The study of linguistics, particularly in its structural and synchronic approaches, reveals a fundamental truth: no script is inherently privileged over another. Scripts are human inventions, cultural tools designed to represent spoken language in written form. Unlike the natural, biologically rooted systems of phonology, morphology, or syntax, scripts are arbitrary and context-dependent, shaped by historical, social, and political forces rather than any intrinsic linguistic superiority. This article explores how linguistics underscores the equality of scripts as tools, using Konkani—a vibrant Indo-Aryan language spoken primarily in Goa and neighboring regions—as a case study to demonstrate that no language has a “natural” script. Drawing on linguistic principles and the insights of scholars like Ferdinand de Saussure and Roman Jakobson, we will examine Konkani’s diverse scripts and the cultural debates surrounding them to illustrate the artificiality of script privilege.
Scripts as Cultural Artifacts
Linguistics, as a discipline, focuses on the systematic study of language as a communicative system, prioritizing elements like phonemes, morphemes, and syntax over writing systems. Ferdinand de Saussure, a foundational figure in modern linguistics, distinguished between langue (the abstract system of language) and parole (individual speech acts), emphasizing that writing is secondary to spoken language. Scripts, in this view, are external representations of langue, not its essence. Roman Jakobson, a key figure in structural linguistics, further cautioned against the “hypnosis of written language,” arguing that phonology and spoken forms are primary, while scripts are merely tools to transcribe them.
Scripts are cultural inventions, shaped by historical contingencies rather than natural law. For example, the Latin alphabet, Devanagari, Arabic, and Chinese scripts evolved in specific cultural and technological contexts, none of which are inherently tied to the languages they represent. English could theoretically be written in Devanagari without losing its linguistic identity, just as Arabic could be written in Latin script. The absence of a “natural” script is evident in the fact that many languages, including Konkani, have historically adopted multiple scripts based on social, religious, or political influences. Linguistics treats scripts as neutral tools, with no script possessing intrinsic superiority or authenticity.
Konkani: A Case Study in Script Diversity
Konkani, spoken by millions in Goa, Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Kerala, exemplifies the cultural and arbitrary nature of scripts. Konkani is written in multiple scripts—Devanagari, Roman, Kannada, Malayalam, and Perso-Arabic—each reflecting the historical and cultural contexts of its speakers. This multiplicity underscores that no single script is “natural” to Konkani; rather, each script serves as a tool shaped by the needs and identities of different communities.
Historical Context of Konkani Scripts
– Devanagari: Adopted as the official script in Goa under the Goa Official Language Act, 1987, Devanagari is associated with Hindu Konkani speakers and aligns with the script used for Marathi and Hindi. Its adoption was partly a political move to assert a distinct Goan identity within India’s linguistic landscape.
– Roman Uppercase Roman Script: Widely used by Goan Catholic communities and the Konkani diaspora, the Roman script reflects Portuguese colonial influence and is prevalent in Konkani literature, newspapers, and religious texts. It is favored for its phonetic alignment with certain Konkani dialects.
– Kannada and Malayalam Scripts: Used by Konkani speakers in Karnataka and Kerala, respectively, these scripts reflect the influence of neighboring Dravidian languages and their writing systems.
– Perso-Arabic Script: Historically used by Muslim Konkani speakers in parts of the Konkan coast, though less common today.
Each script emerged from specific socio-cultural contexts: Devanagari tied to Hindu and nationalist movements, Roman to Catholic and colonial influences, and Kannada/Malayalam to regional linguistic integration. None of these scripts are inherent to Konkani’s linguistic structure; they are tools adopted for practical and cultural reasons.
Scripto-Centric Debates in Konkani
In Goa, the debate over Devanagari versus Roman script has been particularly contentious, often framed as a cultural and political issue. Proponents of Devanagari argue it unifies Konkani with other Indian languages and reflects its Indo-Aryan roots, while advocates for the Roman script emphasize its historical use among Catholics and its phonetic suitability for certain dialects. This scripto-centric focus, however, often overshadows Konkani’s linguistic essence—its phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics—which exist independently of any script. Linguistic analysis, grounded in Saussure’s and Jakobson’s principles, reveals that these debates are not about the language itself but about cultural identity and political power.
Linguistic Perspective: Scripts as Neutral Tools
From a linguistic standpoint, scripts are arbitrary systems for representing spoken language. Konkani’s phonological system, with its vowels (/i, e, a, o, u/, nasalized variants, and long vowels), consonants (including retroflex /ʈ, ɖ/ and aspirated stops /pʰ, tʰ/), and suprasegmental features (stress, intonation), is independent of the script used to transcribe it. For example:
– The word /kaːn/ (“ear”) can be written as काण (Devanagari), kān (Roman), or ಕಾಣ್ (Kannada), but its phonological structure remains identical.
– Minimal pairs like /paːn/ (“leaf”) vs. /pʰaːn/ (“branch” in some dialects) rely on phonological contrasts ([±aspirated]), not the script.
Jakobson’s theory of distinctive features, which defines phonemes by binary oppositions (e.g., [±voiced], [±nasal]), applies equally regardless of whether Konkani is written in Devanagari or Roman. Similarly, Saussure’s focus on langue as the abstract system of language underscores that Konkani’s grammar and meaning are script-agnostic. The choice of script does not alter Konkani’s linguistic identity; it merely reflects cultural preferences.
Cultural vs. Natural: The Konkani Script Debate
The Konkani script debate illustrates how scripts are cultural artifacts, not natural extensions of the language. The push for Devanagari as the “official” script in Goa was driven by post-independence efforts to align Konkani with Indian national identity, distancing it from Portuguese colonial legacies associated with the Roman script. Conversely, the Roman script’s advocates argue it better captures the phonetic nuances of Goan Catholic dialects and has a rich literary tradition, including works like the Khrist Puran. These arguments are rooted in cultural identity—Hindu vs. Catholic, Indian vs. colonial—not in linguistic necessity.
Linguistics reveals that privileging one script over another is a cultural choice, not a linguistic mandate. For instance, Konkani speakers in Karnataka use the Kannada script seamlessly, adapting it to Konkani’s phonological needs. Similarly, the Perso-Arabic script was historically used by Muslim Konkani speakers, proving scripts are flexible tools. The notion of a “natural” script is a myth, as no script is inherently tied to Konkani’s linguistic structure. Each script serves as a cultural lens, reflecting the community’s history, religion, or regional affiliations.
Implications for Konkani and Beyond
The Konkani case highlights a broader linguistic principle: scripts are human-made tools, not natural properties of language. This perspective challenges scripto-centric biases in other languages, such as the preference for Simplified Chinese over Traditional Chinese or Cyrillic over Latin in certain Slavic languages. Linguistics, as Saussure and Jakobson emphasized, prioritizes the spoken system (langue) over its written representation. By focusing on Konkani’s phonology (e.g., vowel nasality, retroflex consonants), morphology (e.g., verb conjugations), and syntax (e.g., subject-object-verb order), we see that its essence lies in its spoken and structural properties, not in Devanagari, Roman, or any other script.
This understanding has practical implications. It encourages inclusive language policies that recognize all scripts used by Konkani speakers, fostering unity across Hindu, Catholic, and other communities. It also underscores the need for linguistic research to document Konkani’s oral traditions—folk songs like mandos or proverbs—rather than privileging written forms. By treating scripts as equal tools, linguistics can help de-escalate cultural tensions and promote Konkani’s diversity as a strength.
Conclusion
Linguistics, through the lens of scholars like Saussure and Jakobson, demonstrates that scripts are cultural inventions, not natural or privileged components of language. Konkani’s use of Devanagari, Roman, Kannada, Malayalam, and Perso-Arabic scripts illustrates this principle vividly, showing that no single script is inherently superior or “natural” to the language. Each script is a tool shaped by historical and cultural contexts, serving to represent Konkani’s phonological and grammatical systems. By focusing on the language’s structural properties—its sounds, forms, and meanings—linguistics reveals the equality of scripts and challenges scripto-centric biases. For Konkani, this perspective not only clarifies its linguistic identity but also celebrates its dynamic diversity, fostering a more inclusive understanding of Goan-ness and the broader human capacity to create and adapt writing systems.
