|
Abstract:
|
It is well-known fact that every human being has the capacity to create infinite sets of sentences out of finite sets of words. Still, some languages are designated as “dialects” or “folk”/”tribal” languages on the basis of some non-linguistic factors, though, variation-phenomenon of language is merely an arbitrary, substantial, and epi-phenomenal social facts. In this paper, it is attempted here to find out the hidden fact behind the value-loaded academico-politics of naming of “other” externalized variations.
There are many controversies regarding the status of ‘Folk languages’ as a technical term in Linguistics. It is generally referred to as a rural language, which is very antithetical to the existing standard or local “dialects” (“dialect” is sometimes used in a pejorative sense; it is in fact, a “defeated language” in contrast with standard language). Some others define it as a rural language, not different from local dialects. According to Sarkar (1991), Folk language is attested according to the gaze of dominant groups, who speak standard language. This is the stereotypical perception of super ordinates, which designate “other” as a lump sum essential whole. However, quite contrary to the different definitions of so-called “folk language”, we can, within the ambit of “modern” linguistics, discuss different sociolects of different social groups as a part of our academic business. The author here considered some Bangla Sociolects, which have mainly emerged as a subaltern force against the greater culture out of their non-collaborative attitude towards it. These sociolects are used in Bengal to maintain group-identity, solidarity and self- determination and some groups use a type of secret language, which may be called as “Anti-language” following Halliday (1979). The value-loaded relationship between standard variation (V) and other variations (vs) is a synthesized umbrella notion, which gives birth to a solidified linguistic nation state of a given society. Though v is antithetical to V, there is another v (suppose av), which arises antithetically to this synthesized situation of v-V. This antithetical v is called Anti-language, which is a product of anti-society (i.e. a society, which is antithetical to the established mainstream society.) This av also borrows externalized linguistic features of contiguous v or Vs. There are some sects/groups in Bengal who not only oppose the established scriptural religion, but also have developed their own solidarity and self-determination (such as Baul, Sahebdhani, Kartabhaja, Balahari etc.). All of them use different types of languages, different from their consecutive so-called “dialects” as well as standard languages. Some socio- linguistic characteristics of these avs as proposed by Halliday (1979) may be noticeable from the field-experience of Chakroborti (1989), viz., 1. Secrecy: Chakroborti (1989), in course of his anthropological fieldwork, took almost five years to understand the jargons of these various sects as these sects try to keep distance with “other” as a part of their non-collaborative attitude, i.e., “aptoSabdhan” (awareness from/ apto/ “reliable authority”). 2. Re-lexicalization: Hailliday (1979) pointed out that one of the features of Anti-language is partial relexicalization (“new word for Old” but without any change in grammar). 3. Overlexicalization: Many connotative words are used for one object: 4. Use of Metaphor: Though metaphor is a normal but non-noticeable, forgotten and unknown feature of everyday language, av is itself a “metaphorical entity” (Halliday, 1979:177) that swerves from the “norm” (normal = standard language or “dialect”). 5. Deviation: What Mukarovsky called as “deviation” from the “norm”, is also found in avs. In all, these examples, lexeme deviates from the so-called “normal” everyday meaning.
|
