"Ir" J

(

()

~~Vd j '-J V V

" 226 E. Annamalai The linguistic and social dimensions of purism 227

place is mass bilingualism as opposed to elite bilingualism, whichcauses borrowing. Borrowing in elite bilingualism is by and large re-stricted to the diffusion of fonns, prirnarily though not exc\usivelyof lex ical itcrns, whereas convergence in mass bilingualism is basicallythe diffusion of rules. Purism, manifest in the situation of elite bilingua-lisrn, rnay be treated as an effort to intercept or reverse the processof borrowing. There is no attested case of reversal of convergence.'

The maintenance of the native vocabulary as a mcans of languagemaintenance in sorne types of convergence where the languages incontact are not of equal social status is, for many reasons, not aninstance of purismo The maintenance of the native vocabulary inconvergence is not ideological, as it is in the case of purismo It isfunctional and the function is identity rnaintcnance. Because it isfunctional, the maintenance i~ selective and there may be non nativevocabulary in the converged language in cerlain lex ical domains. Themaintenance is not due lo any planned effort, either individual(leadcrs), collective (movements) or inslilutional (academies).

Since purism is a phenomenon relateel to elite bilingualisrn, it isnatural that it is initiateel and legitirnized by the elite. It is symbolicand has a rhctoric? which i~ of an elitist kinel. Since the elite hasthe prestige and provieles the model for ernulation, the mass folJowsboth in acccpting the n011 nativo items as welJ as in rejecting them

, al differcnt periods of time. The elite, as a social group exercisingpower in the society, will use lingu ~lic acts, as well as other socialacts, for the acquisition, maintenance, and exercise of power. It isfor this purp ose that the elite uses non nativo iterns in the languageat one time and rejects thern at anothcr time. This rncans that thesocial conditions must be elifferent for the lwo e1iffercnt linguisticacts at two different points of time. The relation between the socio-political condition and the puristic moverncnt in Tarnil has been point-cd out in many studies (Narnbi Arooran 1976, Sivatharnby 1978,Kailasapathy 1979, and Annamalai 1979). These condilions rnay begeneralizeel lo apply universally.

Purism is manifest when there is social change affecling the structureof social control. Language is an cffcctive 1001 of social conlrol andthe control may be exerciseel through thc control of a language asa whole or of a variety or style of a language. 1I is cxcrcised by drawinga boundary with language and by requiring iclentification with thatlanguage to allow cntry past the boundary, Thc desirc for identificationwith the language uscd for boundary maintenancc rcveals the social

inclination of the speakers to clirnb up the boundary wall. Of the twoprimary motives of lex ical diffusion through borrowing, viz. prestigeanel need-filling, the former induces borrowing from the prestigiouslanguage to thc other. The prestige is acquired by the language throughthe social doruinance of its speakers and the borrowing is thereforefrorn the dominant language to the other. The identification with thislanguage is identification with dorninance and the entry past theboundary defined by this language is entry into the class of dominance.The acqusition of the non native features from a prestigious languagemay then be an expression of inclination to be with the dominantgroup anel indication of success to have reached that point. Whenstructural change in social control is exercised through a languageor a variety of language, the language of dorninance naturally alsochanges both syrnbolically and instrurnentally. The new language orvariety is an effective indication of who is in power. When there ischange in the variety of language with the non native features toa variety with the native fea tu res, this is purisml Purism may thenbe viewed as a tendency to reject features perceived as representingdomination and threateni.ng the distinct identity, and therefore thesepar;te existence, of the dorninarcq, Any number of the culturalsyrnbols may be chosen for rejection, and language is a very cornrnonchoice, with or without o ther cultural symbols. Jt i:., of course, possiblcto reject the other cultural symbols of the dominant c1ass and keepthe language, but this seems to be rare, It is particularly rare whena struggle for change in the structure of social control is occurringbecause language is a good source of rhetoric and ideology in mobilizingthe masses in support of the change.

The intensity of the puristic tendency rnay vary in different socict.cs.The varying degrees of intensity correlate with the intensity of do-minance and thc intensity of the struggle against it. Though therernay be only one dominant language, the puristic cfforts are dircctedagainst all the languages of influence in order to provide lhe C;111sewith uniform linguistic ideology.

Purism generally has the tendency to replace the rejected non nativoIeatures with the native features which are classical or creatcd frornclassical sources and are without conternporary features. This is anatural consequence of the puristic efforts being elitistJ. The fact thatthe puristic efforts concentrate on the form rather than thc contenternphasizes the symbolic nature of the effoits and the importancc ofthe syrnbols to succeed in the efforts./fhe influence of the dominant

"'J:llh,

.e

(

228 E. Annamalai

language may be not only in the form - in the lexicon and to someextent in the grarnmatical structure - but also in the meaning. Never-theless, unlike lexical purism, semantic purism is rarely attemptednor is it likely to succeed. There are attempts to establish semanticpurity by restoring the meaning of a word to its etymological meaning,but these are in tellectual exercises without social acceptance.

The fact that the fonns of the language are the instruments ofsocial control is revealed in many ways. When an orallanguage becomeswritten, it becomes a tool for the reorganization of the polltical andsocial structure of the linguistic cornrnunity, The written languagernakes possible centralized poltical control through bureaucracywhose functions depend on it (Goody 1977). The mastery of thewritten language is necessary for access (o social mobility in the literatesociety and it creates a new elite who. in turn, control it and thus be-come the interpreters of the collective wisdom of the society as codifiedin the written language. An important factor in the supremacy ofthe Brahmins in India was their exclusive control of the codifiedSanskrit in which the Hindu wisdorn was recorded. The special re-gisters of the written languauc developcd by lawyers, bureaucrats,and other professionals and the special language varieties like theHigh variety of diglossia (Ferguson 1959) which share many characteris-

" tics of the written language make access difficult for the ordinaryspeakers to the doma in s where these special varieties are prerequisitesfor success. The script of the written language is also a powerful symbolsignifying certain identity, value, and aspirations. There are numerousinstances of the script of a language changing to reflect sociopoliticalchanges. Thc Sharada script of the Kashrniri languuge was changedto the Perso-Arabic script whenthe political power was dictated byIslam in Kashmir. The Meithei script gave way to the Bengali scriptwhen, through Vaishnavism, Bengali became the acloptecl languageof the royal court in Manipur. The native script of the Maithili languagein Bihar was given up in favor of Devanazari when the latter carne tosymbolize cultural revival and political nwakening against the colonialpower.

It is, however, not the case that the form alone plays a TOlein socialcontrol. The ways of expression through the form are importantas well. The professional rcgisters, the elaborated code (BernsteinJ 977), the High variety and so on have their own styles of organizingthought and expressing it and they crea te problerns of comprehensionand production to those who are not familiar with them. This is also

-~

The Iinguistic and social dimensions o/ purism 229

true of the pure variety of the language. A question then arises aboutthe TOle of the cornrnunicative efficacy in puristic efforts. Are nonnative features removed to improve communication?

Because borrowing occurs through elite bilingualism, the borrowenon native features hamper communication to sorne extent for thcordinary speakers. It- is necessary to be bilingua' to understand and .use the language heavily influenced by another language. Neverthe-less, the elite benefits from keeping the language barrier and will nottake the initiative to remove the non native Ieatures which are a barrierto communication. This initiative is taken by others who have thepotential to becorne an alternative elite gTOUp because of certainsocioeconomic changes which are beyond the control of the existingelite. This group finds the existing elite language incomprehensibJeand difficult to master and identify with. In the case of Tami!, use ofTarnil words in place of foreign words was advocated by the uppercaste non-Brahrnins rising against Brahmin dornination and by themiddle c1ass rising against British domination. Both groups were alsomotivated by Tamil revivalisrn. The former, led by scholars, replacedthe Sanskrit, Persian, and English words with the c1assical Tamil words,which were, in many cases, equally incornprchensible to ordinaryspeakers. They called their cause puristic. The latter group, led byjoumalists and writers, however, replaced only the Jess comprehensibleforeign words with contemporary words, if they were available, ornewly created words from conternporary sources. Their cause wasto simplify the language. This suggests that purism does not havecornmunicative efficiency as its motivation Ior the removal of the nonnative items even though it may be included in the rhetoric in supportof purismo Efforts provoked by such motivation are called simplifi-cation. A bilingual speaker may use a mix ed variety of Tarnil andEnglish when he speaks to another bilingual, but he reduces the Englishwords drastically when he speaks to a monolingual in Tamil. Thisspeaker cannot be called a purist, and he is an efficient user of lan-guage who is sensitive to the language requirement of the speech sil ua-tion. He makes an appropriate choice of code for meaningful linguisticinteraction. This is an instance of code choice for effective cornrnuni-cation. Communicative efficiency is a matter of rneaning and not offormo A form or acode is selected or rejeeted for its mcaning potential.and not for its historical origin, for better communicative efficiency.

Purism or words similar to it are used for different linguistic ac-tivities in rnany languages. Avoidance of colloquialism in the language

--

pabloalbertoniResaltado

,

(

\.

l!W'Jf"'lJIi' '.', ; .. ~. ~,-'u' ., :'IiAit.

..

is considcrcd cultured ami puristic in many languages. The use ofgrarurnatical construction~ as codified in a venerated grammaticaltrcatisc is logical :1I1d puristic. Some styles of language are consideredappropriatc and puristic, Efforls of clussicalizationr are also calledpuristic. The dcvelopment of a standard dialecn (or standard languageIrom thc uscrs' poinl of view) rcmoving variation amounts to purifyingthe languagc for some observers. Puristic tendencies are often strongwhen a languagc is codified; whether this involves giving a writingsystcm to an unwrittcn lanuuagc, or providing a grammar, or creatingnew technical tcrminology. The reason for this is that the writtenforrn is perceived as permanent ami visible and, like the gramrnaticaltreatise which prescribes Ihe code of conduct, the written code issacrcd.

Should these conu.umicativc and codification efforts be calledpurism? There are theorctical advantages to restricting the nolionof purism lo refer lo a single phcnorncnon. The rejeclion of non nativeIeatures may occur during different linguistic acts, Not all rejectionsof non native [eaturcs are acts of purismo Though the rejeetion isa prerequisite for purism, it is not sufficient in itself. Purism is a lin-guistic manifcstation of a social act to reject dorninance and asserr'sclf-idcntit y. 1I ariscs in ccrtain contcx ts of social conflict ami it isan indicator of chango in thc structurc of social conlrol. It is a societalaud not