Endangered languages are languages with few speakers. Small communities may keep on speaking a specific language as long as they feel it useful, as a marker of identity or independence, and as long as they value the ability of speaking several languages. They give it up when they can be convinced multi-lingualism is too heavy for the benefit.
The only future for small communities that want to keep on speaking their language is to be multi-lingual, and the main support central agencies can provide is to demonstrate that, in a reasonably balanced administration, multi-lingualism is possible and welcome.
All speech communities (SC) are small. Gumperz showed that in the Plains of India, a multi-layered structure is active: people first speak the local dialect; these who move around learn the special speech of the market township; those who move widely learn the speech of the capital city etc. This means that many more people are multi-lingual, than is commonly realized. Mono-lingualism occurs when bigger centers impose their manners, speech included, on their whole province. In India, the most widespead social response is to learn this imposed speech, but to keep the local one for local purposes. This language layering explains that we find small SCs that stick to their language for a much longer duration than expected.
In 1844, there were 4000 Deuri speakers, and a dark future was promised to the community. Until the last British census (1931), the numbers remained low, the prophecy was repeated. Today, there are about 10,000 Deuri speaking people. Maybe a bigger number is more dangerous. In the 16th century, there was a Chutiya community in Upper Assam; these people were speaking Dimasa or Boro; to-day, more than 50 000 people declare themselves Chutiya, but all have lost the Tribal language. The weakness is not the consequence of small number, but of social dilution.
Moreover, small number is relative. Depending on ressource, you feed more or less people. In 1931 there were two distinct populations in Northeast India: those who lived on wet rice and those who dont. The first group has densities of inhabitant per km² above 56; the second one under 23. All people in the second group speak tribal languages. But people in the first group speak either only Assamese, or a Tribal language and Assamese. This means Assamese expanded because of higher densities, a better vector for a state language. It also suggests that many Tribal people, after a bi-lingual period, shifted entirely to Assamese.
Among the lower density SCs, we find two sub-groups. One is between 16 and 23 hb/km², the typical case is Naga. Another is under 6, like Tani. Nagas live in big packed villages and their languages are starkly distinct from each other. Tanis lived in scattered hamlets, and their dialects form a chain. Obviously, these contrasting linguistic behaviours have some link with population density. When you are too few, you keep in touch with each other.
|
