4.1 Introduction
In chapter three I discussed the data on which is this thesis based and the methodology I adopted to conduct my research to study the process of language shift in Multan. This chapter addresses the following research questions:
What range of language choices exists among Siraiki families in rural and urban Multan?
What language transmission practices exist among Siraiki families in rural and urban Multan?
What is the relationship between different variables: namely, age, location (rural/urban), education, and economic group in terms of language choice patterns among Multani families?
In this chapter I examine a range of individual and family factors to study the language practices and changing patterns of language usage across generations in my eight case studies in home domain in rural and urban Multan. The data for this chapter was collected through ethnographic observation and participation, detailed interviews with the members of the participating families and four hours of recordings of each family in their home domain. Four rural and four urban families belonging to different economic groups were selected for the research. Information about the economic group of each family is given in sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2. These families are a mix of extended and nuclear. Seven out of eight families consist of three generations.
Fishman (1991) suggests that the three aspects that should be considered in evaluating a language shift situation are: habitual language use, behaviour towards
language and socio-cultural change processes. Although the language situation in the Siraiki community in Multan does not fully conform to the definition of language shift, whatever changes are occurring in the status and use of Siraiki and the resulting changes in the Siraiki language itself can be accounted for if we study these three factors. The present chapter is a study on habitual use of Siraiki. All the information presented in the tables given in this chapter is based on the speech practices of the members of the eight families who participated in my research. This information is based on the self-reports of the speech habits of the participants, my observations and thirty-two hours of audio recordings of the home conversations of these families.
Gardner-Chloros (199:188) observes that when a language is disappearing and giving place to another language in a society, the transitional period can be short or long. During this period some form of bilingualism prevails which can take at least two forms at the community level:
i) There may be a large number of bilinguals in a community, with each new generation shifting its preference and competence slightly in favour of the new language until the complete loss of the old language;
ii) The bilinguals may be only in the middle age group, the older people being monolingual in the old language and the younger generation monolingual in the new language.
Gardner-Chloros further states that the study of language shift should be treated synchronically as well as diachronically and the ages of the speakers in analysing their language choices should be considered.
In presenting information about the use of Siraiki by the members of participating families across a range of individual and family factors I have partly
followed the model presented by Li Wei et al. (1997) which they used in studying language shift taking place in the Teachew Chinese community in Singapore. They looked at the age and educational level of individual speakers and economic status and religion of the families. In an attempt to present the language choice and changing patterns of Siraiki language usage I have first looked at the general set-up and networks of families and individuals. On the basis of the information collected through different means, namely, observation/participation, recorded data of naturally occurring speech and interviews, I have categorized the speakers into different types and have cited examples from the data recorded in their households to demonstrate different types of language choices that these members make in the home domain. Patterns of language choice across the grandparent’s, parent’s, and children’s generations are systematically presented to demonstrate cross-generational language variation. Fishman (1991: 40) states that as language shift is often a slow process, for the most convincing study of language shift, a comparison between the incidence of language use in time A and corresponding use in time B is required, ‘that can serve as a bench mark for a currently contemplated comparative study’. In reality however, we rarely find such data, therefore what Fishman proposes is, ‘to conduct a single ‘cross- sectional’ study now, and to build into it those intergenerational comparisons that will enable us to draw inferences’ (ibid). I have also looked at the age of the members of participating families to examine how far this factor is affecting language choice and determining the kind of language used by each speaker. I have also discussed the level of education of each participant, especially with reference to the kind of schools they have or are attending.
With only eight families as my eight case studies (with mainly women interviewed and women and children recorded) I do not claim to present a fully
representative picture of the language choices and patterns of language usage of the urban and rural Siraiki speech communities in Multan, but the aim of this analysis is to show the general trends in language choice and practices in family context through a faithful picture of such interactions recorded in eight rural and urban families. This recording has been complemented by information provided by the members of the participating families in interviews and my field notes. Interviews or surveys can only provide information on the language patterns of individuals, whereas such recordings can give information on language choices in an interactive context, thus providing an additional angle to the research (Gardener-Chloros, 1991). I opted for the triangulation of data for this additional angle to my research (cf. 3.3).
In the following section I discuss the criteria for the selection of the families who took part in my research.