LINGUISTICS IN PAKISTAN: A Survey of the Contemporary Situation
1. INTRODUCTION
When the present author published his previous survey of the state of linguistics in Pakistan he began it by saying that ‘Pakistan does not have a university department or institute of higher education and research in linguistics’ 1. Now, after five years, the country still does not have departments of linguistics of the kind which exist in the major universities of the world. However, we do have many more courses in linguistics and applied linguistics in several departments of English and other languages than before (see Annexure A).
Linguistics is the scientific study of language. Like any other social or natural science, it involves using the scientific methodology to make propositions about language. Testable hypotheses are proposed and accepted or rejected on the basis of empirical data. Theories are constructed and, as in any other science, they may be revised when they lose their explanatory power.
The subject is divisible into two major groups. There is micro-linguistics which focuses on language as such. This includes the description of speech sounds, how they are produced, transmitted and perceived (phonetics); the way sounds function in the sound system of a language (phonology); the formation of words (morphology); the way words combine to create sentences (syntax); the way meaning is created (semantics); and how language is used in real life situations (pragmatics).
Then there is macro-linguistics which connects with both the natural and the social sciences. There is, for instance, the role of language in society (sociolinguistics); the way language is processed by the mind (psycholinguistics); the underlying neurological structures and processes (neurolinguistics); the use of computers to model human language processing (computational linguistics); the study of the mathematical properties of human language grammars (mathematical linguistics); the history of language change (historical linguistics); the study of the state of reality and being as related to and reflected in language (philosophical linguistics); the use of linguistics in language-teaching, analysis of style and speech therapy (applied linguistics); the use of language in education (educational linguistics) and language policies and their relationship with politics etc (language policy or political linguistics etc). However, some of these subjects--such as language policy and politics, language in education and the history of the use of languages--fall more in the domains of politics, education and social history rather than linguistics. Indeed, one does not have to be a linguist to write on these three disciplines at least 2.
Linguistics is not the knowledge of many languages though this was one meaning of the word in the past. Nowadays, however, a person who knows many languages should be called a polyglot not a linguist. Linguistics is also not a study of the literature in a language; the use of language as embellishment (figurative language); the art of speaking and writing effectively (rhetoric) etc.
It is important to make these clarifications, rudimentary and simplistic though they might appear to be, because many people working in these areas, or using language as an analytical device in the social sciences, are called ‘linguists’. Indeed, the tendency is to call all teachers of languages, especially of the English language, as linguists or applied linguists.
3. Objective
The aim of this paper is to find out the state of the discipline of linguistics in Pakistan. The specific questions to be answered are as to how many departments of linguistics exist in the country? What degrees are being given by the universities? What courses are being offered? How many academics employed in universities have Ph. D degrees in fields related to language? And, how many language-related Ph. D degrees have been offered by Pakistani universities since 1947? As in other disciplines, changes since 1985 have been given in a separate section.
As linguistics is not being offered as an autonomous discipline in the universities of Pakistan, it is difficult to focus attention only on universities. Instead, the field of inquiry will have to be broadened to include work on languages being done by local and Western linguists. Even more important is to understand to what extent the modern tradition of linguistic research is being used in this country. For this reason a larger historical portion than may be necessary in other subjects will be given in this paper.
4. Methodology
This article draws upon the present author’s previous research for its historical aspect 3. The empirical data about the specific questions raised above, comes from replies to 36 questionnaires sent to all language departments (Arabic, English, Persian, Urdu) in nine universities (see Annexure A). The author also visited some universities and conducted unstructured interviews with linguists or academics in language departments. The data collected from this is referred to in the text and it is collected in the four annexures which are part of this survey (Annexures A, B, C and D).
5. Scholarly Traditions in Linguistics
Whereas modern linguistics is descriptive, the pre-modern linguistic tradition in South Asia---and for that matter elsewhere too---was prescriptive. This meant that the linguist was supposed to prescribe norms of acceptable (‘correct’) writing and speaking. Within the descriptive tradition, the nineteenth century one was dominated by the comparison of words between languages (philological-comparative tradition). Since Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913), the father of modern linguistics, established modern linguistics, a number of linguists, including Noam Chomsky (b. 1928), the world’s most famous linguist, have contributed to this modern tradition.
Let us now see to what extent these traditions are being used, and have been used in the past, by linguists in Pakistan (or those writing on Pakistani languages).
6. The Prescriptivist Tradition in Urdu
It is not surprising to find that the first concern of the people who wrote about the languages now used in Pakistan was about norms of ‘correctness’. Most of these people were poets of Urdu who wrote in India much before Pakistan was created. However, if we want to understand the force of prescriptivism in the public mind we must refer to their attitudes, however summarily.
Such attitudes became really noticeable between the period beginning in 1702 and continuing for the most part of the early nineteenth century 4. It was in this period that Persian words were substituted instead of familiar words (such as prem for love, naen for eyes etc) from the local North Indian languages (called Hindi) by Muslim poets. This attempt at renovation serves non-linguistic functions although it is seen as a purely linguistic phenomenon by the renovators and their supporters. The purpose Persianized Urdu served was that it became a marker of elitist identity for upper class (sharif) Muslims who felt politically impotent and threatened by the overwhelming majority of Hindus around them.
Although in his grammar of Urdu Abdul Haq pointed out that ‘Urdu is a purely Indian language of the Indo-Aryan family. Arabic, on the other hand, is from the Semitic family. Thus it is not at all appropriate for the grammarians of Urdu to follow the rules of Arabic’ 5. Even so, this prescriptive tradition influences Pakistani teachers of languages even today. School grammars, based upon medieval Persian models, specialize in taxonomy. Parts of speech are divided into sub-classes which have Persian and Arabic names which must be memorized. Pluralization follows Arabic or Persian rules leading to absurdities. While this is an irritant for school children, the urge for prescriptivism in Urdu and English can sometimes be offensive. Thus, Shabbir Hasan Josh, the famous Urdu poet who migrated from India to Pakistan, often objected to people not pronouncing qaf (the uvular stop /q/) correctly.
Whatever the support Orientalism---the scholarly study of the East---might have given to nineteenth century European domination of India 6, individual Orientalists have left behind invaluable studies of the languages of South Asia. In India the work of Sir William Jones (1746-94) laid the foundations for the comparative-philological tradition which dominates the work of many Pakistani linguists even now 7.
The vernacular languages were studied by the missionary William Carey who, with Ward and Marshman, surveyed 33 of them in 1816. Among the languages used in Pakistan they translated the ‘Lord’s Prayer’ in Sindhi, Gujrati, Punjabi, Balochi, and Pashto among other language 8.
Apart from British linguists, there were many German-speaking scholars who also helped to describe Pakistani languages in philological terms. The achievements of these scholars have been given in detail by Annemarie Schimmel (1981) 9. Among the best known names are: Aloys Sprenger (1813-93); Ernest Trumpp (1828-85); William Greiger (1856-1943) and Max Mueller (1823-1900) 10. Unfortunately, despite Schimmel’s book, the works of German-speaking linguists---even those which are written in English---are not well known in Pakistan. Apart from isolated scholars like Ikram Chughtai 11, they have been unjustly ignored.
The works of English philologists, especially Grierson’s Linguistic Survey of India (1901-21), has dominated, and still dominates, the philological tradition in Pakistan. It as been reprinted in five volumes as the Linguistic Survey of Pakistan (n.d.) in Lahore and has been referred to by everyone working in the comparative-philological tradition---and most people still work in it---in Pakistan.
Grierson’s survey is, indeed, a landmark in the study of the languages of South Asia. It was the work of a lifetime ‘extending over thirty years’ from 1891 to 1921 and covering 290 million people speaking ‘872 different language and dialects’ 12. Grierson gives an introductory section on every language followed by a vocabulary and a grammar.
Even now, fifty-five years after the establishment of Pakistan, most of the best descriptions of Pakistani languages---in the light of contemporary linguistic theories---continue to be written by Western linguists. This survey, however, cannot list them or describe them because its focus is on the development of linguistic studies in Pakistan. However, some Western linguists who are still working on Pakistani languages are referred to below.
The most illuminating works of foreigners are about the lesser known languages of Pakistan. An extensive bibliography came out as recently as in 2001. It lists work on the languages of Chitral ;the Northern Areas; Baltistan and little known languages of the NWFP 13. Works of other Western linguists who have recently written on Pakistani languages are given in Annexure-D. But the culmination of the work of decades of Western scholars has appeared only towards the end of the last century. It is a sociolinguistic survey of these lesser known languages---the languages of Northern Pakistan 14.
This survey is not the last accomplishment of the SIL. Members of the team emerged as authorities on the languages of northern Pakistan. Joan Baart, for instance, wrote extensively on Kalam Kohistani. R.L. Trail and G.R.Cooper wrote a Kalasha dictionary and Carla Radloff wrote on the Shina of Gilgit. Indeed, the Bibliography of the Languages of Northern Pakistan shows how much has been written on the languages of this remote yet linguistically rich part of Pakistan and to what extent the SIL dominates this field of linguistic research at present 15.
The term ‘preventive linguistics’ has been used by David Crystal, a distinguished linguist, for the preservation of languages so as to prevent them from becoming extinct 16. Some identity-conscious local linguists, especially from remote areas with small languages, have been writing primers and scripts for their languages. These are too numerous to describe and the reader is referred to chapters on minor languages in the present writer’s previous books 17. Most of these people are inspired by ideological concerns---that their language should not die. In this they have the sympathy of believers in linguistic diversity and the right of people to maintain their languages 18.
Foreigners are also contributing to the prevention of Pakistan’s linguistic diversity which is in danger because of globalization and the privileging of English and Urdu in Pakistan. There is much emphasis nowadays on the preservation of linguistic diversity as pointed out by a number of distinguished scholars. At the moment Joan Baart is working with Khwaja Rehman to produce a word list and description of a language called Kundal Shahi which is spoken in the Neelam Valley about 75 kilometers from Muzaffarabad. This language is moribund as it is no longer transmitted 19. There are other languages which are in danger of becoming extinct also and they include Ushojo (in Chail Valley, Swat), Badeshi (same valley), Domaaki (in Mominabad, Hunza), Gowro, Ormuri etc which are being noticed by the SIL team, sometimes along with local language activists, in Pakistan. If this effort succeeds, some of Pakistan’s rich linguistic heritage will be saved which will be a great service to this country.
The major question in Urdu linguistics has been the origin of Urdu 20. That the question of the roots of Urdu still absorbs the minds of Pakistanis writing in the philological-comparative tradition is evident from the large number of studies still being undertaken in it 21. Moreover, as university teachers of Urdu assure the present author, it is taught in the M.A course of Urdu and is often the only question about ‘linguistics’ which is asked. It is also in this tradition that other well known studies---Mehr Abdul Haq’s thesis 22 on Multani (now called Siraiki), Yusuf Bukhari’s comparative Study of Urdu and Kashmiri 23 and Razzak Sabir’s thesis on the relationship between Balochi and Brahvi 24 have been written. Basically all these writers compare words of one language with another without taking into account contemporary theories, especially those dealing with phonology. However, Sabir has made efforts to refer to morphology, grammar, and phonology though his sources are dated and inadequate.
In the same philological-comparative tradition is Ali Nawaz Jatoi’s claim that Sindhi is a Semitic language 25. Indeed, there are some people in Pakistan who argue that all languages came out of Arabic but their arguments are almost always based on comparisons of a few words.
Other Pakistanis interested in linguistic matters focus on history. The investigations on the history of Urdu and other languages have been mentioned. Among the more scholarly works in other fields are the proto-historical works of A.H. Dani on the Kharoshthi script 26, the languages of ‘Sind and Sauvira’ 27 and archaeological research shedding light on the undeciphered script of the Indus Valley civilization 28. F.A. Durrani, for instance, suggests that the symbols on Kot Dijian artifacts may be the beginning of writing in the Indus Valley 29. But on this subject too Western scholars, with their immense resources, have written more detailed studies 30 while Rashid Akhtar Nadwi, the only Pakistani writer who has written a book on this subject in Urdu 31, shows neither any awareness of the state of contemporary research in the subject nor of modern techniques in this field of research.
Language planning (LP) refers to status planning (whether a language will be a national language, official language etc); corpus planning (choice of script, making new terms, purging words and adding new ones) and acquisition planning (spreading the use of a language through education and media) 32.
Thus Mehr Abdul Haq who has been mentioned before in another context, is a pioneer of the Siraiki language identity. His major concern is ideological---to prove that Siraiki and Punjabi are different languages 33. It is this difference which enables Siraiki to function as an identity symbol of the people of the southern Punjab. Other Siraiki linguists, such as Ahsan Wagha 34, have also tried to advance similar arguments.
Such theses appear to be based upon arguments which the writers are emotionally committed to on non-linguistic grounds. For the same reason most of the interest in the old indigenous languages of the country has come from the activists of the language movements. It is also for this that research related to script and modernizing the vocabulary of languages is undertaken. But orthography and neologism are both related with identity and thus with ethnic politics 35. Thus, those who emphasize the Pakistani-Islamic identity insist upon the use of Arabic-based scripts and the creation of new terms based upon Perso-Arabic roots whereas ethnic nationalists sometimes reject this script and coin words from the roots of their own languages 36.
Unfortunately, these language planners too are mostly unaware of the contemporary developments in the theories of language planning 37. The only exception is Atash Durrani whose book on neologism called Urdu Istilahat Sazi shows awareness of some of the developments in this field 38. Works by Raj Wali Khattak on Pashto orthography 39, by Syed Hashimi on Balochi technical terms 40; by Khair Muhammad Baloch on the parts of a vehicle in Sindhi 41 and by Qais Faridi in Siraiki 42 do not refer to the theoretical basis of similar work elsewhere in the world.
This brings one to the relationship between language and politics; the way language policy can make one language more pragmatically useful, and therefore of higher status, than another language. An example of this is the increase in the social status of English with the corresponding decrease in that of Persian because of British language policies. Another aspect of this relationship is the way language becomes a symbol of ethnicity and may be used to mobilize people against the ruling elite. The relationship between language and politics has been investigated by the present author in a book-length study called Language and Politics in Pakistan (1996). It has chapters on the Hindi-Urdu controversy in which Urdu became an identity symbol of the Muslims of South Asia. This type of identity-formation went on after the creation of Pakistan. The ethnic movements based on Sindhi, Pashto, Bengali, Balochi/Brahvi, Siraiki and Hindko are described in this book 43. The present writer has recently written a book on the history of language-teaching among the Muslims of Pakistan and North India. This book investigates the relationship between the power-distribution in a society with language policy. It also looks at the worldview which language texts produce and privilege 44.
Afia Dil, the wife of Anwar Dil who is a pioneer of linguistics in Pakistan, although she is counted among Bangladeshi linguists, has contributed to Pakistani linguistics too. Her book on the Muslim variety of Bengali is highly relevant for Pakistanis, who used to think that Bengali was only a ‘Hindu’ language 45. The latest achievement of the wife-and-husband team is the monumental The Bengali Language Movement 46 (2000) which is more about the history of the Bengali language movement – the movement by nationalist East Bengali people to make their language a national language of Pakistan in the 1950s---than about linguistics or even language policy.
It has been mentioned earlier that linguistics is not taught as an autonomous discipline in Pakistan. Among those who tried to establish it as a university subject is Anwar Dil, presently living in the United States. Dil could not establish either a department or an institute of linguistics but he did manage to establish the Linguistic Research Group of Pakistan in 1961 which published a number of monographs containing scholarly articles and papers read out at linguistic conferences in Pakistan 47. Some of the articles in the series are of a high standard but there are shoddy, ideologically inspired pieces too, which mar most Pakistani publications. Such writings are published because there is no anonymous reviewing nor, indeed, the means to do good research. Moreover, most publications are supported by the state which influences the ideological contents of the publications. Dil, who later settled down in America, contributed to the field of sociolinguistics by editing a large, and highly significant, collection of the works of distinguished scholars. He is active in editing, compiling, and generally trying to get linguistics recognized as an autonomous discipline in Pakistan.
Most work on Pakistani languages is of very questionable quality indeed. Moreover, it is not in the modern tradition. However, G.A Allana’s book on Sindhi orthography 48 is an exception since the author is quite aware of the concepts of modern linguistics and has created terms which can be used to describe Sindhi in the light of modern concepts. But Allana’s work falls in the modern linguistic tradition to which we turn now.
There are some studies on Urdu by Baber S. Khan and Anjum Saleemi in the Chomskyan tradition 49. There are dissertations by Raja Naseem on Punjabi morphology and subsequent articles on the syntax and tones of Punjabi in this tradition 50. However, a study of ‘word form’ in Urdu 51 and the phonology of the verbal phrase in Hindko are not in this tradition 52. However, most of the works in modern linguistics were completed in Western universities and the authors confess that they find it difficult to be as productive in this field of research as they were when they were living abroad.
As mentioned earlier, there is very little work on linguistics in Pakistani languages. It must, however, be mentioned that the students of FAST in Lahore, under the guidance of Dr Sarmad Hussain, are producing work which has the potential of becoming the first linguistic study of Urdu along modern lines 53. There are competent studies on languages shared between Pakistan and India both in India and abroad but they are outside the domain of this study.
In Pakistan there are only a few recent works written in Pakistani languages which show some awareness of contemporary terminology and concepts. Most of these works are written in Urdu and Sindhi. There is, for instance, G.A. Allana’s book on the phonetics of Sindhi 54 and his study of the dialects and spread of the language 55. Also worth mentioning are Nabi Baksh Baloch’s historical studies of Sindhi 56 and Hidayat Ullah Akhund’s thesis on the same subject 57. N.A.Baloch is active even now having produced a book on Jatki as well as occasional papers 58. He is highly respected in Pakistan in general and Sindh in particular. His contribution to the history of Sindh is enormous. However, his methodology is historical and philological and not that which contemporary linguists use in the West. Qasim Bughio, however, is aware of contemporary methods and his study of the dialects of Sindhi is in the tradition of modern sociolinguists 59. In the M.A course in Sindhi some general linguistics, phonetics and the history of the Sindhi language is taught. However, as Sindhi is taught at all levels in Sindh there is much more linguistic writing on Sindhi than on any Pakistani language except Urdu.
In Urdu, apart from the work of the FAST students mentioned above, there are studies by Suhail Bukhari 60 and Abdul Salam’s Urdu book on general linguistics 61. Although of a rudimentary level, Abdul Salam provides technical terms in Urdu which can help linguists describe modern linguistic concepts. After Mohiuddin Qadri Zor’s similar introductory work entitled Hindustani Lisaniyat 62, this is the most adequate attempt to provide an introductory book giving equivalents of the terminology of basic linguistics in Urdu. The FAST students, however, introduce us to the terminology of advanced phonetics and phonology.
A brief study of Pashto where the terminology of linguistics is introduced in that language is by Khial Bukhari 63. Bukhari touches upon dialectology and phonetics which are generally ignored by Pakistani linguists. His grammar of Pashto, also written in Pashto, is also worth mentioning though it does not touch upon recent grammatical theories 64 (There are such works in Afghanistan, of course, but they fall outside our purview).
Most Pakistani works ignore theoretical complexities. Indeed, for Pakistani linguists it is difficult not to do so, because the sources and the level of training available is not conducive to study of the more technical aspects of contemporary phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics. What then is left for a Pakistani linguist is language planning and lexicology of which examples have been given earlier or some aspects of sociolinguistics. There are, for instance, studies of politeness in Shina 65 and Urdu 66 and so on. The former work describes verbal politeness patterns in Shina while the latter argues that the norms of verbal politeness in English-speaking cultures---such as the use of the first name without honorifics irrespective of the age differentials of the interlocutors---are influencing English-using Pakistanis. Another kind of work is that of surveying the attitude of people towards different languages. This has been done in great detail by the authors of the Sociolinguistic Survey of Northern Pakistan (1992) which has already been mentioned. Even more relevant from the point of view of education is the survey of student’s attitudes towards Urdu, English, and Punjabi by Sabiha Mansoor in Lahore 67. The point made in Sabiha Mansoor’s survey is that students respond pragmatically to the apparent social prestige of a language and evaluate it positively if it increases chances of upward social mobility. Recently, in 2002, Sabiha Mansoor also completed her doctoral thesis on the role of English in the higher education system of Pakistan and confirmed the finding that students and others do consider English necessary for social mobility 68. The present writer also found this in his survey but, along with this, he also found an aspiration for the use of the mother-tongue in Sindh, the Frontier and among madrassa students who were not positive towards English 69. Sabiha Mansoor’s thesis, like her previous work, is in the domain of language policy, especially as it pertains to education.
13. Changes
Since 1985: The Focus on English Language Teaching
In the seventies and eighties the British Council and the educational agencies of the United States started emphasizing the teaching of English as a second or other language---TESOL/TESL/ELT were among the acronyms to describe the phenomenon. Up to this time the departments of English focussed almost exclusively on English literature, which generally meant only British literature upto T.S Eliot. However, when the University Grants Commission (now the Higher Education Commission) and the Allama Iqbal Open University started offering diploma courses in TESOL in 1985, a number of young lecturers with vested interests and knowledge of English language teaching formed a pressure group which brought about changes in the English departments. The present writer, when appointed to the Chair of English at the University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (Muzaffarabad) in 1987, started the first MA in English Language Teaching and Linguistics. This MA was unique in that it had courses on general linguistics, socio-and psycho-linguistics as well as English language teaching. However, upon the present writer’s relocation at the Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad in 1990, courses in the second year of the M.A course were replaced with literature ones. At Quaid-i-Azam University, however, a course in anthropological linguistics and on language planning and language problems in Pakistan have been added by the present writer. Unfortunately, an M.A in linguistics has still not been established.
Apart from the efforts of the British Council etc., ELT also got a boost from the activities of the Society of Pakistani English Language Teachers (SPELT) which was established in 1984 by Zakia Sarwar 70. SPELT holds lectures, workshops, and conferences on a regular basis---the last conference was held in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad in October 2002---which increase awareness about the teaching of English. In the year 2003 an English Language Committee has been established by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan. Among other things, it intends to look at language policy and ELT. Although SPELT and other ELT programmes do not focus on linguistics as such, they do contribute indirectly to the teaching of the rudiments of phonetics, varieties of language, and stylistics. However, their focus is the teaching of English and not theoretical analysis. Books produced by SPELT 71 or by those involved in ELT are concerned with English, and that too with its teaching. A survey of English language teaching, for instance, has been produced by Farida Malik 72. Also, it is because of this increased concern with English as a language that some scholars have written about its role in Pakistan 73.
There is, moreover, at least one Pakistani academic in the United States, who has written his doctoral thesis on the status of the non-native speakers of English as teachers of the language in America. 74. People like Ahmar Mahboob question the exonormative ideology i.e. that only native speakers can teach English. Ahmar is a product of the linguistic iconoclasm which set in into the field of English language teaching as a consequence of the new ideas disseminated by the applied linguists who taught ELT.
Even more significant is the questioning of the traditional prescriptivist notion that only British Standard English writing and pronunciation should be considered ‘correct’ and should be the pedagogical norm. The notion that there could be a non-native variety of English called Pakistani English was first introduced in Pakistan by Robert J. Baumgardner who later explored the grammatical and lexical features of Pakistani English (PE) in more detail 75. The first detailed description of PE---including its phonetic and phonological features and sub-varieties which Baumgardner had not touched upon---was published by the present author 76. The notion of ‘Pakistani Urdu’, advanced by the present author in a newspaper article, has still not been described in detail 77. In Pakistan, however, there is not much advance upon this earlier work while elsewhere in the world there is much debate about the concept and features of non-native varieties of a language. To this debate Anjum Saleemi, has already contributed and Ahmar Mahboob tells the present author that he too is working in this field and will publish his results soon 78.
But Ahmar Mahboob, like Saleemi, lives abroad and works in the mainstream tradition of sociolinguistics. Saleemi works in the Chomskyan theoretical linguistic tradition which is hardly understood in Pakistan. That is why his study of language learnability 79, which should have been discussed by linguists , has gone unnoticed. In the only review of the book in Pakistan, the present writer confessed his own ignorance of some of the theories used by Saleemi because research journals and books are not available in such a highly technical subject 80. Perhaps, however, Dr. Raja Naseem Ahmad or maybe Dr Arif Shahbaz, both trained in syntax in British universities, may be able to understand this book fully. Unfortunately, the latter is now teaching English literature at the Punjab University though the former is trying to keep up with his research.
Similarly, the work of Ruqaiya Hasan, who collaborated with Halliday---and is married to him---in a well known book Cohesion in English is unknown in Pakistan 81. Indeed, discourse analysis and systemic grammar---the linguistic tradition associated with Halliday in which Raqaiya Hasan worked 82, is even less known in Pakistan than the Chomskyan one.
In short, then, most linguists working in Pakistan actually work on the peripheries of the field of linguistics. Since they do not find material on linguistic theory they wander off into history, political science, and sociology or stop producing research work altogether. Thus, there is very little theoretical (or micro) linguistic work going on in Pakistan. Some of the best linguists from Pakistan---such as Anjum Saleemi, Raqaiya Hasan and Miriam Butt 83 do not live and work in Pakistan.
There are, however, two exceptions who have been mentioned already but need somewhat more specific mention . These are Sarmad Hussain and Raja Naseem Akhtar. The former is Associate Professor and Head, Center for Research in Urdu Language Processing (CRULP), FAST at Lahore. He conducts research on computer speech processing, computational linguistics and computer script processing 84. Among his achievements are creating a software development programme for Urdu. During the process he has enabled his students to produce two excellent collections of research articles on Urdu phonetics and phonology published by the National Language Authority mentioned earlier.
Raja Naseem Akhtar’s work is mainly on Punjabi, though he has published a couple of papers on Urdu as well. The most important part of his work is related to Aspectual Complex Predicates of Punjabi 85. This is a complex subject which is also the focus of research of Miriam Butt who was brought up in Pakistan being the daughter of a Pakistani father and a German mother. However, as mentioned earlier, Miriam lives and works in Western Universities and, though she works on Urdu, she falls in the list of Pakistanis living abroad.
Apart from Anwar Dil’s attempt to create an association for linguists, no other attempt for creating such an association has succeeded so far. The English language does, however, have two associations: SPELT and the recently (June 2003) established Committee on English Language at the Higher Education Commission. Both these organizations do have applied linguists and linguists who are involved in teaching or doing research on English. Similarly, other linguists are involved in the organizations of languages they are associated with.
In the absence of departments of linguistics and linguistic associations, conferences on micro-linguistics are not held. Linguists working in related areas, however, present papers in conferences on literature, language-teaching and the social sciences.
The few students who take courses on linguistics go into language-teaching or in the social sciences. The only students who are using their knowledge in creating computer programmes in Urdu are from FAST and are being absorbed in the corporate sector. Some linguists, mostly local informants, collaborate with foreign linguists when they come to do research on Pakistan’s languages. As mentioned earlier, these people, especially the language activists among them, want to preserve their languages. So far no trained Pakistani linguist working in the modern tradition has ever contributed to this. Perhaps future linguists, if we have many of them, will turn their attention to the preservation of their rich linguistic heritage.
Apart from this there are no vocations open for linguists. However, all the language-planning academies---the National Language Authority for Urdu, the Pashto Academy, the Balochi Academy, the Brahvi Academy, the Punjabi Adabi board and the Sindhi Language Authority---do create new words and decide on matters of script etc. As yet they do not have linguists as their members. But if there are trained linguists they will help in more informed language planning projects than are taking place now.
Linguists trained in neurolinguistics, computational linguistics and biological linguistics can help in research on artificial intelligence, robotics and computer studies. In addition to that, insights in semiotics---the study of communication systems---can gain from research in linguistics. The present boom in information technology does not look to linguists yet in Pakistan but this is only because there are so few of them in the country.
Neurolinguists and psycholinguists may also give their insights to help understand pathologies of speech, damages to the brain centres controlling language, and animal communication. With the present interest in biology it is distressful to find that Pakistan has nobody who specializes in the biological foundations of language 86.
More than any other area, future graduates will be absorbed in schools, colleges and universities if linguistics is introduced there. It is, after all, a subject which is considered of crucial importance in modern scholarship. Not to have any proper department or research institution in linguistics means that Pakistanis will never be able to contribute to the development of linguistics in their own country and in the world.
Pakistan is perhaps the most backward country of South Asia in the field of linguistics. This is not because there is a dearth of talent but because the subject is not taught adequately along modern lines. The few courses which departments of English do offer are meant to help in teaching English and not to equip the student to undertake research in linguistics proper. In any case they do not touch upon Pakistani languages. Worse of all, very few books and not a single journal of linguistics is published in the country. Since only few, generally dated, books and hardly one or two journals are available in the country, it is only when one goes abroad that one learns what is happening in the field.
Those who are interested in languages either write in the nineteenth century philological tradition ignoring all recent advances in linguistics or produce prescriptive manuals of ‘good usage’. Activists of language movements also write works of an amateur and tendentious quality either to air their views or to promote their languages. Those who write in this field are virtually isolated. That is why, as in the case of the present writer, linguists turn away from linguistics proper to interdisciplinary areas in which the resources of the established social sciences---such as politics, history, or sociology---are available.
Annexure A
Institutions Teaching Linguistics/Applied
Linguistics
Institutions
|
Courses Taught |
Degree/Diploma |
Number of Students |
|
AJKU |
(i) Introduction to linguistics (ii) Pedagogical grammar (iii) ELT (iv) Stylistics |
M.A in Linguistics and English literature (there are 5 courses in English literature in addition to these ones). |
70 |
|
Bahauddin Zakariya University (Multan) |
Introduction to linguistics, ELT, Grammer, Stylistics |
(i) Courses in M.A in English Literature (ii) M. A. in Applied Linguistics (ELT, Linguistics) (iii) M. Phil in Linguistics (Basic Courses in linguistics and thesis) |
40-50 regular student Evening programme. 20-30 8-10 |
|
Frontier Language Institute (Peshawar) |
Phonology Grammatical analysis Ethnography Methodology |
Certificate from registered NGO |
10 for each short course. |
|
International Islamic University(Dept of English) |
General linguistics (phonetics, phonology) Semantics, grammar, sociolinguistics) |
One course out of several in M.A |
40-50 |
|
National University of Modern Languages (NUML) |
Phonetics General linguistics, ELT Grammar, Psycholinguistics and Sociolinguistics (taught in M.A English Language and Literature. However, Literature and ELT dominate). |
M.A in ELT; M.A in English Language and Literature; M. Phil; Ph. D |
200 in M.A 20 in research |
|
Karachi University (Dept of English |
(i) Phonology (ii) TESL (iii) Psycholinguistics (iv) Semantics (v) Grammar (vi) Text Analysis (vii) Social Linguistics |
M.A Linguistics (English) One-year M.A after a two-year M.A in English literature. |
50 |
|
Kinnaird College University |
(i) Language and linguistics (ii) Phonetics and phonology (iii) Grammar (iv) Discourse analysis (v) Psycholinguistics (vi) Sociolinguistics |
M.A. in English Language Teaching (There are 8 other courses on ELT etc). |
60 |
|
Peshawar University (Dept of Urdu) |
* General linguistics (one course only) |
One course out of several in M.A |
Thousands--as Urdu is taught at many affiliated colleges. |
|
Peshawar University (Dept of English) @ |
(i) Introduction to linguistics (part of M.A) (ii) ELT (part of M.A) |
These two courses are part of M.A English |
120 |
|
Punjab University (Dept of English) |
(i) General Linguistics (one optional course in M.A English only (phonetics, phonology, semantics, syntax) (ii) phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, stylistics, practical linguistics. |
(i) M.A in English Language and Literature (ii) Diploma in linguistics (one year) (iii) Post Graduate diploma in ELT. |
Thousands -- as English is taught in affiliated colleges. However, it is an optional course and very few students take it. 60-70 60-70 |
|
|
(i) Introduction to linguistics (ii) Phonetics and phonology (of English only) (iii) Grammar (iv) Discourse analysis (v) Semantics (vi) Psycholinguistics (vii) Sociolinguistics (viii) Stylistics |
M.A in Applied linguistics. (There are 10 other courses on ELT and educational skills). |
60 |
|
* This course will begin from September 2003. Before that there was one optional question on the origin of Urdu. @ Peshawar University intends to include six courses on linguistics soon. Moreover, it is also proposed that a four-year bachelors course in linguistics be introduced. |
|||
|
Akhund, Hidayat Ullah |
1994 |
‘Sindhi Boli Jo Tarikhi Pas Manzer’ |
Sindh University |
|
Ameeri, Javid Iqbal |
2001 |
Language and Human Interest. An Analytical Study with Special Reference to Herbert Marcus and Jurgen Habermas |
University of Karachi (Dept of Philosophy). |
|
Ansari, Aziz |
1979 |
Urdu and Rajistani Languages |
University of Sindh- Jamshoro |
|
Brahvi, Abdur Rahman |
1979 |
Brahvi aur Urdu ka Taqabli Muta’ela |
University of Sindh- Jamshoro |
|
Buriro, Ghulam Haider |
1980 |
‘Pakistan Ji Subai-e-Ilaqai Zabanan men Sindhi Zaban Ji Ilmi, Adabi-e-Lisani Haisiat’. |
Sindh University |
|
Ghaznavi, Parvez Khatir |
2003 |
Josh ka lisani muta’ ela |
Peshawar University |
|
Hanif, Shams ul Haq |
2002 |
Study of the Arabic Words Used in the Urdu Literature |
University of Peshawar |
|
Haq, Mehr Abdul |
1957 |
‘Multani Zuban aur us Ka Urdu Se Ta’ aluq’ |
Punjab University |
|
Hasan, Riaz |
2002 |
‘ Modalities in the Teaching of Writing in Pakistan’, NUML, 2002. |
NUML |
|
Ilyas, Shazia |
2003 |
Urdu Zaban Ka Tarikhi our Lisani Jaiza |
NUML |
|
Kamran, Rubina |
2002 |
The Teaching of Stylistics at Pakistani universities, NUML, 2002 |
NUML |
|
Khattak, Khalid Khan |
1978 |
Sindhi, Pashto aur Urdu ke lisani Ravabit |
University of Sindh- Jamshoro |
|
Maqbool, Shaheena |
2003 |
Teaching of stylistics at the Post Graduate Level: An NUML Case-Study’, 2003. |
NUML |
|
Paracha, Abdul Sattar Johar |
1982 |
Urdu aur Pashto Ka Lisani Rawabit |
Peshawar University |
|
Rahman, Faizur |
2002 |
Dificulties Faced by Pashto Speakers while Studying Arabic |
University of Peshawar |
|
Sabir, Abdul Razzak |
1994 |
‘Balochi aur Brahvi Zaban Ke Ravabit’ |
Balochistan University |
|
Saeed, Zahid |
2002 |
Urdu Masdar Ka Tarikhi our Lisani Jaiza |
NUML |
|
Saeed, Naseem Ara |
1986 |
Urdu Sarf o nahav ke tagharriat |
Sindh, Jamshoro |
Annexure C
Doctoral Degree holders in
Linguistics/Applied Linguistics/Language-related Studies
|
Name |
Institution |
Area of Specialization/Thesis |
|
Akhtar, Raja Naseem |
AJKU |
Aspectual Complex Predicates in Punjabi. Ph.D, University of Essex, 2000. (linguistics). |
|
Arif, Shahbaz |
Punjab University |
‘The Acquisition of the Morphosyntax of the English Verb by 2 learners’ University of Essex, 1999 (Applied linguistics). |
|
Bashruddin, Ayesha |
Aga Khan University |
Learning English and Learning to Teach English: The case of two teacher of English in Pakistan: University of Toronto, 2003 (ELT, applied linguistics). |
|
Bughio, Qasim |
Institute of Sindhology Hyderabad |
‘A comparative Socio-linguistic study of Rural and Urban Sindhi; University of Essex, 1994 (Sociolinguistics). |
|
Hasan, Riaz |
NUML |
‘Modalities in the Teaching of Writing in Pakistan’, NUML, 2002 (ELT, Applied Linguistics). |
|
Haq, Anwar ul |
Peshawar University |
‘The theory of Governance in Arabic Traditional grammar’, Indiana University 1998 (Grammar, linguistics). |
|
Hussain, Sarmad |
FAST, National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences |
Ph. D in Speech Science, North Western University: U.S.A. (computational linguistics and phonology) |
|
Iqbal, Zafar |
Bahahuddin Zakariya University, Multan |
‘Lexicography and Lexicology in Second Language Learning’ Ph. D Aston University, Birmingham, U.K (Applied linguistics). |
|
Kamran, Rubina |
NUML |
‘The Teaching of Stylistics at a Pakistani Universities’, NUML, 2002 (ELT, Stylistics). |
|
Khan, Aurangzeb |
Peshawar University |
‘A Linguistic Analysis of T.S. Eliot’s ‘The Wasteland’, Ph. D, University of Peshawar, 2002 (literature and stylistics). |
|
Khan, Kaleem Raza |
Karachi University |
‘Sociolinguistic Analysis of Classroom Discourse’, Karachi University, 2003 (ELT, Sociolinguistics). |
|
Khilji, Shabana |
Peshawar University |
‘A Sociolinguistic Study of Ben Jonson’s ‘Bartholomew Fair’, Ph. D, University of Peshawar, 2003 (literature and sociolinguistics). |
|
Maqbool, Shaheena |
NUML |
‘Teaching of Stylistics at the Post Graduate Level: An NUML Case-Study’, 2003 (Applied Linguistics, ELT). |
|
Qadir, Samina |
Fatima Jinnah Womens University |
‘Introduction to the Study Skills at the Intermediate Level in Pakistan’, Lancaster University, 1996 (ELT) |
|
Rahman, Mujeeb Ur |
Peshawar University |
A Comparative Study of Native and Pakistani Geology Research Articles. Ph.D, University of Edinburgh, 1995 (Discourse Analysis). |
|
Sabir, Abdul Razzak |
University of Balochistan, Quetta |
‘Balochi aur Brahvi Zaban ke Ravabit’, Ph. D 1994, University of Balochistan’, Quetta (Comparative Philology, language history). |
|
Shameem, Fouzia |
Aga Khan University |
‘Teaching Learner Behaviour in large ESL class room in Pakistan; Leeds University, 1993 (ELT). |
|
Siddiqui, Shahid |
Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute |
‘Cognitive Consequences of Exposure to Print’, University of Toronto, 1995 (Applied Linguistics). |
|
Talaat, Mubina |
BZU Multan |
‘Form and Functions of English in Pakistan’ Ph. D 2002, BZU, Multan (sociolinguistics). |
ANNEXURE-D
RECENT OR ONGOING
RESEARCH WORK BY FOREIGNERS ON PAKISTANI LANGUAGES
Anderson, Gregory D.S. 2001. ‘Burushaski Papers’. Unpublished papers in the possession of the SIL Library, Islamabad. (Some of these papers might have been published by now).
Bashir, Elena. Ongoing research. Dictionary of Khowar.
.Dyrud, Lars O. 2001. ‘Hindi-Urdu: Stress Accent or Non-Stress Accent?’, Unpublished M.A Thesis, University of North Dakota.
LOSEY, Wayne E. 2002. ‘Writing Gojri; Linguistic and Sociolinguistic Constraints on a LUNSFORD,Wayne A. 2001. ‘An Overview of Linguistic structures in Torwali’, Unpublished M.A Thesis, The U of Texas, Arlington.
Mock, John Howard. 1998. ‘The Discursive Construction of Reality in the Wakhi
Community of Northern Pakistan’. Ph.
D Dissertation, University of California Berkeley.
NB: The work by the members of the Summer School of Linguistics and other scholars has been referred to in the text or the references.
Notes and References
1. Tariq Rahman, ‘Pakistan: Indo-European’, The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics (New Delhi and London: Sage Publications), pp. 184-196.
2. See David Crystal, Linguistics (London: Pelicans Books, (971).
3. Tariq Rahman, ‘Linguistics in Pakistan’. In Language, Education and Culture (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1999), Chapter-1.
4. Amrit Rai, A House Divided: The Origin and Development of Hindi-Urdu (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1991), pp. 247-252.
5. Abdul Haq, Qawaid-e-Urdu 1st published 1936. This ed. (New Delhi: Anjuman Taraqqi-e-Urdu, 1991), p. 20.
6. Edward Said, Qrientalism (London: Routledge, 1978).
7. William Jones, ‘Third Annual Anniversary’, Asiatic Researches Vol. 1 (1788).
8. George Grierson, The Linguistic Survey of India Vols. I-X (Calcutta: Govt of India, 1901-1921). Edition used. The Linguistic Survey of Pakistan 5 vols. Repr. (Lahore: Sang-e-Meel, n.d), Vol 1, p. 12.
9. Anne Marie Schimmel, German Contributions to the Study of Pakistani Linguistics (Hamburg: German-Pak Forum, 1981), pp. 135-136; p. 155; p. 169.
10. For some of the works of these pioneers see Ernest Trumpp, ‘On the Language of the So-Called Kafirs in the Indian Caucasus’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Vol. 19 (1862), pp. 1-29; Max F. Mueller, A Survey of Languages Semitic, Arian and Turanian Families (London: William and Norgate, 1855).
11. Ikram Chughtai, Shahan-i-Awadh Ke Kutub Khana (Karachi, 1973).
12. Grierson op. cit, Vol. 1, ‘Preface’, p. 26.
13. Joan L.G. Baart and Esther L. Baart-Bremer, Bibliography of the Languages of Northern Pakistan (Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University and the Summer Institute of Linguistics, 2001).
14. The Sociolinguistic Survey of Northern Pakistan Vol. 1: Languages of Kohistan (eds.) Calvin R. Rensch; Sandra J. Decker and Daniel G. Hallberg; Vol. 2: Languages of Northern Areas. (eds.) Peter C. Backstrom and Carla F. Radloff; Vol. 3: Hindko and Gujari. (eds.) C.R Renscsh; C.E. Hallberg and Clare F. O’ Leary; Vol. 4: Pashto, Wanechi, Ormuri. (ed.) D.G. Hallberg; Vol. 5: Language of chitral. (ed.) Kendall D Decker. All published by (Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan Studies and Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1992).
15. Baart and Baart-Bremer, op.cit.
16. David Crystal, Language Death (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 93.
17. Tariq Rahman, Language and Politics in Pakistan (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1996), Chapter 12 and Language, Ideology and power: Language-Learning Among the Muslims of North India and Pakistan (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2002), Chapter 14.
18. For passionate advocacy of language rights see Tove Skutnabb Kangas, Linguistic Genocide in Education or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights (London: Lawrence-Erlbaum, 2000). For the idea that linguistic diversity can be equated with biodiversity, see Daniel Nettle and Suzanne Romaine, Vanishing Voices; The Extinction of the World’s Languages (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).
19. Personal communication with Khwaja Rehman and Joan Baart in July 2003.
20. The following authors trace the roots of Urdu to the languages given below:
Brij Bhasha by Mohammad Hussain Azad, Aab-e-Hayat 1880. Repr. (Lahore: Sang-e-Meel, 1985); Hariani by Masood Hussain, Tarikh Zaban Urdu (Lahore: Urdu Markaz, 1966), p. 183; the ‘Prakrit’ (indigenous language) of Maharashtra by Sohail Bukhari, Urdu Ki Kahani (Lahore: Maktaba-e-Aalia, 1966), pp. 156-157. Also his Lisani Muqalat Vol-3 (Islamabad: National Language Authority, 1991), p. 349; Khari Boli by Shaukat Sabzwari, Urdu Lisaniyat (Karachi: Maktaba Takhleeq Adab, 1966), p. 381; Punjabi by Hafiz Mahmood Shirani, Punjabi Mein Urdu (Lahore: Kitab Nama, 1928).
21. For a list see Saleem Akhtar, Urdu Zaban Ki Mukhtasar Tareen Tareekh (Islamabad: National Language Authority, 1995), pp. 86-89.
22. Mehr Abdul Haq, Multani Zuban aur us ka Urdu se Ta’ aluq (Bahawalpur: Urdu Academy, 1967).
23. M. Yusuf Bukhari, Kashmiri aur Urdu Zaban Ka Taqabli Muta’ ala (Lahore: Markazi Urdu Boakd, 1986).
24. Abdul Razzak Sabir, ‘Balochi aur Brahvi Zabanan ke Ravabit’. Unpublished Ph. D Thesis 1994, University of Balochistan, Quetta.
25. Ali Nawaz Jatoi, Ilm ul Lisan aur Sindhi Zaban (Hyderabad: Institute of Sindhology, 1983).
26. A. H. Dani, Kharoshthi Primer (Lahore: Lahore Museum, 1979).
27. A. H Dani, ‘Sindhu-Sauvira: A Glimpse Into the Early History of Sindh’. In Hamida Khuhro (ed), Sindh Through the Centuries (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1981), pp. 35-42.
28. A. H. Dani, ‘Excavations in the Gomal Valley’, Ancient Pakistan Vol. 5 (1971), pp. 1-79.
29. F. A. Durrani, ‘Indus Valley, Evidence West of Indus’. In Dani (1981) op. cit, pp. 133-137.
30. See Asko Parpola, Deciphering the Indus Script (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); F.C. Southworth, ‘Some Aspects of Dravidian Prehistory Based on Vocabulary Reconstruction’. Paper Presented at the American Anthropological Meeting, November 1984, Denver, U.S.A; Walter A. Fairservis, The Harrapan Civilization and Its Writings: A Model for the Decipherment of the Indus Script (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992).
31. Rashid Akhtar Nadwi, Pakistan ka Qadeem Rasmul Khat (Islamabad: National Institute of History and Culture, 1995).
32. Robert L. Cooper, Language Planning and Social Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
33. Mehr Abdul Haq, Multani Zuban op. cit.
34. Ahsan Wagha, The Siraiki Language, Its Growth and Development (Islamabad: Ddewar Publications, 1990).
35. Tariq Rahman, Language and Politics--- op. cit.
36. Tariq Rahman, Language, Education and Culture op. cit, chapter. 12.
37. Ibid, chapter 12.
38. Atash Durrani, Urdu Istilahat Sazi (Islamabad: Anjuman Sharqia Islamia, 1993).
39. Raj Wali Khattak, Navi Imla (Peshawar: Pashto Academy, 1991).
40. Sayyid Hashimi, Balochi Siyahage Rastnibisag (Karachi, 1962).
41. Khair Muhammad Baloch, Motor Vehicle and its Parts (Hyderabad: Sindhi Language Authority, 1993).
42. Qais Faridi, Chand Siraiki istalahat-o-Mutradifat (Khanpur: Dehareech Adabi Academy, n.d).
43. Tariq. Rahman, Language and Politics op. cit.
44. Tariq. Rahman, Language, Ideology and Power op. cit.
45. Afia Dil, Two Traditions of the Bengali Language (Islamabad: National Institute of Historical and Cultural Research, 1993).
46. Anwar Dil and Afia Dil, Bengali Language Movement to Bangladesh (Lahore: Ferozsons- Intercultural Forum, 2000).
47. Anwar S. Dil, Pakistani Linguistics (Lahore: Pakistani Linguistics Series, 1963).
48. Ghulam Ali Allana, Sindhi Suratkhati (Hyderabad: Sindhi Language Authority, 1993).
49. Baber S. Khan, ‘The Ergative Case in Hindi-Urdu’, Studies in the Linguistic Sciences Vol. 17: No. 1 (1987), pp. 91-101; Also see his ‘A Note on Disagreement on Verb Agreement in Hindi-Urdu’, Linguistics Vol. 27 (1989), pp. 71-87. For Saleemi’s work see ‘case and agreement in Hindi-Urdu’. In A. Davison and F.N. Smith (eds.), Papers from the Fifteenth Asian Language Analysis Roundtable Conference (Iowa City: University of Iowa, 1994). Also see ‘On the Acquisition of Split Ergativity: some Evidence from Urdu’. In E. Clark (ed), The Proceedings of the Twentysixth Annual Child Research Forum (Stanford: CSLI, Stanford University Press, 1995).
50. Raja Nasim Akhtar, ‘Punjabi compounds: Structural and Semantic Study’, Unpublished M. Litt dissertation, 1992, University of Strathclyde.
51. Mohammad Moizuddin, Word Form in Urdu (Islamabad: National Language Authority, 1989).
52. Elahi Baksh Awan, The Phonology of Verbal Phrase in Hindko (Peshawar: Idara Farogh-i-Hindko, 1974).
53. Akhbar-e-Urdu (May 2002) and June 2003. (Islamabad: National Language Authority, 2002 and 2003).
54. G.A Allana, Sindhi Sautiyat (Hyderabad: Adabiat Publications, 1967).
55. G.A Allana, Sindhi Boli Ji Lisani Jagrafi (Hyderabad: Institute of Sindhology, 1979).
56. N.B Baloch, Sindhi Boli-e-Adab Ji Mukhtasar Tarikh (Hyderabad: Zeb Adabi Markaz, 1962.
57. Hidayat Ullah Akhund, ‘Sindhi Boli Jo Tarikhi Pas Manzar’, Unpublished Ph. D Thesis, 1994, University of Sindh, Hyderabad.
58. N.B. Baloch, Jatki Boli (Hyderabad: Sindhi Language Authority, 2003).
59. Qasim Bughio, A Comparative Sociolinguistic Study of Rural and Urban Sindhi: A Study in Language change and Variation (Munich: LINCOM, Europa, 2001).
60. S. Bukhari, Lisani Muqalat op. cit.
61. Abdul Salam, Umumi Lisaniyat (Karachi: Royal Book Company, 1993).
62. S. M. Qadri Zor, Hindustani Lisaniyat 1st ed. 1932. Repr. (Lahore: Panjnad Academy, n.d).
63. Khial Bukhari, ‘Da Pashto Jabe Buniadi Mas’ale’, Pukhto Vols 7-8; Nos 3-4 (1964-65), pp. 119-234.
64. K. Bukhari, Da Pakhto Sarf-o-Nahaw (Peshawar: University Book Agency: 1983).
65. Ijlal Shah, ‘The Pragmatics of Formality and Politeness in Burushaski and Shina’, Unpublished M. Phil Thesis, 1994, Quaid-i-Azam University Islamabad.
66. Tariq Rahman, Language, Education and Culture op. cit, Chapter 10.
67. Sabiha Mansoor, Punjabi, Urdu, English in Pakistan: A Sociolinguistic Study (Lahore: Vanguard, 1993).
68. S. Mansoor, ‘The Role of English in Higher Education in Pakistan’, Unpublished Ph. D Thesis, 2002, University of Reading, U.K.
69. Tariq Rahman, Language, Ideology and Power op.cit, Appendix 14.
70. Interview of Zakia Sarwar in April 2003 at Lahore.
71. Zakia Sarwar (ed), English Study Skills (Karachi: SPELT, 1991).
72. Farida Malik, The Teaching of English in Pakistan (Lahore: Vanguard, 1996).
73. Among those who have written on English
are Shemeem Abbas, ‘The Power of English in Pakistan’, World Englishes Vol. 12: No. 2 (1993), pp. 147-156; Tariq Rahman, Pakistani English (Islamabad: National
Institute of Pakistan Studies, 1990); Sabiha Mansoor, ‘The Role of English in
Higher Education: op.cit.
74. Ahmar Mahboob, ‘The Status of Non-Native Speakers of English as English Language Teachers in the United States’, Unpublished Ph. D dissertation, 2003, Indiana University, U.S.A.
75. Robert J. Baumgardner, ‘Utilizing Pakistani Newspaper English to Teach Grammar’, World Englishes Vol. 6: No. 3 (1987), pp. 241-252.
76. Tariq Rahman, Pakistani English, op. cit.
77. Tariq Rahman, ‘Urdu of another Kind’, The News 29 April 1995.
78. Anjum Saleemi, ‘Discussion: On New/Non-Native English: A Gamelan’, Journal of Pragmatics Vol. 24 (1995), pp. 295-321. Ahmar Mahboob, Interview on 06 July 2003, Islamabad.
79. A. Saleemi, Universal Grammar and Language Learnability (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
80. Tariq Rahman, ‘Insight Into Language-Learning’. Rev. Universal Grammar and Language Learnability (1992) by Anjum Saleemi in The News 28 August 1996.
81. M.A.K Halliday and Ruqaiya Hasan, Cohesion in English (London and New York: Longman, 1976).
82. Ruqaiya Hasan, ‘A Linguistic Study of Contrasting Features in the Style of Two Contemporary English Prose Writers’, Ph. D Thesis, 1964, University of Edinburgh.
83. Miriam Butt, ‘Hindi-Urdu Infinitives as NP’s. In Yamuna Kachru (ed.), South Asian Language Review: Special Issue on Studies in Hindi-Urdu Vol. III: No. 1 (1993), pp. 51-72.
84. Sarmad Hussain, ‘Lexical Stress in Urdu’, XVII South Asia Language Analysis Round Table 1998, New Delhi.
85. Raja Naseem Akhtar, ‘Aspectual Complex Predicates in Punjabi’, The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics (2002).
86. An introductory study, now a classic in the field, is by Eric H. Lenneberg, Biological Foundations of Language (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967).