Formación de un material compuesto SiO 2 /Hidroxiapatita

Ram Sundar Maharaj continues with her narration, which will take the shape of an event narrative, as she explains her reason for coming to Fiji, beginning with the words:

baki etnā hame khyāl ↑he

but this.much 1.SG.IP remember be.PROG

She is, again, signalling her credibility. The sequence of events, as she describes them, is:

kī jeise ↑ham (.h) sakrāt hindustān me

that similar 1.SG Sakrat India LOC

that just as we (have) the festival of Sakrat in Hindustan

jeise bhārat me ↑lage ↑he

similar India LOC happen.IP be.PROG

just as (it) takes place in India

banāras nahae jāne ↑he (.h)

Banaras bathe go.IP be.PROG

(during the festival people) go to Banaras to bathe

to u: hamke gāɽī reil

TOP 3.SG.REM.1.DAT vehicle vehicle rail

nei ↑mile

NEG receive.IP

we couldn’t get any vehicle or train

↑lalā

child

child

to okre wāste

TOP 3.REM reason

for that reason

hamlog thorā: (.) deɽā hoi ge rahā

1.PL little quandary happen go AUX.PST

we were put in a little quandary

to okre wāste

TOP 3.REM reason

for that reason

hamlog jeise phījī chalā ↑aiyā

1.PL similar Fiji walk.PFV come.PFV

we came over to Fiji

Orientation

The use of a large amount of spatial orientation material makes Ram Sundar Maharaj’s life narrative highly descriptive in nature. In this first narrative, which explains the circumstances which led to her becoming a Girmitya, we can see this heavy use of spatial frames. The narrative is situated in India, and, more specifically, in Banaras.

While there are no actual dates and time mentioned, as to when the complicating action took place, Ram Sundar Maharaj does indicate the temporal frame in her narrative. The complicating action takes place during the festival, which she refers to as Sakrat. Sakrat, or Makar Sankranti, is a winter-solstice festival of North India, and is celebrated on the fourteenth of January. In her contribution to the co-constructed abstract above, Ram Sundar Maharaj informs us that she came to Fiji in 1913.

At level 1 the analysis is situated within the storyworld. While there are no characters mentioned in the complicating action, other than Ram Sundar Maharaj and her husband, she does indicate that the complicating action took place against a backdrop of people going to Banaras, to bathe in the Ganghis River. This creates an imagery of Ram Sundar Maharaj and her husband surrounded by a sea of unidentified individuals, and amongst them, the unmentioned Arkhati.

Complicating action and Resolution

The complicating action of the event narrative explains the reason why she came to Fiji. At level 2, the use of repetition provides a rhythm to the narration. The repetition is found in the final two clauses of the event narrative, indicating the causal chain of incidents:

to u: hamke gāɽī reil

TOP 3.SG.REM 1.DAT vehicle rail

nei ↑mile

NEG receive.IP

we couldn’t get any vehicle or train Complicating Action ↑lalā child child Evaluation to okre wāste

TOP 3.REM reason

for that reason Resolution

hamlog thorā: (.) deɽā hoi ge rahā

1.PL little quandary happen go AUX.PST

we were put in a little quandary

to okre wāste

TOP 3.REM reason

for that reason Resolution

hamlog jeise phījī chalā ↑aiyā

1.PL similar Fiji walk.PFV come.PFV

we came over to Fiji

The narrative is quite descriptive. This is because although she is narrating the singular incident by which she came to Fiji, the details are not made explicit, as illustrated below through the participant action charts (Labov, 2004). The participant action charts illustrate level 2 of the positioning of the participants in the narrative. The agent of an action is marked y, the recipient of the action is marked x, and any participant not directly involved in the action, but a witness to the action, is marked z. Initial mentions (as opposed to repetitions) are taken as the main incident. Those incidents not

Agent = y Recipient = x Witness = z

Not mentioned but inferred from narrative = ( )? Went on a pilgrimage to Banaras during Makar Sankranti Wanted to return home Couldn’t find any transport towards their village Were in a dilemma as to what to do Came to Fiji People y Arkhati Ram Sundar Maharaj + Husband y y y y y

The participant action chart above analyzed only what Ram Sundar Maharaj says, not the interpretation that I, as an interlocutor, am left with, at level 2. From the sequencing of incidents mentioned in the life narrative, it would appear that the difficulty in finding transportation to get back home led Ram Sundar Maharaj and her husband to immigrate to Fiji. However, what the interlocutors, who have a prior knowledge of indenture, would understand from her narrative is:

Went on a pilgrimage to Banaras during Makar Sankranti Wanted to return home Couldn’t find any transport towards their village Were in a dilemma as to what to do Were seen Offered transport Accept offer Locked in sub- depot Came to Fiji People y

Arkhati (z)? (y)? (z)? (y)? (y)?

Ram Sundar Maharaj + Husband y y y y (x)? (x)? (y)? (x)? (x)?

As illustrated above, it is by reading between the lines of her event narrative, that the interlocutors realize that it was the deception of the Arkhati, which resulted in her and

knowledge about the various means by which people were recruited as Girmityas, and, in particular, the treachery that was, at times, practiced by the recruiters. This is evident in the strategic pause that she makes in her final clause in the complicating action, before using the word deɽā or ‘quandary’.

There is, therefore, a difference between what Ram Sundar Maharaj says, and what she expects her interlocutors to understand. A possible reason for this is that she can only be held responsible for what she utters, not what the interlocutors understand her words to imply. Moreover, at level 2, by not assigning blame to anyone in the narrative, such as the Arkhati, nor positioning herself and her husband as recipients of someone else’s duplicity, she is not positioning herself as a victim at level 3 (cf. Van De Mieroop & Clifton, forthcoming).