Bongitude and the Specification of Freedom

Both swaraj and swadeshi emerged in the context of nationalist discourses that set independence as a universal goal. This notion of independence derived its meaning from the empires that co-constituted modernity, and meant decolonization. Despite metaphors and other extensions, the little nationalisms within the Indian trans-nation have proved unable to postulate any sort of semi-sovereignty within the larger republic as a credible goal. This Bengal-focused study argues that sustainable autonomy cannot be promoted if all sub-nations are stampeded into ‘one size fits all’. Any ethnic community must take exonyms like ‘Bong’ on board and learn how to elude ethnographic museumization, how to fashion an explicitly contested interdependence with other stakeholders in a game of history that must go on even after the old nationalisms have crumbled. This paper’s interpretive methodology affirms the idiographic level, resists multiplying nomothetic moves beyond necessity, and targets positivism

La politique linguistique et les langues indiennes moins répandues

Parler des langues en Inde ne constitue pas un champ homogène. Le point de vue qui valorise le hindi ou l’anglais entraine aisément la marginalisation des langues régionales. Bien entendu, un régionalisme que tout le monde admet s’oppose à l’hégémonie de ces superlangues, avec des conséquences que l’on peut prévoir avant même de considérer la cartographie spécifique de l’Inde. Or, ces langues régionales, qui fonctionnent sous l’hégémonie d’un hindi ou d’un anglais, sont à leurs tours hégémoniques au niveau provincial – ce qui a pour effet la marginalisation des langues autochtones. Si l’on valorise surtout des critères démographiques, ces langues autochtones entrent dans la classification des langues ‘moins répandues’. Cette catégorisation s’insère dans le cadre d’un discours économique qui vise le bien-être des sociétés qui parlent ces langues moins répandues. Si le discours disciplinaire de la sociolinguistique adopte surtout les paramètres économiques, on va accommoder les besoins linguistiques selon une échelle quantitative. Cette intervention a pour but de s’opposer aux méthodes qui schématisent les langues moins répandues comme des points sur une échelle des communautés qui mesure la prospérité économique. On s’intéressera principalement aux facteurs qui frappent l’attention lors du passage d’un régime des États-nations modernes vers un dynamisme inconnu des espaces hétérogènes. L’auteur se servira de deux concepts contradictoires intitulés Colina – la conception linéaire de l’assistabilité – et Cosocommi – la conception de la solidarité communautaire interlocale – pour étudier les rapports de force et les paramétrages sociaux qui en découlent au niveau des stratégies linguistiques en Inde de son indépendance à nos jours.In this intervention I make a case against treating lesser-known languages aspoints on a scale that ranges from the neediest communities to the least needy. My argument refers to factors that become salient during the transition from a modern order of nation-states to an unsettled dynamism involving heterogeneous spaces. Under the exigencies and anxieties of globalization, the experiences become traumatic and call for urgent efforts to formulate and address what are experienced as vital issues on the ground. For clarity, I briefly present first the view I oppose, calling it ARSA, the Aid Recipient Spectrum Approach. I then outline the alternative I advocate, ILCEA, the Inter-Local Community Empowerment Approach. Once these have been introduced, the Language Policies in India section situates the problem with respect to India; the ARSA section discusses how the consensus both in India and elsewhere has swung towards ARSA; and the final section focuses on ILCEA, considers reasons for wishing to turn the tide and proposes ways of bringing this about

Judges and Grammarians in Britain’s Liberal Pedagogic Performance: a Diglossic Approach to Colonial Bengal

Many citizens of our putatively unified world regard as serious discourse, rather than as symptoms of ideology, the west’s posturing about its colonial intervention in the countries of the south. Scrutinizing the cultural mission of some key imperial «modernizers», one finds that the first three British authors of grammars of Bangla (a.k.a. Bengali) massively neglected their language learning responsibilities and produced shoddy work, which their administrative colleagues uncritically admired. On these shaky foundations of cultural «knowledge» the British built a «rule of law» whose judges, before they descended on Bengal, «studied» its language and culture from «textbooks» that reflected the low standards set by their predecessors in the cultural sector of the colonial enterprise. Unacceptable asymmetries in cultural study continue to this day. Until a critical number of western academics make amends by attaining adequate proficiency in the languages of the south and manifesting such serious literacy in the writing that they inflict on their public, the claim that western «academics» have established any bias-free «science» of languages, cultures or societies must be dismissed as premature.Nombreux sont les citoyens de notre monde censément unifié qui considèrent comme un discours sérieux plutôt que comme les symptômes d’une idéologie, la posture occidentale quant à son intervention coloniale dans les pays du sud. En observant de plus près la mission culturelle de certains de ces « modernisateurs » impériaux, on découvre que les trois premiers auteurs de grammaires du Bangla (parfois appelé Bengali) ont de manière évidente négligé leur responsabilité dans l’apprentissage de cette langue et ont produit un travail de mauvaise qualité qui leur a néanmoins valu l’admiration sans bornes de leurs collègues de l’administration. C’est sur ces bases pour le moins vacillantes de « savoir » culturel que les Britanniques ont construit un « État de droit » dont les juges, avant de s’aventurer au Bengale, ont « étudié » la langue et la culture dans des « manuels » qui reflétaient les faibles standards établis par leurs prédécesseurs dans le domaine culturel de l’entreprise coloniale. Des asymétries inadmissibles perdurent jusqu’à ce jour dans l’étude culturelle. Tant qu’un nombre suffisant d’ « universitaires » occidentaux ne se sera pas amendé en acquérant le niveau adéquat dans les langues du sud et fait preuve de leur sérieux dans les écrits qu’ils infligent à leur public, il serait prématuré d’affirmer qu’ils ont établi une « science » impartiale des langues, cultures ou sociétés

Translation and the Application of Linguistics

This article explores some topics at the boundary between linguistics theory and the applied linguistic foundations of the practice of translation. Section 1, The irrelevance of the avant-garde , considers the relation between such academic adventures as semiotics and poststructuralism on the one hand and the theory of language and the practice of translation on the other, and argues that radical antiscientism does not bear on the foundations of translation. Section 2, The irrelevance of the technical , looks at formal syntax and semantics in relation to the concepts of applied linguistics and shows that careful contemporary linguistics cannot underpin an applied enterprise that includes translation studies. Section 3, The substantive hase of translation , indicates (in some detail for translation and at a general level for other applied linguistic activities) the direction that the contemporary integration of various lines of linguistic research is taking vis-à-vis the needs of such applied enterprises as translation, literary studies, language planning, lexicography, and language teaching. Section 3 invokes a concept of substance as opposed to form and thus sets the scene for the concluding section 4, Pragmatics, applied studies, and scientific progress , which argues that it is necessary to take help from linguistics in order to construct the field of translation studies in such a way that practitioners can truly benefit freely from all relevant branches of knowledge, in view of the fact that chaos is an obstacle to genuine freedom.Les sujet étudiés dans cet article se situent à la limite entre la théorie linguistique et les fondements de la linguistique appliquée dans la pratique de la traduction. On y affirme i) qu'un antiscientisme radical ne porte pas les fondements de la traduction ; ii) que la linguistique contemporaine modérée ne peut soutenir n'importe quelle entreprise incluant l'étude de la traduction; et iii) qu'il est nécessaire d'accepter l'aide que la linguistique peut apporter dans le champ des études traductionnelles de façon à ce que les praticiens puissent bénéficier librement de toutes les branches de la connaissance puisque l'on croit que le chaos est un obstacle à la liberté réelle

Chapter 15. The Post-Missionary Condition: Toward Perceptual Reciprocity

Cognitive Accountability and Courage The postwar world has managed to build a postcolonial system. At the very least, this is a system of states that does not officially endorse the desire that groups with a temporary geomilitary advantage have to wear proudly all the chauvinisms that come naturally to them, with no awareness of the obvious laziness and cowardice involved in such an exhibition. It has taken a lot of courage to build even this. We now need to learn how to live here and..

Whole Word Morphology Reloaded: The Case for a Semiotic Turn

GP-WWM is a research programme that uses WWM (Whole Word Morphology) in morphology, Generative Phonotactics in phonology, and a domain delineation that equates the phonology module with automatic processes. In this paper, we advocate letting semiotically based mechanisms reshape the way WWM deploys its Word Formation Strategies. We propose LSSG (Language-Specific Semiotic Guidelines) packages, pitting our main proposal, the purely semiotics-driven Cohort Coherence Design for such a package, against a sketchily delineated Diglossic Equations Design

Judges and Grammarians in Britain’s Liberal Pedagogic Performance: a Diglossic Approach to Colonial Bengal

Many citizens of our putatively unified world regard as serious discourse, rather than as symptoms of ideology, the west’s posturing about its colonial intervention in the countries of the south. Scrutinizing the cultural mission of some key imperial «modernizers», one finds that the first three British authors of grammars of Bangla (a.k.a. Bengali) massively neglected their language learning responsibilities and produced shoddy work, which their administrative colleagues uncritically admired. On these shaky foundations of cultural «knowledge» the British built a «rule of law» whose judges, before they descended on Bengal, «studied» its language and culture from «textbooks» that reflected the low standards set by their predecessors in the cultural sector of the colonial enterprise. Unacceptable asymmetries in cultural study continue to this day. Until a critical number of western academics make amends by attaining adequate proficiency in the languages of the south and manifesting such serious literacy in the writing that they inflict on their public, the claim that western «academics» have established any bias-free «science» of languages, cultures or societies must be dismissed as premature

Judges and Grammarians in Britain’s Liberal Pedagogic Performance: a Diglossic Approach to Colonial Bengal

Many citizens of our putatively unified world regard as serious discourse, rather than as symptoms of ideology, the west’s posturing about its colonial intervention in the countries of the south. Scrutinizing the cultural mission of some key imperial «modernizers», one finds that the first three British authors of grammars of Bangla (a.k.a. Bengali) massively neglected their language learning responsibilities and produced shoddy work, which their administrative colleagues uncritically admired. On these shaky foundations of cultural «knowledge» the British built a «rule of law» whose judges, before they descended on Bengal, «studied» its language and culture from «textbooks» that reflected the low standards set by their predecessors in the cultural sector of the colonial enterprise. Unacceptable asymmetries in cultural study continue to this day. Until a critical number of western academics make amends by attaining adequate proficiency in the languages of the south and manifesting such serious literacy in the writing that they inflict on their public, the claim that western «academics» have established any bias-free «science» of languages, cultures or societies must be dismissed as premature.Nombreux sont les citoyens de notre monde censément unifié qui considèrent comme un discours sérieux plutôt que comme les symptômes d’une idéologie, la posture occidentale quant à son intervention coloniale dans les pays du sud. En observant de plus près la mission culturelle de certains de ces « modernisateurs » impériaux, on découvre que les trois premiers auteurs de grammaires du Bangla (parfois appelé Bengali) ont de manière évidente négligé leur responsabilité dans l’apprentissage de cette langue et ont produit un travail de mauvaise qualité qui leur a néanmoins valu l’admiration sans bornes de leurs collègues de l’administration. C’est sur ces bases pour le moins vacillantes de « savoir » culturel que les Britanniques ont construit un « État de droit » dont les juges, avant de s’aventurer au Bengale, ont « étudié » la langue et la culture dans des « manuels » qui reflétaient les faibles standards établis par leurs prédécesseurs dans le domaine culturel de l’entreprise coloniale. Des asymétries inadmissibles perdurent jusqu’à ce jour dans l’étude culturelle. Tant qu’un nombre suffisant d’ « universitaires » occidentaux ne se sera pas amendé en acquérant le niveau adéquat dans les langues du sud et fait preuve de leur sérieux dans les écrits qu’ils infligent à leur public, il serait prématuré d’affirmer qu’ils ont établi une « science » impartiale des langues, cultures ou sociétés

La politique linguistique et les langues indiennes moins répandues

In this intervention I make a case against treating lesser-known languages aspoints on a scale that ranges from the neediest communities to the least needy. My argument refers to factors that become salient during the transition from a modern order of nation-states to an unsettled dynamism involving heterogeneous spaces. Under the exigencies and anxieties of globalization, the experiences become traumatic and call for urgent efforts to formulate and address what are experienced as vital issues on the ground. For clarity, I briefly present first the view I oppose, calling it ARSA, the Aid Recipient Spectrum Approach. I then outline the alternative I advocate, ILCEA, the Inter-Local Community Empowerment Approach. Once these have been introduced, the Language Policies in India section situates the problem with respect to India; the ARSA section discusses how the consensus both in India and elsewhere has swung towards ARSA; and the final section focuses on ILCEA, considers reasons for wishing to turn the tide and proposes ways of bringing this about