Legitimized linguistic changes and literature

S. Sridevi,  CTTE College

The socio-cultural changes in our State of Tamil Nadu are reflected in the current lyrics used for the world of films. This paper analyses the globalised situation in the linguistic front using the framework  of the essay by R.Radhakrishnan “Why Translate?” written in the “Journal Of Contemporary Thought,” where the writer takes on the Herculean task of portraying the Tamil reception of the colonial encounter in terms of  linguistics. Tamilians translate their thoughts into other Indian languages and English just like every other Indian becoming part of the great polemical linguistic of the sub-continent of the Bharatha Desam. Mixing codes and words have always been a characteristic feature of the Indian, though claims for the “purity” of languages are vehemently defended.

Radhakrishnan says “Without a multilateral acknowledgement of the coevalness of the heterogeneity of human tongues and cultures, any act of meaning making remains captive to the master-slave or the anthropologist-native informant model.” [p.63] This valid linguistic statement raises the discussion of ‘location of culture’ to a position without a ‘location.’ The use of the word ‘translation’ assumes two cultures with two different locations in time and space. There is a ‘time’ in human experience when ‘two’ languages and become ‘one.’ The current speakers in Tamil Nadu have accepted the interplay of Tamil-English and not Tamil-Hindi. Radhakrishnan delves into a detailed analysis about this intellectual representation of experiences only through selected codes. He compares the role of English in India with its role in Africa. The Tamil educated in English prefers English to Hindi for political and questions of fabricated identity. The African model of Post colonialism might not represent the Indian experience with the colonizers.

The Tamil writers embraced the impact of ‘high modernism’ and after having a brief encounter with Western styles of writing, have come back to keep ‘alive’ the ‘local’ characteristics making the works available to the regional readers. The Tamil writers had the ‘tall’ responsibility of dealing with the “potentially universal status of Tamil language and literature.” [p.65] Leading Tamil writers like Pudumaipithan wanted to make Tamil as vehicular or modal to represent the living traditions rather than remain ontological or essential and thus become outdated. Tamil should have the ability to cultivate meanings and nuances. Tamil literature just took over the ‘new’ form of ‘novel’  especially its serialized form in an easy manner like the other Indian languages all while claiming for the language’s and literature’s uniqueness.   Radhakrishnan points out how Tamil was viewed by writers as a magnificent language on the way to becoming a vehicle to carry current thoughts and experiences   and they did not perceive the colonial linguistic transaction as something that happened from a totally ‘different linguistic universe.’[p.66] 

The mass media has become comfortable with the standardizing of the ‘mixture’ words that have been created by the current society. The film lyrics have legitimized the use of English and Tamil and these songs have taken Tamil lyrics to a global presence, quite new to the Tamil world of imagination. At the one side we have writers consciously borrowing from Western literary styles, and on the other side, ‘how to borrow’ was a leading question for Tamil writers with a world vision, though we may simply dismiss it as the ‘alien influence.’  Radhakrishnan points out that Tamil “can take on this burden, and continue to be itself.” [p.67] Whether the semantic – syntactic parameters of Tamil can accommodate these ‘new sensibilities’ cannot become an issue for contention, as essentially as Radhakrishnan argues style could even dictate content. Flop songs and soup songs decide the content and even the diction and presentation. Literature has its internal possibilities and if the current film lyrics would be considered an important genre of Tamil literature in the near future, will only decided by their longevity and their will to survive.  Can written Tamil literature tackle postmodern or post structuralism or will this burden be carried by electronic entertainment system?  Self-critiquing a culture’s establishment by literature is a burden for Tamil writers, but it has been quite comfortable carried on by the electronic form of literature. Literature has become the voice of powerful agencies of various minorities and the question of aesthetics or the entertainment value has to be sacrificed in the effort to picturise the reality from a certain point.

Radhakrishnan studies the issues in translating a postmodern text into Tamil  as ‘postmodernism does not translate well into Tamil’ and ‘postmodernism is not an experiential verity within Tamil.’[p.68]   Is it because the postmodern experience is irrelevant and meaningless in the Tamil context?  The western experience of the World wars that resulted a serious questioning of its Establishment and belief systems probably does not relate to the Tamil mind. All said and done, when we read post structural works deconstructing Indian epics, re-writing dominant male discourses into dominant female discourses, we are not really convinced. There is something that makes these works as not the product of our social milieu. That ‘something’ could be the ‘common’ viewpoint of the ‘common’ reader, and if a ‘literature’ cannot reflect its ‘people,’ then, it may not be able to carry the nomenclature of literature. ‘Isms’ of ‘content or ideologies’ from ‘other’ regions can probably inspire similar thought currents, but whether they will gain momentum, get a natural flavor and status depends on cultural ‘nearness’; Whereas, ‘isms’ of forms have managed to spread themselves and acquire new shapes and figures, like the ‘novel’ and the ‘free verse.’

Tamilians have a high sense of ‘pride’ in not imitating the ‘other.’  The Tamil sense of ‘purity’ and ‘classicism’ will never accept the flop song and soup song as standard forms of literature.  How will Tamil literary criticism explain these songs?  Radhakrishnan takes up the work of Ngugi Wa Thiong’s   Decolonizing the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature.  The book looks at language from two levels: language as ontological worldview and language as pragmatic performance.  Ngugi sums up the dual role played by language – for communication and as a symbol of culture. Today’s lyric of the film uses English words treating them as the local language. I have come across many semi-literate and illiterate  people not knowing the difference between English and Tamil words. Many people think ‘ischool’ is indeed a Tamil word. People do not worry too much about the ontological purposes of words; instead they use words as tools of communication. Lots and lots of English words have become actually Tamil words serving the purpose of communication and nothing more. The words can belong to any linguistic system. As long as they can be pronounced easily and as long as they convey the intended meaning, people continue to use the language.

How do we view this entry of foreign words into the local culture?  As a sign of colonization or as a new tool? There is ‘traffic’ and  ‘mobility’  between languages says Radhakrishnan. The cultural issues following the trails of languages also have played a major role in the shaping up of social values.  The Tamils would rather have an Anglicized Tamil rather than a Hindified Tamil.  The issue of culture was deeply intertwined with the Tamil sentiments that it gave the platform for political parties to launch themselves with the issue of language.  Radhakrishnan points out how for a Tamilian, language is surely a carrier of culture  and it just cannot be a tool for communication alone. The same Tamilian is able to accept the language from a faraway culture, as he thinks actually the people will never actually be influenced by European culture. Tamil Nadu is geographically much away from the English speaking countries making it safe to write and speak the language only as a tool of communication. The steady dropout of English Literature and the dilution of English syllabuses have been the result of a silent move towards English as a technical language than as a cultural language.  Students reading in BA English and MA English in Tamil Nadu Universities are not really exposed to major chunks of English novels or works as they used to be before 25 years or so. Massive political ideologies have been steadily coming down from social agencies reaching school and college campuses that speaking English in a college campus encourages a slight mockery. A parallel thought current that English is a language of snobbery has gained currency among the youth that students do not want to appear too stylish and arrogant. One wants to be local in an educated scenario today as it means you are loyal to your motherland – Tamil Nadu.   The State has managed to establish language labs and spoken English Institutes where cultureless English is taught, training students to use the language as a tool for communication.

The Tamilian is in the process of evaporating English geographical culture and making it a language only for technical communication.  Nevertheless, English culture is still around in the name of Soft skills and body language. This makes it very clear as emphasized by Ngugi that communication creates culture. This affects their policies and therefore language is inseparable from us [as quoted by Radhakrishnan].  Removing English words from our day to day life would be a huge attempt at decolonization of the mind, but after a people leave a language behind in a colonized land, slowly words lose their original importance and even slowly gain fresh meanings and added on relationships. Different worlds each conceived in its linguistic interiority communicate to form another type of syntax and present different shades of meaning. The hybrid world of this mixed language does not necessarily present a double consciousness. Two interiorized productions of words create the third interiorized significance, not presenting a dual awareness. Of the two mother words there is no inferior or superior, but a simple merge of the two worlds. It is the culmination of a ‘New Self’ which has been traditionally called ‘hybrid’ or a ‘melting pot.’ It rather appears to be ‘hybrid.’ If human memory has the ability to look back for 5000 years, then one would recognize perhaps every word having a hybridism. Limited by our vision, we have a tendency to freeze the current changes in languages and culture as hybrid. Heterogeneity assumes there is a mono-geneity, taking it for granted that there are pure forms of culture and language and culture never change in certain conditions.

Works cited

Radhakrishnan R. “Why Translate?” Journal of Contemporary Thought. November 33, Summer, 2011.