Dialects too have Dignity

Print Edition

User Rating: / 0
PoorBest 

Weekend Independent

Friday, 17 February 2012

Author / Source : by Abdus Selim

She crept close against him, clinging fast to his thin, strong naked body, the only home she had ever known.
“Then I’ll keep thee,” he said. “If tha wants it, then I’ll keep thee.”
He held her round and fast.
“And say you’re glad about the child,” she repeated. “Kiss it! Kiss my womb and say you’re glad it’s there.”
But that was more difficult for him. “I’ve such a dread of puttin’ children i’ th’ world,” he said. “I’ve such a dread o’ th’ future for ’em.”
The actions (perhaps pornographic from the point of view of a person who has that kind of mind-set but definitely aesthetically approved by those who are artistically oriented!), are subject of discussion. The discourse and the language that I have quoted from D. H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover did not suit the so called sophisticated English society when it came out first in 1913, and thus the novel was banned. But the same cultured yet worldly society recognized the work of art when their good senses prevailed on them revealing that if you ignore natural behavior and expressions from your life you end up embracing an incomplete, artificial human life.
It is rightly said by the linguists that language and culture are intrinsically intertwined and language is a culturally transmitted process from generation to generation. This transmission process is eternal as well as dynamic. I remember when I was compelled to buy The Oxford Advanced Learner’s dictionary back in 1963 (which I still possess along with 3 more editions of the same dictionary) when I was a first year student of Dhaka University English department, the dictionary neither contained any dialects, informal and abusive vocabulary nor any slang—as if they did not exist in the English language. But a language without them is incomplete, for a large number of people use those expressions within a given language community to communicate comfortably and conveniently, and they also feel dignified enough using them. When about sixty years back linguistics was part of anthropology, slang, informal and abusive expressions were arbitrarily overlooked by the elite of the society as language of the low class people. But linguists have, while giving description of languages, opined that the dialects that contain slang have equal right to be considered as part of any language. It is mainly because these dialects are used by mass people and they have intrinsic strength to sustain the need of communication—and of course language is mainly for speaking. Perhaps that is the reason the later editions of the dictionary that I bough during early sixties have included slang and abusive words in their lexical items. All dictionaries now-a-days have got rid of this kind of inhibitions, and I personally find it useful and user-friendly.
Even the so called standard language, according to the linguists, is a variety of dialect. It is considered to be sophisticated only because the policy makers and social elite have declared it to be standard. This reminds me that Shakespeare in his play King Lear has used slang abundantly and while translating it I being a member of the so called sophisticated society had a lot of trouble finding Bangla equivalent of them. I even had to mix with slum dwellers to learn some abusive vocabulary. It is clearly a gross inadequacy on the part of a translator. I personally believe that all educated people should master as many dialects of their mother tongue as possible. This can be valued as an additional qualification.
Linguists say that a standardized variety is a regional dialect, which has been elevated in prestige and often loses its regional associations as a result.  Thus standard language is merely used by a restricted few. Whereas though a dialect refers to the characteristic patterns of words and word-order which are used by a group of speakers, all the individual groups using different dialects have little or no problem communicating within themselves. Even in situations like that, idiolects, meaning individuals speaking in characteristic ways that are peculiar to them in certain circumstances, are also admissible and welcome. This is because both dialects and idiolects hold within them the real culture of the community and they add to the dynamic character of a language. A person who does not know any dialect but prides in using his standard language is definitely an outcast and his very survival will be at a stake because of his non-communicado with a large segment of his community.
Unfortunately, in all the satellite channels of Bangladesh they recently have started mocking dialects and idiolects making them to be the central theme of both sitcoms and word comedies in almost all the Bangla serials. I strongly protest it as a student of linguistics, for they deliberately make their audience laugh at different regional Bangla dialects. Dialects are not to be laughed at, they are to be respected and nurtured. Dialects are the rich heritages of a language community and this is definitely one of the causes for which we sacrificed our lives in 1952 in this month of February. Bangla language has a rich blend of different dialects and we in Bangladesh are the proud flag-bearers of that rich tradition. All literary genres are enriched by dialects, sociolects and idiolect, because a writer deep within is an upholder and preserver of his own language and culture. D. H. Lawrence is a burning example.