attitudes and identities in Canada. In J.W. Berry, R.C. Mishra and R.C. Tripathi (eds) Psychology in Human and Social Development (pp. 138–154). New Delhi: Sage. Berry, J.W. and Kalin, R. (1995) Multicultural and ethnic attitudes in Canada: Overview of the 1991 survey. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 27, 301–320. Berry, J.W. and Sam, D.L. (1997) Acculturation and adaptation. In J.W. Berry, M.S. Segall and C. Kagitcibasi (eds) Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Volume 3: Social Behaviour and Applications (2nd edn) (pp. 291–326). Boston, MA: Allen & Bacon. Berry, J.W., Poortinga, Y.H., Segall, M.H. and Dasen, P.R. (2002) Cross-Cultural Psychology (2nd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bhatia, T.K. and Ritchie, W.C. (2004) Bilingualism in South Asia. In T.K. Bhatia and W.C. Ritchie (eds) The Handbook of Bilingualism (pp. 780–807). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Bhatia, T.K. and Ritchie, W.C. (eds) (2013) The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism (2nd edn). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

222 References

Bhuvaneswari, C.V. (1986) Synchronic variation in language use and bilingual mechanism: Study of a bilingual situation in Kerala. In A. Abbi (ed.) Studies in Bilingualism (pp. 35–46). New Delhi: Bahri Publications. Bialystok, E. (1986a) Children’s concept of word. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 15, 13–32. Bialystok, E. (1986b) Factors in the growth of linguistic awareness. Child Development 57, 498–510. Bialystok, E. (1988) Levels of bilingualism and levels of linguistic awareness. Developmental Psychology 24, 560–567. Bialystok, E. (1990) Communication Strategies. Oxford: Blackwell. Bialystok, E. (1992) Selective attention in cognitive processing: The bilingual edge. In R.J. Harris (ed.) Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals (pp. 501–514). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Bialystok, E. (1997) Effects of bilingualism and biliteracy on children’s emerging concepts of print. Developmental Psychology 33, 429–440. Bialystok, E. (2001)Bilingualism in Development: Language, Literacy and Cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bialystok, E. (2013) Impact of bilingualism on language and literacy development. In T.K. Bhatia and W.C. Ritchie (eds) Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism (2nd edn) (pp. 624–648). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Bialystok, E. and Barac, R. (2013) Cognitive effects. In F. Grosjean and P. Li (eds) The Psycholinguistics of Bilingualism (pp. 192–213). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Bialystok, E. and Luk, G. (2007) The universality of symbolic representation for reading in Asian and alphabetic languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10, 121–129. Bialystok, E. and Majumder, S. (1998) The relationship between bilingualism and the development of cognitive processes in problem-solving. Applied Psycholinguistics 19, 69–85. Bialystok, E., Craik, F.I.M. and Freedman, M. (2007) Bilingualism as a protection against the onset of symptoms of dementia. Neuropsychologia 45, 459–464. Bialystok, E., Craik, F.I.M. and Luk, G. (2012) Bilingualism: Consequences for mind and brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 16 (4), 240–250. Bialystok, E., McBride-Chang, C. and Luk, G. (2005) Bilingualism, language proficiency and learning to read in two writing systems. Journal of Educational Psychology 97, 580–590. Bialystok, E., Shenfield, T. and Codd, J. (2000) Languages, scripts, and the environment: Factors in developing concepts of print. Developmental Psychology 36, 66–76. Blumenfeld, H. and Marian, V. (2007) Constraints on parallel language activation in bilingual spoken language processing: Examining proficiency and lexical status using eye-tracking. Language and Cognitive Processes 22, 633–660. Blumenfeld, H. and Marian, V. (2010) Bilingualism influences inhibitory control in auditory comprehension. Cognition 118, 245–257. Bolton, K. and Graddol, D. (2012) English in China today. English Today 28 (3), 3–9. Bourhis, R.Y. and Sachdev, I. (1984) Subjective vitality perception and language attitudes in Hamilton. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 3, 97–126. Bourhis, R.Y., Giles, H. and Rosenthal, D. (1981) Notes on the construction of a ‘subject­ ive vitality questionnaire’ for the development of ethnolinguistic groups. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 2, 145–155. Bourhis, R.Y., Moise, C., Perreault, S. and Senecal, S. (1997) Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology 32, 369–386. Brewer, M.B. (1991) The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17, 475–482. Bright, W. (2000) A matter of typology: Alphasyllabaries and abugidas. Studies in Linguistic Science 30 (1), 63–71.



References 223

Brock-Utne, B. (2017) Multilingualism in Africa: Marginalisation and empowerment. In H. Coleman (ed.) Multilingualism and Development (pp. 61–77). New Delhi: British Council. Brown, G.I. (1922) Intelligence as related to nationality. Journal of Educational Research 5, 324–327. Bruck, M. and Genesee, F. (1995) Phonological awareness in young second language learners. Journal of Child Language 22, 307–324. Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002) World English: A Study of Its Development. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bujorbarua, P. (2006) Socialisation for multilingual awareness: A study of Assamese children in Delhi and Assam. MPhil dissertation, Jawaharlal Nehru University. Bunce, P., Phillipson, R., Rapatahana, V. and Tupas, R. (eds) (2016) Why English? Confronting the Hydra. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Camarota, S.A. and Zeigler, K. (2014) One in five U.S. residents speaks foreign language at home. Center for Immigration Studies, Washington, DC (http://www.cis.org, accessed 3 January 2018). Capstick, T. (2011) Language and migration: The social and economic benefits of learning English in Pakistan. In H. Coleman (ed.) Dreams and Realities: Developing Countries and the English Language (pp. 213–234). London: British Council. Carlisle, J.F., Vihman, M., Davis, L.H. and Spharim, G. (1999) Relationship of meta­ linguistic capabilities and reading achievement of children who are becoming bilingual. Applied Psycholinguistics 20, 459–478. Cenoze, J. and Genesee, F. (eds) (2001) Looking Beyond Second Language Acquisition: Studies in Tri- and Multilingualism. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Cenoz, J. and Gorter, D. (eds) (2005) Trilingual education in Europe. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 171. Cenoz, J. and Gorter, D. (2015) Minority languages, state languages, and English in European education. In W.E. Wright, S. Boun and O. García (eds) The Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual Education (pp. 473–483). Malden, MA: John Wiley. Chen, S. (2010) Multilingualism in Taiwan. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 205, 79–104. Christophersen, P. (1948) Bilingualism. London: Methuen. Clark, E.V. (1978) Awareness of language: Some evidence from what children say and do. In E. Sinclair, R. Jarvella and R. Levelt (eds) Children’s Conception of Language (pp. 17–43). Berlin: Springer Verlag. Clyne, M. (2003) Dynamics of Language Contact: English and Immigrant Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coleman, H. (2010) Teaching and Learning in Pakistan: The Role of Language in Education. Islamabad: British Council. Coleman, H. (2011) Allocating resources for English: The case of Indonesia’s English medium International Standard Schools. In H. Coleman (ed.) Dreams and Realities: Developing Countries and the English Language (pp. 89–113). London: British Council. Coleman, H. (ed.) (2015) Language and Social Cohesion in the Developing World. London: British Council and Deutsche GIZ GmbH. Coleman, H. (2016) The English language as Naga in Indonesia. In P. Bunce, R. Phillipson, V. Rapatahana and R. Tupas (eds) Why English? Confronting the Hydra (pp. 59–71). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Coleman, H. (2017) Development and multilingualism: An introduction. In H. Coleman (ed.) Multilingualism and Development (pp. 15–34). New Delhi: British Council. Coulmas, F. (1989) The Writing Systems of the World. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Council of the European Union (2002) Presidency conclusions, Barcelona European Council, 15 and 16 March (http:/ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/download_en/ Barcelona_european_council.pdf, accessed 20 July 2017).

224 References

Craik, F.I.M., Bialystok, E. and Fredman, M. (2010) Delaying the onset of Alzheimer’s disease: Bilingualism as a form of cognitive reserve. Neurology 75, 1726–1729. Cromdal, J. (1999) Childhood bilingualism and metalinguistic skills: Analysis and control in young Swedish–English bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics 20, 1–20. Cummins, J. (1976) The influence of bilingualism on cognitive growth: A synthesis of research findings and explanatory hypotheses. Working Papers on Bilingualism 9, 1–43. Cummins, J. (1978a) Bilingualism and the development of metalinguistic awareness. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 9, 131–149. Cummins, J. (1978b) The cognitive development of children in immersion programs. Canadian Modern Language Review 34, 855–883. Cummins, J. (1979) Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bi­ lingual children. Review of Educational Research 49, 222–251. Cummins, J. (1984) Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (2000) Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (2001) Negotiating Identities: Education for Empowerment in a Diverse Society. Los Angeles, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education. Cummins, J. (2009a) Fundamental psychological and sociological principles underlying educational success for linguistic minority students. In A.K. Mohanty, M. Panda, R. Phillipson and T. Skutnabb-Kangas (eds) Multilingual Education for Social Justice: Globalising the Local (pp. 21–35). New Delhi: Orient Blackswan. Cummins, J. (2009b) Patterns of minority group achievement: A framework for policy and practice. In H.T. Grimm and E. Venohr (eds) Immer ist es Sprache (pp. 323–339). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Cummins, J. and Early, M. (2011) Introduction. In J. Cummins and M. Early (eds) Identity Texts: The Collaborative Creation of Power in Multilingual Schools (pp. 3–20). Stokeon-Trent: Trent ham Books. Cummins, J. and Gulutsan, M. (1974) Some effects of bilingualism on cognitive functioning. In S. Carey (ed.) Bilingualism, Biculturalism and Education (pp. 126–136). Edmonton: University of Alberta Press. Cummins, J. and Mulcahy, R. (1978) Orientation to language in Ukrainian–English bi­ lingual children. Child Development 49, 1239–1242. Daniels, P.T. and Bright, W. (eds) (1996) The World’s Writing Systems. New York: Oxford University Press. Das, J.P., Kirby, J.R. and Jarman, R.F. (1975) Simultaneous and successive synthesis: An alternative model for cognitive abilities. Psychological Bulletin 82, 87–103. Das, J.P., Kirby, J.R. and Jarman, R.F. (1979) Simultaneous and Successive Cognitive Processes. New York: Academic Press. Das, J.P., Naglieri, J.A. and Kirby, J.R. (1994) Assessment of Cognitive Processes. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Dasgupta, P. (1993) The Otherness of English: India’s Auntie Tongue Syndrome. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Dash, T. and Kar, B.R. (2014) Bilingual language control and general purpose cognitive control among individuals with bilingual aphasia: Evidence based on negative priming and Flanker tasks. Behavioural Neurology, doi: 10.1155/2014/679706. Davidson, R.G., Kline, S.B. and Snow, C.E. (1986) Definitions and definite noun phrases: Indicators of children’s decontextualized language skills. Journal of Research in Childhood Education 1, 37–47. de Varennes, F. (1996) Language, Minorities and Human Rights. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. de Varennes, F. and Kuzborska, E. (2016) International law and language minority



References 225

education. In T.L. McCarty and S. May (eds) Language Policy and Political Issues in Education (unnumbered volume of Encyclopaedia of Language and Education) (3rd edn) (pp. 1–12). Basel: Springer International. Deaton, A. (2013) The Great Escape: Health, Wealth and the Origins of Inequality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Deaton, A. and Dreze, J. (2002) Poverty and inequality in India: A re-examination. Economic and Political Weekly, 7 September, pp. 3729–3748. Department of School and Mass Education (Government of Odisha) (2014) Notification (MLE for Tribal Population). Odisha Gazette, No. 1058 (3 July). Cuttack: Government of Odisha. Devy, G. (chief editor) (2014) The Being of Bhasa: General Introduction to the People’s Linguistic Survey of India, Volume I – Part II [in English]. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan. Donaldson, M. (1978) Children’s Mind. Glasgow: Collins. Dorian, N.C. (2004) Minority and endangered languages. In T.K. Bhatia and W.L. Ritchie (eds) The Handbook of Bilingualism (pp. 437–459). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Dreze, J. and Sen, A. (2002) India: Development and Participation. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Drury, J. and Reicher, S.D. (2000) Collective action and psychological change: The emergence of new social identities. British Journal of Social Psychology 39, 579–604. Drury, J. and Reicher, S.D. (2009) Collective psychological empowerment as a model of social change: Researching crowd and power. Journal of Social Issues 65, 707–725. Dua, H.R. (1984) Perspectives on code-switching research. International Journal of Dravidian linguistics 12 (1), 136–155. Dua, H.R. (1986) Directions of research on multilingualism in India. Sociolinguistics 16 (1), 9–19. Dunbar, R. and Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2008) Forms of Education of Indigenous Children as Crimes Against Humanity? New York: United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigen­ ous Issues. Duncan, S.E. and DeAvita, E.A. (1979) Bilingualism and cognition: Some recent findings. NABE Journal 4, 15–50. Durgunoglu, A.Y., Nagy, W.E. and Hancin-Bhatt, B.J. (1993) Cross-language transfer of phonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology 85, 453–465. EDSC (1997) National Achievement Level of Grade 3 Students. Kathmandu: Educational and Developmental Service Centre. Edwards, D. and Christophersen, H. (1988) Bilingualism, literacy and metalinguistic aware­ ness in preschool children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 6, 235–244. Edwards, J. (1992) Sociopolitical aspects of language maintenance and loss: Towards a typology of minority language situations. In W. Case, K. Jaspaert and S. Kroon (eds) Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages (pp. 37–54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Edwards, J. (2010) Language Diversity in the Classroom. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ellemers, N. (1993) The influence of socio-structural variable on identity enhancement strategies. European Review of Social Psychology 4, 27–57. Escobar, A.M. (2013) Bilingualism in Latin America. In T.K. Bhatia and W.C. Ritchie (eds) The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism (2nd edn) (pp. 725–744). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. European Commission (2012) Europeans and Their Languages: Special Eurobarometer Report 386. Brussels: European Commission. Eurydice (2017) Eurydice Brief: Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe – 2017 Edition (http://www.webgate.ec.europa.eu, accessed 3 January 2018). Evans, S. (2002) Macaulay’s minute revisited: Colonial language policy in nineteenth-­ century India. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 23 (4), 260–281. Eviatar, Z. and Ibrahim, R. (2000) Bilingualism is as bilingual does: Metalinguistic abilities of Arabic-speaking children. Applied Psycholinguistics 21, 451–471.

226 References

Extra, G. (2016) Language policy and education in the New Europe. In T.L. McCarty and S. May (eds) Language Policy and Political Issues in Education (unnumbered volume of Encyclopaedia of Language and Education) (3rd edn) (pp. 1–17). Basel: Springer International. Feldman, C. and Shen, M. (1971) Some language-related cognitive advantages of bilingual five-year-olds. Journal of Genetic Psychology 118, 235–244. Feng, A. and Adamson, B. (2015) Contested notions of bilingualism and trilingualism in the People’s Republic of China. In W.E. Wright, S. Boun and O. García (eds) The Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual Education (pp. 484–494). Malden, MA: John Wiley. Fishman, J.A. (1991) Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Flavell, J.H. (1977) Cognitive Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Flores, N. and Baetens Beardsmore, H. (2015) Programs and structures in bilingual and multilingual education. In W.E. Wright, S. Boun and O. García (eds) The Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual Education (pp. 205–222). Malden, MA: John Wiley. Focho, G.N. (2011) Student perceptions of English as a developmental tool in Cameroon. In H. Coleman (ed.) Dreams and Realities: Developing Countries and the English Language (pp. 141–163). London: British Council. Franceschini, R. (2009) The genesis and development of research in multilingualism: Perspectives for future research. In L. Aronin and B. Hufeisen (eds) The Exploration of Multilingualism: Development of Research on L3, Multilingualism and Multiple Language Acquisition (pp. 27–61). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Galambos, S.J. and Hakuta, K. (1988) Subject-specific and task-specific characteristics of metalinguistic awareness in bilingual children. Applied Psycholinguistics 9, 141–162. Gandhi, M.K. (1909 [2010]) Hind Swaraj. Indian Opinion, 11 and 18 December. García, O. (2009a) Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell. García, O. (2009b) Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In A.K. Mohanty, M. Panda, R. Phillipson and T. Skutnabb-Kangas (eds) Multilingual Education for Social Justice: Globalising the Local (pp. 128–145). New Delhi: Orient Blackswan. Gathercole, V.C.M. (1997) The linguistic mass/count distinction as an indicator of referent categorization in monolingual and bilingual children. Child Development 68, 832–842. Genesee, F. (2006) Bilingual first language acquisition in perspective. In P. McCardle and E. Hoff (eds) Childhood Bilingualism: Research on Infancy Through School Age (pp. 45–67). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Genesee, F., Tucker, G.R. and Lambert, W.E. (1975) Communication skills of bilingual children. Child Development 46, 1013–1018. Geva, E., Wade-Woolley, L. and Shany, M. (1997) Development of reading efficiency in first and second language. Scientific Studies of Reading 1, 119–144. Giles, H. and Byrne, J.L. (1982) An intergroup approach to second language acquisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 3, 17–40. Giles, H. and Johnson, P. (1981) The role of language in ethnic group relations. In J.C. Turner and H. Giles (eds) Intergroup Behaviour (pp. 199–243). Oxford: Blackwell. Giles, H., Bourhis, R.Y. and Taylor, D.M. (1977) Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In H. Giles (ed.) Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations (pp. 307–348). London: Academic Press. Giles, H., Rosenthal, D. and Young, L. (1985) Perceived ethnolinguistic vitality: The Angloand-Cree-Australian setting. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 6, 253–269. Government of India (2004) Report of the Task Group on Development of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes on Selected Agenda Items of the National Common Minimum Programme. New Delhi: Planning Commission.



References 227

Government of Pakistan (2009) National Education Policy 2009. Islamabad: Ministry of Education. Graddol, D. (2000) The Future of English (revised edn.) London: British Council. Grosjean, F. (1982) Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Grosjean, F. (1985) The bilingual as a competent specific speaker-hearer. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 6, 467–477. Guan, L.H. and Suryadinanta, L. (eds) (2007) Language, Nation and Development in Southeast Asia. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Guo, T., Mishra, M., Tam, J.W. and Kroll, J.F. (2012) On the time course of accessing meaning in a second language: An electrophysiological investigation of translation recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 38, 1165–1186. Gupta, A.F. (1989) Singapore colloquial English and standard English. Singapore Journal of Education 10 (2), 33–39. Gupta, R.S. (1978) A sociolinguistic study of the use of mixed Hindi–English in metro­ politan Delhi. PhD dissertation, York University, Toronto. Hakuta, K. and Diaz, R. (1985) The relationship between degree of bilingualism and cognitive ability: A critical discussion and some new longitudinal data. In K.E. Nelson (ed.) Children’s Language: Volume 5 (pp. 319–344). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hamel, R.E. (2008) Bilingual education for indigenous communities in Mexico. In J. Cummins and N.H. Hornberger (eds) Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Volume 5: Bilingual Education (2nd edn) (pp. 311–322). New York: Springer. Hamers, J.F. and Blanc, M. (1983) Bilingualité et Bilingualisme. Brussels: Mardega. Hamers, J.F. and Blanc, M. (2000) Bilinguality and Bilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harris, R.J. (ed.) (1992) Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Hélot, C. (2008) Awareness raising and multilingualism in primary education. In J. Cenoz and N. Hornberger (eds) Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Volume 6: Knowledge about Language (pp. 371–384). New York: Springer. Hélot, C. and O’Laoire, M. (eds) (2011) Language Policies for the Multilingual Classroom: Pedagogy of the Possible. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Hélot, C. and Young, A. (2006) Imagining multilingual education in France: A language and cultural awareness project at primary level. In O. García, T. Skutnabb-Kangas and M. Torres Guzman (eds) Imagining Multilingual Schools: Language in Education and Glocalisation (pp. 69–90). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Heugh, K. (1999) Language, development and reconstructing education in South Africa. International Journal of Educational Development 19, 301–313. Heugh, K. and Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (eds) (2010) Multilingual Education Works: From the Periphery to the Centre. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan. Hirsch, N.D. (1926) A study of natio-racial differences. Genetic Psychology Monographs 1, 231–407. Ho, C.S. and Bryant, P. (1997) Learning to read Chinese beyond the logographic phase. Reading Research Quarterly 32, 276–289. Hoffman, E. (1989) Lost in Translation: A Life in a New Language. New York: Dutton. Hornberger, N.H. (ed.) (2008) Can Schools Save Indigenous Languages? Policy and Practice in Four Continents. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Hough, D., Thapa Magar, R.B. and Yonjan-Tamang, A. (2009) Privileging indigenous knowledges: Empowering MLE in Nepal. In A.K. Mohanty, M. Panda, R. Phillipson and T. Skutnabb-Kangas (eds) Multilingual Education for Social Justice (pp. 159–176). New Delhi: Orient Blackswan. Husband, C. and Khan, V.S. (1982) The viability of ethnolinguistic vitality: Some creative doubts. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 3, 193–205.

228 References

Ianco-Worral, A. (1972) Bilingualism and cognitive development. Child Development 43, 1390–1400. Ijalba, E., Obler, L.E. and Chengappa, S. (2013) Bilingual aphasia: Theoretical and clinical considerations. In T.K. Bhatia and W.C. Ritchie (eds) The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism (2nd edn) (pp. 61–82). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Illich, E. (1980) Vernacular values. Philosophica 26 (2), 47–102. Jensen, J.V. (1962) Effects of childhood bilingualism: I. Elementary English 39, 132–143. Jhingran, D. (2005) Language Disadvantage: The Learning Challenges in Primary Education. Delhi: APH Publishers. Johnson, P. (1984) Language and ethnicity: The Welsh–English context. PhD dissertation, University of Bristol. Jones, W.R. (1959) Bilingualism and Intelligence. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Joshi, R.M. and Aaron, P.G. (eds) (2016) Handbook of Orthography and Literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kachru, B.B. (1978) Towards structuring code-mixing: An Indian perspective. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 16 (1), 27–46. Kadel, P. (2017) Reviewing multilingual education in Nepal. In H. Coleman (ed.) Multi­ lingualism and Development (pp. 189–204). New Delhi: British Council. Kalan, A. (2016) Who’s Afraid of Multilingual Education? Conversations with Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, Jim Cummins, Ajit Mohanty and Stephen Bahry about the Iranian Context and Beyond. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kamwangamalu, N.M. (2013) Multilingualism in Southern Africa. In T.K. Bhatia and W.C. Ritchie (eds) The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism (2nd edn) (pp. 791–812). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Kamwangamalu, N.M. (2015) The sociolinguistic and language education landscape of African Commonwealth countries. In A. Yiakoumetti (ed.) Multilingualism and Language in Education: Sociolinguistic and Pedagogical Perspectives from Commonwealth Countries (pp.1–18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kar, B.R., Rimzhim, A., Chatterjee, S. and Maral, P. (2014) Biliteracy and reading acquisition in Hindi and English among normally progressing readers and slow progressing readers. In R. Sagar, R.D. Pattanayak, M. Mehta and H.B. Singh (eds) Specific Learning Disorder: Indian Scenario (pp. 102–117). New Delhi: AIIMS. Kayambazinthu, E. (1999) The language planning situation in Malawi. In R.B. Kaplan and R.B. Baldauf (eds) Language Planning in Malawi, Mozambique, and the Philippines (pp. 15–85). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Kemp, C. (2009) Defining multilingualism. In L. Aronin and B. Hufeisen (eds) The Exploration of Multilingualism: Development of Research on L3, Multilingualism and Multiple Language Acquisition (pp. 11–26). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kennett, P. (2011) English as a tool for conflict transformation. In H. Coleman (ed.) Dreams and Realities: Developing Countries and the English Language (pp. 319–332). London: British Council. Kessler, C. and Quinn, M.E. (1980) Positive effects of bilingualism on science problemsolving abilities. In J.E. Alatis (ed.) Georgetown University Roundtable on Language and Linguistics 1980 (pp. 295–308). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Khare, V., Verma, A., Kar, B., Srinivasan, N. and Brysbaert, M. (2013) Bilingualism and the increased attentional blink effect: Evidence that the difference between bilinguals and monolinguals generalizes to different levels of second language proficiency. Psycho­ logical Research 77, 728–737. Kharkhurin, A.V. (2012) Multilingualism and Creativity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Khubchandani, L.M. (1978) Distribution of contact languages in India. In J.A. Fishman (ed.) Advances in the Study of Societal Multilingualism (pp. 553–585). The Hague: Mouton. Khubchandani, L.M. (1983) Plural Languages, Plural Cultures: Communication, Identity,



References 229

Sociopolitical Change in Contemporary India. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press. Khubchandani, L. M. (1986) Multilingual societies: Issues of identity and communication. Sociolinguistics 16 (1), 20–34. Kosonen, K. (2016) Language policy and education in Southeast Asia. In T.L. McCarty and S. May (eds) Language Policy and Political Issues in Education (unnumbered volume of Encyclopaedia of Language and Education) (3rd edn) (pp. 1–14). Basel: Springer International. Kroll, J.F., Dussias, P.E., Bogulski, C.A. and Valdes-Kroff, J. (2012) Juggling two languages in one mind: What bilinguals tell us about language processing and its consequences for cognition. In B. Ross (ed.) The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Volume 56 (pp. 229–269). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Kumar, K. (1987) Origins of India’s ‘textbook culture’. Occasional Papers on History and Society 47, 1–32. [Also in Comparative Educational Review 1988, 32 (4), 452–464.] Kumar, U., Das, T., Bali, R.S., Padakannaya, P., Joshi, M.R. and Singh, N. (2009) Neural representation of an alphasyllabary script – the Devanagari story. Current Science 97, 1033–1038. Kumar, U., Das, T., Bapi, R.S., Padakannaya, P., Joshi, M.R. and Singh, N. (2010) Reading different orthographies: An fMRI study of phrase reading in Hindi–English bilinguals. Read and Write 23, 239–255. Lamb, M. (2011) ‘Mathew effect’ in English language education in the developing world. In H. Coleman (ed.) Dreams and Realities: Developing Countries and English Language (pp. 191–211). London: British Council. Lambert, W.E. (1977) The effect of bilingualism on the individual: Cognitive and sociocultural consequences. In P.A. Hornby (ed.) Bilingualism: Psychological, Social and Educational Implications (pp. 15–27). New York: Academic Press. Landry, R. and Bourhis, R.Y. (1997) Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 16, 23–49. Lee, J.S. (2015) Breaking the facade of linguistic and cultural homogeneity: Education for multicultural children in South Korea. In W.E. Wright, S. Boun and O. García (eds) The Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual Education (pp. 506–516). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Leontiev, A.A. (1995) Multilingualism for all – Russians? In T. Skutnabb-Kangas (ed.) Multilingualism for All (pp. 199–214). Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger. Leopold, W. (1939–1949) Speech Development of a Bilingual Child (4 vols). Evanston, IL: North Western University Press. Liedke, W.W. and Nelson, L.D. (1968) Concept formation and bilingualism. Alberta Journal of Educational Research 14, 225–232. Liow, S.J.R. and Poon, K.K.L. (1998) Phonological awareness in multilingual Chinese children. Applied Linguistics 19, 339–362. Lo Bianco, J. (2015) Multilingual education across Oceania. In W.E. Wright, S. Boun and O. García (eds) The Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual Education (pp. 604–617). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Lopez, L.E. (2013) Indigenous intercultural bilingual education in Latin America: Widening gaps between policy and practice. In R. Cortina (ed.) The Education of Indigenous Citizens in Latin America (pp. 19–49). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Lopez, L.E. (2015) Indigenous youth and adult education in Latin America. In W.E. Wright, S. Boun and O. García (eds) The Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual Education (pp. 592–603). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Mackey, W.F. (1970) The description of bilingualism. In J. Fishman (ed.) Sociolinguistics: A Brief Introduction (pp. 554–584). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Mackey, W.F. (1978) The importation of bilingual education models. In J. Alatis (ed.) Georgetown University Roundtable: International Dimensions of Education (pp. 1–18). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

230 References

Mackey, W.F. (2013) Bilingualism and multilingualism in North America. In T.K. Bhatia and W.C. Ritchie (eds) The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism (2nd edn) (pp. 707–724). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Magga, O.H., Nicolaisen, I., Trask, M., Dunbar, R. and Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2005) In­ digenous children’s education and indigenous languages. Expert paper written for the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. New York: United Nations. Makalela, L. (2015) A panoramic view bilingual education in sub-Saharan Africa: Reorienting the lens for the future. In W.E. Wright, S. Boun and O. García (eds) The Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual Education (pp. 566–577). Chichester: Wiley. Makalela, L. (2016) Language policy and education in Southern Africa. In T.L. McCarty and S. May (eds) Language Policy and Political Issues in Education (unnumbered volume of Encyclopaedia of Language and Education) (3rd edn) (pp. 1–11). Basel: Springer International. Makoni, S. and Makoni, B. (2015) ‘Too many cooks spoil the broth’: Tension and conflict between language institutions in South Africa. In W.E. Wright, S. Boun and O. García (eds) The Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual Education (pp. 554–565). ­Chichester: Wiley. Malherbe, E.G. (1946) The Bilingual School: A Study of Bilingualism in South Africa. London: Longman Green. Manocha, S. and Panda, M. (2017) Comparing the learning and participatory trajectories of Saora children in ‘MLE Plus’ and Odia-medium schools in Odisha. In H. Coleman (ed.) Multilingualism and Development (pp. 115–132). New Delhi: British Council. Marshall, S. and Moore, D. (2013) 2B or not 2B plurilingual? Navigating languages ­literacies, and plurilingual competence in postsecondary education in Canada. TESOL Quarterly 47 (3), 472–499. Marshall, S. and Moore, D. (2016) Plurilingualism amid the panoply of lingualisms: Addressing critiques and misconceptions in education. International Journal of Multi­ lingualism 15 (1), 19–34. McCarty, T.L. (2009) Empowering indigenous languages – What can be learned from native American experiences? In A.K. Mohanty, M. Panda, R. Phillipson and T. SkutnabbKangas (eds) Multilingual Education for Social Justice (pp. 114–127). New Delhi: Orient Blackswan. Mead, M. (1927) Group intelligence and linguistic disability among Italian children. School and Society 25, 465–468. Meganathan, R. (2011) Language policy in education and the role of English in India: From library language to language of empowerment. In H. Coleman (ed.) Dreams and Realities: Developing Countries and English Language (pp. 57–86). London: British Council. Ministry of Education (1957) Annual Report. New Delhi: Government of India. Ministry of Education (1962) Annual Report 1961–1962. New Delhi: Government of India. Ministry of Education (1966) Report of the Education Commission 1964–1966. New Delhi: Government of India. Ministry of Human Resource Development (1992) Programme of Action (POA) NPE. New Delhi: Government of India. Ministry of Women and Child Development (2013) National Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) Policy. New Delhi: Government of India. Mishra, R.K., Hilchey, M.D., Singh, N. and Klien, R.M. (2012) On the time course of exogenous cueing effects in bilinguals: Higher proficiency in a second language is associated with more rapid endogenous disengagement. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 65, 1502–1510. Misra, G. and Mohanty, A.K. (2000) Poverty and disadvantage: Issues in retrospect. In A.K. Mohanty and G. Misra (eds) Psychology of Poverty and Disadvantage (pp. 261–284). New Delhi: Concept.



References 231

Mohanty, A.K. (1982a) Cognitive and linguistic development of tribal children from unilingual and bilingual environments. In R. Rath, H.S. Asthana, D. Sinha and J.B.P. Sinha (eds) Diversity and Unity in Cross-Cultural Psychology (pp. 78–86). Lisse: Swets, Zeitlinger. Mohanty, A.K. (1982b) Bilingualism among Kond tribals in Orissa (India): Consequences, issues and implications. Indian Psychologist 1 (1), 34–44. Mohanty, A.K. (1987) Social psychological aspects of assimilation/integration in a language contact situation. Paper presented in the Thematic Panel of Language and National Integration, XII Indian Social Science Congress, Mysore, India. Mohanty, A.K. (1989a) Message sensitivity in multilingual communication. In L. Krishnan, B.N. Pattnaik and N.K. Sharma (eds) Aspects of Human Communication (pp. 79–94). New Delhi: Mittal Publications. Mohanty, A.K. (1989b) Psychological consequences of mother tongue maintenance and the language of literacy for linguistic minorities in India. Psychology and Developing Societies 2 (1), 31–51. Mohanty, A.K. (1990a) Social psychological aspects of languages in contact in multilingual societies. In G. Misra (ed.) Applied Social Psychology in India (pp. 61–84). New Delhi: Sage. Mohanty, A.K. (1990b) Language of literacy and education of the linguistic minorities in India. Indian Journal of Adult Education 51 (4), 78–88. Mohanty, A.K. (1990c) Language of the disadvantaged and the disadvantage of language. Keynote address in the Thematic Panel on Deprivation and Development of Lin­guistic Skills. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Indian Social Science Congress. Berhampur: Berhampur University. Mohanty, A.K. (1990d) Psychological consequences of mother tongue maintenance and multilingualism in India. In D.P. Pattanayak (ed.) Multilingualism in India (pp. 56–66). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Mohanty, A.K. (1994a) Bilingualism in a Multilingual Society: Psycho-social and Pedagogical Implications. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages. Mohanty, A.K. (1994b) Bilingualism in a multilingual society: Implications for cultural integration and education. Keynote address in the Area of Psychology and Language. Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress of Applied Psychology, Madrid, Spain, July 17–22. Mohanty, A.K. (1994c) Language socialization in a multilingual society: Analysis of some preliminary data. Paper presented to the International Conference on Early Childhood Communication, Bhubaneswar, India. Mohanty, A.K. (1995) Integration in a plural society: A behavioural perspective. In S.C. Hazary (ed.) Reflections on Society, Economy and Polity in India (pp. 223–236). ­Bhubaneswar: Department of Political Science, Utkal University. Mohanty, A.K. (2000) Perpetuating inequality: The disadvantage of language, minority mother tongues and related issues. In A.K. Mohanty and G. Misra (eds) Psychology of Poverty and Disadvantage (pp. 104–117). New Delhi: Concept. Mohanty, A.K. (2003) Psychology of language acquisition and bilingualism in India: The cultural input. In J.W. Berry, R.C. Mishra and R.C. Tripathi (eds) Psychology in Human and Social Development: Lessons from Diverse Cultures (pp. 86–99). New Delhi: Sage. Mohanty, A.K. (2004) Multilingualism of the unequals: The ‘killer language’ and antipredatory strategies of minority mother tongues. Keynote address, International Conference on Multilingualism, South African Applied Linguistics Association, University of the North, South Africa, 13–15 July. Mohanty, A.K. (2006) Multilingualism of the unequals and predicaments of education in India: Mother tongue or other tongue? In O. García, T. Skutnabb-Kangas and M. Torres Guzman (eds) Imagining Multilingual Schools: Language in Education and Glocalisation (pp. 262–283). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

232 References

Mohanty, A.K. (2007) Multilingual socialization and negotiation of identities in contact between multilingual adults and communities: Social psychological processes. Plenary Talk, Fifth International Conference on Third Language Acquisition and Multilingualism, University of Stirling, Scotland, 3–5 September. Mohanty, A.K. (2008) Multilingual education in India. In J. Cummins and N. Hornberger (eds) Encyclopaedia of Language and Education, Volume 5: Bilingual Education (2nd edn) (pp. 165–174). New York: Springer. Mohanty, A.K. (2009a) Perpetuating inequality: Language disadvantage and capability deprivation of tribal mother tongue speakers in India. In W. Harbert (ed.) Language and Poverty (pp. 102–124). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Mohanty, A.K. (2009b) Multilingual education: A bridge too far? In T. Skutnabb-Kangas, R. Phillipson, A.K. Mohanty and M. Panda (eds) Social Justice Through Multilingual Education (pp. 3–15). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Mohanty, A.K. (2010a) Languages, inequality and marginalization: Implications of the double divide in Indian multilingualism. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 205, 131 – 154. Mohanty, A.K. (2010b) Language disadvantage and capability deprivation of tribal mother tongue speakers. In F. Apffel-Marglin, S. Kumar and A. Mishra (eds) Interrogating Development: Insights from the Margins (pp. 262–286). New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Mohanty, A.K. (2011) From bilingual to multilingual education: Limits, challenges and insights from linguistically diverse societies. Keynote Address, BILINGLATAM IV, Oaxaca, Mexico, 29 June – 2 July. Mohanty, A.K. (2012) Some reflections on English education in India: From Doon schools to doom schools. Keynote address, National Seminar on English Language Education in India: Theory and Practice, University of Hyderabad, 23–25 January. Mohanty, A.K. (2013a) Multilingual education in India: Overcoming the language barrier and the burden of the double divide. In P. Siemund, I. Gogolin, M.E. Schulz and J. Davydova (eds) Multilingualism and Language Diversity in Urban Areas: Acquisition, Identities, Space, Education (Hamburg Studies on Linguistic Diversity, Volume 1) (pp. 305–326). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mohanty, A.K. (2013b) Multilingual Education in Multiple Language Classrooms in Odisha (A Strategy Note). Bhubaneswar: Care India. Mohanty, A.K. (2014) Growing up in a multilingual society: Stages and strategies in multilingual socialization. Invited lecture, University of Western Ontario, Canada, 20 October. Mohanty, A.K. (2016a) Ādivāsi pilānka anweshā, ingrāji siskhāra beusā [The talent search programme for tribal children: the business of English education]. Nitidina (Odia daily newspaper), Bhubaneswar, India, 3 January. Mohanty, A.K. (2016b) Ādarsha vidyālaya nā ādarsha sikshyā [Model school or model education?]. Nitidina (Odia daily newspaper), Bhubaneswar, India, 17 April. Mohanty, A.K. (2017) Multilingualism, education, English and development: Whose development? In H. Coleman (ed.) Multilingualism and Development (pp. 261–280). New Delhi: British Council. Mohanty, A.K. and Babu, N. (1983) Bilingualism and metalinguistic ability among Kond tribals in Orissa (India). Journal of Social Psychology 121, 15–22. Mohanty, A.K. and Das, S.P. (1987) Cognitive and metalinguistic ability of unschooled bilingual and unilingual tribal children. Psychological Studies 32 (1), 5–8. Mohanty, A.K. and Panda, M. (2007) From Mother Tongue to Other Tongue: Facilitating Transition in Multilingual Education of Tribal Children in India (Project Proposal Submitted to Bernard van Leer Foundation). New Delhi: Jawaharlal Nehru University. Mohanty, A.K. and Panda, M. (2015) Language-in-education policy and practice in India: Experiments on multilingual education for tribal children. In A. Yiakoumetti (ed.)



References 233

Multilingualism and Language in Education: Sociolinguistic and Pedagogical Perspectives from Commonwealth Countries (pp. 49–66). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mohanty, A.K. and Panda, M. (2016a) Hierarchy, discrimination and language dis­advantage in Indian multilingualism. In S. Pattanayak, C. Pattanayak and J.M. Bayer (eds) Multi­ lingualism and Multiculturalism: Perceptions, Practices and Policy (pp. 61–90). New Delhi: Orient Blackswan. Mohanty, A.K. and Panda, M. (2016b) Language policy and language education in the Indian subcontinent. In T.L. McCarty and S. May (eds) Language Policy and Political Issues in Education (unnumbered volume of Encyclopaedia of Language and Education) (3rd edn) (pp. 1–12). Basel: Springer International. Mohanty, A.K. and Parida, S. (1993) Bilingualism and attitude towards language and culture maintenance and integration in a tribal–nontribal contact situation. Unpublished manuscript, Utkal University, Bhubaneswar. Mohanty, A.K. and Perregaux, C. (1997) Language acquisition and bilingualism. In J.W. Berry, P.R. Dasen and T.S. Saraswathi (eds) Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Volume 2: Basic Processes and Human Development (2nd edn) (pp. 217–253). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Mohanty, A.K. and Saikia, J. (2007) Bilingualism and intergroup relationship in tribal and non-tribal contact situations. In G. Zheng, K. Leong and J.G. Adair (eds) Perspectives and Progress in Contemporary Cross-Cultural Psychology (pp. 163–171). Beijing: China Light Industry Press (for the Chinese Psychological Society and IACCP). Mohanty, A.K. and Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2013) MLE as an economic equaliser in India and Nepal: Mother tongue based multilingual education fights poverty through capability development and identity support. In K. Henrard (ed.) The Interrelation Between the Right to Identity of Minorities and Their Socio-Economic Participation (pp. 159–187). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. Mohanty, A.K., Panda, S. and Mishra, B. (1999) Language socialization in a multilingual society (pp. 125–144). In T.S. Saraswathi (ed.) Culture, Socialization and Human Development. New Delhi: Sage. Mohanty, A.K., Panda, M. and Pal, R. (2010) Language policy in education and classroom practices in India: Is the teacher a cog in the policy wheel? In K. Menken and O. García (eds) Negotiating Language Policies in Schools: Educators as Policymakers (pp. 211–231). New York: Routledge. Mohanty, A.K., Mishra, M.K., Reddy, N.U. and Ramesh, G. (2009a) Overcoming the language barrier for tribal children: MLE in Andhra Pradesh and Orissa, India. In Mohanty et al. (eds) Multilingual Education for Social Justice (pp. 278–291). New Delhi: Orient Longman. Mohanty, A.K., Panda, M., Phillipson, R. and Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (eds) (2009b) Multi­ lingual Education for Social Justice: Globalising the Local. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan. Mohanty, A.K. (chair), Acharya, B.M., Dash, U.N., Kundu, M.N., Mishra, M.K., Mohanty, M.M., Panda, M. and Pradhan, A. (2014) MLE Policy and Implementation Guidelines for Odisha. Bhubaneswar: Odisha Primary Education Programme Authority. Muter, V. and Diethelm, K. (2001) The contribution of phonological skill and letter knowledge to early reading development in a multilingual population. Language Learning 51, 187–219. Nag, S. (2017) Theoretical assumptions regarding the mind–culture–language relationship underlying models of multilingual education in India and their impact on resulting practices. In H. Coleman (ed.) Multilingualism and Development (pp. 133–150). New Delhi: British Council. National Council of Educational Research and Training (2011) Programme Evaluation Report: Multilingual Education, Orissa. New Delhi: NCERT.

234 References

National Knowledge Commission (2009) National Knowledge Commission Report to the Nation 2006–2009. New Delhi: Government of India. Nayak, A. (2007) Classroom achievement of students in mother tongue medium and English medium schools: A comparative study. MPhil dissertation, Jawaharlal Nehru University. NCERT (2005) National Curriculum Framework 2005. New Delhi: National Council of Educational Research and Training. NCERT (2006) Position Paper on the Teaching of Indian Languages. New Delhi: National Council of Educational Research and Training. Negash, N. (2011) English in Africa: An impediment or a contributor to development? In H. Coleman (ed.) Dreams and Realities: Developing Countries and the English Language (pp. 165–187). London: British Council. Norris, M.J. (2007) Aboriginal languages in Canada: Emerging trends and perspectives on second language acquisition. Canadian Social Trends (pp. 19–27). Statistics Canada – Catalogue No. 11-008. Nurmela, I., Awasthi, L.D. and Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2010) Enhancing quality education for all in Nepal through indigenised MLE: The challenges to teach in over a hundred languages. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas and K. Heugh (eds) Multilingual Education and Sustainable Diversity Work: From Periphery to Centre (pp. 151–177). New York: Routledge. [Also in K. Heugh and T. Skutnabb-Kangas (eds) Multilingual Education Works: From the Periphery to the Centre (pp. 176–203). New Delhi: Orient Blackswan.] Oakes, P.J. (1987) The salience of social categories. In J.C. Turner, M.A. Hogg, P.J. Oakes, S.D. Reicher and M.S. Wetherell (eds) Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-­ Categorization Theory (pp. 117–141). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Ochs, E. (1985) Variation and error: A sociolinguistic study of language acquisition in Samoa. In D. Slobin (ed.) The Cross-linguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Volume 1 (pp. 783–838). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ochs, E. (1986) Introduction. In B.B. Schieffelin and E. Ochs (eds) Language Socialization Across Cultures (pp. 1–13). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E. (1988) Culture and Language Development: Language Acquisition and Language Socialisation in a Samoan Village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E. and Schieffelin, B. (1984) Language acquisition and socialization: Three developmental stories. In R.A. Schweder and R.A. LeVine (eds) Culture Theory: Essay on Mind, Self and Emotion (pp. 276–320). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E. and Schieffelin, B. (2008) Language socialisation and language acquisition. In P.A. Duff and N.H. Hornberger (eds) Encyclopaedia of Language and Education, Volume 8: Language Socialization (2nd edn) (pp. 3–15). New York: Springer. Osherson, D.E. and Markman, E. (1975) Language and the ability to evaluate contra­dictions and tautology. Cognition 3, 213–226. Padakannaya, P. (1999) Reading disability and knowledge of orthographic principles. Psycho­logical Studies 44, 59–64. Padakannaya, P. and Mohanty, A.K. (2004) Indian orthography and teaching how to read. Psychological Studies 49 (4), 262–271. Padakannaya, P. and Ramachandra, N.B. (2011) Reading Akshara: Indian alphasyllabary. In P. McCardle, J.R. Lee, O. Tzeng and B. Miller (eds) Dyslexia Across Languages: Orthography and the Brain–Gene–Behavior Link (pp. 76–95). Towson, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Padakannaya, P., Rekha, D., Nigam, R. and Karanth, P. (1993) Phonological awareness, orthography and literacy. In R.J. Scholes (ed.) Literacy: Linguistic and Cognitive Perspectives (pp. 55–70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Paia, M., Cummins, J., Nocus, I., Salaün, M. and Vernaudon, J. (2015) Intersections of language ideology, power, and identity: Bilingual education and indigenous language revitalization in French Polynesia. In W.E. Wright, S. Boun and O. García (eds) The



References 235

Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual Education (pp. 145–163). Malden, MA: John Wiley. Pal Kapoor, R. and Panda, M. (2016) Maximum exposure to English leads to maximum learning of English: Does educators’ assumption empower or disempower learners in low cost English medium schools? Paper presented to the 31st International Congress of Psychology. Yokohama, Japan, 24–29 July. Palmer, D.K., Zuñiga, C.E. and Henderson, K. (2015) A dual language revolution in the United States? On the bumpy road from compensatory to enrichment education for bilingual children in Texas. In W.E. Wright, S. Boun and O. García (eds) The Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual Education (pp. 449–460). Chichester: Wiley. Panda, M. (2004) Culture and mathematics: A case study of Saora. In K. Chanana (ed.) Transformative Links Between Higher Education and Basic Education: Mapping the Field (pp. 119–132). New Delhi: Sage. Panda, M. (2007) Saora culture, as-if discourse and mathematics learning. In G. Zheng, K. Leung and J. Adair (eds) Perspectives and Progress in Contemporary Cross-Cultural Psychology (pp. 359–369). Beijing: China Light Industry Press. Panda, M. (2009) Discriminating against mother tongue. Combat Law, May–August, 120–122. Panda, M. (2010) Editorial. Swara 1 (3), 1. Panda, M. (2012a) Report of the Task Force on ‘Issues in Education of Tribal Children’ (12th Five-Year Plan). New Delhi: Planning Commission of India. Panda, M. (2012b) ‘Bridging’ and ‘exit’ as metaphors of multilingual education: A constructionist analysis. Psychological Studies 57 (2), 240–250. Panda, M. and Mohanty, A.K. (2011) From Mother Tongue to Other Tongue: Multilingual Education of Tribal Children in India, ZHCES-BvLF Project Report. New Delhi: Jawaharlal Nehru University. Panda, M. and Mohanty, A.K. (2014) Language policy in education: Towards multilingual education. In R.C. Tripathi and Y. Sinha (eds) Psychology, Development and Social Policy in India (pp. 103–129). New Delhi: Springer. Panda, M. and Mohanty, A.K. (2015) Multilingual education in South Asia: The burden of the double divide. In W.E. Wright, S. Boun and O. García (eds) The Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual Education (pp. 542–553). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. Panda, M., Mohanty, A.K., Nag, S. and Biswabandan, B. (2011) Does MLE work in Andhra Pradesh and Odisha? A longitudinal study. Swara 1 (6–7), 2–23. Pandit, P.B. (1977) Language in a Plural Society: The Case of India. Delhi: Dev Raj Chanana Memorial Committee. Patel, P.G. (2004) Reading Acquisition in India: Models of Learning and Dyslexia. New Delhi: Sage. Patra, S. (2000) Role of language of instruction in the multilingual school system in India. PhD dissertation, Utkal University, Bhubaneswar. Pattanaik, K. (2004) Relationship between metalinguistic and cognitive development of bilingual and monolingual tribal children. PhD dissertation, Utkal University, ­Bhubaneswar. Pattanaik, K. and Mohanty, A.K. (1984) Relationship between metalinguistic and cognitive development of bilingual and unilingual tribal children. Psycholingua 14 (1), 63–70. Pattanayak, D.P. (1981) Multilingualism and Mother Tongue Education. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Peal, E. and Lambert, W.E. (1962) The relationship of bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological Monographs 76, 1–23. Pelinka, A. (2007) Language as a political category: The viewpoint of political science. Journal of Language and Politics 6, 129–143. Perera, K. and Canagarajah, S. (2010) Globalization and English teaching in Sri Lanka: Foreign resources and local responses. In V. Vaish (ed.) Globalization of Language and

236 References

Culture in Asia: The Impact of Globalization Processes on Language (pp. 106–119). London: Continuum. Perregaux, C. (1994) Les enfants à deux voix– Des effets du bilinguisme sur l’apprentissage de la lecture. Berne: Lang. Phillipson, R. (1992) Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, R. (2003) English-Only Europe? Challenging Language Policy. London: Routledge. Phillipson, R. (2004) English in globalization: Three approaches [review of books by de Swaan, Block and Cameron, and Brutt-Griffler]. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 3 (1), 73–84. Phillipson, R. (2007) Linguistic imperialism: A conspiracy, or a conspiracy of silence? Language Policy 6 (3–4), 377–383. Phillipson, R. (2009a) Linguistic Imperialism Continued. Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan. Phillipson, R. (2009b) The tension between linguistic diversity and dominant English. In A.K. Mohanty, M. Panda, R. Phillipson and T. Skutnabb-Kangas (eds) Multilingual Education for Social Justice: Globalising the Local (pp. 79–94). New Delhi: Orient Blackswan. Phillipson, R. (2016) Promoting English: Hydras old and new. In P. Bunce, R. Phillipson, V. Rapatahana and R. Tupas (eds) Why English? Confronting the Hydra (pp. 35–46). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Phillipson, R., Skutnabb-Kangas, T. and Africa, H. (1985) Namibian educational language planning: English for liberation or neocolonialism? In Linguistic Liberation and Unity of Africa, 4259. Kampala: Organisation for African Unity (OAU) InterAfrican Bureau of Languages. Radhakrishna, R. and Ray, S. (eds) (2005) Handbook of Poverty in India: Perspectives, Policies and Programmes. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Rahman, Tania (2010) A multilingual language-in-education policy for indigenous ­minorities in Bangladesh: Challenges and possibilities. Current Issues in Language Planning 11 (4), 341–359. Rahman, Tariq (1998) Language and Politics in Pakistan. Karachi: Oxford University Press. Rahman, Tariq (2008) Language policy and education in Pakistan. In N. Hornberger (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Language and Education, Volume 1: Language Policy and Political Issues in Education (2nd edn) (pp. 383–392). New York: Springer. Ramanathan, V. (2005a) The English–Vernacular Divide: Postcolonial Language Politics and Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Ramanathan, V. (2005b) Ambiguities about English: Ideologies and critical practice in vernacular-medium college classrooms in Gujarat, India. Journal of Language, Identity and Education 4 (1), 45–65. Rapatahana, V. and Bunce, P. (eds) (2012) English Language as Hydra: Its Impact on NonEnglish Language Cultures. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Rebello, J. (2015) Writing a new identity: Indigenous tribes across India devising scripts. Times of India, 7 June. Reicher, S.D. (1987) Crowd behaviour as social action. In J.C. Turner, M.A. Hogg, P.J. Oakes, S.D. Reicher and M.S. Wetherell (eds) Rediscovering the Social Group: A SelfCategorization Theory (pp. 171–202). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Reicher, S.D. and Hopkins, N. (2001) Self and Nation. London: Sage. Reicher, S.D. and Levine, M. (1994a) Deindividuation, power relations between groups and the expression of social identity: The effects of visibility to the out-group. British Journal of Social Psychology 33, 145–163. Reicher, S.D. and Levine, M. (1994b) On the consequences of deindividuation manipulations for the strategic considerations of self: Identifiability and the presentation of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology 24, 511–524. Republic of South Africa (1996) The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Pretoria: Government Printers.



References 237

Ricento, T. (2015) Global dimensions of bilingual and multilingual education: Canada. In W.E. Wright, S. Boun and O. García (eds) The Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual Education (pp. 461–472). Chichester: Wiley. Robeyns, I. (2010) How can the capability approach be used to serve marginalised communities at the grassroots level? In F. Apffel-Marglin, S. Kumar and A. Mishra (eds) Interrogating Development: Insights from the Margins (pp. 234–261). New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Romaine, S. (1989) Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell. Rubagumya, C. (2004) English in Africa and the emergence of Afro-Saxons: Globalization or marginalization? In M. Baynham, A. Deignan and G. White (eds) Applied Linguistics at the Interface (pp. 133–144). London: Equinox. Rubio-Marín, R. (2003) Language rights: Exploring the competing rationales. In W. Kymlicka and A. Patten (eds) Language Rights and Political Theory (pp. 52–79). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rueda, R. (1983) Metalinguistic awareness in monolingual and bilingual mildly retarded children. NABE Journal 8 (1), 55–68. Ruiz, R. (1984) Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal 8 (2), 15–34. Ryan, C. (2013) Language Use in the United States: 2011 – American Community Survey Reports. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, United States Census Bureau. Ryan, E.B., Hewston, M. and Giles, H. (1984) Language and intergroup attitudes. In J.R. Eiser (ed.) Attitudinal Judgement (pp. 135–158). New York: Springer-Verlag. Sachdev, I., Bourhis, R.Y. and D’Eye, J. (1988) Language attitude and vitality perceptions: Intergenerational effects among Chinese Canadian communities. In W.B. Gudykunst (ed.) Language and Ethnic Identity (pp. 131–151). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Sah, P.K. and Li, G. (2017) English medium instruction (EMI) as linguistic capital in Nepal: Promises and realities. International Multilingual Research Journal 12 (2), 109–123. Saikia, J. (2004) Ingroup Maintenance and Intergroup Relationship Questionnaire. New Delhi: ZHCES, Jawaharlal Nehru University. Saikia, J. (2007) Ethnolinguistic identity and intergroup relationship of Bodo students in Assam. PhD dissertation, Jawaharlal Nehru University. Saikia, J. and Mohanty, A.K. (2004) The role of mother tongue medium instruction in promoting educational achievement: A study of grade IV Bodo children in Assam. Unpublished paper, ZHCES, Jawaharlal Nehru University. Salvatierra, J.L. and Rosselli, M. (2011) The effect of bilingualism and age on inhibitory control. International Journal of Bilingualism 15, 126–137. Sampath, G. (2015) Why poverty is development’s best friend. The Hindu (Visakhapatnam edition), 15 July, p. 11. Sayer, P. and López Gopar, M. (2015) Language education in Mexico: Access, equity and ideology. In W.E. Wright, S. Boun and O. García (eds) The Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual Education (pp. 578–591). Malden, MA: John Wiley. Schermerhorn, R.A. (1970) Comparative Ethnic Relations: A Framework for Theory and Research. New York: Random House. Seidlhofer, B. (2003) A Concept of International English and Related Issues: From ‘Royal English’ to ‘Realistic’ English? Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Sema, T. (2008) Classroom achievement in Sema, Nagamese and English medium primary schools in Nagaland. MPhil dissertation, Jawaharlal Nehru University. Sen, A. (1985) Commodities and Capabilities. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Sen, A. (2001) Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Serratrice, L. (2013) The bilingual child. In T.K. Bhatia and W.C. Ritchie (eds) The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism (2nd edn) (pp. 87–108). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Shamim, F. (2008) Trends, issues and challenges in English language education in Pakistan. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 28 (3), 235–249.

238 References

Shamim, F. (2011) English as the language for development in Pakistan: Issues, challenges and possible solutions. In H. Coleman (ed.) Dreams and Realities: Developing Countries and the English Language (pp. 291–310). London: British Council. Shohamy, E. (2010) Cases of language policy resistance in Israel’s centralized educational system. In K. Menken and O. García (eds) Negotiating Language Policies in Schools: Educators as Policy Makers (pp. 182–197). New York: Routledge. Singh, A., Jain, V.K., Gautam, S.K.S. and Kumar, S. (2004) Learning Achievement of Students at the End of Class V. New Delhi: NCERT. Singh, K.S. (2002) People of India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Singh, M. (2007) Ethnolinguistic vitality, social identity and intergroup relationship in a multilingual contact situation. MPhil dissertation, Jawaharlal Nehru University. Singh, M. (2017) Contextual variations in language priming effect on self-description: Some preliminary findings. Unpublished paper, DRDO, Allahabad. Singh, N. and Mishra, R.K. (2012) Does language proficiency modulate oculomotor control? Evidence from Hindi–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15, 771–781. Singh, N. and Mishra, R.K. (2013) Second language proficiency modulates conflict monitoring in an oculomotor Stroop task: Evidence from Hindi–English bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology 4, 1–10. Singh, N.C., Cherodath, S., Sumathi, T.A., Kosera, R., Currawala, K., Kar, B. and Oberoi, G. (2016) Reading skill in children provided simultaneous instruction in two distinct writing systems – insights from behaviour and neuroimaging. In L. Peer and G. Reid (eds) Multilingualism, Literacy and Dyslexia: Breaking Down Barriers for Educators (pp. 200–214). London: Routledge. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1984) Bilingualism or Not: The Education of Minorities. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1988) Multilingualism and the education of minority children. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas and J. Cummins (eds) Minority Education: From Shame to Struggle (pp. 9–44). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1994) Sverigefinnar förhandlar om etnisk identitet [The Sweden Finns negotiate about ethnic identity]. In M. Peura and T. Skutnabb-Kangas (ed.) Man kan vara tvåländare också’. Den sverigefinska minoritetens väg från tystnad till kamp [You can be two-country too. The road of the Sweden–Finnish minority from silence to struggle] (pp. 98–128). Stockholm: Sverigefinländarnas Arkiv. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1995) Bilingualism in a Multilingual Society: Psycho-social and Pedagogical Implications, Ajit K. Mohanty [book review]. TESOL Quarterly 29 (4), 775–780. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1998) Human rights and language policy in education. In R.Wodak and D. Corson (eds) Language Policies and Political Issues in Education, Volume 1: Encyclopedia of Language and Education (pp. 55–65). London: Kluwer Academic. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000) Linguistic Genocide in Education – or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2007) Bilingualism or NOT: The Education of Minorities (with an Introduction by Ajit Mohanty). New Delhi: Orient Longman. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2015) Language rights. In W.E. Wright, S. Boun and O. García (eds) The Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual Education (pp. 185–202). Chichester: Wiley. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. and Dunbar, R. (2010) Indigenous Children’s Education as Linguistic Genocide and a Crime Against Humanity? A Global View. Guovdageaidnu: Galdu, Resource Centre for Rights of Indigenous Peoples (http://www.galdu.org). Skutnabb-Kangas, T. and McCarty, T. (2008) Clarification, ideological/epistemological under­pinnings and implications of some concepts in bilingual education. In J. Cummins and N.H. Hornberger (eds) Bilingual Education: Encyclopaedia of Language and Education, Volume 5 (2nd edn) (pp. 3–17). New York: Springer.



References 239

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. and Mohanty, A. (2009) Policy and Strategy for MLE in Nepal. Sanothimi, Bhaktapur, Nepal: Multilingual Education Program for All Non-Nepali Speaking Students of Primary Schools of Nepal, Ministry of Education, Department of Education, Inclusive Section. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. and Phillipson, R. (1994) Linguistic human rights, past and present. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas and R. Phillipson (eds) Linguistic Human Rights: Overcoming Linguistic Discrimination. Special issue of Contributions to the Sociology of Language 67 (pp. 71–110). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. and Toukomaa, P. (1976) Teaching Migrant Children’s Mother Tongue and Learning the Language of the Host Country in the Context of the Sociocultural Situation of the Migrant Family. Report written for UNESCO, Department of Sociology and Social Psychology, University of Tampere, Research Reports 15, Tampere. Skutnabb-Kangas, T., Phillipson, R., Mohanty, A.K. and Panda, M. (eds) (2009a) Social Justice Through Multilingual Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Skutnabb-Kangas, T., Phillipson, R., Panda, M. and Mohanty, A.K. (2009b) MLE concepts, goals, needs and expense: English for all or achieving justice? In A.K. Mohanty, M. Panda, R. Phillipson and T. Skutnabb-Kangas (eds) Multilingual Education for Social Justice: Globalising the Local (pp. 313–334). New Delhi: Orient Blackswan. Smith, E.R. (1993) Social identity and social emotions: Toward a new conceptualisation of prejudice. In D.M. Mackie and D.L. Hamilton (eds) Affect, Cognition and Stereotyping (pp. 297–315). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Snow, C.E., Cancino, H., Gonzalez, P. and Shriberg, P. (1989) Giving formal definitions: An oral language correlate of school literacy. In D. Bloome (ed.) Classrooms and Literacy (pp. 233–149). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Southworth, F.C. (1980) Functional aspects of bilingualism. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 9 (1), 74–108. Spears, R. (2012) Group identities: The social identity perspective. In S.J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx and V.L. Vignoles (eds) Handbook of Identity Theory and Research, Volume 1: Structures and Processes (pp. 201–224). New York: Springer. Spolsky, B. (2004) Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sproat, R. and Padakannaya, P. (2008) Script indices. In N. Srinivasan, A.K. Gupta and J. Pandey (eds) Advances in Cognitive Science (pp. 62–70). New Delhi: Sage. Sridhar, S.N. (1978) On the functional code-mixing in Kannada. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 16 (1), 109–117. Srivastava, A.K. (1990) Multilingualism and school education in India: Special features, problems and prospects. In D.P. Pattanayak (ed.) Multilingualism in India (pp. 37–53). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Srivastava, R.N. (1989) Perspectives on language shift in multilingual settings. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 75, 9–26. Srivastava, R.N. and Gupta, R.S. (1984) Media of education in higher education in India. In J.B. Pride (ed.) Languages for the Third World Universities (pp. 1–22). New Delhi: Bahri. Stonequist, E.V. (1935) The problem of marginal man. American Journal of Sociology 41, 1–12. Sunderman, G. and Priya, K. (2012) Translation recognition in highly proficient Hindi– English bilinguals: The influence of different scripts but connectable phonologies. Language and Cognitive Processes 27, 1265–1285. Sweeting, H. (1982) Aspects of psycholinguistic distinctiveness: A Scottish example. Unpublished dissertation, University of Edinburgh. Tabouret-Keller, A. (2013) Bilingualism in Europe. In T.K. Bhatia and W.C. Ritchie (eds) Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism (2nd ed) (pp. 745–769). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

240 References

Tajfel, H. (1974) Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information 13, 65–93. Tajfel, H. (1978a) Social categorization, social identity, and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (ed.) Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 61–76). London: Academic Press. Tajfel, H. (1978b) The Social Psychology of the Minorities. London: Minority Rights Group. Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin and S. Worchel (eds) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–48). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Thomas, W.P. and Collier, V.P. (2002) A National Study of School Effectiveness for Language Minority Students’ Long-Term Academic Achievement. Fairfax, VA: CREDE (Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence), George Mason University. Toukomaa, P. and Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1977) The Intensive Teaching of the Mother Tongue to Migrant Children of Pre-school Age. UNESCO Research Report 26. Tampere: Department of Sociology and Social Psychology, University of Tempere. Triandis, H.C. (1985) Commentary. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 6, 313–323. Tunmer, W.E. and Herriman, M.L. (1984) Development of metalinguistic awareness: A conceptual overview. In W.E. Tunmer, C. Pratt and M.L. Herriman (eds) Metalinguistic Awareness in Children (pp. 3–18). Berlin: Springer Verlag. Tunmer, W.E. and Myhill, M.E. (1984) Metalinguistic awareness and bilingualism. In W.E. Tunmer, C. Pratt and M.L. Herriman (eds) Metalinguistic Awareness in Children (pp. 169–187). Berlin: Springer Verlag. Turner, J.C. (1991) Social Influence. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D. and Wetherell, M.S. (eds) (1987) Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorisation Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. UNESCO (1953) The Use of Vernacular Languages in Education. Monographs on Fundamental Education VIII. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO (2009) Atlas of World’s Languages in Danger. Paris: UNESCO (http://www. unesco.org/culture/en/endangered languages, accessed 17 March 2009). Verma, S.K. (1976) Code-switching: Hindi–English. Lingua 38 (2), 153–165. Vihman, M.M. (1985) Language differentiation by the bilingual infant. Journal of Child Language 12, 297–324. Vygotsky, L.S. (1962) Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ward, C. and Hewston, M. (1985) Ethnicity, language and intergroup relations in Malaysia and Singapore: A social psychological analysis. Journal of Multilingual and Multi­ cultural Development 6, 271–296. Weinreich, U. (1953) Languages in Contact. The Hague: Mouton. Wierzbicka, A. (2006) English: Meaning and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Williams, E. (2011) Language policy, politics and development in Africa. In H. Coleman (ed.) Dreams and Realities: Developing Countries and the English Language (pp. 41–57). London: British Council. Wilson, E.O. (1975) Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wright, S.C. (1997) Ambiguity, social influence, and collective action: Generating collect­ ive protest in response to tokenism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23, 1277–1290. Wright, W.E. and Boun, S. (2015) Striving for education for all through bilingual education in Cambodia. In W.E. Wright, S. Boun and O. García (eds) The Handbook of Bilingual and Multilingual Education (pp. 517–530). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Wright, W.E. and Ricento, T. (2016) Language policy and education in the USA. In T.L. McCarty and S. May (eds) Language Policy and Political Issues in Education



References 241

(unnumbered volume of Encyclopaedia of Language and Education) (3rd edn) (pp. 1–18). Basel: Springer International. Wu, H.S., De Temple, J.M., Herman, J. and Snow, C.E. (1994) L’animal qui fait oink! oink! Bilingual children’s oral and written picture descriptions in English and French under varying conditions. Discourse Processes 18, 141–164. Yadava, Y.P. and Grove, C. (eds) (2008) The Report of National Languages Policy Recommendation Commission. Kathmandu: Tribhuvan University. Yagmur, K. and Kroon, S. (2003) Ethnolinguistic vitality perception and language revitalization in Bashkortostan. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 24, 319–336. Yonjan-Tamang, A. (2006) Languages of Nepal: Present Situation and Language Planning in Nepal [in Nepali]. Kathmandu: Adivasi Bhasabigyan Samaj (Indigenous Linguistic Society). Yonjan-Tamang, A., Hough, D. and Nurmela, I. (2009) ‘All Nepalese children have the right to education in their mother tongue’ – but how? The Nepal MLE Program. In A.K. Mohanty, M. Panda, R. Phillipson and T. Skutnabb-Kangas (eds) Multilingual Education for Social Justice (pp. 241–249). New Delhi: Orient Blackswan. Yoshioka, J.G. (1929) A study of bilingualism. Journal of Genetic Psychology 36, 473–479. Zhao, Y. and Campbell, K.P. (1995) English in China. World Englishes 14 (3), 377–390. Zhou, M. (2016) Language policy and education in Greater China. In T.L. McCarty and S. May (eds) Language Policy and Political Issues in Education (unnumbered volume of Encyclopaedia of Language and Education) (3rd edn) (pp. 1–14). Basel: Springer International.

Index of Languages

Afrikaans, 37, 78, 177 Arabic, 82 Armenian, 82 Assamese, 5, 19, 23, 32, 96, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 124, 125, 126, 136, 206 Bahasa Indonesia, 62, 82 Baluchi, 80 Baskir, 104 Bengali/Bangla, 11, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 80, 123, 124, 136, 143, 164, 175, 181, 206 Bhojpuri, 24, 25, 26, 27, 72, 73, 195 Bodo (Boro), 5, 19, 23, 96, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 136, 143, 206 Cantonese, 81, 82, 94 Chinese, 59, 62, 81, 82, 94 Dari, 80, 81 Dogri, 19, 125 Dravidian, 39, 136 Dzongkha, 80 English, 8, 12, 13, 23, 26, 28, 33, 35, 37, 55, 58, 59, 62, 69, 72, 73, 75, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 86, 87, 90, 91, 93, 94, 99, 111, 113, 114, 118, 119, 124, 125, 131, 132, 136, 145, 146, 147, 152, 157, 158, 160, 161, 164, 168, 169, 171, 175, 176, 177, 178, 181, 184

71, 72, 73, 87, 93, 94, 106, 111, 124, 127, 134, 136, 147, 149, 150, 152, 153, 154, 158, 159, 161, 163, 164, 166, 168, 169, 181, 187, 199, 200, 201, 210, 212, 213 Hindustani, 181 Hinglish, 187 Ho, 137 Indo-Aryan, 39, 68, 112, 136 isiNdebele, 78 isiXhosa, 79 isiZulu, 79 Kachari, 206 Kannada, 19, 26, 62, 68 Kashmiri, 19 Kazakh, 82 Khmer, 177 Konkani, 19, 38, 68 Korean, 176 Kui, 2, 3, 5, 9, 13, 14, 15, 34, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 56, 57, 68, 71, 74, 76, 87, 91, 96, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 116, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 137, 162, 163, 167, 173, 199, 202, 203 Kuvi, 110 Kyrgyz, 82 Latin, 192

Greek, 192 Gujarati, 19, 33, 88

Magahi, 24, Maithili, 19, 24, 25, 72, 73, 125 Malayalam, 19, 28, 38 Mandarin, 76, 77, 81 Manipuri, 19, 136 Māori, 83, 94 Marathi, 19, 26, 27, 33, 164

Halvi, 127 Hebrew, 37, 62, 82 Hindi, 11, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 56, 58, 59, 64, 69,

Nagamese, 206 Nepali, 19, 80, 132, 133, 134, 136, 176, 212 Nuristani, 80

French, 11, 12, 34, 37, 58, 75, 79, 83, 86, 87, 177, 178, 209

242



Odia, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33, 35, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 56, 57, 68, 71, 76, 87, 91, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 120, 122, 123, 124, 136, 143, 163, 167, 172, 173, 174, 177, 183, 184, 202, 203, 205, 206, 211, 212 Oraon, 137 Pachaie, 80 Pamiri, 80 Pashto, 80, 81 Persian, 82, 146, 147, 209 Portuguese, 79, 82, 178, 209 Punjabi, 19, 23, 25, 31, 79, 152 Russian, 82, 104 Samoan, 84 Sanskrit, 1, 10, 14, 19, 23, 123, 136, 143, 146, 147, 149, 152, 159, 161, 168, 213 Santali, 19, 27, 28, 68, 111, 136, 143 Saora, 68, 74, 136, 137, 173, 199, 202, 203 Sema, 206 Sepedi, 78

Index of Languages  243

Sesotho, 78 Setswana, 79 sign languages, 83 Sindhi, 19, 79 Sinhala, 80, 176, 187 SiSwati, 79 Spanish, 35, 63, 83, 87, 177, 178, 209 Tajiki, 82 Tamil, 19, 26, 31, 38, 80, 123, 176, 181, 187, 193 Telugu, 11, 13, 14, 19, 28, 71, 87, 106, 124, 137, 172, 173 Tetum, 82 Tshivenda, 79 Tulu, 68 Turkish, 82 Turkmani/Turkmen, 80, 82 Urdu, 11, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 34, 79, 80, 152, 175, 181 Uzbeki/Northern Uzbek, 80, 82 Welsh, 35 Xitsonga, 79

General Index

Abbi, A., 74 Aboriginal languages, 85 Abrams, J.R., et al., 103 acculturation attitudes/strategies, 97, 100, 105, 107, 112 additive learning of languages, 26, 34, 79, 133 Adesope, O.O., et al., 64 Afghanistan, 80–81 Africa, 18, 21, 78–79, 82, 131, 177, 188, 190, 207, 208 sub-Saharan Africa, 177 All Bodo Students’ Union (ABSU), 114, 115, 120, 125 ambiguity detection, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 61 deep structural, 46 and message sensitivity, 47–48 surface structural, 46 task/test, 46–49 Andersson, T. and Boyer, M., 164 Anglicist position, 147 Angola, 79, 178 Annamalai, E., 20, 22, 23, 24, 74, 88, 146, 147, 150, 193, 194, 204 anti-predatory strategies (of ITM languages in contact), 74–75, 94 aphasia/aphasics, 62, 64 bilingual, 64 polyglot, 62 Arkorful, K. and Adger, C.T., 188 Asia, 18, 21, 79–82, 131, 177 Central Asia, 82 East Asia, 81 South Asia, 26, 78, 79–80, 81, 87, 130, 131, 175, 176, 182, 188 Southeast Asia, 81, 82 Western Asia, 82 assimilation, 28, 81, 85, 95–98, 101, 102, 107, 108, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 123, 126 and transitional bi/multilingualism, 98 see also language contact

Australia, 83, 84, 186 Awasthi, L., 41, 80, 133, 176 Babu, N. and Mohanty, A.K., 46, 48 Bain, B., 38 and Yu, A., 37–38 Baker, C., 7, 36, 38, 57 balanced bilingualism see bilingual(s)/ bilingualism Balkan, L., 37 Bamgbose, A., 79 Bangladesh, 80, 175 Bassetti, B., 63 Bathouism, 113, 125 Bear Nicholas, A., 85, 86 Benin, 178 Benson, C., 211 and Kosonen, K., 82 Benton, R.A., 83, 94 Ben-Zeev, S., 37, 52 Berko, J., 44 Berry, J.W., 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 107 et al., 99 and Kalin, R., 100 and Sam, D.L., 97 Bhatia, T.K. and Ritchie, W.C., 22, 26, 28, 93 Bhutan, 80 Bhuvaneswari, C.V., 28 Bialystok, E., 38, 52, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67 and Barac, R., 60, 66 et al., 59, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 and Luk, G., 62 and Majumder, S., 61 bilingual(s)/bilingualism, 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 12, 13, 36, 38, 46, 84 Afrikaans–English, 37 as a first language, 34 as incremental step towards multi­ lingualism, 22 as marked, 15, 36

244



balanced, 37, 39, 41, 43, 56–57, 66–67, 179 assessment, 41–42 as a theoretical notion, 57 critique of, 24, 56–57 defining, 16–17, by competence, 17 by functions, 17 by identification, 17 by origin, 16–17 degree/level of, 36, 37, 40, 41, 66, 67 early views/studies, 35–36 English–French, 58, 86 English–other language, 56 Estonian–English, 54 Hebrew–English, 37 Hindi–English, 59, 64 Kui–Odia, 9, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 56, 57, 105, 106, 107, 108, 124, 167 methodological problems/issues in early studies, 36 minority group, 12, 75 natural, 74 positive views (post-1960) of, 37–38 proficiency, 37, 52, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 Spanish–English, 35, 63 Telugu–Malayalam, 28 two-in-one view of, 34 Welsh–English, 35 Western, 13, 18, 20, 37 bilingualism/multilingualism, studies on generalisation issues, 56–58 interchangeable use, 56 methodological issues, 55 positive effects/advantages, 37, 38 awareness of discourse structure, 61, 62 cognitive advantages, 37–67, 155 learning to read/literacy, 58–63, 66, 67 metalinguistic advantages, 51–51 syntactic awareness, 61 word awareness, 60–61 bilingual education (BE), 79, 81, 85, 156, 165, 167, 169 bilingual transfer model, 7, 170–171 English–Korean, 176 forms of, in Mexico, 178 issues in moving from BE to MLE, 179–181 and MLE, 7, 165, 179 single MT bilingual education, 179

General Index  245

soft/smooth transition, 6, 171 Spanish–English, 178 transitional, 85, 150, 171, 177, 179 early exit/transition, 150, 171, 172, 175, 177, 178, 182, 183 late exit, 170, 171, 173, 174, 177 biliteracy, 58–59, 63 Blumenfeld, H. and Marian, V., 64, 65 Bodo (Boro) (people), 5, 23, 111, 112–113, 114 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 124, 126, 206 Bodo–Assamese contact, 5, 96, 112, 122 Bodo identity, 114, 115, 118, 119, 120, 125 Bodo Liberation Tigers (BLT/BLTF), 114, 115, 116, 120, 125 Bodo-medium education/school, 113, 114, 120, 121, 206 Bodo movement, 5, 112–116, 117, 120–121, 124 Bolivia, 178 Bolton, K. and Graddol, D., 81 Boro (Bodo) (people) see Bodo (Boro) (people) borrowed English words (in Odia and Kui), 14 Botswana, 79, 177 Bourhis, R.Y. and Sachdev, I., 103 et al., 99, 103 Brahmo Dharma/Brahmoism, 113, 125, 126 Brahmo Samaj, 113, 125, 126 brain/cognitive reserve, 65 Brewer, M.B., 100 Bright, W., 136 Brock-Utne, B., 79 Brown, G.L., 36 Bruck, M. and Genesee, F., 58 Brunei Darussalam, 82 Brutt-Griffler, J., 190 Bujorbarua, P., 30, 166 Bunce, P., et al., 210 burden of non-comprehension, 135 Burkina Faso, 178 Burundi, 178 Camarota, S.A. and Zeigler, K., 94 Cambodia, 177 Canada, 11, 12, 37, 38, 84, 85–86, 100, 209 Official Language Act, 86 Official Language in Education Program (OLEP), 86 immersion programmes, 143

246  General Index

capability/capability deprivation, 4, 128, 129, 130, 132, 140, 141, 142, 144, 145 capability approach, 129 capability defined, 129 capability development, 128 education as capability input, 130 and freedom, 129 see also poverty Capstick, T., 186 Carlisle, J.F., et al., 62 Cenoz, J. and Genesee, F., 15 and Gorter, D., 15, 84, 87 Chen, S., 76, 77, 81 China, People’s Republic of, 81, 94 Christophersen, P., 35 Clark, E.V., 54 Clyne, M., 104 code-mixing, 11, 13, 14, 23, 24, 29, 32, 33, 53, 69, 200, 213 code-switching, 11, 23, 24, 29, 31, 32, 33, 53, 64, 65, 167 functional, 53 multiple, 53 cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP), 179 cognitive control, 45, 46, 63, 64, 65 attentional control, 64 inhibitory control, 64 interference control, 64 language control, 64 see also executive control cognitive decline, 65 cognitive/mental flexibility, 26, 37, 38, 47, 49, 52, 63, 65, 66, 67 Coleman, H., 132, 186, 188, 210, 213 collaborative creation of power, 183 Comoros, 178 competent multilingual functioning, 30, 31–33, 159 Congo, 79, 178 contact bilingualism, 40, 41, 71, 74, 77, 89, 98, 104, 136 Coulmas, F., 143 Council of the European Union, 84 Craik, F.I.M. et al., 66 craze for English (as a post-truth phenomenon), 81, 186, 193, 211 creativity, 38, 52, 55, 63, 66 Cromdal, J., 61 cross-linguistic reflection, 180 cross-linguistic transfer, 61–62, 63, 155, 179, 180

cultural relations see intergroup/ intercultural relations/orientation Cummins, J., 5, 7, 36, 37, 38, 52, 56, 57, 61, 124, 155, 180–181, 182, 183, 207, 211 and Early, M., 182 and Gulutsan, M., 37 and Mulcahy, R., 38, 46 Daniels, P.T. and Bright, W., 136 Das, J.P., et al., 42, 45 Dasgupta, P., 192 Dash, T. and Kar, B.R., 64 Davidson, R.G., et al., 61 de Varennes, F., 78 and Kuzborska, E., 78 Deaton, A., 130 and Dreze, J., 130 deficit view of language, 72 delayed onset of dementia/Alzheimer’s disease, 65–66 Department of School and Mass Education, 8, 68, 111 Devy, G, 19, 137 discrimination, 3, 4, 36, 70, 72, 77, 78, 92, 93, 102, 114, 115, 117, 122, 129, 130, 131, 140, 142, 158, 160, 182, 191, 197, 209 statutory, 72–73, 78 diversity see linguistic diversity domain loss/shrinkage see marginalisation dominance of English/colonial languages, 8, 79, 82, 83, 85, 90, 111, 146, 147, 151, 152, 157, 160, 177, 178, 179, 181, 182, 185–198, 201, 204, 209, 211 and claims of national/regional languages, 147, 152, 187, 189 due to the dynamics of multiple identities, 79, 188 endogenous and exogenous factors, 191 psychological reality of dominance, 194 publishing industry and, 193 through control over resources, 194 dominant monolingualism/monolingual society, 15, 18, 20, 26, 73, 78, 84, 91, 95, 98, 128 Donaldson, M., 49 Dorian, N.C., 116



double divide, 8, 70, 86, 88–93, 123, 130, 146, 158, 171, 174, 175, 179, 210 defined, 4 and dominance, 8, 110, 111, 114, 115, 118, 177 passive acceptance of, 98, 105, 113, 118 dominant language(s), 176 English–vernacular divide, 88, 201, 202 implications of, 90–93 institutionalisation of, in post-colonial states, 189 major/regional/majority language(s)/ vernaculars, 146, 147, 149 power and hierarchy, 4, 6, 76, 77–93, 95, 99, 102, 104, 110, 111, 115, 121, 128, 142, 146, 157, 164, 171, 182 colonial languages and control of resources, 193 vernacular–ITM language divide, 88, 203 vernacular–other divide, 88 Dreze, J. and Sen, A., 129, 130 dropout see language and education Drury, J. and Reicher, S.D., 102, 120 Dua, H.R., 23, 24 dual language programmes, 169 see also forms of multilingual practice Dunbar, R. and Skutnabb-Kangas, T., 92 Duncan, S.E. and DeAvita, E.A., 38 Durgunoglu, A.Y., et al., 63 East Timor, 82 ecology of language, 13, 87, 90, 160, 191 Ecuador, 178 EDSC, 132, 133 Edwards, D. and Christophersen, H., 52 Edwards, J., 72, 104 elite bilingualism/multilingualism, 88, 89 Ellemers, N., 101, 119 endangered (endangerment of) language(s), 75, 77, 85, 94, 111, 112, 119, 145 see also linguistic diversity English and development, 185–188, 204, 207, 209 rhetoric of, 185, 187 role of post-colonial political leaders, 189 as entrepreneurs of identity, 188, 189

General Index  247

spread/promotion of English, 190 agency in, 189, 190 agency vs natural/hegemonic spread, 190 English and education, 8, 142, 195–207 English medium vs vernacular and MT medium schools, 195 English and transmission of values, 194–195 priming of autonomous/individualistic self, 195 English as a lingua franca, 187 multiple lingua francas in multilingual societies, 187 English as an Indian language, 150, 192, 193, 201 English as a link language, 176, 187 English divide, 17 English in multilingual ecology, 191–194 English in post-colonial/multilingual societies, 185–213 and ‘caste’ system, 186, 187, 195, 197 Nehru on English-knowing caste, 197, 204 English-knowing and Englishignorant, 197, 209 quality of English and sub-caste system, 197, 204, 209 as divisive, 187, 188, 197, 201, 204, 207, 208 as a ‘foreign’ language, 191 ‘native’ vs ‘non-native’ language, 191 as language of higher education, 187 elite formation, 186, 188, 191 English-centred policy imposing dominance, 83, 188 and social division, 188 English in schools, 195–198 categories of private and public schools, 196–197 Doon schools to Doom schools, 196–197 negotiation of English and homelanguage barrier, 198 school divide and social divide, 198 school practices in teaching English, 199–204 social exclusion/stratification, 186, 188 widening gap between English-rich and English-poor, 204, 208 Matthew effect, 208, 213

248  General Index

English linguistic imperialism, 189 defined, 189 to serve Anglo-American interests, 190 see also linguistic imperialism Escobar, A.M., 83 Ethiopia, 178, 207 ethnolinguistic vitality see vitality Europe, 15, 17, 18, 27, 56, 82, 83, 84, 87, 94, 147, 149, 178, 209 European Commission, 84 Eurydice, 84, 87 Evans, S., 151 Eviatar, Z. and Ibrahim, R., 59 executive control, 64, 65 Extra, G., 94 Feldman, C. and Shen, M., 38 Feng, A. and Adamson, B., 81 Finland, 69 Fishman, J.A., 73, 159 Flores, N. and Baetens Beardsmore, H., 169, 182 fluidity/fuzziness/squishiness of language boundaries, 15, 19, 24–26, 179 Focho, G.N., 185 folk/mass multilingualism, 88, 89 formal education/schooling as social instruments, 90, 92, 145, 160, 183, 204 invalidating linguistic and cultural capital of the dominated, 207, 208 perpetuating social inequalities, 145, 160, 183, 204, 207–208 forms of multilingual practice/education in India, 146, 164–174 formal, 166 in multiple MoI classrooms, 169–171 in single MoI classrooms, 168–169 majority language MT, 168, 170 non-MT medium, 168–169 simultaneous dual language MoI programmes, 169 transitional language support programmes for ITM children, 170–171 formal multilingual education (MLE) early-exit transitional, 172–173, 175 late exit transitional, 173–174 informal, 146, 166 in single MoI classrooms, 166–167

partial, 167, 168 support multilingual education, 166–167, 168 nominal, 146, 165 non-forms, 165 strong forms, 165 very late exit transitional programmes, 170 weak forms, 165, 170 France, 38, 78 Franceschini, R., 17 free choice, 77, 110, 121, 190, 212 of world Englishes, 190 freedom, 129 see also capability functional allocation of language(s), 16, 23, 24, 29, 53, 170 Galambos, S.J. and Hakuta, K., 52, 61 Gandhi, M.K., 190 Gandhian views on English in India, 190 García, O., 69, 180, 183, 211 Gathercole, V.C.M., 56 Genesee, F., 53 et al., 38 Germany, 38 Geva, E., et al., 62 Giles, H. and Byrne, J.L., 103 et al., 102, 103, 104 and Johnson, P., 103 Government of India, 139 Government of Pakistan, 175 Graddol, D., 185, 186 Grosjean, F., 34 group boundary, 119, 125 impermeable, 126 permeable, 119, 126 Guan, L.H. and Suryadinanta, L., 212 Guatemala, 178 Guo, T., et al., 65 Gupta, A.F., 54 Gupta, R.S., 24 Hakuta, K. and Diaz, R., 38 Hamel, R.E., 178 Hamers, J.F. and Blanc, M., 38, 104 Harris, R.J., 38 Hélot, C., 180 and O’Laoire, M., 180 and Young, A., 180 heritage/ethnic language, 12 Heugh, K., 188, 211 and Skutnabb-Kangas, T., 207, 211



hierarchy of languages see double divide Hirsch, N.D., 36 Ho, C.S. and Bryant, P., 59 Hoffman, E., 104 homogenisation, 77, 78, 145, 160 Hong Kong, 81, 94 Hornberger, N.H., 178, 211 Hough, D., et al., 133, 176 Husband, C. and Khan, V.S., 104 Ianco-Worral, A., 37, 52 identity/language identity, 2, 12, 14, 25, 40, 79, 91, 92, 96, 103, 107, 109, 110, 112, 115, 118, 119, 120, 121, 133, 141, 142, 152, 180, 181 assertion of, 101, 102, 118, 182, 188 identity salience, 101 identity strategy, 95, 107, 112, 118 collective/group-level strategy/ action, 95, 101, 102, 113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 122, 123 individual(istic)/assimilation strategy, 95, 101, 113, 114, 115, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123 passive acceptance, 107, 111, 113, 121 resistance, 113, 120, 122, 123 social/individual mobility, 101, 114, 115, 119 and intergroup process, 96, 112 multiple identities, 12, 24–26, 34 negotiation of, 5, 90, 96, 105, 113, 118–121, 122 own-group/in-group identification/ identity, 97, 103, 106 other group relationship/identification, 97 social/group identity, 54, 89, 92, 96, 101, 102, 105 see also intergroup/intercultural relations/orientation ideology of English and linguistic hegemony, 186 Ijalba, E., et al., 62 Illich, E., 154, 160 immersion programmes, 143, 184 impact of English on other languages, 193–194 indexical functions (of language), 54 India (passim), 13, 38, 39, 69, 70, 75, 77, 78, 79, 86, 90, 91, 92, 95, 99, 105, 112, 129, 131, 132, 134, 135, 145, 152, 159, 163164, 165, 166

General Index  249

bifocal multilingualism, 88 bilingualism in, 21–22, 24 census of, 19, 21, 22, 34, 72, 73, 112, 124, 212 Constitution of, 19, 72, 131 additional/associate official language (English), 19, 72, 78, 93–94 Article 341, 143 Article 342, 135 Article 343(1)/343(2), 93–94 Article 350A, 131, 153, 155 official language of the Union (Hindi), 19, 72, 78, 93, 147, 181 official language of states, 72 Schedule VIII official/scheduled languages, 19, 72, 73, 78, 112, 115, 121, 125, 181 intergroup relations, 5 language policy in education, 145–160 language, hierarchy and education, 146–152 linguistic diversity, 20 People of India (POI) Survey, 135, 136 Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009, 139, 156–157, 158 Article 29(2)(f), 156 trilingualism in, 21–22, 34 Indianness of English, 192–193 indigenous/traditional knowledge, 74, 77, 110, 142, 172 Indonesia, 82, 210 inhibition mechanism, 63, 65 instrumental and integrative function(s) (of language) (), 76, 86, 91, 92, 105 dissociation between, 91, 96, 107, 108, 110, 118 instrumental benefits/attitudes, 95, 105, 106, 107, 108, 110, 111 integrative functions/attitudes, 105, 106, 108, 110, 111 see also vitality integration see intergroup/intercultural relations/orientation intergroup/intercultural relations/ orientation, 96, 97, 99, 105, 107, 113, 117, 122 acculturation attitude, 105, 107 and attitude towards language and culture maintenance, 105, 108, 117 questionnaire, 106, 117

250  General Index

theories/models of, 96–10 Berry’s model of cultural relations in plural societies, 97–100, 107 assimilation, 97, 100, 101, 107, 108, 117 contact outcomes, 97, 99 deculturation/marginalisation, 97 integration, 97, 100, 107, 117, 118 segregation/separation, 97, 100, 107, 108, 117 ethnolinguistic vitality model, 102–105 demographic factors, 103, 112 ethnolinguistic vitality defined, 103 group vitality factors, 103 institutional support factors, 103, 111 and language maintenance, 102 status factors, 103, 111 subjective/perceived ethnolinguistics vitality, 103–104, 112, 117 see also vitality Schermerhorn’s model of ethnic relations, 100 centrifugal (Cf) trends, 100 centripetal (Cp) trends, 100 congruent orientations, 100 incongruent orientations, 100 social identity theory, 100–102, 119, 188 social categorisation, 100 social identification, 100 social identity, 100 social/intergroup comparison, 100, 103 see also identity/language identity interlingual interference, 52, 69 intralingual variations, 54 in Singapore English, 54 ITM (indigenous, tribal, minority and minoritised) languages, 3, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78, 79, 85, 86, 87, 88, 91, 93, 96, 98, 99, 116, 118, 121, 122, 128, 130, 131, 141, 142, 145, 146, 147, 152, 153, 159, 160, 164, 168, 175, 176, 178, 182, 183 community, 8, 77 ITM defined, 2, 9 invisibilisation of, 73, 118, 131, 133, 145, 152, 208 Ivory Coast, 178 Japan, 78, 94 Jensen, J.V., 35

Jhingran, D., 134 Johnson, P., 103 Jones, W.R., 36 Joshi, R.M. and Aaron, P.G., 143 Kachru, B.B., 24 Kadel, P., 176 Kalan, A., 78 Kamwangamalu, N.M., 79, 188 Kar, B., et al., 58, 59 Kayambazinthu, E., 188 Kazakhstan, 82 Kemp, C., 15, 16 Kennett, P., 187 Kenya, 177 Kessler, C. and Quinn, M.E., 38 Khare, V., et al., 64 Kharkhurin, A.V., 55, 56, 63 Khubchandani, L.M., 21, 22, 24, 25, 26 killer language(s), 90, 94, 209, 210, 211, 213 English and images of, 210–211 English and ‘hydra’, 210 English as naga, 210 English, the serpent, the frog, and the dragonfly, 210–211 Kond (Kandha), 2, 3, 5, 13, 21, 38–41, 46, 47, 55, 56, 68, 70, 91, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 122, 124, 167 Kond studies, 9, 38–51, 52, 55, 58, 61, 64, 71, 124 context of, 39–41 pattern of language use, 39–40 women and market place language, 70–71, 74 Kosonen, K., 82 Kroll, J.F., et al., 65 Kumar, K., 213 Kumar, U., et al., 59 Kyrgyzstan, 82 Lamb, M., 208 Lambert, W. E., 36 Landry, R. and Bourhis, R.Y., 104 language(s)-as-problem/burden, 145, 152, 153, 159 language(s)-as-resource, 145 language categories (India), 158 classical languages, 158 foreign language, 159 home languages, 158, 159 modern Indian languages, 158, 159



mother tongues (MTs), 158, 159 regional languages (RL), 158, 159 tribal languages, 158 language contact, 20, 39, 121 Bodo–Assamese, 5, 96, 112, 122 Kui–Odia, 9, 76, 96, 105, 106, 122 tribal and non-tribal, 105 trilingual contact, 28 see also intergroup/intercultural relations/orientation language differentiation, 30–31, 53 language disadvantage, 4, 71–72, 128 cumulative disadvantage/weakness, 4, 76 material disadvantage, 122, 123 psychological disadvantage, 122, 123 language and education, 4, 73, 92, 93, 109, 110, 145 dominant language medium education, 92–93, 98, 131, 133, 134, 142 educational failure, 3, 128, 132, 135, 137, 140, 141, 142, 145 discouragement effects in, 130, 138 exclusion of tribal languages, 137 educational use of languages, 73 language barrier, 134, 138 language of formal education/ classroom/school, 73, 75 language as medium/as subject, 73, 110, 131, 146, 165 language, hierarchy and education, 146–152 push-out/drop-out, 3, 132, 134, 135, 144 submersion education, 193 in English vs dominant state language, 193 language and hierarchy see double divide language and power see double divide language labels, 24 psychological reality of, 2 language maintenance, 27, 40, 71, 73, 74–75, 95, 96 assertive maintenance, 95, 96, 102, 105, 112, 116, 118–121, 122, 123 dynamics of collective action for, 112 dual-threshold framework of, 112, 121, 122, 123 higher threshold to avoid marginalisation/seek assertive maintenance, 112, 121

General Index  251

minimum threshold to avoid shift, 112 zone of marginalisation, 112, 123 zone of language shift, 122–123 and ethnolinguistic vitality, 102–105 irony/illusion of, 73, 74–75 maintenance norms, 26–28, 34 marginalised maintenance, 75 see also language shift language of competence, 14 balanced, 24 native competence, 20, 24 language of origin, 14 see also mother tongue (MT)/home language language policy (language-in-education policy), 145–160 declared policy, 6, 73, 83, 147, 157, 158, 174 of equal rights for languages, 189 de facto policy, 6, 73, 157, 158, 175 creating three tiers of languages, 189 in India, 145, 147 see also language policy in Indian education multilingual language policy, 177 Odisha (India) policy, 111, 173–174, 193 and ‘model’ English-medium schools, 194 Anwesha scheme for tribal children, 194 one nation one language, 77, 119 one state one language, 77, 119 state policy, 77, 132 language policy in Indian education, 145–160 common school system, 156 dual system of schooling, 156 English in Indian education, 154 late introduction of, 155 Lord Curzon on late introduction of, 151 home language/MT medium education, 155, 157, 168 MT-based education, 151, 155, 164, 183 National Curricular Framework (NCF), 155, 156, 157, 158 National Policy on Education (NPE), 153, 156 private/English-medium (EM) schools,

252  General Index

149, 151, 154, 155, 156, 161, 168, 171, 176, 184, 193 high-cost, 168 low-cost, 193, 199 social class differences among EM schools, 195 public education/schools, 149, 161, 197 major state language MoI schools, 197 submersion education for ITM children, 197 problem of numbers/languages in education, 157–158, 159 fixed three-language/Procrustean solution, 157–160 regional majority language as first language/MoI in schools, 151, 153 three-language formula (TLF), 148–152, 153, 155, 157, 158, 164 modification of, 150 regional language as MT/alternative to MT, 149, 159, 160 simplified TLF of 1962, 149 TLF as a formula (not policy), 150 language shift, 27, 74, 75, 84, 85, 95, 96, 98, 104, 105, 118, 132 frozen, 40 partial shift, 28, 96 language socialisation, 28–29, 54, 89 defined, 29 as a collaborative process, 33 see also multilingual socialisation languages as discrete units/categories, 12, 179 as functional codes, 16 as formal codes, 16 non-categorical nature of, 15 Latin America, 82, 83, 178 Lee, J.S., 176 Leontiev, A.A., 104 Leopold, W., 51 Lesotho, 79 Liedke, W.W. and Nelson, L.D., 37 linguicism, 95, 121, 145 linguistic diversity, 2, 5, 11, 12, 20, 22, 27, 34, 78, 84, 85, 90, 94, 99, 145, 160, 163, 181, 194, 211 and globalisation, 194 loss of, 142, 164, 207, 209 paradigms of language death and murder, 209–210

negotiating, 165 linguistic genocide, 92, 132, 210, 213 linguistic human rights (LHR), 92, 93, 116, 132, 142 and denial of social justice, 209 and globalisation, 194 and social cohesion, 188 subversion of, 209 linguistic imperialism, 89, 182, 189, 211 socio-historical processes in, 189 theory of, 189, 190 Liow, S.J.R. and Poon, K.K.L., 62 literacy engagement, 163 Lo Bianco, J., 83, 84 Lopez, L.E., 83, 178 Macao, 81–82, 94 Macaulay, Thomas, 147 Mackey, W.F., 7, 15, 84 Madagascar, 178 Magga, O.H., et al., 92 Makalela, L., 79, 177 Makoni, S. and Makoni, B., 177, 183 Malawi, 79 Malaysia, 82, 99 Malherbe, E.G., 36 Mali, 178 Manocha, S. and Panda, M., 173 marginalisation, 5, 73, 74–75, 79, 86, 96, 98, 99, 102105, 112, 115, 116, 118–121, 122, 123, 145, 147 and domain shrinkage/loss, 5, 74, 75, 86, 98, 104, 116, 132 as language contact outcome see also language contact marginalised languages, 96, 111, 116, 119 Marshall, S. and Moore, D., 18 Mauritius, 72, 133 McCarty, T., 85, 211 Mead, M., 36 Meganathan, R., 149 metacognition/metacognitive process/ reflection, 39, 46, 52, 53, 63, 64, 67 metacommunicative awareness, 29 Metalinguistic Ability Test, 43, 44, 45, 50 description of, 44–45 metalinguistic awareness/development/ reflection/skills, 33, 38, 39, 42, 46, 52, 53, 54, 55, 63, 64, 66, 67, 179, 180 levels of, 58



lexical, 58 morphemic, 59 phonological/phonemic, 58, 59, 63 pragmatic, 58 syntactic, 58 textual, 58 measures/tasks of, 42 and schooling, 49, 50 metalinguistic hypothesis, 52, 58 Mexico, 83, 178 Ministry of Education, 148, 149, 150, 151, 161 Ministry of Human Resource Development, 143, 153, 212 Ministry of Women and Child Development, 111 Mishra, R.K., et al., 64 Misra, G. and Mohanty, A.K., 129 MLE Plus, 7, 162, 163, 173, 183 Mohanty, A.K., 7, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 36, 38, 40, 42, 43, 45, 53, 61, 68, 72, 74, 76, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91, 96, 97, 100, 105, 106, 108, 117, 123, 126, 132, 133, 138, 139, 140, 143, 146, 165, 171, 179, 180, 195, 196, 198, 204, 205, 211, 212 and Babu, N., 43, 45, 46 and Das, S.P., 49 et al., 8, 9, 29, 30, 31, 53, 88, 89, 111, 164, 165, 166, 167, 172, 174, 199, 200, 201, 202, 211 and Panda, M., 79, 80, 81, 89, 173, 188, 210 and Parida, S., 91, 105, 108 and Perregaux, C., 38, 68, 96, 97 and Saikia, J., 96, 105, 112, 116 and Skutnabb-Kangas, T., 41, 118, 124, 130, 132, 133, 142, 143, monolingual policy/practice, 6, 160 mother tongue (MT)/home language, 12, 19, 72, 73, 90, 93, 98, 133, 134, 149, 163 criteria of identification, 25 and identity, 25 and priming of relational/collective self, 195 and school language, 131, 132, 135, 143 as a ‘bridge’, 159, 176, 183 Mozambique, 79, 178 MT-based multilingual education/MLE see multilingual education

General Index  253

multilingual awareness, 21, 29, 30, 33, 54, 55, 89, 180 see also metalinguistic awareness multilingual cognition/cognitive processes, 3, 56, 58, 63, 64, 66, 67, 155, 180 multilingual communication, 12, 32, 33, 53 multilingual mind, 38, 63–66, 67 dynamics of, 63–66 multilingual speech modelling, 32 multilingualism (passim) as cognitive resource, 58–67 as composite system, 18 as departure from monolingualism/ bilingualism, 14, 15 as a first language, 30 as a positive force, 34 communication in, 22 competence criteria of, 15–16, 21 complementarity of languages in, 14, 22, 23–25, 90 continuum of dialects in, 22 convergence of languages in, 14, 22 definition of, 15–18 functional, 17, 23 features of, 18–28 grassroots level, 20–22, 146, 165 holistic view, 16 levels of competence in, 16 through schooling, 21 unmarked, 1 multilingual education (MLE), 5, 40, 111, 127, 137, 153, 155, 157, 162, 163, 164, 171, 178, 179, 182 Andhra Pradesh (India), 7, 172–173, 184 Cambodia, 177 defined, 164–165 English in the framework of, 211 in multilingual classrooms, 180 pedagogic strategies for, 180 Nepal, 176 Odisha (India), 7, 111, 172–174, 182, 184 single MT model of, 179 soft transition, 6 with monoglossic ideology, 183 see also forms of multilingual practice/education in India multilingual socialisation, 28–34, 77, 99 developmental tasks in, 29 diglossic, 99

254  General Index

for English, 194 social class differences in socialisation, 194–195, 208 periods (and stages) of development, 30–33 multiple language/linguistically hetero­ genous classroom, 181 multiple languages, 13 as MTs, 180 multiple linguistic codes/systems, 51, 52, 64–65, 67 interdependence of, 64 simultaneous activation of, 64–65 multiple monolingualism, 183 Muter, V. and Diethelm, K., 59 Myanmar, 82 myth of English-medium superiority, 204–207 confounding effects (on medium of instruction), 204, 205 quality of schooling and socioeconomic status, 205, 207 Nag, S., 173 Namibia, 79 National Council of Educational Research and Training, 173 National Knowledge Commission (NKC), 154, 158 National Multilingual Education Resource Consortium (NMRC), 142, 162, 163 Nayak, A., 205, 206 NCERT, 135, 154, 155, 157, 213 Negash, N., 186 neglect of language/MT/home language, 4, 72, 92, 99, 118, 128, 130, 140, 147, 177 consequences of, 132–135 neo-vernacularisation (of Tamil), 193 Nepal, 72, 80, 94, 132, 133, 134, 176, 184, 188, 212 national framework for MT based MLE, 189 New Zealand/Aotearoa, 83 Nicaragua, 178 Nigeria, 177 Norris, M.J., 86 North America, 12–13, 18, 56 Nurmela, I., et al., 41, 94, 142 Oakes, P.J., 101 Oceania, 82, 83–84

Ochs, E., 29, 54 and Schieffelin, B., 29, 54 Orientalist position, 147 Osherson, D.E. and Markman, E., 43 Padakannaya, P., 58 et al., 62 and Mohanty, A.K., 58, 136 and Ramachandra, N.B., 136 Paia, M., et al., 165 Pakir, Anne, 213 Pakistan, 79, 80, 132, 175 Pal Kapoor, R. and Panda, M., 199 Palmer, D.K., et al., 85 Panda, M., 74, 139, 157, 159, 162 et al., 173 and Mohanty, 79, 80, 92, 131, 138, 154, 156, 157, 158, 173, 175, 188, 206 Pandit, P.B., 27, 95 Papua New Guinea (PNG), 83 PASS theory of intelligence, 42 Patel, P.G., 136, 143 Patra, S., 206 Pattanaik, K., 50, 51 and Mohanty, A.K., 44, 50 Pattanayak, D.P., 6, 22 Peal, E. and Lambert, W.E., 37, 38, 58, 66 Pelinka, A., 160 People’s Linguistic Survey (PLSI), 19, 137 perception of/beliefs in the power English as language of global economy, 186 as language of unity/reconciliation/ peace, 186, 187, 188, 189 promoted by entrepreneurs of identity, 188 as a political imperative, 187, 211 in its gate-keeping role, 186–187 and violation of human rights, 187 Perera, K. and Canagarajah, S., 187 Perregaux, C., 38 Peru, 178, 209 Philippines, 82 Phillipson, R., 84, 87, 182, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 210, 211 et al., 79 plurilingualism, 18, 34 and bi-/multilingualism, 18, 34 poverty, 128, 129, 132, 140, 141, 142, 145 among tribal people, 140–141 as capability deprivation, 128



as unfreedom, 129, 130 disadvantage and voicelessness, 130 and human agency, 129 and language, 4 poverty line/below the poverty line (BPL), 140, 144 Price, Glanville, 213 push-out, 3, 40, 68, 132, 138 see also dropout pyramidal structure of languages, 70 in levels of education, 130–131 Radhakrishna, R. and Ray, S., 139, 140, 141 Rahman, Tania, 175 Rahman, Tariq, 79, 132 Ramanathan, V., 88, 201 Rapatahana, V. and Bunce, P., 210 Rebello, J., 137 Reicher, S.D., 101, 120 and Hopkins, N., 188 and Levine, M., 102, 120 Republic of Congo, 79, 178 Republic of South Africa, 78 resistance and symbolic resistance to English, 193 revitalisation, 5, 75, 83, 94, 96, 104, 105, 118, 121, 123, 178 Ricento, T., 86 Robeyns, I., 129 Romaine, S., 15 Rubagumya, C., 190 Rubio-Marín, R., 124 Rueda, R., 38 Ruiz, R., 145 Russian Federation, 104 Rwanda, 178 Ryan, C., 84, 85 Ryan, E.B., et al., 103 Sachdev, I., et al., 104 Sah, P.K. and Li, G., 176, 184 Saikia, J., 117, 125 and Mohanty, A.K., 206 Salvatierra, J.L. and Rosselli, M., 64 Samoa (Western Samoa), 54, 84 Sampath, G., 129 Sayer, P. and López Gopar, M., 83, 178 Schermerhorn, R.A., 99, 100 script/writing system(s), 40, 58–59, 63, 66, 67, 75, 110, 136, 137 akshara, 136 alphabetic, (linear and opaque), 58

General Index  255

alpha-syllabary (non-linear and transparent)/semi-syllabic, 58 Assamese, 113, 114, 118, 124, 125, 136, 143 Bengali, 124, 136 Brahmi, 124, 136, 143 Devanagari, 68, 93, 125, 136, 143 different, 59 Kamrupi, 124 non-alphabetic, 59 Odia, 40, 68, 109, 136, 137 of tribal languages, 68, 136 Ol Chiki, 68, 136, 143 orthographic features, 59 Roman, 68, 75, 114, 124, 125, 136, 137, 143 Saora, 136 script-dependent strategies (in reading), 58–59 Telugu, 137 segregation/separation see intergroup/ intercultural relations/orientation Seidlhofer, B., 186 selective attention, 63, 64, 67 Sema, T., 205, 206 Sen, A. 128, 129, 130 Serratrice, L., 53 Shamim, F., 132, 175 Shohamy, E., 73, 157 simultaneous processing, 42 Singapore, 54, 82, 99, 213 Singh, A., et al., 135 Singh, K.S., 136 Singh, M., 25, 28, 195 Singh, N. and Mishra, R.K., 64 Singh, N.C., et al., 59 Skutnabb-Kangas, T., 5, 7, 16, 20, 22, 25, 36, 41, 68, 69, 72, 73, 87, 90, 92, 93, 94, 95, 100, 110, 121, 127, 132, 133, 159, 164, 182, 188, 194, 207, 208, 209, 211, 212, 213 and Dunbar, R., 78, 92, 132 et al., 8, 209, 211 and McCarty, T., 41, 94, 143, 150, 165, 170 and Mohanty, A.K., 189 and Phillipson, R., 124 and Toukomaa, P., 56, 57, 100 Smith, E.R., 102, 120 Snow, C.E., et al., 61 social awareness of languages, 31–32 Social Identity Theory see intergroup/ intercultural relations/orientation

256  General Index

Somalia, 178 South Africa, 36, 37, 78, 79, 177 official languages of, 78–79 South Korea, 176–177 Southworth, F.C., 23, 26, 38 Soviet Union (USSR), 104 Spears, R., 102 Spolsky, B., 157, 190 Sproat, R. and Padakannaya, P., 58 Sri Lanka, 80, 176, 187 Sridhar, S.N., 24 Srivastava, A.K., 205 Srivastava, R.N., 27, 28, 100 and Gupta, R.S., 165 stigmatisation/devaluation of languages, 76, 122, 142, 208 as dialects, 76, 136 Stonequist, E.V., 124 submersion education, 3, 85, 98, 128, 132, 133, 141, 142, 167, 170, 182 see also language and education subtractive effect/learning, 26, 34, 79, 98, 128, 141, 142, 176, 177, 181 successive processing, 42, 45 Sunderman, G. and Priya, K., 65 Swaziland, 79, 177 Sweden, 100 Sweeting, H., 103 symbolic power of English, 191 and perception of its legitimacy, 191 Tabouret-Keller, A., 84 Taiwan, 76, 81 Tajfel, H., 100, 101, 102 and Turner, J., 101, 119, 120 Tajikistan, 82 Tanzania, 79, 177 teaching English as a foreign language or second language, 192 teaching English in Indian schools, 199–204 government/public schools, 202–203 classroom practices in teaching English, 203 negotiating vernacular–other language divide, 203 teaching English to tribal children, 202–203 private high-cost EM schools, 199 classroom transactions in English, 199 parental support for teaching of English, 199

Westernised/Anglicised culture, 199 private low-cost EM schools classroom use of MT/non-English languages, 199 cosmetic Anglicisation, 199 nativised/hybridised classroom transactions, 199 negotiating the English–vernacular divide, 201–202 teachers’ classroom strategies, 199–200 quality of EM schooling and the cost of education, 204 social class and school differences in quality of English, 203–204 Thomas, W.P. and Collier, V.P., 165 three language formula/TLF see language policy in Indian education threshold theory, 57, 124 of bilingual proficiency, 57 problem with level of proficiency, 57 Toukomaa, P. and Skutnabb-Kangas, T., 56, 57, 124 transfer across languages see crosslinguistic transfer translanguaging, 69 Triandis, H.C., 99 tribes, 2, 8 Bodo see Bodo in India, 2 Kond/Kandha see Kond/Kandha poverty among tribal people, 140–141 Santali, 68, 143 Saora, 68, 74, 199 ST (Scheduled Tribe), 131, 135, 137, 139, 140 Tribal languages and writing systems, 136 trilingual education, 80, 81 trilingual policy, 80, 81, 176 trilingualism, 15, 22, 34, 56, 84 Tunmer, W.E. and Herriman, M.L., 45 and Myhill, M.E., 52 Turkmenistan, 82 Turner, J.C., 101, 120 et al., 101, 120 Uganda, 177 UK, 78 UNESCO, 6–7, 85 UNICEF, 184



unschooled bilingual/monolingual, 49, 50 USA, 11, 35, 78, 84–85, 94 Bilingual Education Act, 85 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), 85 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), 85 Uzbekistan, 82 vanishing voices, 70 verbal/linguistic repertoire, 63, 179 Verma, S.K., 24 vicious circle of language disadvantage, 4, 70, 75–77, 102, 128, 131, 159 Vietnam, 82 Vihman, M.M., 53, 54 vitality/ethnolinguistic vitality, 76, 86, 89, 92, 94, 103, 105, 110, 111, 118, 119, 122, 159 instrumental, 76, 92, 98, 105, 107, 110, 111, 119 integrative, 105, 110 see also intergroup/intercultural relations/orientation Vygotsky, L.S., 51

General Index  257

Wales, 35 Ward, C. and Hewston, M., 99 wash-back effect, 160 Weinreich, U., 27 Wierzbicka, A., 192 Williams, E., 187, 188 Wilson, E.O., 75 working memory, 64, 65 World Atlas of Languages in Danger, 85 world Englishes and ownership, 191 Indian English, 192, 193 Wright, S.C., 101, 119 Wright, W.E. Boun, S., 177 Ricento, T., 85 writing system see script/writing system(s) Wu, H.S., et al., 61 Yadava, Y.P. and Grove, C., 133 Yagmur, K. and Kroon, S., 104 Yonjan-Tamang, A., et al., 176 Yoshioka, J.G., 36 Zhao, Y. and Campbell, K.P., 81 Zhou, M. 81 Zimbabwe, 79, 177