Beginnings of Modern Linguistics and the Colonial Context Or, Towards a Postcolonial Linguistics 1. Intr Introd oduc ucti tio on In spite of the contemporar claims regarding a uni!ersal grammar, it is a well"#nown fact that languages of the world differ in indefinitel man was. was. $nd similarl, similarl, the was in which scholars ha!e approached and studied languages are also irreduci%l di!erse. If linguistic theories and practices in ancient and medie!al times, especiall in the &e%raic, Indian, Latin and $ra% traditions, ha!e had religious orientations, what can %e noticed in the modern contexts is a strong direct or indirect political orientation. 'hen a language is not !iewed as ha!ing its pro!enance in (od, and when the humans ha!e to decide and determine its structure, its use and its fate in the mundane milieu, then political issues are what respond to )uestions of language. Languages ha!e not onl %een understood as the medium of (od*s re!elation to the humans, or the mode of man*s su%mission to &im, %ut also that % which man orders the li!ing world of people and things. Languages ha!e not onl existed in di!ine spheres, %ut ha!e aided and a%etted empires and nations. It is said that %efore the +panish sailors sailed to con)uer the ew 'orld, 'orld, the scholar $nton de e%ri-a recommended rec ommended to ueen Isa%el his then newl pu%lished grammar of Castilian /1023 with the o%ser!ation that 4language was alwas the companion of empire5 language and empire %egan, increased, and flourished together.61 It is not difficult to see historicall, instances of how linguistic power operates either within the context of one*s own communit or nation, or across national %oundaries where direct political domination exists. Bernard Cohn /173 has succinctl descri%ed the exercise of British linguistic power in the earl colonial Indian context8 The ears 199: to 19;< ma %e loo#ed upon as the formati!e period during which the British successfull %egan the program of appropriating Indian languages to ser!e a crucial component in their construction of the sstem of rule. More and more British officials were learning the 4classical6 languages of India /+ans#rit, Persian, and $ra%ic3 as well as man 4!ulgar6 languages= More importantl, this was the period in which the British were %eginning to produce an apparatus8 grammars, dictionaries, treatises, class %oo#s, and translations a%out and from languages of India. 5 The su%-ects of these texts were first and foremost the Indian languages themsel!es, represented in >uropean terms as grammars, dictionaries, and teaching aids in a pro-ect to ma#e the ac)uisition of a wor#ing #nowledge #nowledge of the language a!aila%le to those British who were to %e part of the ruling group in India .2
2. The >uropean Context 1
uoted in >rrington, ?. 2::;. p. 1;.
2
Cohn, Bernard, +.,17. @The Command of language and the Language of Command,6 Chapter 2 in Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge – the British in India, pp. 2:"21.
1
'e shall %egin % considering the earl modern period in >urope, also referred to as the @classical* era. It is useful for us to see that political linguistics ha!e manifested in multiple was in the >uropean context. Perhaps, we ma mention as the first approach the path opened up % Benedict $nderson in his well"#nown wor#, Imagined Communities and see how languages %ecame the %asis of nationalism and nation"formation in >urope. The second is to follow the one proposed % Michel Aoucault /1773, where the !er discourses pertaining to language within what emerged as @the human sciences* underwent specific discontinuities, first from the enaissance period to the Classical period, and then from the latter to the Modern period. $s a third approach we shall tr and follow how philosophical ideas, such as those of ?ohn Loc#e, Condillac and ?ohann (. &erder emphasised the voluntary and creative use of language in indi!iduals* expressions, in relation to %oth scientific and popular #nowledge formations. elated to this is a fourth issue, also closel connected to what >dward +aid had famousl identified as the discourse of Orientalism, which is clearl e!ident in the wor#s 'illiam ?ones, 'ilhelm !on &um%oldt and Max Mler, among others. 'e are here concerned with the )uestion8 how did the >uropean colonisations affect the %alance of power %etween languages and cultures in that continent= Philolog %egan with the contact and the @command* the >uropean scholars esta%lished with the cultural and linguistic %rought into the continent. The comparati!e and historical studies that philologists undertoo#, had the effect of le!elling out on the one hand of the ?udeo"Christian languages and their associated world!iews /of &e%rew, (ree# and Latin3 and those of the newl disco!ered and attested languages. $nd, on the other hand, it led to the preferential acceptance and treatment of certain languages or groups of languages o!er certain others. In the new glo%al linguistic famil and #inship sstem, certain languages and their corresponding @families,* such as +ans#rit and other classical Indo">uropean languages were ele!ated in ran# and others, such as Chinese and $ra%ic were relegated to an inferior and under"de!eloped status. The ideological %iases of such scholarl positions, often springing from pre!iousl internalised philosophical and religious %eliefs could onl %e pre-udicial and therefore de!oid of the intended scientific %asis.D D. >mergence of ational Languages $nderson /1;D3 focuses on the material su%structure of the formation of >uropean @national languages* which started appearing in the 10 th centur />nglish, 1D;23 and %egan to accelerate from the 17th centur with the declaration of AranEois /1
3
?ean"Pierre Gernant has noted 8 4+cientific rationalit defines itself as it constructs the su%-ect matter and methodolog of each new discipline. In the human science, moreo!er, there is no !irgin territor to exploreH the fields of in!estigation are continents mapped % tradition and explored % religious thought.6 /in Olender, Maurice, 2::;. The Languages of Paradise – Race, Religion and Philology in the ineteenth Century, p. !iii"ix3
2
$nderson has descri%ed how in the context of the emergence of capitalism and print" technolog, >uropean !ernaculars were assem%led into @print"languages* and how the latter with the aid of @print"capitalism* %ecame the %asis for the emergence of national consciousness, and e!entuall the nation states. This process, he notes, further entailed8 a. the creation of 4unified fields of exchange and communication %elow Latin and a%o!e the !ernaculars6H %. pro!iding 4a new fixit to language, which 5 helped to %uild the image of anti)uit so central to the idea of the nation6H c. the creation of new 4@languages of power* of a #ind different from the older administrati!e !ernaculars.6 /118 00"0<3
0. The iscourse of Language Aoucault o%ser!es a somewhat parallel mo!ement in!ol!ing a discontinuit from a discourse of @resem%lance* during the enaissance period to that of @representation* in the Classical period. In the latter period, things in nature do not signif % means of words that were thought to naturall resem%le them, %ut it is now the rationall endowed man who @represents* % means of signs the ideas that correspond to things. The authors of the Cartesian"inspired Port"oal grammar /177:3 wrote that signs are not naturall present, %ut are @in!ented* % man. The historical period that $nderson considered in which national languages %egin to ta#e shape is that of earl >uropean modernit, which somewhat coincided with what Aoucault calls the @classical* period of the 19th centur, that is, the period preceding that of @>nlightenment,* or the @modern* period that %egins in late 1;th centur. Aoucault, in his The !rder of Things /1773, discusses the latter period that har%ingered the @comparison* of languages and stud of their historical changes. This was the %eginning of comparati!e philolog, which in man was pa!ed the wa for modern linguistics of the 1 th and 2:th centuries. Aoucauldian @archaeolog* sees this emergence of comparatism and historicism as the second ma-or @discontinuit* in >uropean linguistic thought /along with other s imilar discontinuities in economics and %iolog3. This discontinuit from the classical to the modern period is characteriJed % a shift from understanding language as @representation* % means of signs, to the stud of the historical changes in the form of languages % wa of comparison. +uch comparisons %etween languages, Aoucault sas, in!ol!ed @great confrontations %etween !arious languages,* which sometimes reflected @pressures of political moti!e*50 In his account of the @confrontation* %etween languages, Aoucault rightl identified the grammatical @inflection* as the 4form intermediar %etween articulation of contents and the !alue of roots.6 /i%id, p. 2D03 'e note here that the grammatical propert of @inflection* %ecame the %asis of the comparison %etween and the @classical* languages, +ans#rit, (ree# 4
Aoucault refers to the pu%lication in Peters%urg, ussia, in 19;9 the first !olume of the Cam"aritivum Totius !r#is which 4include references to 29 languagesH 191 in $sia, << in >urope, D: in $frica,,2D in $merica.6 This was possi%l the largest comparati!e glossar of world*s languages %ased on the notion of a %asic !oca%ular. /i%id., p. 2D03
3
and Latin, % (aston CKurdoux and +ir 'illiam ?ones, and particularl the %asis of the latter*s claim regarding the superiorit /and for some li#e &um%oldt, the near"perfection3 of +ans#rit e!en among these @classical* languages. Aoucault is noticea%l silent a%out the ideological ele!ation of these classical @Indo">uropean* /and for some, @$ran*3 languages, %ut he rightl notes the decisi!e role plaed % @inflection* in the %irth of modern linguistics.< ight as he is to the emergence of philolog as a modern historical science, Aoucault*s @archeolog* is decidedl a!erse to seeing the ideological dimensions that accompanied this discontinuit. >dward +aid /still inade)uatel3 and others ha!e focused on the central role that philolog plaed in the formation of the %ourgeoning field of @Orientalis m.* +aid )uotes Ben-amin israeli at the start of his %oo#8 @The >ast is a career.* /+aid, 19H xii3
<. ationalism and >mpiricism in Language +tudies. (rammatical studies of the @classical* 19th centur were characterised, in a properl Cartesian manner, % the emergence of the notion of @innate ideas* and the mental operations with them as what words stand for or represent. $s per the classic opening definition of the (eneral and ational (rammar of Port"oal8 4(rammar is the art of spea#ing. +pea#ing is explaining one*s thoughts % signs which men ha!e in!ented for this purpose.6 /53
In this formulation, signs are the means % which one expresses innatel present ideas and explain to others one*s logicall organised thoughts. Fnowledge, according to Cartes ian rationalism, does not naturall emerge from the world, %ut is produced % human %eings on the %asis of their innate ideas and mental operations in!ol!ing them. +igns, for their part, in!ol!e a material part, the sounds or letters and the ideal part, @signification,* which is the specific manner in which one uses the former to @signif* one*s thoughts generated % the uni!ersal rational apparatus. (rammar is no more a matter of the @signs of things* as was for the medie!al @modistae* grammarians /e.g. Thomas of >rfurt3. It is no more the natural @things* that the natural signs signif. +igns in!ented % man now signif innate and rational ideas. This picture of the interrelationship %etween the innatel endowed #nowledge and the @in!ented* signs of language was su%stantiall transformed and altered % ?ohn Loc#e in late 19th centur. e-ecting Cartesian ationalism, Loc#e claimed that the signs that constitute language do not pre"exist the corresponding ideas. ?ust as he maintained in his empiricist theor that ideas arise % transforming the sensations recei!ed from the external world, he would insist that words are o%tained % !oluntaril imposing upon articulate sounds mar#s in order to remem%er and recogniJe particular ideas. +ince the imposition of a mar# is !oluntar 5
@Inflection* is a grammatical mode where !er%al morpholog is %ased on the internal changes of the root. >.g., @%u* @%rought*, or @%ring* @%rought* as distinct from @wor#* @wor#ed*. The languages which ha!e @inflection* as their ma-or mode of !er%al morpholog were traditionall referred to as @inflectional languages* /e.g. +ans#rit, (ree# and Latin3, as distinct from the @agglutinating* languages where grammatical elements are added on the root /e.g. Tur#ish, &e%rew, Tamil3 , and the @isolating* languages, where the roots and grammatical elements remain unconnected /e.g. Chinese3.
4
and de!oid of an prior necessit, a sign can %ear onl an ar#itrary relationship with the corresponding idea. Thus, according to Loc#e, linguistic signs come to exist onl % wa !oluntar acts of human indi!iduals. The do not exist as a random set for man to choose from in their communicati!e needs, %ut rather the ha!e to %e wilfull created in specific experiential situations. There is no common, uni!ersal human in!ention of the sign. +igns are the result of !oluntar impositions of man different indi!iduals, a nd that is what in Loc#e*s !iew, renders them prone to error or @imperfections*. Loc#e claimed that ideas ma %e formed from the things in a more or less correct or perfect manner, %ut what words do primaril is to @signif* or @stand for* the ideas, % means of the !oluntar and imposed mar#s which as signs help humans in recording their own thoughts, to assist them in fixing their own memor, and to present and to transfer their ideas to others. Loc#e suggests an extreme degree of indi!idualit of linguistic signs. 'ords signif the particular ideas formed % indi!idual spea#ers. One*s idea a%out a particular thing expressed % one*s own words cannot %e the same idea of another that he would express % his words. There are no signs in general corresponding to things. &e sas8 4'ords %eing !oluntar +igns, the cannot %e !oluntar +igns imposed % him on Things that he #nows not.6
Loc#e can %e seen to ta#e his empiricism to an extreme, e!en if he is dealing with @ideas* at the le!el of language and #nowledge. +ensations are recei!ed from things, and the are transformed into ideas. The indi!idual imposes mar#s on the sounds or sound se)uences corresponding to the ideas he has formed. This results in the ar%itrariness of signs. The scenario is rather uncomplicated at the le!el of simple ideas of things and the corresponding signs, which tend to %e somewhat similar for most indi!iduals. &owe!er, the complex ideas /in the higher intellectual domains3 got % compounding of simple ideas and the signs for them are ne!er the same for all indi!iduals. This disparit in!ol!ing the signs and ideas for oneself, as well as that %etween the ideas of different indi!iduals in con!ersation and argumentation in fact renders ordinar language more of a hindrance than an aid in communication. Loc#e refers to this as the @imperfection* of words in relation to ideas, and correcting these imperfections is one of his main philosophical goals. The imperfections are to %e remedied % pro!iding sta%le @definitions* of words and their meanings. $nd the definitions ha!e to %e arri!ed at particularl for the complex terms, % determining what #ind of metaphorical extensions ha!e %een made from the simple ideas got on the %asis of the initial sensations. 7. Origin and &istorical e!elopment of Languages Loc#e*s follower in Arance, >tienne Bonnot $%% de Condillac, later speculated on the natural and historical origins of language and its de!elopment to higher and higher degrees of progress % means of analsis of language in relation to the thin#ing process. The %etter one
5
underta#es this linguistic analsis, the %etter would %e one*s a%ilit to thin#. Thin#ing, Condillac declares, is 4the art of spea#ing.6 Thus, Condillac*s interest lies not -ust in the )uestion of o%taining the right #nowledge, %ut rather in how language ena%les thin#ing. &ighest forms of thin$ing , %udging and reasoning , are underta#en with words, and he claims, 4-ust as we calculate with numerals, and languages are for ordinar people what alge%ra is for the geometricians.6 7 Aor Condillac, man needs to ha!e a !oluntar control o!er the signs of language and their use not onl to remem%er things %ut e!en more to reflect and to thin#. &igher forms of thin#ing can ta#e place onl with the ac)uisition and use of language. &owe!er, though language and thin#ing in!ol!e a natural and interlin#ed growth and de!elopment % men from a natural gestural %ase % wa of analogical principles, Condillac insists that this process of linguistic and mental de!elopment is not uniform across different cultures, for the patterns and the )ualit of analogical creation are not the same in different contexts. &umans analogise in a %etter or worse manner to produce a superior or inferior mental and linguistic de!elopment in relation to nature*s fount of #nowledge which is a!aila%le for all man#ind. $nd since our thoughts are dependent on how well we analse our language, the latter has a determining role in our #nowledge de!elopment. +ince our languages which ta#e form in proportion as we analse them, %ecame so man analtical methods, it is understanda%le that we find it natural to thin# according to the ha%its that the cause us to ac)uire. 'e thin# with them. ulers of our -udgment, the determine our #nowledge, opinions and pre-udices. In short, the do in this domain e!erthing good or %ad5 9
Aurthermore, our first naturall a!aila%le and gesture"%ased language is the most appropriate rational language. Therefore it is %est that a people maintained a natural course /of direct analog3 in their own linguistic and mental de!elopments and remain uncontaminated % the influences of other peoples on their own language and culture. Condillac*s naturalist theor of linguistic and mental de!elopment has had two conse)uences. One is historical and the other anthropological. The latter has to do with the firm con!iction N la +apir and 'horf /passing through &um%oldt3 regarding linguistic relati!ism determinism8 @language determines thought.* Therefore the existence of di!erse languages suggests a di!ersit of stages of mental de!elopment and thin#ing on the %asis of different degrees of analsis attained and applied. The former in!ol!es the %elief that historicall languages and cultures ha!e responded differentl to the original linguistic and mental disposition in man, and the would ha!e done this in a %etter or a worse manner, and conse)uentl, the would ha!e shown correspondingl superior or inferior intellectual results in their gi!en historical situations. This conclusion of a historical and cultural hierarch seems to ha!e %een too facilel arri!ed at on the %asis of the @e!idence* that >uropean scholars, aided % colonial expansions, had claimed to ha!e o%tained from the !ast di!ersit of human languages and cultures. 6
uoted in &arris and Talor, 19, pp. 1D9"D;.
7
uoted in i%id., p. 1DD.
6
9. &erder and the )uestion of the &ol$ The first significant %rea# with a rationalism di!orced from the realm of human cultural experience too# place with the wor#s of ?ohann (ottfried &erder who was not onl #een on reconnecting in man with (od %ut also emphasising on the rele!ance of poetr and the uni)ueness of each human culture. The speculation a%out language is no longer on its source in reason or thought, %ut on #nowing what language (od spo#e and passed on to the first humans &e created. This speculation has %een aptl characterised % Maurice Olender as that of determining @the language of paradise.* B &erder*s time, there was alread e!idence of a di!ersit of rich texts and culturall significant discourses from different parts of the glo%e that >uropean scholars had started to %ecome familiar with. 'hat fascinated man omanticists who were not a!erse to the a%solute of di!init and of poetr and related scholars was the )uestion of the language that man spo#e at the moment of his di!ine creation, i.e., in paradise and in the cradle of the human ci!iliJation. This was important for them in the wa#e of the new competitors that could sta#e a claim to it in the wa#e of the >uropean colonial expansion. $s a philosopher of histor, &erder*s focus was on human cultural and linguistic origins. $ pastor #eenl engaged in religion, his initial attention was turned to the &e%rew language, particularl &e%rew poetr. This was the time when the Oriental was identified as the original. $n oriental language, &e%rew of the Old Testament, for the Christians and the ?ews, must %e thought of as the original language. &erder is initiall almost de!otional towards &e%rew, assumed to %e man*s first language that lin#s him with (od. The poetic simplicit of &e%rew language is considered as a !irtue, for that ma#es it less a%stract and rich in images, and thus confirming its claim to %eing the original language. &erder replaced the idea of a transcendental human reason with the notion of vol$geist /fol# spirit3 that was manifested in ordinar people*s language, literature, histor, mtholog, fol#tales and religion. $ccording to &erder, humans e!erwhere start with the same mental capacities, %ut their experience of li!ing in specific conditions and contexts, as well as their specific historical conditions, form their mentalities differentl. These ac)uired mental dispositions, in turn, are manifested in their differential creati!e outputs, that is, in their languages, tales and mths, cultures and religious thoughts and %eliefs. &erder*s main merit, according to man commentators, is in ha!ing fa!oured a cultural pluralism that was indeed not de!oid of features of relati!ism. ; Qnli#e the proponents of reason on the one hand, and the !otaries of di!ine creation on the other, &erder pro-ected language as the decisi!e feature in human histor and human existence. &uman %eings are made of languages, their nature is %ut @a tissue of language.* &uman reason needs language to grow and articulate itself. The grammatical form of an language, whether simple or complex, reflects a people*s experience of the world as impressed in language. &erder, in a properl omantic !ein admired &e%rew poetr for its simplicit and spiritual richness that 8
+ee Maurice Olender, The Languages of Paradise. Race, Religion and Philology in the ineteenth Century . /Tr.3 $. (oldhammer, Cam%ridge8 &ar!ard Qni!ersit Press, 1;. Olender de!otes a full chapter to &erder /pp. D9"<:3. 9 uoted in Olender, M., 2::;, p. DD.
7
reflected a paradisiacal innocence. Language, for &erder, is not -ust a means for expressing the uni!ersal reason, %ut each nation is pro!ided with a di!ine linguistic source simultaneousl spiritual"poetic and legal"political, which undergoes historical de!elopments. &erder, as a historian of humanit, attempted to trace its progress through time in terms of the differential attainments of languages and mentalities in different nations, which were in turn the result of human interaction and sense"ma#ing. &uman societies are all e)uall endowed and the progressed in histor according to the 'eitgeist or time"spirit of each, %ut at the same time, the succession of epochs in the uni!ersal human histor is predetermined % the i!ine plan, that is, the Christian Pro!idence. In effect, &erder pursued the thought of a !i%rant cultural pluralism, where e!er culture is historicall progressing in terms of its own singularit, %ut ultimatel, the whole of human histor unfolds according to the Pro!idential plan. $nd moreo!er, since each nation had its own internal de!elopments and and destin /though within Pro!idential terms3, &erder was opposed to an form of religious con!ersion.1: But et, understanding the creati!e unfolding of human histor e!en if humans are sense"ma#ing agents is possi%le onl as 4an art of unco!ering the di!ine order hidden in the Bi%le611 Olender notes that if &erder su%ordinates a secular @cultural histor respecting national and spiritual di!ersities* to a Lutheran @pro!idential anthropolog,* that*s %ecause, for him ultimatel onl the Bi%le pro!ides 4/r3e!elation in the proper sense of the word.6 Other religions can onl pro!ide mtholog, liturg or high moralit. &erder*s final cou" de grace is directed at ?udaism, whose hol scriptures, their praers and moral -udgments are 4su%lime writings,6 %ut in spite of that Pro!idence itself had made a decision in fa!our of Christianit as the @uni)ue design for our species.* 12 ;. 'illiam ?ones and the Beginnings of Colonial Linguistics Arom here we go on to descri%e the intricacies of 'illiam ?ones* historical" ci!iliJational propositions. $ recent wor# on ?ones has shown his dependence on an @anti)ue theolog* that undermines ?ones* reputation as a li%eral and progressi!e orientalist scholar. The +wiss author of The Birth of !rientalism,1D Qrs $pp*s main criticism of ?ones runs as follows8 'hile the !olumes of the (siatic$ Researches stunned their >uropean readership % their utterl secular and o%-ecti!e outloo# on $sia and thus propagated a new #ind of orientalism that was no more the hand"maiden of theolog, R'illiamS ?ones*s earl discourses show how e!en the erudite and coolheaded founder of the $siatic# +ociet remained chained to >urope*s time"honored religious ideolog with its peculiar !ision of an extremel short histor dominated % a (od who #indl instructed his first creatures, drowned most of their descendants in the deluge, and had three sons of oah populate the entire world in a couple of thousand ears. 5 /&3is earl discourses demonstrate a surprisingl deep attachment to Bi%le"inspired chronolog, sacred histor, and ancient t heolog5 10
10
4To con!ert a nation to Christianit % imposing on it a new wa of life is to compel it to %etra its own !alues, to lose its own identit, and thus to imperil its spiritual and political integrit.6 /I%id., p. 023 11 I%id., p. 00. 12
I%id., p. 0;. $pp, Qrs, The Birth of !rientalism, Qni!ersit of Pennsl!ania Press, 2:1:. 14 $pp, Q., 4'illiam ?ones* $ncient Theolog,6 )ino*Platonic Pa"ers /Online3 !ol. 11, p. 99, 2::. 13
8
$ccording to ?ones* mtho"geographical histor presented in the third anni!ersar lecture of 2nd Ae%ruar 19;7, the @!ast continent* of $sia has %een inherited % @fi!e principal nations*8 the &indus /Indians3, the Chinese, the Tartars, the $ra%s, and the Persians. &is stated intention is to stud them all in e!er detail, so that a @more perfect #nowledge of them all* would %e to the ad!antage of the >uropeans.1< &e is also interested in #nowing a%out their common origins, if an. &e %egins with the stud of the Indians in the third lecture @On the &indus,* %ecause, he sas, 4it is the countr, which we now inha%it, and from which we ma %est sur!e the regions around us.617 &is own historical description of India is decidedl partial, for he intends to #eep the Muslim period out of his scholarl considerations. &e sas8 45in all these in)uiries concerning the histor of India, I shall confine m researches downwards to the Mohammedan con)uests at the %eginning of the ele!enth centur, %ut extend them upwards, as high as possi%le, to the earliest authentic records of the human species.6 19 Central to ?ones* geographical"historical accounts are the following principal themes8 •
•
•
•
•
the British are now in command of the Indian territor /Bengal to %egin with3 and are now settlers on this landH the Muslim rulers and their religion and culture present in the Indian territor are irrele!ant for studing the histor of IndiaH India is the priJed possession of the British, and its anti)uit is directl lin#ed with the anti)uit of the >uropeansH the Bi%lical /Old Testament, i.e., Mosaic3 account of the histor and geograph of the peoples of the world can %e attested % modern studies under the aegis of the $siatic +ociet of Bengal that he founded in 19;0H the British ha!e a (od"gi!en /Pro!idential3 role to guide the destin of the Indian people.
+ignificantl, ?ones* claims that his modern historical studies could esta%lish a more or less seamless mapping %etween the ancient Bi%lical accounts and the contemporar la of the lands. In the 1: th $nni!ersar lecture /Ae%ruar 19D3 ?ones is explicit and e!en ecstatic a%out the disco!er of the truth of the Mosaic ethnolog and the role of Pro!idence in ha!ing aided in esta%lishing the connection %etween modern Britain and the anti)uit of India8 5 all our historical researches ha!e confirmed the +osaic$ accounts of the primiti!e worldH and our testimon on that su%-ect ought to ha!e the greater weight, %ecause, if the result of our o%ser!ations had %een totall different, we should ne!ertheless ha!e pu%lished them, not indeed with e)ual pleasure, %ut with e)ual confidenceH for Truth is mighty, and, whate!er %e its conse)uences, must always "revail1;
$nd furthermore8 In these Indian territories, which Pro!idence has thrown into the arms of Britain for their protection and welfare, the religion, manners, and laws of the nati!es preclude 15
)ir -illiam .ones, /iscourses and 0ssays , op cit. p. <.
16
I%id.
17
I%id.
18
+ir 'illiam ?ones* 1:th $nni!ersar iscourse /Ae%ruar 19D3. +ource8 www.elohs.unifi.ittesti9::-ones?onesiscourse1:.html accessed on 20 Ma 2:1D
9
e!en the idea of political freedomH %ut their histories ma possi%l suggest hints for their prosperit, while our countr deri!es essential %enefit from the diligence of a placid and su%missi!e people, who multipl with such increase, e!en after the ra!ages of famine51 It is worth noting that ?ones first came to India with the aim of translating into >nglish the Persian law, which he thought was the %asis of Indian societ. $fter his disco!er and learning of +ans#rit in Benares, he went on to identif this role for the text of +anusmriti, also #nown as the @Manu*s laws.* Aor the British authorities, ?ones*s main scholarl contri%ution was to ha!e translated this text % now infamous for %eing derogator to the alits and referring to it as the %asic &indu /Indian3 law and not his philological and literar outputs. The >uropean ci!iliJational account forcefull narrated % +ir 'illiam ?ones emerged later in a full"%lown manner and with more intense political ramifications, including the propagation of the $ran mth in the nineteenth centur. This has %een su%mitted to an astute analsis in the wor# of Maurice Olender /1;2::;3. 2: &istoricall, there has alwas %een a earning to name the original and perfect language of man#ind. In the >uropean context this was referred of as the language of paradise, where man was originall united with (od, and whose language was that in which (od spo#e to the first man, $dam. 'illiam ?ones* declaration on +ans#rit, its @ex)uisite refinement* and its possi%l ha!ing come from a no longer extant common source, along with the other >uropean classical languages, (ree# and Latin, upset the hitherto dominant position of &e%rew and downgraded the status of +emitic languages in general. &is strong claims in this regard, as we #now, led to the hpothesis regarding an Indo">uropean @famil* of languages, and caused a seismic shift in understanding the racial composition of >urope and the rest of the world. In mid nineteenth centur, after comparati!e and historical linguistics had %een firml esta%lished in (erman, A. Max Mller, who was made the first Chair of Comparati!e Philolog at Oxford Qni!ersit, had summed up the significance of this change8 Than#s to the disco!er of the ancient language of India, +ans#rit as it is called5 and than#s to the disco!er of the close #inship %etween this language and the idioms of the principal races of >urope, which was esta%lished % the genius of +chlegel, &um%oldt, Bopp, and man others, a complete re!olution has ta#en place in the method of studing the world*s primiti!e histor.21
The twists and turns in the conceptions of world histor %etween 19<: and 1;<: must %e stated more specificall in terms of the fluctuating fortunes of &e%rew and +ans#rit, % then, the two main contenders or %eing the @languages of paradise.* 22 $s earl as the 19<:s the principal Arench >nlightenment philosopher Goltaire, was #een to detach the >uropean ci!iliJation from its Bi%lical"religious, and &e%rew origins, and loo# for alternati!es, possi%l from the shores of the (anges in India. $long with the disco!er of Gedic texts and with the 19
I%id.
20
+ee to Olender, Maurice, 2::; edn. The Languages of Paradise1 Race, Religion and Philology in the ineteenth century1 /Tr.3 $. (oldhammer. Cam%ridge, Mass. &ar!ard Qni!ersit Press. 21 uoted in M. Olender, op cit. p. 9. 22
Olender -ustifies the title and the contents of his %oo# thus8 4The sources on which this %oo# is %ased in!ite us to consider $rans and +emites as functional pair with a pro!idential aspect, as elements of a theor of the origins56 /i%id., p. 1;3
10
%eginning of the colonial domination of the Indian su%continent, an @$ran* paradise was thought to supersede the $damic &e%rew paradise. . &um%oldt8 Tpolog, ational Character and the ace &ierarch. B the time 'ilhelm !on &um%oldt had written his ma-or philological wor#s and died in 1;D<, comparati!e and historical linguistics had come off age through the efforts of AranJ Bopp, the +chlegel %rothers and others. &um%oldt*s main contri%ution in what he and others had set up as a philosoph of language is two"fold8 a. to firm up the idea of a genealogical classification of world*s languages in terms of a famil"tree model, and #. e!en more importantl to propose a classification of world*s languages in terms of linguistic structure or morpholog. Aor him, there is a mental capacit specific to Language as such, the ideal @inner linguistic sense* which interacts with the material phonetic part in di!erse was, depending on the effort or energ expended % the spea#ers of particular languages, to ield a di!ersit of languages. In &um%oldt*s conception, there is a potential ideal of such a com%ination that, %ut which perhaps no language reall attains. epending on how well a linguistic communit has wor#ed on their language, the linguistic structures ha!e appeared that are more or less perfect. If the genealogical tpolog shows merel the historical relationships among languages and their classification in terms of famil relationships, the morphological tpolog re!eals a scale of structural perfection different families of languages and their mem%ers ha!e attained with regard to the ideal com%ination of the uni!ersal mental component of language /@inner linguistic sense*3 and the limited human sound forms. This structural hierarch is headed % the Indo">uropean languages of the ancient period, which manifest an inflectional morphological tpe. These languages /+ans#rit, (ree# and Latin3 ha!e structures that approximate what in &um%oldt*s !iew in!ol!e an ideal melding of external sound and inner linguistic sense. The are followed % the other structural tpes of languages, the agglutinating, isolating and incorporating tpes, in that hierarchal order. &um%oldt*s linguistic and concomitantl racial %iases are e!ident in the following statement8 'e ha!e e!erwhere set out at first from the structure of languages alone, and in forming a -udgement a%out it ha!e also confined oursel!es solel to this. ow that this structure is %etter in one than another, is more excellent in +anscrit than in Chinese, and in (ree# than in $ra%ic, could hardl %e disputed % an impartial scholar. &owe!er we might tr to weigh off their respecti!e !irtues, we should alwas ha!e to admit that one of these languages is animated % a more fruitful "rinci"le of mental develo"ment than the other.
The structural superiorit is construed upon the %elief that in the ma#ing of the ancient Indo">uropean inflectional languages, the spea#ers ha!e spent more intellectual energ in the internal structural formation of the roots to ield di!erse forms, whereas in languages li#e Chinese or $ra%ic, grammatical !ariations are merel a matter of differing word"orders or morphological suffixing respecti!el. In &um%oldt*s !iew, what ma#es the latter linguisticall inferior is the fact no conscious linguistic thought was emploed to get morphological and grammatical !ariations % means of root"inflections. $nd, correspondingl and % extension, as man philologists %elie!ed, a poorer grammatical formation is an indication of lesser intellectual de!elopment, and hence the @e!ident* superiorit of the Indo">uropean languages with inflections o!er the +emitic /e.g. &e%rew and $ra%ic3 and the ra!idian languages which ha!e agglutinating structures, and o!er the +ino"Ti%etan famil of languages with their isolating structures. This hierarch of languages is thus assumed to %e directl correlated with their status in the racial hierarch.
11
&um%oldt*s race"%ased nationalism is e)uall complex. Though li#e rationalists, he accepted that all humans ha!e the same initial mental ma#e"up, according to &um%oldt during the primiti!e formation of their languages, the inner linguistic sense com%ined with the sound form, rather unconsciousl, in a single %urst of energ, as it were, which guided the destin of languages and their families. It is %ut a chance spontaneous occurrence that pri!ileged certain nations and their languages, %ut not others in their su%se)uent intellectual and linguistic de!elopment. Once this msterious e!ent had ta#en place, the language and the mentalit of different peoples mo!ed along their predestined courses in forming their inexora%le @national characters.* It is this e!ent that determines the superiorit of certain nations and races /e.g. the Indo">uropeans3 o!er the others /e.g. the +emitics, the Chinese, etc.3.
1:. Max Mller and the @atural +election* of Languages B the time Max Mller %ecame the first Chair of Comparati!e Philolog at Oxford Qni!ersit, the )uestion of the @$ran* race and the +ans#rit language ha!e %een raised to an exalted position in >uropean scholarship. Mller %egan his career with the intent of founding a +cience of eligion, %ut simultaneousl he in!ented a historicist and positi!ist +cience of Language. That he is indeed one of the most !enerated >uropean scholars in India, with a prestigious street in central ew elhi named after him. &owe!er, we notice that his enthusiasm for e!erthing +ans#rit, $ran, &indu and Indo">uropean led him to ma#e an odd claim in a report su%mitted to the British arm. Trautmann points out that8 Max Mller said, in 1;<0, that the same %lood flowed in the !eins of the soldiers of /o%ert3 Cli!e that flowed in the !eins of the 4dar# Bengalese,6 and that this truth, contrar to the testimon of s#in color, was guaranteed % t he linguistic connection %etween >nglish and Bengali as mem%ers of the same Indo">uropean language famil. /1;<08 23 2D Thus language, not complexion, is a sign of the inner and in!isi%le entit called race and sm%oliJed % %lood.20
ace and religion were central concerns for Max Mller. &e argued that soon after (od*s act of creation, a di!ine intuition was implanted in man % wa of a re!elation. This intuition, we should imagine was something li#e an @inner religious sense,* perhaps a#in to &um%oldt*s inner linguistic sense, and the former !aried 4according to the expression which it too# in the languages of man.6 2< Therefore di!ergence of human languages was a conse)uence of how the re!ealed di!init was expressed differentl in different languages. The tas# of the new science of language that he proposed was to in!estigate the primordial lin# %etween di!init and languages. In Mller*s words, 4/t3he histor of religion is, in one sense the histor of language.6 27 eligion and Language con!erged in Mller*s thought on the notion of the linguistic @roots* /a prominent notion in +ans#rit grammatical texts3 as distinct from the earlier ma-or notion of @signs.* It ser!ed him in distinguishing the animal from the human, the natural from 23
Mller, M, )uggestions for the assistance of officers in learning the languages of the seat of war in the 0ast1 London8 'illiams and orgate. 1;<0. eferred in Trautmann, 2::7, p. 11. 24 Trautmann, 2006, p. 221-22. 25
uoted in Olender, 2::;, p. ;D., from Max Muller*s ew Lessons on the )cience of Language /1;7D3,
26
I%id., p. ;0.
12
the cultural"mthological and finall, ?udaic monotheism from $ran poltheism. 'or#ing %ac#wards in the histor of linguistic roots, Mller claimed that it is the roots ha!ing a primordial di!ine content, which separated the %easts from men, and the natural from the religious"mthological. &e also identified the distinction %etween the agglutinating +emitic tpe of language and the inflecting $ran tpe of language as the distinction of how their respecti!e roots functioned. The +emitic roots are easil identifia%le, and therefore their su%stantial meanings can %e ta#en to %e transparent. This simplicit of the +emitic roots wherein the natural and the di!ine could %e #ept separate is what renders these languages more prone to monotheism. 'hile in the $ran languages, the roots are mired and %ecome indistinct in a complex inflectional sstem of suffixes and deri!ations that such a transparent relationship %etween them and the natural world could not exist, and therefore the roots of words are easil transfigured from the natural domain to the transcendental. Thus, for example, the @sun* can easil %e transposed as (od in the $ran languages, a pattern that results in rich %ut often misleading mthological formations. The tas# of a science of language, for Mller, was to dig deep into language past the point where the mthological o%scures the le!el of the roots and where di!ine intuition is inexora%l merged with the most primordial @roots* of human languages. &owe!er, it must %e noted, as Olender points out, that Mller*s sense of linguistic"religious cosmopolitanism did not pre!ent him from insisting on the uni)ueness and superiorit of Christianit in the Pro!idential order of which he was aware perhaps in the same manner as &erder 29. $t the pea# of his career in the mid 1 th centur, Mller was also deepl influenced, as % %oth arwin*s e!olutionar theor /mediated % the wor# of $ugust +chleicher 2;8 /arwinist Theory and the Language )cience3 and the positi!ist philosoph of $uguste Comte. It can %e seen that Mller was, along positi!ist lines @rationalising* the social or the con!entional part of language. $nd moreo!er, it is %iological e!olution that ma#es languages historicall more and more rational. Languages and language forms, in their own historical existence, undergo an e!olutionar selection, a#in to %iological selection as proposed % arwin. Perhaps, Max Mller expressed this idea more forcefull than arwin himself had wished, and the latter openl ac#nowledged Mller*s contri%ution in showing language as the %est instance of how his own e!olutionar theor wor#s. In his formulation8 Let us su%stitute for this >picurean idea of a con!entional agreement an idea which did not exist in his time, and the full ela%oration of which in our own time we owe to the genius of arwinH Ulet us place instead of agreement, atural )election, or, as I called it in m former Lectures, atural 0limination, and we shall then arri!e, I %elie!e, at an understanding with >picurus, and e!en with some of his modern followers. 2
This would mean that it was not Pro!idence that guided the forward mo!ement of the world*s languages, %ut a %iological principle of natural selection, or expressed in more sa!age terms, the sur!i!al of the rationall fit. Therefore, it is an intrinsic mental process of functional")ualitati!e selection that has fa!oured the sur!i!ing languages. Or, those languages that ha!e sur!i!ed are to %e deemed as the %estV The forms that ha!e 27
I%id., p. :"2.
28
$. +chleicher 8 4(rammar is a %ranch of linguistics or glottics. This in turn is a component of the atural &istor of Man. Their characteristic method is that of the natural sciences ... One of the #e tas#s of glottics is the classification and description of groups of dialects or linguistic %ranches, that is to sa, languages deri!ed from a single and e!en original language, and the classification of these %ranches following a natural order.6 /M translation of a citation in the Arench 'i#ipedia. /http8fr.wi#ipedia.orgwi#i$ugust+chleicher, accessed on 20th ?une 2:10.33 29 Mller, M., )uoted in &arris, . and Talor, T. ?., op cit., p. 1;D.
13
disappeared were not fit to sur!i!e. 'e don*t #now if Max Mller was aware of the iron of his statement, for from another perspecti!e it is those so"called languages that were dead and disappeared in ancient times were the one*s which were supposed to ha!e a philologicall ro%ust structure, at least from the &um%oldtian perspecti!e mentioned earlier. 11. +aussurean +tructuralism and Beond. &a!ing %een trained in the milieu of the eogrammarians, the +wiss scholar Aerdinand de +aussure, inherited man of the tenets of his teachers of the (erman school. &owe!er, his later posthumous wor# Cours de linguisti2ue g3n3rale of 117 also mar#ed the %eginning of the end of the dominance of the >uropean tradition of historical linguistics or philolog that reigned for more than a centur. +aussure*s %rea# with that tradition also implied for him decisi!e %rea# with Positi!ism. &e re-ected the notion of a continuous mo!ement of phsical linguistic material which undergoes historical changes on the %asis of laws that are a#in to %iological laws in the natural order. Linguistic entities, in his !iew, cannot %e understood other than as parts of a holistic sstem. Aor +aussure, the notion of a sstem or structure has rele!ance %oth in the context of the people who spea# a gi!en language and for the sstem of interconnected elements of that language. $t the %eginning of the 2:th centur, his role was to ta#e language outside of the pre!ailing framewor# of naturalist explanations for changes in indi!idual elements, al%eit according to laws, and instead to pro!ide an alternati!e perspecti!e where language is seen as em%edded within a li!ing social /and pschological3 milieu. Contesting the foundations of the structuralist claims of +aussure, perhaps, the most significant wor# in recent times that address the political dimensions of language in the context of nationalism and colonialism has %een errida*s +onolingualism of the !ther – !R, The Prosthesis of !rigin1 &ere there is a sensiti!e analsis of the #e )uestion of identit in and through language presented through accounts from his personal experiences. &e goes on to as# the )uestion8 Can one reall own a language= 'ho determines /politicall3 the main features of one*s language= errida %egins to reflect on these issues an oxmoronic statement8 4I ha!e onl one languageH %ut it is not mine.6 >lsewhere in the wor#, he demonstrates the colonial character of all language as long as it is situated within a @culture*8 $ll culture is originall colonial5. >!er culture institutes itself through the unilateral imposition of some 4politics6 of language. Master %egins as we #now, through the power of naming, of imposing and legitimating appellations. 'e #now how that went with Arance in Arance itself, in re!olutionar Arance as much as or more than, in monarchical Arance. This so!ereign esta%lishment ma %e open, legal, armed, or cunning, disguised under the ali%is of 4uni!ersal6 humanism, and sometimes of the most generous hospitalit. It alwas follows or precedes culture li#e its shadow.D:
References:
$nderson, Benedict, 11 edn. Imagined Communities1 Reflections on the !rigin and )"read of ationalism. London8 Gerso. $pp, Qrs, 2:1:. The Birth of !rientalism. Philadelphia8 Qni!ersitof Pennsl!ania Press. 30
?ac)ues errida, +onolingualism of the !ther !R The Prosthesis of !rigin, p. <.
14
$pp, Qrs, 2::;. 4'illiam ?ones* $ncient Theolog6 in )ino*Platonic Pa"ers 11 /online edn.3 2::, p. 99. Beiser, Arederic#, C., 1;9. The Fate of Reason – 4erman Philoso"hy from Kant to Fichte, &ar!ard Qni!ersit Press. Bloomfield, Leonard, 1;: /edn.3 Language1 elhi8 Motilal Banarsidass. Cohn, Bernard, +., 17. Colonialism and its Forms of Knowledge . The British in India1 elhi8 Oxford Qni!ersit Press. eleuJe, (illes and Aelix (uattari, 1;9. ( Thousand Plateaus – Ca"italism and )chi'o"hrenia1 /tr.3 B. Massumi. Minneapolis8 Qni!ersit of Minnesota Press. errida, ?ac)ues, 1;. +onolingualism of the !ther !R, The Prosthesis of !rigin. /Tr.3 P. Mensard. +tanfrod8 +tanford Qni!ersit Press. >rrington, ?oseph, ?., 2::;. Linguistics in a Colonial -orld1 ( )tory of language, +eaning, and Power1 Oxford8 Blac#well. Aoucault, Michel, 19:. !rder of Things – (n (rchaeology of the 5uman )ciences1 /Tr. from Arench3. London8 Ta!istoc#. &arrris, o, and Tal%ot ?. Talor, 19. Landmar$s in Linguistic Thought I1 The -estern Tradition from )ocrates to )aussure1 /2nd >dition3. London8 outledge. ?ones, 'illiam +ir, 1: th $nni!ersar iscourse /Ae%ruar 19D3. +ource8 www.elohs.unifi.ittesti9::-ones?onesiscourse1:.html accessed on 20 Ma 2:1D. ?ones, +ir 'illiam , 1;0. /iscourses and 0ssays1 /ed.3 M. Bagchee /ed.3. ew elhi8 People*s Pu%lishing &ouse. Olender, Maurice, 2::; /edn.3 The Languages of Paradise1 Race, Religion, and Philology in the ineteenth Century. /Tr.3 $. (oldhammer. Cam%ridge /Mass.38 &ar!ard Qni!ersit Press. +aid, >dward, 19. Orientalism. ew Wor#8 Gintage. +aussure, A. de, 1< /edn.3 Course in (eneral Linguistics /tr.3 '. Bas#in. ew Wor#8 Philosophical Li%rar. Trautmann, Thomas, ., 2::7. Languages and ations1 The /ravidian Proof in Colonial +adras. ew elhi8 Woda Press. Franson +an%ali .awaharlal ehru 6niversity ew /elhi
15
16
17
