Konkani, a vibrant Indo-Aryan language spoken predominantly along India’s western coast, is often entangled in debates over its script, with Devanagari, Roman, Kannada, Malayalam, and Perso-Arabic scripts vying for prominence. This scripto-centricity—where the choice of script overshadows the language’s structural and cultural essence—has constrained Konkani’s linguistic identity and its speakers’ agency. By employing Ferdinand de Saussure’s structural linguistics, Roman Jakobson’s phonological contributions, and Jacques Lacan’s concept of lalangue as a provocation of desire, this article challenges the scripto-centric framework, arguing that Konkani’s essence lies in its structural and sonic systems, not its orthographic representation.
Saussure’s Structural Linguistics: Beyond the Script
Ferdinand de Saussure’s structural linguistics emphasizes the relational nature of language, where meaning arises not from isolated elements but from their differences within a system. For Saussure, language (langue) is a system of signs, each comprising a signifier (sound-image) and signified (concept), whose relationship is arbitrary yet conventional. In the context of Konkani, scripto-centricity fixates on the signifier’s orthographic form—whether Devanagari’s curves or Roman’s letters—rather than the underlying system of differences that constitutes the language.
Konkani’s phonological and syntactic structures remain consistent across scripts. For instance, the phoneme /ɳ/ (retroflex nasal) or the syntactic preference for SOV (Subject-Object-Verb) word order is independent of whether it is written in Devanagari or Roman script. Saussure’s concept of langue as a social, systemic phenomenon suggests that Konkani’s identity lies in its structural rules—its phonology, morphology, and syntax—rather than the visual form of its signifiers. The script is merely a secondary representation, a tool for encoding the primary linguistic system. By prioritizing script, Konkani discourse risks reducing a dynamic system to a static, politicized artifact, undermining Saussure’s insight that language is defined by internal relations, not external symbols.
Moreover, Saussure’s distinction between langue and parole*(individual speech acts) highlights that Konkani’s vitality lies in its spoken practice, not its written form. The multiplicity of scripts reflects the historical and cultural diversity of Konkani speakers—Hindu, Christian, Muslim, and diasporic communities—but does not alter the language’s structural core. Insisting on a single script, such as Devanagari (often promoted as “authentic”), ignores the arbitrary nature of the signifier-signified bond and imposes a hegemonic unity that Saussure’s framework rejects.
Jakobson’s Phonology: The Sonic Essence of Konkani
Roman Jakobson’s phonological theories further destabilize scripto-centricity by foregrounding the acoustic and functional dimensions of language. Jakobson’s concept of distinctive features—binary oppositions (e.g., voiced/unvoiced, nasal/oral) that structure phonemes—underscores that meaning in language hinges on auditory contrasts, not written symbols. Konkani’s phonological system, with its rich inventory of vowels, consonants, and suprasegmental features like stress and intonation, is the primary vehicle of its linguistic identity.
For example, Konkani’s use of nasal vowels (e.g., /ã/) or the contrast between aspirated and unaspirated stops (e.g., /k/ vs. /kʰ/) creates meaning through acoustic differences, which are script-agnostic. Whether these sounds are transcribed in Devanagari, Roman, or Kannada, the phonological oppositions remain intact. Jakobson’s emphasis on the universality of phonological systems suggests that Konkani’s distinctiveness lies in its sound patterns, not the orthographic conventions chosen to represent them.
Jakobson’s work on the poetic function of language also illuminates Konkani’s oral traditions—folk songs, zagor performances, and conversational idioms—that thrive independently of script. These forms rely on rhythm, rhyme, and phonetic play, reinforcing that Konkani’s cultural and linguistic vitality is rooted in its sonic materiality. Scripto-centric debates, often tied to political or religious agendas, obscure this acoustic richness, reducing Konkani to a battleground of orthographic ideologies rather than celebrating its phonological diversity.
Lacan’s Lalangue and the Desire of Konkani
Jacques Lacan’s concept of lalangue—the pre-symbolic, affective dimension of language that resists full codification—offers a psychoanalytic lens to challenge scripto-centricity. Lalangue is the raw, sensory experience of language, tied to the body, affect, and desire, before it is disciplined by symbolic structures like grammar or script. For Lacan, lalangue provokes desire, an insatiable longing for meaning that exceeds the constraints of the symbolic order.
In Konkani, lalangue manifests in the visceral pleasure of its spoken forms—its cadences, intonations, and colloquial expressions that carry cultural memory and emotional resonance. The debate over scripts, however, traps Konkani in the symbolic order, where orthography becomes a tool of control, aligning the language with specific religious or regional identities (e.g., Devanagari with Hinduism, Roman with Christianity). This imposition stifles the desire evoked by lalangue—the joy of Konkani’s sonic and affective flow, as heard in a fisherman’s call or a lullaby’s melody.
Lacan’s notion of desire as a lack that drives signification suggests that the obsession with a “correct” script is a futile attempt to fill this lack, to anchor Konkani’s identity in a single, stable form. Yet, lalangue resists such closure. Konkani’s multiplicity of scripts reflects the excess of lalangue—its refusal to be reduced to one orthographic system. By embracing this multiplicity, Konkani speakers can reclaim the desire of lalangue, celebrating the language’s fluidity across communities and contexts rather than constraining it within a scripto-centric framework.
Reimagining Konkani’s Linguistic Identity
The scripto-centricity of Konkani, often fueled by political and cultural agendas, distorts its linguistic essence by prioritizing orthography over structure, sound, and affect. Saussure’s structural linguistics reveals that Konkani’s identity lies in its systemic relations, not its written form. Jakobson’s phonology underscores the primacy of its acoustic contrasts, preserved across scripts. Lacan’s lalangue invites us to embrace the language’s affective, desiring dimension, which transcends orthographic debates.
To move beyond scripto-centricity, Konkani discourse must shift focus to its structural and sonic vitality—its phonemes, syntax, and oral traditions—while recognizing the multiplicity of scripts as a reflection of its cultural richness. By doing so, Konkani can reclaim its agency as a living language, rooted not in the fixity of script but in the dynamic interplay of structure, sound, and desire. This perspective not only liberates Konkani from orthographic hegemony but also celebrates its pluralistic identity, honoring the voices of its diverse speakers.
