– K Srinivas

*This translation of the title does not do justice to the play on words the author was able to achieve in his Telugu original, ‘Chera: oka asamaapaka kriya‘ which can also be read as ‘Chera: A non-finite Verb’ – Translator. 

On the one hand, we believe that Telugu language is in danger. On the other hand, we also feel that English alone can help us earn our livelihood. We also assert our self-respect by declaring that our Telugu and our idiom are different. We believe that the alphabet and words carry the fragrance of our identity. We say that, for our newspapers, textbooks and everything else, we’re going to invent an altogether new standard language. In such a context, how does the permanent loss of a linguist affect Telugu societies? What is our future without such elderly people, whose scientific explanations are capable of clearing ‘modern ignorance,’ who at the same time pay attention to the new aspirations and also have a commitment to progress?

Chekuri Ramarao (Chera) was a well known linguist and Telugu literary critic. He researched the intricacies of Telugu sentence construction/structure. Besides this, he also worked extensively on other related areas of language which required direct field work and had immediate social relevance. He worked towards creating the necessary tools and institutions required to transform and strengthen Telugu (as with other languages in developed countries) into a language that could ably meet the requirements of a modern society. From serving as a ‘collector of words’ for dictionaries of different dialects/occupations to developing specialist dictionaries for Telugu print media; from writing lessons in linguistics for distance education courses to offering useful tips to trainees in journalism… his services were many and varied. Chera was a keen observer of anything to do with language use–its requirements, its methods, its experiments, its platforms, its media, and its people—and in the process not only changed himself, but also brought in changes and invented new principles. Being a student of literature, he studied the allegoric and grammatical traditions of Telugu and Sanskrit. By making a thorough use of linguistics for the purposes of old and modern literary criticism, he introduced a new mode of literary critical thinking. He brought in literary examples and references into his usual essays on linguistics. He participated in debates democratically and made valuable contributions. By rejecting modern misconceptions about language, he continually showed how one should have a rational and scientific attitude towards language. In practice, through his own writings, he demonstrated how the prose in scientific writings should be. Outside the field of linguistics, no effort has been made to grasp his contributions to linguistics and enter into a dialogue with him at some level. Although his predominant contribution to critical thinking in the field of literature brought him laurels and popularity, the literary world neither adopted his style of criticism nor could it grasp his awareness with the right attitude or the understanding they required. The new ideas he introduced, or the ones he left for others and the future to resolve- are by no means ordinary.

Chera was one person who had a serious engagement with the idea of how to construct a Telugu sentence… In fact one can say he was the first student who chose ‘Telugu sentence’ as a research topic. Embeddings of one sentence as a noun phrase in another sentence (nominalization) was the focus of his doctoral research undertaken during 1955 to 1968. He also studied aspects of sound structure (phonology) word structure (morphology) during that period. Soon after completing his PhD thesis in America, he wanted to share his findings with the Telugu readers. Therefore, he published a series of articles on nominalization in the Telugu magazine, ‘Bharati’. Not only did he pay attention to the special features of Telugu sentence, but he also examined similarities and differences in sentence structures of other Dravidian languages and common features of languages of the world. He was perhaps influenced by Chomsky’s theories on universal grammar that focused on identifying commonalities across all human languages. One of Chera’s articles in English published as early as 1967 dealt with direct and indirect speech in Telugu. In that he argued that direct and indirect speech are universal features because all languages have them. The function of different sentences with verb forms (e.g. perfective participle, non-finite verbs indicating past), the function of quotative marker ani ‘say’ in Telugu, the structure of speech sounds in Telugu to mention a few examples, Chera made important observations on all these and other issues. His proposals about poetry relating to rhythm and meter can be said to be extensions of his knowledge of linguistics. His comments on these topics at first seem very ordinary but each one opens out new ways of thinking. Chera was one of the early researchers who had made an attempt to identify scientific principles underlying various dialects of Telugu. However, he was also aware of the limitations of and obstacles facing modernization & standardization of Telugu language. The responsibility of overcoming those limitations now lies on future generations. Chera created the foundation for developing a comprehensive Telugu grammar that will incorporate all special features of the language. In one of the public speeches, he hesitantly remarked thus: “My field of research grew gradually in line with the qualitative developments in linguistic theories and ever changing methodologies associated with those theories”.

I do not know to what extent the Telugu world is aware of Chera’s contributions I have mentioned so far… may be a little is known, but I am sure that many people have not made an attempt to learn from his contributions. With the exception of students and experts of linguistics and literature, and a few others interested in language issues, I doubt if anyone really benefitted from his proposals, intellectual ideas and understandings. I feel our society, maybe I should say societies because I am referring not just to people in linguistic or literary circles, but to governments, policy makers, influential people and groups who make up the larger society. I know this larger society is not concerned with pure linguistics as such, but they should surely know something about the societal usefulness of linguistics. During the initial years after India gained independence, various newly founded institutions either had the foresight or were truly concerned with issues relating to history, language and culture, or they were also committed to achieving institutional autonomy over knowledge in general, and educational issues in particular, whatever the reasons could be, they were responsible for starting linguistics departments in many universities. They created an atmosphere that was conducive to researching on language related issues. There was a recognition that those language related issues, particularly some of the applied fields belonged to the society, even if this understanding was limited to the pure linguists and linguistics researchers. Projects such as compiling of occupational terms across different dialects received research funding. Gradually however, decline set in as it happened in most other fields, it became evident in the negative attitude on the part of the government; indifference to societal issues. As a result, a lack of foresight and myopia about the importance of applying knowledge for societal good developed. Of course, official language committees were constituted, but to put it in Chera’s words, “a linguist was never appointed to head such committees”. It was true that language politics were responsible for many radical protests and discussions in the country, but, the awareness that language can actually be a tool for development completely lacked. There was a steep rise in the political class (rulers) who mistakenly assumed that value lies only with disciplines that can demonstrate immediate benefits and that all others are totally useless. Even ordinary people began to view Arts and Humanities as useless disciplines. Of course even in its heyday, the question of usefulness of pursuing linguistics existed and Chera too was troubled by that question. In one of his public talks, Chera tried to literally spell out the material uses of the field of linguistics: from designing glossaries to offering therapy to people with speech and language disabilities to offering counseling towards dispute resolution, he listed many uses. Actually, aside from such palpable immediate uses, linguistics in my opinion has more foundational long-term uses, but who wants them? I suppose that is why one has to beg people to recognize this field and its uses.

Even as he recognized the equality of all languages and language users, Chera had a special feeling for Telugu language and Telugu people. He wanted it to receive all markers of modernity. Doesn’t loving a language mean loving the users of that language?. The rise and fall of a language after all depends on the rise and fall of people who use that language. The governments engrossed in doing daily development-mantras, are failing to recognize the fact that development of a language at the national or even at the regional level can be an indicator of that very development. How can we induct Telugu into all scientific and knowledge domains without making available some tools to pursue research on important questions? What are those tools? Dictionaries, glossaries, being able to use machines to translate languages, compiling glossaries are all examples of essential tools for modernizing a language. Today, Telugu lacks guidelines for using systematic spellings of words. There are hardly any stable glossaries. Why are we in this state? The reasons according to Chera are partly institutional, partly also arise out of many misconceptions and misunderstanding we all harbor. He did not hesitate to add that such mistaken views exist even in progressive camps.

According to Chera, a serious study of modern Telugu began with Gidugu Ramamurthi. However, he does not agree with all the historically assigned attributes to colloquial speech. In fact, according to him colloquialism has brought about more destruction than constructive ideas. It might have been a historical necessity, but Telugu society should have taken those arguments further. Instead, we have settled for the ideas that colloquial everyday variety is sacred. He stated that there will always be differences in spoken and written varieties of any language because they have vastly different uses. He gave many examples in support of this argument. Old coinages not in use in spoken varieties may still appear in writing and writers draw not just on current language resources but also garner some old ones hidden in their minds. He used to say that it is not enough to recognize the usefulness of a modern language, one must be aware of its limitations as well… one must never settle for one and only one variety. He was vexed with the mistaken ideas people expressed, whether they belonged to modern or progressive camps one should never be prescriptive about language pointing with rulers which use is right and which wrong. The political superiority peoples’ movements attribute to specific dialects will not receive support from the scientific discipline of linguistics. Those ideas might work in the arts and literature but nowhere else he said. When we engage in academic writing, it may not be possible or even desirable to stay close to the colloquial variety. We should not romanticize language in knowledge texts… nor should we deploy irony. He stuck to these principles in his own writing. He demonstrated how one can state an idea in a straightforward manner without losing its depth. Even when one chooses to write in third person one can use clear and modest diction without resorting to high sentimentality he argued. Chera’s own prose exemplifies these views. Perhaps we can call it democratic prose … there are a few others who also use such a style.

Chera insisted that only when one is ready to defy prescribed rules will language develop; only when we stop worrying about ‘wrong’ uses of language, will it flourish. But in his own prose writing he was constrained by his own principles and rules. While he believed that there is nothing wrong in switching from one language’s words to another, in his own use of Telugu, he hardly ever mixed English. Even the most difficult ideas he could express in Telugu. His own ‘glossaries’ are so specialized that however scientific the terms are in a given language, with their help one should be able to convey the intended meanings.

That the Telugu used in Telangana should be referred to as the Telangana language was a feeling that took root and expressed strongly during the recent agitation for a separate state of Telangana. Even after the new State of Telangana has been formed, there are proposals to replace the standard Telugu in the print media with Telangana Telugu. The truth is, there is no ‘stable’ standard version of Telugu today. It doesn’t look as though that is going to happen in the near future either. There is no attempt to standardize the spellings of written words; there is no clarity on what meaning one can attribute to a given word… not even the words relating to modern political and social issues and dealings. This is not to say that someone should determine the meanings and that once that is done they will be carved on a permanent head-stone for eternity. We need to identify currently used spoken and written expressions in Telugu and Telangana Telugu and attempt to codify them so that they are standardized. Unless we do that, the journey of standardizing Telangana Telugu will not get off the ground. Without a written version how can we ever achieve a standard language? Colloquial language lacks force and depth. It is not scientific to depend only on spoken version of a language. If we want to marry the aspirations of people’s struggles to the field of linguistics, we must first correct our misperceptions about language.

Chera did not approve of resorting to direct translation from English in creating technical terms in our languages or even in deciding synonyms. Quick translation is the method of choice opted by print media which is oblivious to the damage it creates to comprehensibility of intended meaning by the readers. Such quick translations sound completely empty. Chera’s argument was that we must attempt to create in our translations, words filled with meaning, if needed by resorting to detailed descriptions and begin to list such (expanded) meanings also in our dictionaries. This proposal was implemented in the very first print of the press academy’s dictionary that Chera was involved in designing. A comprehensive Telugu dictionary or even English-Telugu standard dictionary are still in the making although these are some of the most essential tools for achieving standardization of Telugu. These dictionaries should provide detailed explanations in addition to meanings of primary lexemes.

Chera made a great contribution to analysis of prose or poetry by providing us several linguistic tools. He approved of all kinds of poetry, but concentrated more on simple fantasy oriented poetry. In a friendly manner, he suggested to poets the importance of a generous attitude and offered them the vocabulary with several shades of meanings of words. His style was well received by women poets and perhaps that was the reason why he often cited examples from feminist poetry. Through his Cheraatalu column, he became a ‘star’ in the world of poetry. He received much acclaim as well as equal amount of criticism. Because his writings under ‘Cheraatalu’ appeared in one of the mainstream dailies, and were received very well by the reading public, it also led to some unexpected problems. Although Chera stuck to his own special method in his writings he felt various pressures and their influence having a negative effect on him… leaving his gasping for breath. In the public sphere, there was more discussion on the topics he chose to comment on in his column rather than the content. His good ideas did not come to fruition. There is a need for us to revisit them now… not just the stylistic differences he noted in prose or poetry, but his style of writing in general. Chera’s ‘Stylistics’ is a special kind of road to critique.

Chera’s interests and ideological depth are not limited to the field of linguistics alone. Clarity, elegance and progressive outlook merged with his disciplined study of literature seem to have contributed to his creativity in using language and his struggle to share his knowledge with the outside world in as democratic a way as possible. Of course, in all this the logic he derived from linguistics and his constant attempts to critically examine his own proposals (about sentence construction) drawing on ideas belonging to other disciplines… all these are revealed in the many layers of his complex personality. He surely has put in enormous effort into many issues; future researchers have many opportunities to expand on them. There are many other proposals that Chera provided a principled account of… identifying and elaborating them is an unfinished task left for the future. There are many tasks Chera proposed for the good of Telugu people. Intellectuals and policy-makers should take them up and complete them. If we can make an attempt to grasp and collate his intellectual ideas and ways of writing meaningfully, both linguistics and literary words will certainly flourish. It is for this reason we must revisit Chera’s writings again and again with a new outlook. What we have ignored or failed to grasp in his lifetime, we must now gather. This task need not be limited to Chera alone, but many others and their ideas as well. If we ignore them today, we will be forced to take them up later with much regret.

 

Translated by Duggirala Vasanta
K. Srinivas is editor of Andhra Jyoti daily.