Chapter Five: Linguistic Heterogeneity And Multilinguality ...shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/11248/12... · monolingualism i.e. one language is 2 constituting 6.2%, claiming

Chapter Five: Linguistic Heterogeneity And Multilinguality In

India: A Statistical And Attitudinal Study

165

To find out the statistical support for attitude towards linguistic

heterogeneity and multilinguality a pilot survey done in the university

campus. The survey revealed that either the students are multilingual or

bilingual. Monolingualism is rarely found anywhere in the university. The

survey was conducted using a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire

was made seeking the knowledge of number of languages they know, about

the medium of education and their views regarding the language policy of

India. A total number of sixty students from the university campus were

taken as respondents. General information about their age, gender and the

place, i.e. rural or urban were taken. The survey was done taking only one

variable i.e. rural and urban. Out of 60 students 32 were from urban origin

and 28 from rural.

Analysis of the Survey:

5.1 Statistical Details of the Languages Known

The first question was regarding the number of languages the students know

other than their native language.

Table 5.1: Frequency and Percentage of Bilingualism and Multilingualism

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

Bilingualism 12 20.0 20.0 20.0

Multilingualism 48 80.0 80.0 100.0

Total 60 100.0 100.0

As shown in table 5.1, the total number of the students who are bilingual is

12 and the total number of students who are multilingual is 48 out of 60

Chapter Five: Linguistic Heterogeneity And Multilinguality In India: A

Statistical And Attitudinal Study

166

students. But there is zero return of monolingual claim. All the respondents

are either bilingual or multilingual.

Figure 5.1: Bar Diagram Showing Frequency and Percentage of

Bilingualism and Multilingualism

Table 5.2: A Crosstabulation of Bilingualism and Multilingualism across

Origin Group

Number of languages known

Total Bilingualism Multilingualism

Origin

Urban Count 8 24 32

% within Origin 25.0% 75.0% 100.0%

Rural Count 4 24 28

% within Origin 14.3% 85.7% 100.0%

Total

Count 12 48 60

% within Origin 20.0% 80.0% 100.0%

% within Number of

languages known 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 20.0% 80.0% 100.0%

In the above Table 5.2, the total number of urban students who are bilingual

is 8 out of 32, which means 25% of the total urban respondents and the total



167

number of students who are multilingual is 24 which constitutes 75% of the

total urban respondents. The total numbers of rural students who claim to be

bilingual are 4 which constitute 14.3% and number of students claiming

multilingualism is 24 which constitutes 85.7% of the total rural respondents.

So the total count of bilingualism is 12 which is 20% and of multilingualism

is 48, which is 80%.

Figure 5.2: Bar Diagram Showing Frequency and Percentage of Rural

and Urban Students being Bilingual and Multilingual

Using Mann-Whitney U test, there is no statistical difference between the

rural students and the urban students in the number of languages known

because the P-value is more/higher than .05. The P-value is .305



168

Test Statisticsa

Number of languages

known

Mann-Whitney U 400.000

Wilcoxon W 928.000

Z -1.026-

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .305

a. Grouping Variable: Origin

5.2 Statistical Details of the Medium of Instruction

The second question is with regard to their medium of education, whether

one language was used as medium of education i.e. monolingual or two

language used as medium of education i.e. bilingual or more than two

languages as medium of instruction i.e. multilingual.

Table 5.3: Frequency and Percentage of Languages used as Medium of

Instruction

Medium of instruction

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid

Monolingualism 36 60.0 60.0 60.0

Bilingualism 12 20.0 20.0 80.0

Multilingualism 12 20.0 20.0 100.0

Total 60 100.0 100.0

The above table shows the number of students who having education via

monolingual medium of instruction is 36 constituting 60%, the number of

students having bilingual medium of education is 12 and multilingual is also

12 constituting 20% each.



169

Figure 5.3: Bar Diagram Showing Frequency of Languages used as

Medium of Instruction

The cross tabulation below shows, 26 urban students had monolingual

medium of instruction which is 81.2%, 2 had bilingual which is 6.2% and 4

had multilingual medium of instruction which is 12.5%. Whereas 10 rural

students had bilingual medium of instruction which is 35.7%, 8 had

multilingual medium of instruction which is 28.6% and the count for

monolingual is 10 which is again 35.7%.



170

Table 5.4: Cross tabulation of Medium of Instruction across Origin

Groups


Total

Monolingualism

i.e 0ne

Bilingualism

i.e Two

Multilingualism

i.e. more than Two

Origin

Urban

Count 26 2 4 32

% within Origin 81.2% 6.2% 12.5% 100.0%

Rural

Count 10 10 8 28

% within Origin 35.7% 35.7% 28.6% 100.0%

Total

Count 36 12 12 60

% within Origin 60.0% 20.0% 20.0% 100.0%

% within Medium of instruction 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 60.0% 20.0% 20.0% 100.0%

Test Statisticsa



Wilcoxon W 784.000

Z -3.246-



As the result shows, there is a significant difference between the rural and

urban students claiming mono, bi or multilingual medium of instruction.

Because the P-value is less than .05. The P-value is .001.



171

Figure 5.4: Bar Diagram Showing Frequency and Percentage of Medium

of Instruction across Origin Group

5.3 Statistics about the Languages Taught

The third question is regarding the number of languages they have been

taught in their school. So the frequency of urban students claiming

monolingualism i.e. one language is 2 constituting 6.2%, claiming

bilingualism is 4 constituting 12.55 and multilingualism is 26 constituting

81.2%. The total number of rural students claiming one language taught in

school is zero, claiming two languages is 2 constituting 7.1% and more than

two languages is 26 constituting 92.9%. So the total number of students

claiming one language taught in school is 2 which is 3.3% , of bilingualism

is 6 which is 10.0% and multilingualism is 52 which is 86.7%.



172

Table 5.5: Crosstabulation of Number of Languages taught in School

across Origin Groups

Number of languages taught in school

Total Monolingualism Bilingualism Multilingualism

Origin

Urban Count 2 4 26 32

% within Origin 6.2% 12.5% 81.2% 100.0%

Rural Count 0 2 26 28

% within Origin .0% 7.1% 92.9% 100.0%

Total

Count 2 6 52 60

% within Origin 3.3% 10.0% 86.7% 100.0%

% within Number of languages

taught in school 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 3.3% 10.0% 86.7% 100.0%

Figure 5.5: Frequency and Percentage of Number of Languages taught in

School across Origin Group



173

Test Statisticsa

Number of languages taught in

school


Wilcoxon W 922.000

Z -1.356-



There is no statistically significant difference between the rural students and

the urban students in the number of languages known because the P-value is

more/higher than .05. The P-value is .175.

5.4 Statistics of Languages Used in the Home Domain

Question four gives an account of the number of languages used in their

home domain.

Table 5.6: Cross Tabulation of Languages used at Home across Origin

Group

Number of languages used at home

Total Monolingualism Bilingualism Multilingualism

Origin


% within Origin 31.2% 37.5% 31.2% 100.0%


% within Origin 42.9% 21.4% 35.7% 100.0%

Total

Count 22 18 20 60

% within Origin 36.7% 30.0% 33.3% 100.0%

% within Number of languages

used at home 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 36.7% 30.0% 33.3% 100.0%



174

As shown in table 5.6, the total number of the urban students who use one

language i.e. monolingualism in their home domain is 12 constituting 31.2%,

who uses two languages is 12 constituting 37.5% and who are multilingual is

10 constituting 31.2%. Now the total number of rural students who use one

language i.e. monolingualism in their home domain is 12 constituting 42.9%,

who uses two languages is 6 constituting 21.4% and who are multilingual is

10 constituting 35.7%. Also the There is no statistically significant

difference between the rural students and the urban students in the number of

languages known because the P-value is more/higher than .05. The P-value

is .729.

Test Statisticsa

Number of languages used at home


Wilcoxon W 832.000

Z -.346-



Figure 5.6: Bar Diagram Showing Frequency and Count of Number of

Languages used at Home across Origin Group



175

5.5 Attitude towards Government’s Support

Question five asks about the facility the government provides for their

language. Do they agree that the government is providing facility for their

language or not.

Table 5.7: Cross tabulation of Students Attitude Towards Government’s

Support for Languages across Origin Group

Government's support for languages

Total Disagree Neutral Agree

Origin


% within Origin 18.8% 6.2% 75.0% 100.0%


% within Origin 42.9% .0% 57.1% 100.0%

Total

Count 18 2 40 60

% within Origin 30.0% 3.3% 66.7% 100.0%

% within Government's support for

languages 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 30.0% 3.3% 66.7% 100.0%

As shown in table 5.7, the total number of urban students disagreeing to

government’s support for their language is 6 constituting 18.8%, those

agreeing is 24 constituting 75.0% and those who are neutral is 2 constituting

6.2%. So the total number of students disagreeing to government’s support

for their language is 18 which is 30%, those disagreeing is 2 which is 3%

and agreeing is 40 which is 66.7%. There is no statistically significant

difference between the rural students and the urban students in the number of

languages known because the P-value is more/higher than .05. The P-value

is .098.



176

Test Statisticsa

Government's support for languages


Wilcoxon W 762.000

Z -1.657-



Figure 5.7: Bar Diagram showing Students Attitude Towards

Government’s Support for Languages across Origin Group

5.6 Attitude towards Medium of Instruction

Question six illustrates the choice about the medium in which they want to

have education; either it is English, Mother tongue or both. As shown in



177

table 5.8, the number of urban students wanting to have education in mother

tongue is 4 constituting 12.5%, number students in favor of English is 25

constituting 71.1% and those preferring both is 3 constituting 9.4%. the

number of rural students in favor of mother tongue is 6 constituting 21.4%,

those favoring English is 17 constituting 60.7% and those favoring both are

5 constituting 17.9%. Total number of students wanting to have education in

mother tongue is 10 which is 16.7%, those favoring English is 42 which is

70% and those wanting both is 8 i.e. 8%.

Table 5.8: Cross Tabulation of Frequency and Percentage of Preferred

Medium of Education across Origin Group

Preferred medium of education

Total

Mother Tongue English

English & Mother

Tongue

Origin


% within Origin 12.5% 78.1% 9.4% 100.0%


% within Origin 21.4% 60.7% 17.9% 100.0%

Total

Count 10 42 8 60

% within Origin 16.7% 70.0% 13.3% 100.0%

% within Preferred medium of

education 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 16.7% 70.0% 13.3% 100.0%



178

Figure 5.8: Bar Diagram showing of Frequency and Percentage of

Preferred Medium of Education across Origin Group

Test Statisticsa

Preferred medium of education


Wilcoxon W 851.000

Z -.055-





more/higher than .05. The P-value is .0956.



179

5.7 Attitude towards Multilingualism

Question seven tries to illustrate about the attitude of speakers regarding

multilingualism, multilingualism hampers national integration of India or it

is doesn’t.

Table 5.9: Cross Tabulation of Attitude Regarding Multilingualism’s Role

in Integration across Origin Group

Attitude regarding multilingualism’s role in

integration

Total

Negative neutral Positive

Origin

Urban

Count 10 2 20 32

% within Origin 31.2% 6.2% 62.5% 100.0%

Rural

Count 10 0 18 28

% within Origin 35.7% .0% 64.3% 100.0%

Total

Count 20 2 38 60

% within Origin 33.3% 3.3% 63.3% 100.0%

% within Attitude regarding

multilingual role in integration 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 33.3% 3.3% 63.3% 100.0%

The above table 5.9 shows, the number of urban students having negative

attitude towards multilingualism’s role in integration is 10 which constitutes

31.2%, those having positive attitude is 20 constituting 62.5% and those with

neutral views is 2 constituting 6.2%. The count of rural students having

negative attitude toward multilingualism is 10 which constitute 31.2%, those

having positive is 18 constituting 64.3% and no one claimed neutral views.

Total number of students having negative is 20 i.e. 33.3%, having positive

attitude is 38% i.e. 63.8% and having neutral is 2 i.e. 3.3%.



180

Figure 5.9: Bar Diagram Showing Attitude Regarding Multilingualism’s

Role in Integration across Origin Group

Here also there is no statistically significant difference between the rural

students and the urban students in the number of languages known because

the P-value is more/higher than .05. The P-value is .0972.

Test Statisticsa

Attitude regarding multilingual role

in integration


Wilcoxon W 852.000

Z -.035-





181

5.8 Attitude towards Language Policy of India

Question eight tries to illustrate about speakers attitude regarding the

language policy of India, i.e. whether it is multilingual or unilingual.

Table 5.10: Cross Tabulation Regarding Attitude towards Language Policy

of India across Origin Group

Language policy

Total multilingual

Origin

Urban

Count 32 32

% within Origin 100.0% 100.0%

Rural

Count 28 28


Total

Count 60 60


% within Language policy 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 100.0% 100.0%

The above table shows that all the rural and urban students think that the

language policy of India is multilingual and not unilingual.



182

Figure 5.10: Bar diagram showing Attitude towards Language Policy of

India across Origin Group

Test Statisticsa

Language policy


Wilcoxon W 854.000

Z .000

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 1.000




more/higher than .05. The P-value is 1.



183

5.9 Attitude towards Learning Other Tongues

Question nine tries to find out about their attitude regarding learning

languages other than the languages they know.

Table 5.11: Cross Tabulation of Language Learning Motivation among

Urban and Rural Students.

Language learning motivation

Total Negative Positive

Origin

Urban

Count 2 30 32

% within Origin 6.2% 93.8% 100.0%

Rural

Count 0 28 28

% within Origin .0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Count 2 58 60

% within Origin 3.3% 96.7% 100.0%

% within Language learning

motivation 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 3.3% 96.7% 100.0%

The above table shows that the number of urban students showing negative

attitude towards learning a new language other than they know is 2 which is

6.2% and those showing positive attitude towards learning is 30 which is

93.8%. The number of rural students showing negative attitude towards

learning a new language is zero and those showing positive attitude towards

learning is 28 which is 100%.

Total number of negative attitude is 2 i.e. 3.3%, positive attitude is 58 i.e.

96.7%. There is no statistically significant difference between the rural



184

students and the urban students in the number of languages known because

the P-value is more/higher than .05. The P-value is .182.

Test Statisticsa

Language learning motivation


Wilcoxon W 948.000

Z -1.334-



Figure 5.11: Bar Diagram showing Language Learning Motivation among

Urban and Rural Students.

5.10 Attitude towards Government’s Support of Minority Languages

Question ten is regarding the government’s attitude towards minority

languages. Student’s attitude attitude is negative or positive regarding this

view.



185

Table 5.12: Cross Tabulation of Students’ Attitude towards Government’s

Support for Minority Languages

Government's support for minority languages

Total disagree neutral Agree

Origin

Urban

Count 8 2 22 32

% within Origin 25.0% 6.2% 68.8% 100.0%

Rural

Count 12 0 16 28

% within Origin 42.9% .0% 57.1% 100.0%

Total

Count 20 2 38 60

% within Origin 33.3% 3.3% 63.3% 100.0%

% within Government's support

for minority languages 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 33.3% 3.3% 63.3% 100.0%

The above table shows, the number of urban students who think the

government protect and develop the minority languages is 22 which is 68.8%

and those who don’t agree with this is 8 which is 25.0%. The number of

rural students agreeing with this is 16 which are 57.1% and those who

disagree are 20 which are 42.9%.

Also there is no statistically significant difference between the rural students

and the urban students in the number of languages known because the P-

value is more/higher than .05. The P-value is .182.

Test Statisticsa

Government's support for minority

languages


Wilcoxon W 790.000

Z -1.126-





186

Figure 5.12: Bar Diagram showing Students’ Attitude towards

Government’s Support for Minority Languages

The distinction between the urban and rural variable is not statistically

significant in most of the questions except for question number (2). The

reason for this can be the size of data which is very less and also all the rural

and urban students are educated which generally makes them bi/multilingual.

The survey shows that most of the students are multilingual but most of them

had education via one language and maximum of them prefer to have

education via English language. They think that the language policy of India

is multilingual and the constitution provides due facility to all the languages.

The government’s effort in maintaining multilingualism can be seen through

the Constitution. The Constitution enlists certain language provision or



187

language rights (see Appendix B). The three language formula, the number

of official languages recognized on state level, the open-endedness of the

Eighth Schedule is also evident of multilingual language policy in India.

Language planning in India constitutes both corpus and status planning. The

nature of language planning in India as described by Chakladher (1990:164)

is:

1. Nature of language planning in India is comprehensive as it covers

both status and corpus planning.

2. It is structural as it aims at the replacement of English by indigenous

languages at different levels of administration.

3. It is decentralized as the union and state government have their

respective language planning agencies to formulate language policy of

and implementing them.

4. People are not compelled to accept the policy. The planning is based

on inducement.

5. It is flexible that can be seen in the amendment made by the

government on people’s demand.

6. It is narrow in the sense that language planning in India has not

considered the social, political and economic relevance.

Whatever may be the nature of language planning in India, the task of

planning in India is not an easy task. The nature of multilingualism in India

is very different from that of any other country. With such a large

population, with so many races living side by side, with so many cultures

existing, it is not an easy task to have a policy which will not marginalize



188

anyone. The problems which the language planners face while evolving a

language policy are:

a. The number of language and dialects are large enough to handle.

b. The categorization of language and dialect is not clear.

c. The problem of script. All the languages and dialects existing in

India do not have their own script. So difficulty comes in domains

like education.

d. Impact of English or we can say globalization is very high.

e. Political interference is very high.

Documents

Chapter Five: Linguistic Heterogeneity And Multilinguality ...shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/11248/12... · monolingualism i.e. one language is 2 constituting 6.2%, claiming