|
Linguistic In Pakistan Dr. Tariq Rahman
INTRODUCTION When I published my previous survey of the state of linguistics in Pakistan I began it by saying that ‘Pakistan does not have a university department or institute of higher education and research in linguistics’ (Rahman 1998: 184). Now, after five years, the country still does not have departments of linguistics of the kind which exist in the major universities of the world. However, we do have many more courses in linguistics and applied linguistics in several departments of English and other languages than before. The language academies---National Language Authority for Urdu; Sindhi Language Authority; Pashto Academy; Balochi Academy; Brahvi Academy; Punjabi Adabi Board---focus on that aspect of language planning (LP) which is defined as corpus planning (Cooper 1989: 154). They write dictionaries, standardize spellings and orthography, and create technical terms (neologism) to express new concepts. But their language planning efforts are guided by political imperatives as we shall see later and they are generally run by experts in literature whose knowledge of modern linguistics is very inadequate. This being the scenario, there is little wonder that serious research in linguistics is not being produced by Pakistanis---at least not by those who live in Pakistan. Most serious work has been done by Western scholars and it is to this work that we shall turn presently. Before doing so, however, let us divide the tradition of linguistic research into two major streams: the prescriptive and the descriptive traditions. The latter can then be further divided into the philological-comparativist tradition which came from the nineteenth century and the modern one which came into the wake of insights following the work of Ferdinand de Saussure, Halliday, Pike, and Chomsky. The indigenous tradition, being a prescriptive one, continues as the major driving force of language-teaching in the country though it has no major exponents anymore. Let us, however, start with it because it is still a living force in the lives of students. The Prescriptivist Tradition in UrduThus it is not surprising to find that the first concern of the people who wrote about the languages now used in Pakistan was about norms of ‘correctness’. Most of these people were poets of Urdu who wrote in India much before Pakistan was created. However, if we want to understand the force of prescriptivism in the public mind we must refer to their attitudes, however summarily. Such attitudes became really noticeable between the period beginning in 1702 and continuing for the most part of the early nineteenth century (Rai 1991: 247-52). Among the prescriptive linguists, who carried out the purge of Sanskritic or other indigenous words and replaced them with Persian and Arabic ones, were Sirajuddin Ali Khan (Khane-Arzu), Shah Hatim, Mirza Mazhar, and Nasikh. As mentioned earlier, this attempt at renovation serves non-linguistic functions although it is seen as a purely linguistic phenomenon by the renovators and their supporters. The purpose Persianized Urdu served was that it became a marker of elitist identity for upper class (sharif) Muslims who felt politically impotent and threatened by the overwhelming majority of Hindus around them (Chatterji 1960: 243), from which the Muslims sought to be different and considered themselves superior. The new Urdu was, therefore, an identity marker, a badge of distinction, for the impoverished shurafa (gentlemen) of north India who had little more than culture to fall back upon. Although in his grammar of Urdu Abdul Haq pointed out that ‘Urdu is a purely Indian language of the Indo-Aryan family. Arabic, on the other hand, is from the Semitic family. Thus it is not at all appropriate for the grammarians of Urdu to follow the rules of Arabic’ (Haq 1936: 20). Even so, this prescriptive tradition influences Pakistani teachers of languages even today. School grammars, based upon medieval Persian models, specialize in taxonomy. Parts of speech are divided into sub-classes which have Persian and Arabic names which must be memorized. Pluralization follows Arabic or Persian rules leading to absurdities. While this is an irritant for school children, the urge for prescriptivism in Urdu and English can sometimes be offensive. The Urdu-speaking people from UP even now pride themselves upon their linguistic refinement. The older generation sometimes, though to a much lesser extent now than before, calls itself ahle zaban (the custodians of the language) and use their pronunciation and usage as symbols of elitism, refinement and past glory. Thus Syed Abul Ala Maudoodi, whose family prided itself for being from Delhi, wrote about the family’s attitude towards Urdu as follows: Special attention was paid to our speech and accent. I lived in the Deccan for twenty years without adopting a single local pronunciation, and continued to speak in pure Urdu (Maudoodi 1932: 13). More aggressively, Shabbir Hasan Josh, the famous Urdu poet who migrated from India to Pakistan, often objected to people not pronouncing qaf (the uvular stop /q/) correctly. The Orientalist Philological Tradition Whatever the support Orientalism---the scholarly study of the East---might have given to nineteenth century European domination of India (Said 1978), individual Orientalists have left behind invaluable studies of the languages of South Asia. In India the work of Sir William Jones (1746-94) laid the foundations for the comparativist-philological tradition which dominates the work of many Pakistani linguists even now (Jones 1788). The vernacular languages were studied by the missionary William Carey who, with Ward and Marshman, surveyed 33 of them in 1816. Among the languages used in Pakistan they translated the ‘Lord’s Prayer’ in Sindhi, Gujrati, Punjabi, Balochi, and Pashto among other language (Grierson Vol. 1: 12). Apart from British linguists, there were many German-speaking scholars who also helped to describe Pakistani languages in philological term. The achievements of these scholars have been given in detail by Anne Marie Schimmel (1981). Among the best known names are: Aloys Sprenger (1813-93); Ernest Trumpp (1828-85); William Greiger (1856-1943) and Max Mueller (1823-1900) among others. Sprenger’s major contribution is to Urdu literature and bibliography but he did produce both an English-Hindustani Grammar (1845) and a Dictionary of the Technical Terms in the Science of the Musalmans (1854) Trumpp, however, wrote detailed grammars of Sindhi (1872), Pashto (1873) and Punjabi (Schimmel 1981: 135-6; 155; 169). He even wrote an article on the languages of the Kalasha people (called Kafirs) of Chitral (Trumpp 1862). Greiger, who also wrote on Pashto and Balochi, firmly placed them in the Indo-Iranian language family (Schimmel 1981: 151-5). Max Mueller, who, in the words of Schimmel ‘has become an institution in India’ (ibid. 1), is the doyen of Sanskritic studies but has contributed less to the languages now used in Pakistan. However, his essay on the sounds and alphabet of Arabic-based scripts, though obviously dated, is very insightful (Mueller 1855). Unfortunately, despite Schimmel’s book, the works of German-speaking linguists---even those which are written in English---are not well known in Pakistan. Apart from isolated scholars like Ikram Chughtai (1973), they have been unjustly ignored. The works of English philologists, especially Grierson’s Linguistic Survey of India (1901-21), has dominated, and still dominates, the philological tradition in Pakistan. It as been reprinted in five volumes as the Linguistic Survey of Pakistan (n.d.) in Lahore and has been referred to by everyone working in the comparativist-philological tradition--and most people still work in it---in Pakistan. Grierson’s survey is, indeed, a landmark in the study of the languages of South Asia. It was the work of a lifetime ‘extending over thirty years’ from 1891 to 1921 and covering 290 million people speaking ‘872 different language and dialects’ (Grierson Vol. 1: Preface, p. 26). Grierson gives an introductory section on every language followed by a vocabulary and a grammar. Contemporary Western Studies of Pakistani Language Even now, fifty-five years after the establishment of Pakistan, most of the best descriptions of Pakistani languages---in the light of contemporary linguistic theories--continue to be written by Western linguists. The most illuminating works of foreigners are about the lesser known languages of Pakistan. The complete bibiography is given in Baart and Baart-Bremer (2001) but one may mention the langauges of Chitral ;the Northern Areas; Baltistan and little known languages of the NWFP and Balochistan. Among Western linguists who are still working on Pakistani languages is Elena Bashir. She is presently compiling a dictionary of Khowar for a project of the University of Chicago (for previous work see Baart and Baart-Bremer 2001). But the culmination of the work of decades of Western scholars has appeared only towards the end of the last century. It is a sociolinguistic survey of these lesser known languages---the languages of Northern Pakistan. (SSNP 1992: 5 volumes). So far, this survey is the best source about the languages of northern Pakistan though, as the present writer has pointed out, there is much room for research in these languages, such as aspects of pragmatics, phonology, and grammar (possibly along Chomskyan lines) as well as other schools of linguistics (Rahman 1994: 842). This survey is not the last accomplishment of the SIL. Members of the team emerged as authorities on the languages of northern Pakistan. Joan Baart, for instance, wrote extensively on Kalam Kohistani and Indus Kohistani (Baart 1997; 1999). R.L. Trail and G.R.Cooper wrote a Kalasha dictionary (Trail and Cooper 1999) and Carla Radloff wrote on the Shina of Gilgit (1998; 1999). Indeed, the Bibliography of the Languages of Northern Pakistan (Baart and Baart-Bremer 2001) shows how much has been written on the languages of this remote yet linguistically rich part of Pakistan and to what extent the SIL dominates this field of linguistic research at present. The Philological Tradition in Pakistan Languages One major theme of the people writing in this tradition is discovering the origin, the language family, and the roots of a language. In the case of Urdu, this is an obsession. Almost everyone of note has devoted considerable time on the origin and development of Urdu. Opinions on this subject are many and diverse: that Urdu was born out of Brij Bhasha (Azad 1880: 1); Hariani (Husain 1966: 183); the indigenous language (Prakrit) of Maharashtra (Bukhari 1975; 156-7; 1991: 349); Khari Boli (Sabzwari 1966: 38) and so on. Probably the best known works of Pakistani origin on this subject are Hafiz Mahmood Shirani’s thesis that Urdu was born in the Punjab and traveled to northern India (Shirani 1928). Another interesting thesis, and one which seriously challenges Grierson’s assumption that all the Indo-Aryan languages are the daughters of Sanskrit (Grierson vol. 1: 121-7), is that Urdu is the descendant of the languages of the Dravidian and Munda tribes of this region and is, in essence, a pre-Sankritic language (Faridkoti 1972; 1992). In fact Grierson himself acknowledged that the Indo-Aryan languages borrowed words from the Dravidian ones and that ‘the borrowings have been much more considerable than has been admitted by many scholars of late years’ but he also added ‘that they were nothing like so universal as was once contended’ (Grierson Vol. 1: 130). Emeneau and others have given lists of such borrowings as well as Dravidian influences on the phonology of the languages in question (Burrow 1973: 378-88); Emeneau 1954, 1956). But influence is one thing, origin quite another. If Faridkoti’s work is substantiated---and it might well be true (Rahman 1999: Chapter 2)---it will be a significant piece of new research. That the question of the roots of Urdu still absorbs the minds of Pakistanis writing in the philological-comparativist tradition is evident from the large number of studies still being undertaken in it (for a list see Akhtar 1995: 86-9). Moreover, as university teachers of Urdu assure the present author, it is taught in the M.A course of Urdu and is often the only question about ‘linguistics’ which is asked. It is also in this tradition that other well known studies---Mehr Abdul Haq’s thesis (1967) on Multani (now called Siraiki), Yusuf Bukhari’s comparative Study of Urdu and Kashmiri (1986)---and Razzak Sabir’s thesis on the relationship between Balochi and Brahvi (1994) have been written. Basically all these writers compare words of one language with another without taking into account contemporary theories, especially those dealing with phonology. However, Sabir has made efforts to refer to morphology, grammar, and phonology though his sources are dated and inadequate. Some identity-conscious local linguists, especially from remote areas with small languages, have been writing primers and scripts for their languages. These are too numerous to describe and the reader is referred to chapters on minor languages in my previous books (Rahman 1996a and 2002). Most of these people are inspired by ideological concerns---that their language should not die. In this they have the sympathy of believers in linguistic diversity and the right of people to maintain their languages (Skutnabb-Kangas 2000). But let us go on to other ideologically inspired linguists. Mehr Abdul Haq’s major concern is ideological---to prove that Siraiki and Punjabi are different languages. It is this difference which enables Siraiki to function as an identity symbol of the people of the southern Punjab. Other Siraiki linguists, such as Ahsan Wagha (1990), have also tried to advance similar arguments. Similar to this is Ali Nawaz Jatoi’s claim that Sindhi is a Semitic language (Jatoi 1983). Indeed, there are some people in Pakistan who argue that all languages came out of Arabic but their arguments are almost always based on comparisons of a few words. In fact, since language is an important symbol of ethnic nationalism in Pakistan (Rahman, 1996a) such theses appear to be based upon arguments which the writers are emotionally committed to on non-linguistic grounds. For the same reason most of the interest in the old indigenous languages of the country has come from the activists of the language movements. They have been active in corpus planning both in the official language academies and in their individual capacities. In the official institutions for language planning the standardization of the script, modernization of the vocabulary by the creation of new technical terms (neologism), and research on languages and literature is undertaken. But orthography and neologism are both related with identity and thus with ethnic politics (Rahman 1999: Chapter 12). Thus, those who emphasize the Pakistani-Islamic identity insist upon the use of Arabic-based scripts and the creation of new terms based upon Perso-Arabic roots whereas ethnic nationalists sometimes reject this script and coin words from the roots of their own languages (for details see Rahman, 1996a and 1999: Chapter 12). Unfortunately, these language planners too are mostly unaware of the contemporary developments in the theories of language planning. The only exception is Atash Durrani whose book on neologism called Urdu Istilahat Sazi (1993) shows awareness of some of the developments in this field. Works by Raj Wali Khattak on Pashto orthography (Khattak 1991), by Syed Hashimi on Balochi technical terms (Hashimi 1962); by Khair Muhammad Baloch (1993) on the parts of a vehicle in Sindhi and by Qais Faridi in Siraiki (Faridi n.d.) do not refer to the theoretical basis of similar work elsewhere in the world. However, G.A Allana’s book on Sindhi orthography (1993) is an exception since the author is quite aware of the concepts of modern linguistics and has created terms which can be used to describe Sindhi in the light of modern concepts. But Allana’s work falls in the modern linguistic tradition to which we turn now. The Modern Tradition It has been mentioned earlier that linguistics is not taught as an autonomous discipline in Pakistan. Among those who tried to establish it as a university subject is Anwar Dil, presently living in the United States. Dil could not establish either a department or an institute of linguistics but he did manage to establish the Linguistic Research Group of Pakistan in 1961 which published a number of monographs containing scholarly articles and papers read out at linguistic conferences in Pakistan (see Dil 1963). Some of the articles in the series are of a high standard but there are shoddy, ideologically inspired pieces too, which mar most Pakistani publications. Such writings are published because there is no anonymous reviewing nor, indeed, the means to do good research. Moreover, most publications are supported by the state which influences the ideological contents of the publications. Dil, who later settled down in America, contributed to the field of sociolinguistics by editing a large, and highly significant, collection of the works of distinguished scholars. He is active in editing, compiling, and generally trying to get linguistics recognized as an autonomous discipline in Pakistan. His wife Afia Dil, although she is counted among Bangladeshi linguists, has contributed earlier to Pakistani linguistics too. Her book on the Muslim variety of Bengali is highly relevant for Pakistanis, who used to think that Bengali was only a ‘Hindu’ language (Dil 1993). The latest achievement of the wife-and-husband team is the monumental The Bengali Language Movement (2000) which is more about the history of the Bengali language movement – the movement by nationalist East Bengali people to make their language a national language of Pakistan in the 1950s---than about linguistics or even language policy. English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. In the seventies and eighties the British Council and the educational agencies of the United States started emphasizing the teaching of English as a second or other language---TESOL/TESL/ELT were among the acronyms to describe the phenomenon. Up to this time the departments of English focussed almost exclusively on English (which generally meant only British) literature upto T.S Eliot. However, when the University Grants Commission (now the Higher Education Commission) and the Allama Iqbal Open University started offering diploma courses in TESOL in 1985, a number of young lecturers with vested interest and knowledge of English language teaching formed a pressure group which brought about changes in the English departments. The present writer, when appointed to the Chair of English at the University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (Muzaffarabad) in 1987, started the first MA in English Language Teaching and Linguistics. This MA was unique in that it had courses on general linguistics, socio-and psycho-linguistics as well as English language teaching. However, upon the present writer’s relocation at the Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, courses in the second year of the M.A course were replaced with literature ones. At Quaid-i-Azam University, however, a course in anthropological linguistics and on language planning and language problems in Pakistan have been added by the present writer. Unfortunately, an M.A in linguistics has still not been established. Apart from the efforts of the British Council etc., ELT also got a boost from the activities of the Society of Pakistani English Language Teachers (SPELT) which was established in 1984 by Zakia Sarwar (Interview 25 September 1994 and subsequent updating in 2003 April). SPELT holds lectures, workshops, and conferences on a regular basis---the last conference was held in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad in October 2002--which increase awareness about the teaching of English. Although SPELT and other ELT programmes do not focus on linguistics as such, they do contribute indirectly to the teaching of the rudiments of phonetics, varieties of language, and stylistics. However, their concern is the teaching of English and not theoretical analysis. Books produced by SPELT (such as Sarwar 1991) or by those involved in ELT are concerned with English, and that too with its teaching. A survey of English language teaching, for instance, has recently been produced by Farida Malik (Malik 1996). However, it is because of this increased concern with English as a language that some scholars have written about its role in Pakistan (Abbbas 1993; Rahman 1990). There is, however, a Pakistani academic in the United States, who has written his doctoral thesis on the status of the non-native speakers of English as teachers of the language in America. (Mahboob 2003). People like Ahmar Mahboob question the exonormative ideology i.e. that only native speakers can teach English. Ahmar is a product of the linguistic iconoclasm which set in into the field of English language teaching as a consequence of the new ideas disseminated by the applied linguists who taught ELT. Even more significant is the questioning of the traditional prescriptivist notion that only British Standard English and Pronunciation should be considered ‘correct’ and should be the pedagogical norm. The notion that there could be a non-native variety of English called Pakistani English was first introduced in Pakistan by Robert J. Baumgardner (1987) who later explored the grammatical and lexical features of Pakistani English (PE) in more detail 1993). The first detailed description of PE---including its phonetic and phonological features and sub-varieties which Baumgardner had not touched upon---was published by the present author (Rahman 1990). The notion of ‘Pakistani Urdu’, advanced by the present author in a newspaper article, has still not been described in detail (Rahman 1995). In Pakistan, however, there is not much advance upon this earlier work while elsewhere in the world there is much debate about the concept and features of non-native varieties of a language. To this debate only one Pakistani linguist, Anjum Saleemi, has contributed (Saleemi 1995a: 311). Ahmar Mahboob tells the present author that he too is working in this field and will publish his results soon. But Ahmar Mahboob, like Saleemi, lives abroad and works in the mainstream tradition of sociolinguistics. Saleemi works in the Chomskyan theoretical linguistic tradition which is hardly understood in Pakistan. That is why his study of language learnability (1992), which should have been discussed by linguists as well as English language teachers, has gone unnoticed. In the only review of the book in Pakistan, the present writer confessed his own ignorance of some of the theories used by Saleemi because research journals and books are not available in such a highly technical subject (Rahman 1996b). Perhaps, however, Dr. Raja Naseem Ahmad or maybe Dr Arif Shahbaz, both trained in syntax in British universities, may be able to understand this book fully. Unfortunately, the latter is now teaching English literature at the Punjab University though the former is trying to keep up with his research. Similarly, the work of Ruqaiya Hasan, who collaborated with Halliday---and was married to him---in a well known book Cohesion in English (Halliday and Hasan 1976) is unknown in Pakistan. Indeed, discourse analysis and systemic grammar---the linguistic tradition associated with Halliday in which Raqaiya Hasan worked (Hasan 1964), is even less known in Pakistan than the Chomskyan one. Indeed, it is in the Chomskyan tradition that some studies on Urdu by Baber S. Khan (Khan 1987; 1989) and, once again, Saleemi (1994, 1995b) have been written. There are dissertations by Raja Naseem on Punjabi morphology and subsequent articles on the syntax and tones of Punjabi in this tradition (Raja 1992). However, a study of ‘word form’ in Urdu (Moizuddin 1989) and the phonology of the verbal phrase in Hindko are not in this tradition (Awan 1974). However, most of the works in modern linguistics were completed in Western universities and the authors confess that they find it difficult to be as productive in this field of research than they were when they were living abroad. As mentioned earlier, there is very little work on linguistics in Pakistani languages. There is not even a study of Urdu on modern lines in Pakistan though there is one written in India in Urdu (Javed 1981). This is known only to a few experts because the technical vocabulary used in it is not taught in Pakistan. It must, however, be mentioned that the students of FAST in Lahore, under the guidance of Dr Sarmad Hussain, are producing work which has the potential of becoming the first linguistic study of Urdu along modern lines (Muqtadra 2002 and 2003). In India there are also studies of Sindhi (Khubchandani 1961; Rohra 1971); Punjabi (Bhatia 1993), and other languages in English. But, since the focus is on Pakistan, these works cannot be explored here. In Pakistan there are only a few recent works written in Pakistani languages which show some awareness of contemporary terminology and concepts. Most of these works are written in Urdu and Sindhi. There is, for instance, G.A. Allana’s (1967) book on the phonetics of Sindhi and his study of the dialects and spread of the language (Allana 1979). Also worth mentioning are Nabi Baksh Baloch’s historical studies of Sindhi (Baloch 1962) and Hidayat Ullah Akhund’s thesis on the same subject (Akhund 1994). N.A.Baloch is active even now having produced a book on Jatki (2003) as well as occasional papers. He is highly respected in Pakistan in general and Sindh in particular. His contribution to the history of Sindh is enormous. However, his methodology is historical and philological and not that which contemporary linguists use in the West. Qasim Bughio, however, is aware of contemporary methods and his study of the dialects of Sindhi is in the tradition of modern sociolinguists (Bughio 2001). In the M.A course in Sindhi some general linguistics, phonetics and the history of the Sindhi language is taught. However, as Sindhi is taught at all levels in Sindh there is much more linguistic writing on Sindhi than on any Pakistani language except Urdu. In Urdu, apart from the work of the FAST students mentioned above, there are studies by Suhail Bukhari (1991) and Abdul Salam’s Urdu book on general linguistics (Salam 1993). Although of a rudimentary level, Abdul Salam provides technical terms in Urdu which can help linguists describe modern linguistic concepts. After Mohiuddin Qadri Zor’s similar introductory work entitled Hindustani Lisaniyat (1932), this is the most adequate attempt to provide an introductory book giving equivalents of the terminology of basic linguistics in Urdu. The FAST students, however, introduce us to the terminology of advanced phonetics and phonology. A brief study of Pashto where the terminology of linguistics is introduced in that language is by Khial Bukhari (1964-5). Bukhari touches upon dialectology and phonetics which are generally ignored by Pakistani linguists. His grammar of Pashto, also written in Pashto, is also worth mentioning though it does not touch upon recent grammatical theories (Bukhari 1983) (There are such works in Afghanistan, of course, but they fall outside our purview). Indeed, for Pakistani linguists it is difficult not to ignore theoretical complexities, because the sources and the level of training available, is not conducive to study of the more technical aspects of contemporary phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics. What then is left for a Pakistani linguist is language planning and lexicology of which examples have been given earlier (Rahman 1999: Chapter 12) or some aspects of sociolinguistics. There are, for instance, studies of politeness in Shina (Shah 1994) and Urdu (Rahman 1999: Chapter 10) and so on. The former work describes verbal politeness patterns in Shina while the latter argues that the norms of verbal politeness in English-speaking cultures---such as the use of the first name without honorifics irrespective of the age differentials of the interlocutors---are influencing English-using Pakistanis. Another kind of work is that of surveying the attitude of people towards different languages. This has been done in great detail by the authors of the Sociolinguistic Survey of Northern Pakistan (1992) which has already been mentioned. Even more relevant from the point of view of education is the survey of student’s attitudes towards Urdu, English, and Punjabi by Sabiha Mansoor in Lahore (Mansoor 1993; 2002 and Rahman 2002). The point made in Sabiha Mansoor’s survey is that students respond pragmatically to the apparent social prestige of a language and evaluate it positively if it increases chances of upward social mobility. Recently, in 2002, Sabiha Mansoor has also completed her doctoral thesis on the role of English in the education system of Pakistan and confirmed the finding that students and others do consider English necessary for social mobility. The present writer also found this in his survey but, along with this, he also found an aspiration for the use of the mother-tongue in Sindh, the Frontier and among madrassa students who were not positive towards English (Rahman 2002: Appendix 14). Sabiha Mansoor’s thesis, like her previous work, is in the domain of language policy, especially as it pertains to education (Mansoor 2002). This brings one to the relationship between language and politics; the way language policy can make one language more pragmatically useful, and therefore of higher status, than another language. An example of this is the increase in the social status of English with the corresponding decrease in that of Persian because of British language policies (Rahman 2002: Chapter 4). Another aspect of this relationship is the way language becomes a symbol of ethnicity and may be used to mobilize people against the ruling elite. This has been investigated by the present author in a book-length study (Rahman, 1996a) which has chapters on the Hindi-Urdu controversy in which Urdu became an identity symbol of the Muslims of South Asia. This type of identity-formation went on after the creation of Pakistan. The ethnic movements based on Sindhi, Pashto, Bengali, Balochi/Brahvi, Siraiki and Hindko are described in this book. The present writer has recently written a book on the history of language-teaching among the Muslims of Pakistan and North India. This book investigates the relationship between the power-distribution in a society with language policy. It also looks at the worldview which language texts produce and privilege (Rahman 2002). Other Pakistanis interested in linguistic matters also focus on history. The investigations on the history of Urdu and other languages have been mentioned. Among the more scholarly works in other fields are the proto-historical works of A.H. Dani on the Kharoshthi script (1979), the languages of ‘Sind and Sauvira’ (1981: 35-42) and archaeological research shedding light on the undeciphered script of the Indus Valley civilization (Dani 1971: 1-77). F.A. Durrani, for instance, suggests that the symbols on Kot Dijian artifacts may be the beginning of writing in the Indus Valley (Durrani 1981). But on this subject too Western scholars, with their immense resources, have written more detailed studies (Parpola 1994; Southworth 1984; Fairservis 1992) while Rashid Akhtar Nadwi, the only Pakistani writer who has written a book on this subject in Urdu (Nadwi 1995), shows neither any awareness of the state of contemporary research in the subject nor of modern techniques in this field of research. In short, then, most linguists working in Pakistan actually work on the peripheries of the field of linguistics. Since they do not find material on linguistic theory they wander off into history, political science, and sociology or stop producing research work altogether. Thus, there is very little theoretical (or micro) linguistic work going on in Pakistan. Some of the best linguists from Pakistan---such as Anjum Saleemi, Raqaiya Hasan and Miriam Butt (1993)---do not live and work in Pakistan. There are, however, two exceptions who have been mentioned already but need somewhat more specific mention . These are Sarmad Hussain and Raja Naseem Akhtar. The former is Associate Professor and Head, Center for Research in Urdu Language Processing (CRULP), FAST at Lahore. He conducts research on computer speech processing, Computational linguistics and Computer Script Processing (Hussain 1998). Among his achievements are creating a software development programme for Urdu. During the process he has enabled his students to produce two excellent collections of research articles on Urdu phonetics and phonology published by the National Language Authority (see Muqtadra 2002 and 2003). Raja Naseem Ahmed’s work is mainly on Punjabi, though he has published a couple of papers on Urdu as well. The most important part of his work is related to Aspectual Complex Predicates of Punjabi. This is a complex subject which is also the focus of research of Miriam Butt who was brought up in Pakistan being the daughter of a Pakistani father and a German mother (Butt 1993). However, as mentoned earlier, Miriam lives and works in Western Universities and, though she works on Urdu, she falls in list of Pakistanis living abroad. Conclusion Pakistan is perhaps the most backward country of South Asia in the field of linguistics. This is not because there is a dearth of talent but because the subject is not taught adequately along modern lines. The few courses which departments of English do offer are meant to help in teaching English and not to equip the student to undertake research in linguistics proper. In any case they do not touch upon Pakistani languages. Worse of all, very few books and even fewer journals of linguistics are available in the country so that it is only when one goes abroad that one learns what is happening in the field. Those who are interested in languages either write in the nineteenth country philological tradition ignoring all recent advances in linguistics or produce prescriptive manuals of ‘good usage’. Activists of language movements also write works of an amateur and tendentious quality either to air their views or to promote their languages. There are no academic journals of linguistics in the country nor professional groups holding conferences and responding to research. Those who write in this field are virtually isolated. That is why, as in the case of the present writer, linguists turn away from linguistics proper to interdisciplinary areas in which the resources of the established social sciences---such as politics, history, or sociology---are available. Annexure AInstitutions Teaching Linguistics/Applied Linguistics
Annexure BPh. D Degrees Awarded by Pakistani Universities
Annexure C Doctoral Degree holders in Linguistics/Applied Linguistics/Language-related Studies
ANNEXURE-D RESEARCH WORK by FOREIGN STUDENTS on PAKISTANI LANGUAGESLUNSFORD,Wayne A. 2001. ‘An Overview of Linguistic structures in Torwali’, Unpublished M.A Thesis, The U of Texas, Arlington. LOSEY, Wayne E. 2002. ‘Writing Gojri; Linguistic and Sociolinguistic Constraints on a Standardized Orthography for the Gujars of South Asia’. Unpublished M.A Thesis, University of North Dakota. Dyrud, Lars O. 2001. ‘Hindi-Urdu: Stress Accent or Non-Stress Accent?’, Unpublished M.A Thesis, University of North Dakota. Mock, John Howard. 1998. ‘The Discursive Construction of Reality in the Wakhi Community of Northern Pakistan’. Ph. D Dissertation, University of California Berkeley. Anderson, Gregory D.S. 2001. ‘Burushaski Papers’. Unpublished papers in the possession of the SIL Library, Islamabad. ReferencesAbbas, Shemeem. 1993. ‘The Power of English in Pakistan’. World Englishes 12: 2: 147 56. Akhtar, Saleem. 1995. Urdu Zahan Ki Mukhtasar Tareen Tareekh [Urdu: The briefest History of the Urdu Language]. Islamabad: National Language Authority. Akhund, Hidayat Ullah. 1994. ‘Sindhi Boli Jo Tarikhi Pas Manzar’ [Sindhi: The Historical background to the Sindhi Language]. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, University of Sindh, Hyderabad. Allana, Ghulam Ali. 1967. Sindhi Sautiyat [Sindhi: Sindhi Phonetics]. Hyderabad: Adabiat Publications. ______. 1979. Sindhi Boli Ji Lisani Jagrafi [Sindhi: The Linguistic Geography of the Sindhi language]. Hyderabad: Institute of Sindhology. ______. 1993. Sindhi Suratkhati [Sindhi Orthography]. Hyderabad: Sindhi Language Authority. Awan, Elahi Baksh. 1974. The Phonology of the Verbal Phrase in Hindko. Peshawar: Idara Farogh-i-Hindko. Azad, Mohammad Husain. 1880. Aab-e-Hayat [Urdu: The Elixir of Life]. Repr. Lahore: Sang-e-Meel, 1985. Baart, Joan L.G. 1997. The Sounds and Tones of Kalam Kohistani; With Wordlist and Texts. Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan Studies and Summer Institute of Linguistics. (Studies in Languages of Northern Pakistan Vol. 1) ______. 1999. A Sketch of Kalam Kohistani Grammar. Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan Studies and Summer Institute of Linguistics. (Studies in Languages of Northern Pakistan Vol. 5). Baart. Joan L.G. and Baart-Bremer, Esther L. 2001. Bibliography of Languages of Northern Pakistan. Islamabad. National Institute of Pakistan Studies Quaid-i-Azam University and Summer Institute of Linguistics. Baloch, Khair Muhammad. 1993. Motor Vehicles and Its Parts. Hyderabad: Sindhi Language Authority. Baloch, Nabi Baksh. 1962. Sindhi Boli e Adab Ji Mukhtasar Tarikh [Sindhi: A Brief History of Sindhi Language & Literature]. Hyderabad: Zeb Adabi Markaz. ______. 2003. Jatki Boli [Sindhi] Hyderabad: Sindhi Language Authority. Baumgardner, Robert J. 1987. ‘Utilizing Pakistani newspaper English to Teach Grammar’. World Englishes 6: 3: 241-52. Bhatia, Tej K. 1993. Punjabi: A Cognitive Descriptive Grammar. London: Routledge. Bughio, Qasim. 2001. A Comparative Sociolinguistic Study of Rural and Urban Sindhi: A Study in Language Change and Variation Munich: LINCOM, Europa. Bukhari, Khyal. 1964-5. ‘Da Pashto Jabe Buniadi Mas’abe’ [Pashto: The Basic Problems of the Pashto Language]. Pukhto [Pashto Academy Peshawar] Nos. 3-4; vol. 7-8, pp. 119-234. ______. 1983. Da Pakhto Sarf-o-Nahaw [Pashto: Pashto Grammar] Peshawar: University Book Agency. Bukhari, Suhail. 1975. Urdu Ki Kahani. Lahore: Maktaba-e-Alia. ______. 1991. Lisani Muqalat, Part 3 [Urdu: Linguistic dissertations] Islamabad: National Language Authority. Bukhari, M. Yusuf. 1986. Kashmiri aur Urdu Zaban Ka Taqabli Muta’ala [Urdu: The Comparative Study of Urdu and Kashmiri] Lahore: Markazi Urdu Board. Burrow, T. 1973. The Sanskrit Language. London: Faber & Faber. Butt, Miriam. 1993. ‘Hindi-Urdu infinitives as NPs’. In Y, Kachru (ed.) South Asian Language Review: Special Issue on Studies in Hindi-Urdu, Vol. III (1): 51-72. Chatterji, Sunite Kumar. 1960. Indo-Aryan and Hindi. Calcutta. Chughtai, M. Ikram. 1973. Shahan-i-Awadh Ke Kutubkhane [Urdu: The Libraries of the Kings of Delhi] Karachi. Cooper, Robert L. 1989. Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dani, A.H. 1971. ‘Excavations in the Gomal Valley’. Ancient Pakistan, vol. 5: 1-79. ______. 1979. Kharoshthi Primer. Lahore: Lahore Museum. ______. 1981. ‘Sindhu-Sauvira: Aglimpse into the Early History of Sindh’. In Khuhro 1981: 35-42. ______. (ed.) 1981. Indus Valley: New Perspectives. Islamabad: quaid-i-Azam University. Dil, Afia, 1993. Twa Traditions of the Bengali Language Islamabad: National Institute of Historical and Cultural Research. Dil, Anwar S. 1963. Pakistani Linguistics. Lahore: Pakistani Linguistics Series. Dil, Anwar and Dil, Afia. 2000 Bengali Language Movement to Bangladesh Lahore: Ferozsons-Intercultural Forum Publication. Durrani, Atash. 1993. Urdu Istilahat Sazi [Urdu: Neologism in Urdu] Islamabad: Anjuman Sharqia Islamia. Durrani, F.A. 1981. ‘Indus Valley, Evidence West of Indus’. In Dani (ed.) 1981: 133-7. Emeneau, M.B. 1954. ‘Linguistic Prehistory of India’. Proceedings of the American Society 98: 282-92. ______. 1956. ‘India as a Linguistic Area’. Language 32: 3-16. Fairservis, Walter A. 1992. The Harappan Civilization and its Writings: A Model for the Decipherment of the Indus Script. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Faridkoti, Ainul Haq. 1972. Urdu Zaban Ki Qadeem Tareekh [Urdu: The Ancient History of the Urdu Language]. Lahore: Orient Research Centre. ______. 1992. Pre-Aryan Origins of the Pakistani Language: A Monograph. Lahore: Orient Research Centre. Grierson. Gerorge, 1901-1921. The Linguistic Survey of India, vols. I-X. Calcutta: govt of India. Repr. The Linguistic Survey of Pakistan, 5 vols. Lahore: Sang-e-Meel, n.d. Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. London and New York: Longman. Haq, Abdul. 1936. Qawaid-e-Urdu. New Delhi: Anjuman Taraqqi-e-urdu. Aurangabad, 1991. Haq, Mehr Abdul. 1967. Multani Zuban aur us ka Urdu se Ta’aluq [Urdu: The Multani language and its relationship with Urdu]. Bahawalpur: Urdu Academy. Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1964. ‘A Linguistic Study of contrasting Features in the Style of Two Contemporary English Prose Writers’. Ph. D. thesis, University of Edinburgh. Hashimi, Sayyid. 1962. Balochi Siyahage Rastnibisag [Balochi: Balochi Orthography] Karachi. Husain, Masood. 1966. Tarikh Zaban Urdu. Lahore: Urud Markaz. Hussain, Sarmad. 1998. ‘Lexical Stress in Urdu’, XVII South Asia Language Analysis Roundtable [New Delhi] Jatoi, Ali Nawaz. 1983. Ilm ul Lisan aur Sindhi Zaban [Urdu: Linguistics and the Sindhi language]. Hyderabad: Institute of Sindhology. Javed, Asmat. 1981. Nae Urdu Qawaid [Urdu: The New Grammar of Urdu]. New Delhi: Taraqqi-e-Urdu Bureau. Jones, William. 1788. ‘Third Annual discovery’. In Asiatick Researches, vol. 1. Kachru, Braj B. 1965. ‘The Indianness in Indian English’. Word 21: 391-410. ______. 1983. The Indianization of English: The English Language in India, Delhi: Oxford University Press. Khan, Baber S. 1987. ‘The Ergative case in Hindi-Urdu’. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 17: 1: 91-101. ______. 1989. ‘A Note of Disagreement on Verb Agreement in Hindi-Urdu’. Linguistics 27: 71-87. Khattak, Raj Wali. 1991. Navi Imla [Pashto: New Orthography] Peshawar: Pashto Academy. Khubchandani, L. 1961. ‘The Phonology and Morphophonemics of Sindhi’. Unpublished MA Thesis. University of Pennsylvania. Mahboob, Ahmar. 2003. ‘The Status of Non-Native Speakers of English as English Language Teachers in the United States’, Unpublished Ph. D dissertation, Indiana University, 2003. Malik, Farida. 1996. The Teaching of English in Pakistan. Lahore: Vanguard. Mansoor, Sabiha. 1993. Punjabi, Urdu, English in Pakistan: A Sociolinguistic Study. Lahore: Vanguard. ______. 2002. ‘The Role of English in the Education System of Pakistan’, Unpublished Ph. D Thesis, University of Reading, U.K. Maudoodi, Syed Abul Ala. 1932. ‘Khud Niwish’. Quoted from Nasr, Seyyed Vali Reza. 1996. Mawdudi and the Making of Islamic Revivalism. New York: Oxford University Press. Moizuddin, Mohammad. 1989. Word Forms in Urdu. Islamabad: National Language Authority. Mueller, F. Max. 1855. A survey of Languages Semitic, Arian and Turanian Families. London: William and Norgate. Muqtadra. 2002. Akhbar-e-Urdu (May) Islamabad: National Language Authority. ______. 2003. Akhbar-e-Urdu (June) Islamabad: National Language Authority. Nadwi, Rahid Akhtar. 1995. Pakista ka Qadeem Rasmul Khat [Urdu: The Ancient Script of Pakistan]. Islamabad: National Institute of History and Culture. Parpola, Asko. 1994. Deciphering the Indus Script. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rai, Amrit. 1991. A House Divided: The Origin and Development of Hindi-Urdu. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Rahman, Tariq. 1990. Pakistani English. Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University. ______. 1994. ‘Sociolinguistic Survey of Northern Pakistan’. Language 70: 4,840-43. ______. 1995. ‘Urdu of Another kind’. News [English daily] 29 April 1995. Opinion page. ______. 1996a. Language and Politics in Pakistan. Karachi: Oxford University Press. ______. 1996b. ‘Insight into Language-learning’. Rev. Universal Grammar and Language Learnability (1992) by Anjum Saleemi in News [English daily] 28 August, Opinion page. ______. 1998. ‘Pakistan: Indo-European’, The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics. New Delhi and London: Sage Publications. pp. 184-196. ______. 1999. Language, Education and Culture Karachi: Oxford University Press. ______. 2002. Language, Ideology and Power: Language-Learning Among the Muslims of Pakistan and North India Karachi: Oxford University Press. Raja, Nasim Akhtar. 1992. ‘Punjabi Compounds: A Structural and Semantic Study’. Unpublished M. Litt. Dissertation. University of Strathclyde. Rohra, S.K. 1971. ‘Sindhi, Kacchi and Emigrant Sindhi’. Indian Linguistics 32: 2 (April), 130-31. Sabir, Abdul Razzak. 1994. ‘Balochi aur Brahvi Zabanon ke Ravabit’ [Urdu: The relations between the Balochi and Brahvi languages]. Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, University of Baloxhistan, Quetta. Sabzwari, Shaukat. 1966. Urdu Lisaniyat [Urdu: Urdu Linguistics]. Karachi: Maktaba Takhleeq Adab. Said, Edward. 1978. Orientalism. London: Routledge. Salam, Abdul. 1993. Umumi Lisaniyat [Urdu: General Linguistics]. Karachi: Royal Book Co. Saleemi, Anjum P. 1992. Universal Grammar and Language Learnability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ______. 1994. ‘Case and Agreement in Hindi-Urdu’. In Davison. A. & Smith, F.N. (eds.) Papers from the Fifteenth Asian Language Analysis Roundtable conference. Iowa City: University of Iowa. ______. 1995a. ‘Discussion: On new/non-native English: A gamelan’. Journal of Pragmatics 24: 295-321. ______. 1995b. ‘On the Acquisition of Split Ergativity: Some Evidence from Urdu’. In Clark, E. (ed.) 1995. The Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Child Language Research Forum. Stanford, california: CSLI, Stanford University Press. Sarwar, Zakia (ed.) 1991. English Study Skills. Karachi: SPELT. ______. ‘Interview’, 25 September 1994, Karachi. Schimmel, Annemarie. 1981. German Contributions to the Study of Pakistani Linguistics. Hamburg: German-Pak Forum. Shirani, Hafiz Mahmood. 1928. Punjab Mein Urdu [Urdu: Urdu in the Punjab]. Lahore: Kitab Numa. Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove. 2000. Linguistic Genocide in Education Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Southworth, F.C. 1984. ‘some Aspects of Dravidian prehistory Based on Vocabulary Re-Construction’. Paper presented at the American Anthropological Meeting, Denver, November. SSNP. 1992. Soviolinguistic Survey of Northern Pakistan vol. 1: Language of Kohistan (eds.) 1992. Rensch, Calvin R; Decker, Sandra J. and Hallberg, Daniel G. Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan Studies & Summer Institute of Linguistics. ______. Vol. 2: Languages of Northern Areas. 1992. (eds.) Backstrom, Peter C. and Radloff, Carla F. As above. ______. Vol. 3: Hindko and Gujari. 1992. (eds.) Renscsh, C.R; Hallberg, C.E. and O’ Leary, Clare F. As above. ______. Vol. 4: Pashto, Wanechi, Ormuri. 1992. (ed.) Hallberg, D.G. As above. ______. Vol.5: Language of Chitral. 1992. (ed..) Decker, Kendall D. As above. Trail, Ronald L. and Gregory R. Cooper (compilers). 1999. Kalasha Dictionary; With English and Urdu. Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan Studies and Summer Institute of Linguistics. (Studies in Languages of Northern Pakistan Vol. 7). Trumpp, Ernest. 1862. ‘On the Language of the So-called Kafirs in the Indian Caucasus’. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 19: pp. 1-29. Wagha, Ahsan. 1990. The Siraiki Language, Its Growth and Development. Islamabad: Ddewar publications. Zor, S.M. Qadri. 1932. Hindustani Lisaniyat [Urdu: Indian Linguistics] Repr. Lahore: Panjnad Academy.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
