=:hapter 1 : Goals, Sociolinguistic Variation And Methodology

1.1 Goals of the study

This thesis attempts to investigate through a survey, carried out in Jharkhand

among the tribal communities such as Santhali, Mundari, Ho and Kurux language

speakers, the notion of tribal identity and acceptance of Hindi. It is a correlational study

of both apparent ac; well as real change in linguistic identity of the tribal communities. It

intends to reveal the inter-generational, as well as, intra-generational patterns of

acceptance of Hindi among the tribal communities of Jharkhand region.

The stimulus for this thesis was provided by an earlier study, viz. the ICSSR

( 1998-2000) Project on "Acceptance Level of Hindi as a Pan-Indian Language" which

reveals a high percentage of acceptances of Hindi language in various domains of use, as

well as, for in-group communication among tribai communitit!s of Jharkhand. In general

more than 80 per cent of the urban tribal population uses Hindi language in various

domains of use.

The questions that arise are: -

Why is there a high acceptance of Hindi in various domains of use among the

tribal communities of Jharkhand region?

Is it true that tribal communities view the learning/adopting of Hindi as a tool for

upward socio-economic mobility in the society?

Is the process of de-tribalization an on-going process or is it a kind of forced

assimilation or merely a kind of linguistic displacement?

Do people in Jharkhand treat their linguistic identity as a part of their cultural

identity and therefore, the loss of linguistic identity does not automatically entail

the loss of cultural identity?

Do the tribal communities show a uniform degree of acceptance of Hindi m

various domains of use?

This thesis is an attempt to find answers to these significant and relevant

questions.

The thesis also investigates whether there is inverted pride in "Exclusiveness" that

is, the tendency to assert one's own social identity as being distinct from others~ or is

there an anxiety to attain prestige by identifying oneself with a major language group and

not necessarily with one's native language ..

The significance of the study lies in the answe:rs to be found through empirical

research into the notion of tribal identity and its relations to acceptance of Hindi in

various domains of use. The study is first of its kind as it tries to look into;

(I) The exclusiveness of tribal community

(2) The continual process towards identifying with the Great tradition

The primary aim of this sociolinguistic study :is to seek accurate answers to the

following questions:

(I) What roles do the languages play in the construction of social! and ethnic identity?

(2) What are the linguistic repertoires of individual respondents belonging to the four

ethno-linguistic groups?

(3) What are the patterns of language use and what linguistic: and extra-linguistic

variables are important in influencing language choice among these tribal

communities?

( 4) What are their attitudes towards their mother tongue vis-a-vi1s Hindi language and

speakers of Hindi?

(5) What conclusions could be drawn about inter-·group relatioru: on the basis of the

answers to the above questions relating to diffet,.ent dimensions of

multilingualism?

1.2 Sociolinguistics- The Discipline

Sociolinguistics is the study of the social uses of language and the most

productive studies in the four decades of sociolinguistic research have emanated from

determining the social evaluation of linguistic variants. Studyit,lg language variation

proceeds mainly by observing language use in natural social settings and categorizing the

linguistic variants according to their social distribution.

Yariationist sociolinguistics had its effective beginning onlly in 1963, the year in

which William Labov presented the first sociolinguistic rese~arch on "The social

motivation of a sound change". The term sociolinguistics had been coined a decade

before Labov's publication in 1952 by one Haver C. Currie in a programmatic

2

commentary on the notion that "social functions and signification of speech factors offer

a prolific field for research". With baptismal zeal, Currie (quoted in Chambers et al.

2002) proclaimed, "This field is here designated "socio-linguistics".

1.2.1 Approaches in Sociolinguistics

In Sociolinguistics, variation in linguistic choices is either studied from speech

community perspective or from individual/person oriented perspective. In bilingual

interactions linguistic choices are either studied from the viewpoint of grammatical

analysis of code- switching or the socio-psychological analysis of linguistic choices.

Speech community approach to linguistic choices is articulated by Labov (1966)

and Fishman (1965). Such an approach locates the crucial impetus for linguistic choices

within the larger community. The implicit claim has been that if you have information

about speakers in relation to specified variables (aspects of their social identities and I or

the situation) from a sample of subjects across a community, you are essentially

explaining what drives their choices. That is, linguistic choices primarily reflect the

speaker's place in a social group defined by the variable (s) studied. This approach views

linguistic variation as the product of macro- elements in the social situation itself and the

speaker as a rather passivelparticipant. The strdng form of this paradigm states that for a

certain type of a speaker i11 any situation X in community Y, one can predict a linguistic

variant z to occur in that situation.

In contrast, the person oriented approaches such as In~eractional Sociolinguistics

(Gumperz 1982a), Markedness Model (Myers-Scotten 1993), Ethnomethodological

approach (Garfarnga, 2000) downplays the effects of societal norms in determining the

linguistic choices. They view linguistic choices made by speaker as a dynamic event.

Speakers are no longer seen as influenced by societal norms in making choices, rather

they also make the choices they do because of dynamic factors e.g. whether a long-term

or short-term relationship is involved or whether power or solidarity is salient. The

person oriented approach criticizes speech community approach for

(i) Its emphasis on consensus as the organizing principle of community, and

(ii) Its preference for studying central members of the community over those at the

margins. Even if in situation X, variety Z does appear, as much as 90% of the

3

time the speech cvmmunity approach dot:s not raise the issue of the alternate

usage in the remaining I 0%.

1.2.2 A Variationist Perspective

Sociolinguistics is a diverse field with one common goal: to study the interactions

of language and society. Within sociolinguistics, however, there are different approaches

to language and society and accordingly different methodologies. The methodology

which this work follows is that of Variation Analysis. Variation analysis uses 'hUantitative

and qualitative analysis to investigate the systematic variation of JinguistJic choices,

including independent linguistic variation and the co..:variation of linguistic and social

factors.

The most important construct of the variationist framework is the sodolinguistic

variable. There are two general types of variables: Internal and Extemal. Internal

variables are linguistic variables such as phonological, morphological, or language A or

language B. External variables are the sociological factors specific to a speech

community such as age, class, ethnicity, sex etc. The sociolinguistic variatule comprises

mutually exclusive realisation of the variables called variants. The proportion of one

variant versus another in a speech community can be correlat

,.

Variationist approach originated solely within linguistics with the pioneering

work done by Labov. Its basic assumption is that language is heterogeneous, both in its

structure and use. This variation is not generally random or free, but is patterned and

highly regular. There are both internal (linguistic) and external (social/extra-linguistic)

causes for variation. Variationists view linguistic processes as possibly violable and non

deterministic, happening a percentage oftimein the same environment. Variationists also

investigate how non-linguistic factors possibly affect linguistic variation in both speech

communities and individual speakers. Of course, speech communities are composed of

individual speakers, but the goal of Variationist studies has,been to describe and explain

the variation within the speech community as an entity ( i.e. the grammar of the speech

community), in their argument against the homogenous idiolect being the only theoretical

viable entity for linguistic study (Chomsky 1965). As Labov (1989:52, cited in Hudson

1996:30) writes" Individual behaviour can be understood only as a reflection of the

grammar of the speech community. Language is not property of the individual but ofthe

community." Such an approach locates the crucial impetus for linguistic choices within

the larger communities. Labov (1972:120-1) defines speech community as follows: "The

speech community is not defined by any marked agreement in the use of language

element, so much as by participation in a set, of shared norms. These norms may be

observed in overt types of evaluative behaviour and by the uniformity of abstract patterns

of variation which are invariant in respeci to particular levels of usage" His understanding

of the concept of speech community is a concept on macro level. He ~mploys social

groups, which are defined on the basis of class, sex, age etc.

For these two variationist approaches, that of the speech community and that of

the individual, the non-linguistic factors influencing language variation are cast in

different ways. Drawing from sociology, the speech community approach identifies

social factors that divide a speech community: age, gender, ethnicity and social class

have become the standard social factors correlated with dependent linguistic variables

(Ash 2002). By this model, a person is an intersection of social groups. In contrast, the

individual approach encapsulates non-linguistic factors in a person's identity.

Investigating identity allows inclusion of speakers' attitude and beliefs in exploration of

language variation (Mendoza:.Denton 2002).- The overarching identity of a speaker

usually comprises sub-identities of age, gender, ethnicity, social class etc.

5

Yariationist approach to the study of the relation between language and social

identity seeks to explain language variation based on invctriant social ca1egones such as

socio economic class, gender etc. With respect to gender, having discovered "women's

language" researchers sought to explain how deviant it was from men's or standard

language. Labov (1963) concluded that for the people of Martha's Vineyard, a speaker's

degree of orientation to the local community showed th€: strongest conelation with the

variants under study. The researches of Labov and his associates have stressed the

correlation of individual choices with factors that delineate social group membership and

or other features of th.! community based social context (Myers-Scotton and Bolonyai

200 I :2). These factors include socio-economic class in particular, as wdl as many other

ingredients that define speakers externally such as gender and ethni

Spanish and Guarani in Paraguay and Ervin-Tripp (1972: 219) on choices among

American form of address, together make up an "Allocation Paradigm."

The Allocation Paradigm approach in sociolinguistics was influenced by two

classics on language choice. Ferguson ( 1959) on diglossia, the strict allocation of the two

varieties to distinctly different functions for a limited set of communities and Brown and

Gilman's ( 1960) often -cited discussion of socially conditioned choices between second -

person pronouns in European languages as largely binary at any point in time.

The allocation paradigm views linguistic variation as the product of macro-

element in the social situation itself and the speaker as a rather passive participant. The

basic principle of this paradigm is that "habitual language choice in multilingual speech

communities or speech networks is far from being a random matter of momentary

inclination (Fishman 1972c: 437).

According to Fishman ( 1972c ), a domain is a cluster of social situations, which

are typically constrained by common set of behaviours rules, comprising the roles of

interlocutors within a particular situation and the topics they are most likely to discuss.

The domain therefore takes social organization as its conceptual basis: when speakers use

two languages; they will obviously not use both in all circumstances; in certain situations

they will usc the one, in others, the other. He writes:

"Proper usage dictates that only one of the theoretically co-available languages or varieties will be chosen by particular class of interlocutors or particular kind of occasions to discuss particular kinds of topics. (Fishman 1972 c: 15)"

On the basis of their research in the Puerto Rican community in New York City;

Fishman, Cooper and Ma ( 1971) arrived at a list of five -domains in which either Spanish

or English was used consistently. These were established on the basis of observation and

interviews and comprised the domains of family, friendship, religion, employment and

education. In each domain, there may be pressures of various kinds e-g. economic,

administrative, cultural, political and religions, which influence the language choice and

language use of individual. Often, knowledge and use of one language is a function of

economic and political factors. Such is the case for many speakers of South Asian

Languages in Britain. In Ireland, the knowledge of Irish is mandatory for any civil

servant. Due to a number of competing pressures operating in a particular setting, it is not

7

possibl~ to predict which language an individual wm use in a particular domain. As pointed out earlier, the selection of a particular language in the speech event depends to a

large extant or socio- situational variable. We need to identify and analyze these factors

which serve to define certain types of situations in which particular choice are normally

considered acceptable, appropriate and likely.

Pandit (1977: 172-3) has given an example of how a multilingual speaker might

use the different codes in his repertoire. He describes an Indian Businessman living in a

suburb of Bombay. His mother tongue and home langu;a~~e is a dialect of Gujarati, in the

market he uses a familiar variety of Marathi, the state language; at the railway station he

speaks the Pan-Indian lingua .franca Hindustani; the language ofwork i.s Kachhi, the code

of the spice trade; in the evening he will watch a film in Hindi or in English and listen to

a cricket- match commentary or the radio :in English. One can ask: what roles does each

of these different languages and vanities perform in the community and the individuaL

Greenfield (1972) utilized domain analysis for tiht~ study of language choice of

Pureto- Rican bilingualism and at least three congruent iOOmponents: person, places and

topics. His findings confirmed the five major domains viz. O)home (2) beach (3) Church

( 4) school ( 5) workplace. Paras her ( t 980) identified se\ven important domain~ for his

study of two Indian cities: i) family, ii) friendship, iii) neighbourhood, iv) transactions. v)

education, vi) government and vii) employment.

i) Binary choice model~ Rubin (I %8b: 526) uses a decision tree in her analysis of

language choice in Paraguay. Rubin found that P.iaraguayen's decision to speak

Span ish or. Guarani was based on an ordered series li>f situation considerations.

0 u

Location

Rural I~

Non rural

Formtity- in formality

I~

Guarani

Formal Spanish Non-formal

I Intimate

I~ Non-intimate intimate

Spanish

.s· · • fd" l 7

~S 0 ISOOr

Non-senous Serious

Guarani First language learned

Fig 1: Decision tree for language choice between Spanish and Guarani in Paraguagy

(Rubin 1968b:526)

The allocation paradigm approach in sociolinguistics is deterministic in nature; it

leads to the logical conclusion that speaker make the choices they do becau~e they are

constrained to do so by a societal system. Even if a statistically significant number of

members of a group make the same choice in a given context, no studies show that aU

members do this. Although we agree that aspects of the larger societal background

certainly affect choices, but the variation in such factors does not directly determine the

actual choices.

9

ii) Diglossia:-In Greek diglossia simply means bilingualism, but the use of the word has

been extended to deatote prir.cipally the social aspects of bilingualism. Diglossia is

primarily concerned with the macro social aspect of language, as this is more concerned

with the social structure and processes related to language maintenance and language use.

Both Jardel ( t 982, cited in Landry ,R and R, Allard t 994: 16) have attributed the

distraction between diglossia and Bilingualism to the French specialist in the Greek

language, Psichari, (cited in Landry and Allard 1994:16) who in 1880's used the term to

denote the utilization of two varieties of contemporary Greek; demotiki " or the langm:.ge

of people, and "Katharvousa", the classical language or the language used for official

functions and writing. It is with Ferguson ( t 959), however, that the concept of diglossia

is most often associated. Ferguson used the term to denote situations where two dialects

of the same language are used for different social functions. One variety has a. higher

social status but the two varieties are used in complementary domains and functio:ns.

The High (H) variety is utilized in formal and public dometins (e.g. goVfi!mment,

religion, literature) and the low (L) variety is used in more informal and private domains

e g. family, friends, and unofficial functions. Fishman (1965, 1967, and 1980) extended

the uses of the term diglossia to district languages as well as to complex ca;res where

more than two dialects and /or languages may be involved. Fishman (1980:5) has argued

that diglossia or stable bilingualism is based upon social compartmentalizatipn .. i.e. on

the maintenance of strict boundaries between societal functions associated wi:th H and L

respectively". It has also been stated by Fishman (1972b) that: di.glossia is a necessary

condition for language maintenance by minority linguistic communities. The clear

functional separation of the languages and the institutionali:t:.ation of these functional

differences contribute to stable social compartmentalization, which in tum guarantees a

stable type of societal bilingualism. Fishman ( 1980) has also pointed out, however, that

more and more factors in modem life militate against social. compartmentalization, the

increase in open networks, in fluid role relationships, in superficial 'pubdic familiarity'

between strangers and semi strangers, in nonstatus- stressing interactioHs, even where

status difference remain and, above all, in the rationalization of the work sphere" ( 1980:

5), as well as other sociological factors such as urbanization, and mobility. According to

Fishman, when the stability of social compartmentalization. diminishes there is a gradual

10

change towards language shift, the minority group gradually adopts the language of the

dominant group.

This has led Fishman to conclude that "Both diglossia and bilingualism are

continuous variables, matters of degree rather than all or none phenomena, even when

compartmentalization obtains ( 1980:6)".

Landry and Allard (1994: 17) have identified four criteria in their analysis of

various definition of diglossia. These are the linguistic, sociological, functional and ·

stability criteria.

a. The linguistic criterion :- The linguistic criterion refers to whether diglossia applies to

genetically related varieties of a language or whether the term also applies to distinct and

unrelated languages. Although earlier uses of the term restricted it to designations of

genetically related dialects, modern usage of the term extends to the designation of two or

more distinct language or dialects (Fishman 1980).

b. The sociological criteria :- Although diglossia describes a social situation where there

are languages of different status in contact, scholars differ as to the extent to which the

situation is depicted as contlictua1 or non- conflictual, Fishman and Hamars and Blanc

( 1989) seem to define diglossia as non- contlictual ,the situation of non-conflict or the

perceived legitimacy of the situation being in fact the basis on which the stability of the

phenomenon depends. Jardel ( 1982, cited in Landry,R and R, Allard 1994: 18) and others

cited by him argue that no situations involving domination subordination can be non-

contlictual. Obser.'ed stability in a diglossic society would only be conflict in a period of

latency.

c. The functional criterion :- Most authors seem to agree on this criterion. The H and L

varieties are designated for different complementary functions. In a diglossic situation,

"the normative functional complementarity of both languages, each in accord with its

own institutionally congruent behaviours and values, remains relatively undisturbed."

(Fishman 1980: 7) Hamars and Blanc ( 1989) have stressed the institutionalized character

of this functional differentiation, and Fishman (1980) invoked the concept of social

compartmentalization. Fishman,Cooper and Ma (1971) study shows that Spanish-

Americans tend to me mostly English in domains such as school, the Church and work

and to use mostly S~anish in domains such as their home and friendship and networks.

The interpretation of the results was that family and friends domains were related to

II

values of imimacy and therefore to more solidarity with their vernacular or mother

tongue. The school, Church, and work domains were more assodated with status values

and favoured greater use of the language dominant in society. Social situations that

constitute a domain can also be analyzed as function of elem1!nts such as time, piace,

theme and the role of speakers, which can also influence language use (C:ooper 1969,

Fishman l972b ). Social domains. therefore, seem to constitute an intermediate· level of

analysis between a macro or sociological level and a micro levd. Moreover, the construct

of social domains can function as a framework fer the study of the social

compartmentalization process observed in diglossic situations. In a highly diglossic

situation, differential use of language should be greatly influenced by the specific

domains in which the language behaviour is mea"ured or oru;erved.

d. The Stability Criterion :- The non conflictual nature of diglossia has sometimes been

attributed i.u the stability of the" societal arrangements" which ascribe dlifferentiai sociai

functions to each language. It remains possible, however that highly conflictual situations

1;ould remain stable because of the difficulty of changing the power distribution between

members of H and L communities. There may or may not be a necelssary relationship

between the stability of the diglossic situation and the d{:gree to whictt the situatian may

be conflictual. Fishman ( 1980:7)" diglossic sociefies are marked not only by

compartmentalized convention but by various df:grees of nllccess restriction''.

Nonetheless, Fishman (1980) has argued that relative stability is a ~ressary co~ition for

diglossia. When social compartmentalization is unstable~ language spread and language

shift occur, the direction of charge always being towards the stronger functional system.

The relationship between bilingualism and diglossia has been described by Fishman

( 1967) with the help of a schema shown below.

+

Diglossia +

Bilingualism and diglossia

Bilingualism

Fig. 2:

Diglossia without Bilingualism.:.

Relationship between Diglossia Fishman (1967)

12

Bilingualism with

"While diglossia refers to societal arrangements that help maintain bot:ndaries

between the societal functions associated with H and L,'' bilingualism refers to" an

individual behavioural manifestation (Fishman 1980). There is bilingualism and diglossia

when most individuals are bilingual and .there is a clear institutional support for the

differentiated use of the H & L varieties. There is bilingualism without diglossia when

most people are bilingual but social compartmentalization is unstable. Under this

condition, bilingualism as transitional and temporary. There is diglossia without

bilingualism, when languages are distributed according to the territoriality principle. A

society with neither diglossia nor bilingualism, is rather rare, but any society that is

linguistically homogenous would, at least partially, fit the category.

1.3. Methodology

This section deals with the methodology adopted for the present study such as

selection of tribes, selection of areal points, sampling procedures, tools designed to elicit

data, the procedure adopted during the fieldwork and the method of data analysis.

1.3.1 Selection of Tribes

It was decided that the four numerically big tribal language speakers would be

considered for the present survey.

Table No. 1 Numerical Strength of Tribal Language Speakers in Jharkhand

No. ofspeakers . % of total population

Santhali 2271175 10.40

Mundari 667872 3.06

Ho 653172 2.99

Kurukhl oraon 638236 2.92

(Bhattacharya : 2002)

In Jharkhand, tribal communities constitute 27.66% of the total population.

Among these tribal communities, Santhali language speakers constitute the majority.

13

Table No. 2 %of Tribal population in Jhankhand == 27.66%

Santhali 37.57%

Mundani 11.05%

Ho 10.81%

Kurukhl oraon 10.55%

(Source: 1991 Census)

1.3.2. Selection of Areal Points

After Selection of the tribal communities for the present study, the points for data

collection were decided from the district wise population table:s (Census 19\~l) before

commencing the fieldwork.

Table No. 3 Percentage of tribal population in areal points under study

Total population ST population %

Ran chi 2214088 964422 43.55

Dumka 1495709 6214:&4 41.55

East Singhbhum

(Jamshedpur) 1613088 466572 28.92

(Source: 1991 Census)

These three districts were chosen for the present study because the1se districts

constitute the majority,( i.e., overall 38%) tribal language speakers under m:udy and in

addition, the social composition of these districts lends itself well to judgement sampling

(Milroy 1980). Linguistically, Dumka constitute majority of Santhali languar~e speakers,

Ranchi consti!utes Kurukh and Mundari language speakers and in East Singhbhum

(Jamshedpur) Ho language speakers constitute the majority.

1.3.3 Method of Data Analysis

The analysis of the data has been made according to following individual and social

variables.

14

• Age: In terms of age of the informants, the sample has been d!vided inLO the

following four categories.

age ranging from 15 - 21

II age ranging from 22-30

Ill age ranging from 31 -50

IV age above 50 years

Age is seen to be a significant variable. This sociolinguistic study gives ample

illustrations of how in terms of acceptance level of Hindi, attitudes towards Hindi and

language choice, older informants are markedly different from younger informants.

• Gender: - Gender has proved to be a significant variable in relation to acceptance

level of Hindi, attitudes towards Hindi and language choice. The following were

the values

Male =

Female= 2.

As Eckert and Me- Connell - Ginet (1992 - 90) state "women's language has been

said to reflect their own conservativism, prestige consciousness, upward mobility,

·insecurity, deference, nurture, emotional expressivity, sensitivity to other, solidarity and

men's language is heard as evincing their toughness, lack of affect, competitiveness,

independence, competence, hierarchy and control."

• Education: - In terms of "education" the sample has been divided into the

following groups

Upto high school = A

High School & above = B

Uneducated or illiterate = c 'Education' plays a vital role in the life of the people. Language skill, language

attitudes and language use of the individual co - vary with the level of education. For

example, the more educated the respondents are, the more languages they know and use,

whereas the majority of the illiterate know and use the language only in the spoken form.

The literates use more languages and majority of them have all the four language skills

IS

viz. understandill£,, reading, writing and speaking. Consequently, education as a variabl1~

is a viable social determinant of different patterns of multilingualism.

• Settlement Patterns

The "settlement pattem" as a variable is categorized as follow

Code

Rural

Urban

1.3.4 Sampling Procedures

R

u

The universe/population of this sociolinguistic study is the speakers of tribal

languages such as Santhali, Mundari, He and Kurukh of Jharkhand. The sample for this

study consists of 197 informants from Ranchi, Jamshedpur and Dumka districts of

Jharkhand and the migrant population in Delhi. Most of them, i.e., 17! out of 197 had

always lived in Jharkhand while the rest 26 infonnants had been living i111 Delhi for le

Apart from the areal and numerical distribution of ·the informants, the

characteristics of the population are considered very important for this study. The

characteristics under analysis are of two types:

(i) Independent variables

(ii) Dependent variables

In this sociolinguistic study, gender, age, educational background, settlement

patterns and tribal identity are independent variables while factors like acceptance of

Hindi, attitudes towards Hindi and language identity are the dependent variables.

1.3.4.1 Demographic characteristics of the Sample by Community

We look at the entire data in terms of the four major ethno-linguistic communities

viz. Santhali, Mundari, Ho and Kurux-Language speakers. Tables given below clearly ' show that the respondents of our sample are young, educated and urban based.

Table No. 5 Community - Wise Distribution & Sample

Santhali Mundari llo Kurukh Total

Characteristics N=79 N =35. N=37 N=46

Areal distribution

Rural 0 5 0 5 10

Ran chi

Urban 5 29 5 29 68

Rural 6 0 6 0 12

Jamshedpur

Urban 29 0 22 0 51

Rural 10 0 0 0 10

Dumka

Urban 20 0 0 0 20

Delhi Urban 9 4 12 26

17

Table No.6 Distribution ofSamQle b~ Gender

Santhali Mundari Ho Kurukh Total Ran chi! M 5 24 5 25 59

F 0 10 0 9 19 Jhamshedpur M 28 0 20 0 48

F 7 0 8 0 15 Dumka M 22 0 0 0 22

F 8 0 0 0 8 Delhi M 6 I 3 7 17

F 3 0 !, 5 9

Table shows that the respondents of our sample consist of only 25.8% ~emale

respondents while majority are males, i.e., 74.12%.

Table No.7 Distribution ofSamQle b~ ~me

Santhali Mundari Ho K111rukh To1Jal I 2 10 1 7 20 ii 3 14 4 10 31

Ran chi III 0 6 0 13 19 IV 0 4 0 4 8

I 1 I 0 7 0 18· Jamshedpur II 10 0 II 0 21

Ill 10 0 7 0 n IV 4 0 3 0 7

I 9 0 0 0 9 Dumka II lO 0 0 ()I w

III 9 0 0 (I 9 IV 2 0 0 () 2

I 3 0 l 3 7' Delhi II 4 1 2 '7 14

Ill 2 0 1 2 j' .) IV 0 0 0 0 0

I 15 - 2 t yrs II - 22-30 yrs Ill ·- 31 -50 yrs IV == Above 50+

The researcher was unable to trace the informants in the age group oftht! category IV i.e. above SO years in Delhi. Hence the concerned column remains blank.

18

Ran chi

Jamshedpur

Dumka

Delhi

Table no.8 Distribution of SamQle b:t Education

Santhali

A 0

B 5

c 0

A 9

B 24

c 2

A 5

B 20

c 5

A

B 8

c 0

Upto high school

High School & above

Uneducated or illiterate

Mundari

6

24

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

= = =

Ho

0

5

0

8

17

3

0

0

0

2

2

0

A

B

c

Kurukh

9

22

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

8

0

Total

15

56

7

17

41

5

5

20

.;

"'

7

19

0

The researcher was unable to trace the Uneducated or illiterate informants in the

category C. Hence the concerned column remains blank

1.3.5 Tools for the Study

The most impo1tant tool used for this study are the questionnaire and systematic

observation. The questionnaire has been so designed in order that the cultural, social and

socio-psychological data of the informants can be elicited. (For full questionnaire see

Appendix II).

19

1.3.5.1 The Questionnaire

The questionnaire was first prepared in English and then ~lat€-'.d into Hindi,

mainly adopted from the "language use" and "general attitude and langtllage attitude"

section of a questionnaire developed by Abbl et al {2000} to study the "Ae

-( ~

The following interlocutors were selected from the said domains of activity:

Interlocutors Domains

1 . Father - mother

2. Brothers - sisters Home

3. Grand father- mother (Private)

4. Children

5. Friends J Friendship/Private 6. Market place

7. Colleagues at workplace Public

8. Teachers

9. Seniors

The languages used by the informants with each interlocutor in each of these

domains were identified This provided important data to test the acceptability level of

Hindi in various domains such as home, workplace, market place, public offices.

The fourth part of the 9uestionnaire was devote? to measure the relative

frequency with which a given language is used taking a time variable

Tt T2

in generations to know the languages spoken by the grandparents of the respondents and

then to compare it with the first language of the respondent himself/herself. I tern no. 19-

a, 20 and 21 were devoted to elicit the information.

Th~ fifth part of the questionnaire was devoted to study the Codeswit~hing among

the informants. Codeswitching within the multilingual context occurs when speakers use

forms of two or more languages within the same conversation. Item no. 24, 25 and

devoted to Codeswitching.

In the sixth section, we wanted to know how far Hindi is used in mass media.

Item no. 29 was devoted to elicit the information.

21

The seventh section of the questionnaire was intended to provide data regarding

the awareness of language identity. The respondents were asked the question whether the

use of Hindi is a threat to their mother tongue or not. Item no.41 (iv) 49, 50, 51, 52, 53

were intended to elicit the information regarding language identity. Item no. 43, 44,, 45,

47 and 48 were intended to elicit data on the traits that make the tribals consider lllOFl-

tribals and distinct. The factors t.hat distinguish the tribals from non-trlbals: are Languag.e, •

Religion, Caste, Festivals, Social customs and Dress.

The eighth section of the questionnaire was devoted to elkit information

regarding language preference as medium of instruction, preference for mother tongLle,

encouragement for younger generation to use Hindi. Item no. 32, 33 and 34 we;n!

intended to elidt the relevant information. The question on "Do you encourage tht!

younger generation to speak and use Hindi" was constructed to be answered using ~he

binary response such as "yes" I no".

In ninth part of the questionnaire, we wanted to know about the;: attitude of tlhe

tribal language speakers of Jharkhand towards Hindi language and Hindi Speak(ers

through item no. 37. 38, 41, 46, 42, 35, and 36. The usefulness of Hindi language fn,>m

the point of view of the informant elicited through item no.37. Seven puq>Qses w.ere

suggested to the informants and t~ey were supposed to tick the degree of usefulness, i:.e.,

very useful, somewhat useful, not useful at al. Item no. 42 was intended to provide data

on social distance. In a multilingual situation where distinct groups coexist, each gr

1.3.5. ~ Systematic Observation

There were two kinds of observations, one of them being participant observation.

· The interviewer was visible, identified with the groups while participating in their

activities and other social functions including functions such as "Santhal Utsav". The

"Santhal Utsav" organized by celluloid chapter Jamshedpur and Tribal cultural society

Jamshedpur. (5 - 6 Dec. 1998) gave an opportunity to study first hand the cultural basis

which unites the Santhal society. This provided insight into the behavioral patterns of the

population and gave a chance to see it against the norms expressed in responses to

questions.

The second was the non- participant observation which is primarily observing the

groups through documentary sources. Books, Magazines, Census data, Newspapers were

studied to get the background of the groups under study.

1.3. 7. Field Procedures

In this se~tion the general field procedures followed for data elicitation have been

described. Fieldwork entails social intera~tion. Knowledge of the social group is a pre-

. requisite to fieldwork. The fieldwork for this empirical research was conducted twice,

first in the month of Nov-Dec 1998 and second time in Sep-Oct 2000. It is a

sociolinguistic study which aims at capturing aspects of attitudes, identities and language

use.

The following procedure was followed for data gathering:

• Each of the informants was approached individually with a request to fill out the

questionnaire. The place of interview was either the residence of the informant or

university or offices.

• Several visits to the subject's place of work yielded an opportunity to observe

their linguistic behaviour. They were observed interacting In a number of formal

and informal situations, which provided ample opportunities for gathering

information on their linguistic behaviour.

• The researcher's association with Jhankhand spans more than 25 years. My family

roots are here. In fact it was possible for me to project myself as a person who

was neither insider nor an outsider and still both - a friend of a fr;cnd. This

enabled me to carry out prolonged discussion with the respondents. Respondents

23

introduced me to members of their personal networks, hence, I was able to

overcome social barriers and that helped me gain access into living r~mts and

community centres.

1.3.8 Limitations ofthe Study

It was not possible to collect a stratified random sample. My criterion for

selection of respondents was decided on the basis of convenience. The main criterion was

that speakers should understand and speak Hindi, be resident of Jharkhand and b:e willing

to spare time for interaction with me and for filling out the questionnaire. Of course,

enough care was taken to select respondents representing the four major ethn~.c tribals,

their age., gender and other criteria. It can perhaps be considered as a kind of Judgement

sampling. I understand that such a sampling suffers from many limitations, but being an

outsider in these tribal communities as it were, I had to depend on introductions and the

consent of the respondents. I was able to fill 197 completed questionnaires. I consider this

data adequate because I have been able to cover the four major c!thno-linguisttic: groups

Santhali., Ho, Kurukh and Mundari language speakers of interest and the reg!Ularity of . socio - psychological dimensions of ethno-linguistic behaviour can hopefuHy emerge

from the study of more limited samples than is usually required for other kind of study.

To summarise, in this chapter we have outlined the Goals of the Study, the

Sociolinguistic enterprise especially reviews the Domain mod•=l and the Variationist

Perspective, and lastly, outlines the methodology employed in the study.

1.4 Organisation of the Study

Chapter 2 describes the socio-historical and socio-cultur:a.l context of Jharkhand.

This discussion provides the context pertinent to the specific goals of this study rather

than a comprehensive history of Jharkhand. This chapter alm investigate!s different

concepts employed in this study and the Literature Survey on V~:triati.onist Perspective on

Language and Identity.

Chapter 3 gives an account of various approaches employed to 1e>~plain the

phenomenon of language choice in multilingual communities. In the first section it

depicts the varying degree of language skills of these four ethno-lingui~)tilc groups;

secondly, it discusses the frequency of Acceptance level of Hindi in difterent domains of

24

use. The chapter also examines the data on linguistic identity, codeswitching and

language attitudes towards Hindi.

Chapter 4 includes a reanalysis of pertinent data from previous chapter. We have

examined and analysed the findings with the help of the notions and concepts discussed

in chapter I, 2 and 3 in particular. Several frameworks were adopted in the analysis of the

functions represented by the data . No single specific framework was used because a

single framework cannot account for the multifunctional language choice made by these

four communities of interest.

Chapter 5 concludes with an analysis of how the research findings of this study

fit into current sociolinguistic thinking, and what implications there are for further

research.

25