Konkani, an Indo-Aryan language spoken primarily along India’s western coast, is a linguistic mosaic, written in five scripts—Devanagari (Nagri), Roman (Romi), Kannada, Malayalam, and Persian-Arabic—and spoken in diverse dialects across Goa, Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Kerala. Despite its rich pluralism, the institutional privileging of Nagri Konkani as the sole official script in Goa, cemented by the Official Language Act of 1987, has marginalized other scripts, particularly Romi, and threatened the language’s inclusive identity. This article employs Leonard Bloomfield’s morphemic analysis to dissect Konkani’s structure and interrogate how the hegemony of Nagri Konkani “dekonkanizes” the language, stripping it of its historical and cultural multiplicity. By examining morphemes as minimal units of meaning, we reveal how Nagri’s dominance enforces a monocultural narrative, marginalizing diverse Konkani-speaking communities and undermining the language’s vitality.
Bloomfield’s Morphemic Framework
Leonard Bloomfield, a foundational figure in structural linguistics, defined morphemes as the smallest units of language that carry meaning, identified through segmentation of words into free (standalone) and bound (dependent) forms. For example, in English, “unhappiness” breaks into /un-/ (bound, negative), /happy/ (free, root), and /-ness/ (bound, noun-forming). Bloomfield’s method emphasizes empirical observation, segmenting words based on recurring forms and meanings across a corpus. Applied to Konkani, this approach allows us to analyze how morphemes reflect the language’s structure and how script-based standardization impacts its morphological diversity.
Konkani is agglutinative, with morphemes combining to form words that inflect for case, number, gender (nouns), and tense, aspect, mood, and agreement (verbs). For instance, in Goan Konkani, the word /gharãk/ (“to the house”) segments into /ghar/ (free morpheme, “house”) and /ãk/ (bound morpheme, dative case). Similarly, /kha-tã/ (“are eating”) divides into /kha/ (free, “eat”) and /tã/ (bound, present progressive, 3rd person plural). These morphemes are consistent across dialects, but their phonological realization and orthographic representation vary by script and community.
The Hegemony of Nagri Konkani
The 1987 Official Language Act of Goa declared Devanagari (Nagri) Konkani as the state’s official language, sidelining Romi Konkani and granting Marathi equal status for official purposes. This decision, rooted in post-colonial assertions of cultural purity, privileged Nagri as the “authentic” script, often tied to Hindu upper-caste (Saraswat Brahmin) identity, while marginalizing Romi, historically associated with Catholic communities. The hegemony of Nagri is not merely linguistic but socio-political, intertwined with caste, religion, and nationalist ideologies that frame it as a purer, more “Indian” script compared to Romi’s perceived colonial taint.
This institutionalization of Nagri creates a “technology of marginalization,” where non-Nagri speakers, particularly Romi users, face systemic exclusion. For example, government jobs in Goa require proficiency in Nagri Konkani, effectively barring Romi users, despite Romi’s centuries-long literary tradition, including works like Fr. Thomas Stephens’ 16th-century works and popular tiatr (theater) scripts. The Navhind Times has reported accusations of Nagri proponents using their influence to suppress Romi, with events like the All-India Devanagari Konkani Parishad dismissing Romi as inferior and proposing translation cells to convert Romi texts to Nagri, further erasing its legitimacy.
Morphemic Analysis of Konkani’s Diversity
Using Bloomfield’s framework, we can segment Konkani words to highlight how script variation does not alter morphemic structure but reflects cultural diversity. Consider the Konkani word for “mother”:
Nagri: /माय/ (/māy/), segmented as /māy/ (free morpheme, “mother”).
– Romi : /mãi/, phonemically identical (/māy/), but written in Latin script.
Kannada: /ಮಾಯ್/ (same phonemic structure, different orthography).
The morpheme /māy/ remains constant across scripts, indicating that the core meaning and structure of Konkani are script-agnostic. Similarly, the verb /kha-tã/ (“are eating”) retains its morphemic components—/kha/ (eat) and /tã/ (present progressive)—whether written in Nagri, Romi, or Kannada. Dialectal variations, such as Mangalorean Konkani’s use of /tɔ/ instead of /tã/, reflect phonological differences but preserve morphemic integrity.
Bloomfield’s method reveals that script is an orthographic choice, not a linguistic necessity. The morphemes of Konkani—its roots, affixes, and inflectional patterns—are consistent across scripts, suggesting that Nagri’s privileged status is arbitrary from a structural perspective. Yet, the insistence on Nagri as the sole legitimate script imposes a standardized phonology and orthography that erases dialectal and cultural nuances, such as Romi’s historical incorporation of Portuguese loanwords (e.g., /pãw/ from Portuguese “pão,” meaning “bread”) or Kannada-influenced phonemes in Mangalorean Konkani.
Dekonkanization Through Nagrization
The “nagrization” of Konkani—its forced standardization in Devanagari—dekonkanizes the language by suppressing its pluralistic heritage. Konkani’s history is one of syncretism, shaped by Indo-Austric tribes (Kukna, Gamit), Sanskrit, Prakrit, Persian-Arabic, and Portuguese influences. Its five scripts reflect this diversity: Romi emerged under Portuguese rule, Kannada and Malayalam from migrations to Dravidian-speaking regions, and Persian-Arabic from Muslim communities in Ratnagiri and Bhatkal. By privileging Nagri, the state dismisses these histories, framing non-Nagri Konkani as “impure” or “foreign,” a narrative rooted in casteist and Hindutva ideologies that equate Devanagari with cultural legitimacy.
This dekonkanization manifests in several ways:
1. Cultural Erasure: Romi Konkani, with its tiatr tradition and newspapers like Uzwad and Vavreadeache Ixxt, has sustained Goan Catholic identity for centuries. Nagri’s hegemony delegitimizes this heritage, portraying Romi as a colonial relic rather than a productive cultural force. The Herald Goa notes that Romi’s resilience under Portuguese suppression proves its “fertility,” yet Nagri proponents dismiss it as inferior.
2. Linguistic Imperialism: The imposition of Nagri enforces a monocultural standard, ignoring dialectal variations like Malvani (Marathi-influenced) or Mangalorean Konkani (Kannada-influenced). Bloomfield’s morphemic analysis shows that these dialects share core morphemes, but Nagri’s dominance flattens phonological diversity, alienating speakers who use non-Nagri scripts or pronunciations.
3. Institutional Humiliation: The requirement of Nagri proficiency for government jobs and the Sahitya Akademi’s preference for Nagri submissions exclude Romi and other script users, undermining their dignity and access to resources. This “institutionalized humiliation” forces speakers to adopt Nagri, eroding their linguistic identity.
4. Loss of Plural Fertility: Konkani’s strength lies in its adaptability across scripts and dialects. Nagrization, by contrast, “castrates” this diversity, as I argue, by suggesting that it amounts that only Nagri Konkani is “productive” and capable of reproducing the language’s future. This ignores Romi’s historical role in preserving Konkani during colonial bans and the contributions of Kannada and Malayalam scripts in Karnataka and Kerala.
Resistance and the Path Forward
Despite Nagri’s hegemony, resistance persists. Catholic communities take pride in Romi Konkani’s tiatr and literature, while Bahujan communities, marginalized by Nagri’s casteist undertones, often embrace Marathi as a form of linguistic defiance. The Konkani Bhasha Mandal and initiatives like Story Weaver advocate for inclusive children’s literature in multiple scripts, countering the narrative of Nagri supremacy.
Bloomfield’s morphemic lens underscores that Konkani’s essence lies in its shared morphemes, not in a single script. The language’s morphemes—roots like /ghar/, /kha/, and affixes like /ãk/, /tã/—transcend orthographic boundaries, uniting speakers across Goa, Karnataka, and beyond. To reverse dekonkanization, Goa must amend the Official Language Act to grant equal status to Romi and other scripts, promote education in multiple scripts, and recognize the contributions of all Konkani communities. Digital tools, which can transcribe between scripts, offer a practical solution to embrace Konkani’s “plural fertility.”
Conclusion
The nagrization of Konkani, by privileging Devanagari, dekonkanizes the language by erasing its historical and cultural diversity. Bloomfield’s morphemic analysis reveals that Konkani’s core structure remains consistent across scripts, exposing Nagri’s dominance as an arbitrary socio-political construct. This hegemony, rooted in caste and nationalist ideologies, marginalizes Romi, Kannada, and other script users, undermining the language’s inclusive identity. By embracing Konkani’s multiplicity—its morphemes, dialects, and scripts—Goa can reclaim its linguistic heritage, ensuring that Konkani remains a vibrant, living language for all its speakers, not just a privileged few.
