Barriers to language maintenance and multilingual schooling: examining the language policy provisions in Nepal’s constitutions

Abstract

Despite Nepal’s huge linguistic diversity, maintaining minority languages and providing the mother tongue-based education to non-dominant language children are Nepal’s two major obstacles. Scholars have pointed to a negative consequence of the standard language ideology on non-dominant language maintenance and mother tongue-based schooling. Using the critical discourse analysis, this paper analyzed the discourse of Nepal’s two recent constitutions, which have largely been celebrated as transformative language policy texts in favor of non-dominant languages. Analysis of constitutional discourse has implications for language-based equity, home language-based schooling, and the maintenance of non-dominant languages. The current analysis revealed that Nepal’s recent constitutions have employed marginalizing linguistic categories of foregrounding, indexicality, backgrounding, and erasure in promoting the dominant language ideology, which can be rationalized to deny or delay linguistic rights and the mother tongue-based education. While the current research found the new constitution being more assertive than the previous one in support of multilingual schooling and the maintenance of non-dominant languages, existing constitutional provisions are insufficient to alter the current dominant language-based medium of instruction priority and linguistic domination. The continuation of the current language practices weakens the prospects for non-dominant language maintenance and home language-based schooling and legitimizes the state’s inaction in implementing constitutional provisions. This paper concludes that analysis of language policy discourse is important to dig up the roots hindering non-dominant language development and the mother tongue-based schooling and locating the sites of linguistic marginalization.

Keywords:

• Critical discourse analysis
• democratic constitutions
• language policy
• Nepal
• standard language ideology

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Arif H Kabir, Deakin University School of Education, Australia

SUBJECTS:

• Language Policy & Planning
• Bilingualism & Multilingualism

Introduction

This article examines the perpetuation of the standard language ideology in the language policy provisions in the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1990 (also, the 1990 constitution) and the Constitution of Nepal 2015 (also, the 2015 constitution). The standard language ideology has been alleged to influence the language policy (also, the medium of instruction [MOI] policy) in favor of privileged or dominant languages (DLs; Cushing, 2021; Lippi-Green, 2004), such as Nepali, which has continuously enjoyed official status elevated by the state and spoken by dominant groups of people (Kosonen & Benson, 2013, p. 1). The allegation insinuates detrimental consequences on the language planning and maintenance of non-dominant languages (NDLs), which have been historically marginalized, and the educational development of linguistic minority (also, minoritized) children, making it necessary to challenge the standard language ideology by exposing its marginalizing attributes. This paper begins with a sketch of the linguistic landscape of Nepal to provide a context for linguistic marginalization in the country. For the current analysis, this researcher introduces Nepal’s two recent constitutions as they are major sources of language policy in the country. Then, it explicates the current state of language policy and practice in Nepal because it leads to the understanding of the history of language policy and development in the country, and the marginalization of NDLs and NDL children in education. Later, this researcher presents the standard language ideology as a theoretical construct, and its interrelationship with nationalism and linguistic hegemony to frame the current analysis. Together, these concepts promote the marginalization of NDLs thereby creating problems for the maintenance of NDLs and educational development of linguistic minority children, and/or the implementation of language policy in favor of multilingual (also, L1-based, mother tongue-based, home language, bilingual or trilingual) education. This study uses Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as a research methodology to critique the proposed constitutional discourse focusing on emancipatory and transformative agendas widely envisioned in CDA scholarship (Liasidou, 2008; Mullet, 2018). Indeed, the CDA approach helps unfold strategies of marginalization of NDLs. Based on a prior reading of the two constitutions, this researcher utilizes four linguistic categories of foregrounding, indexicality, backgrounding, and erasure as measuring rods as explained in a forthcoming section to investigate the perpetuation of the standard language ideology in the constitutional provisions. This researcher is interested in analyzing the extent these categories could abet the perpetuation of the dominant discourse of linguistic marginalization. Since DL groups control the State’s political power, their interests and standards are likely to overwhelm the existing language policy discourse, dissecting those interests and ideals is an important task for CDA researchers. This paper attempts to answer the following open-ended questions:

1. To what extent is the standard language ideology perpetuated in Nepal’s 1990 and 2015 constitutions’ language policy discourse?

2. What are its implications for the implementation of multilingual policy, especially for the maintenance of NDLs and educational development of linguistic minority children?

Linguistic landscape of Nepal

Nepal presents a unique situation for the language policy analysis, which is of global significance. With about 30 million people, Nepal’s 2021 population census recognized 142 ethnic and caste groups and more than 124 languages (National Statistics Office [NSO], 2021). Because language commission of Nepal identified 129 languages earlier (Poudel & Choi, 2022), the NSO report has drawn controversy for not reporting all the languages spoken in the country. Indeed, each time the population census has been completed in the country, the number of ethnic and linguistic groups has risen. For instance, 60 ethnic and caste groups and 31 languages were reported in the 1991 census; 100 ethnic and caste groups and 91 languages were recorded in the 2001 census (Gurung, 2003). One probable explanation for the continued increment of ethnicity and languages is because of growing consciousness among people about their rights and identities, and the realization to maintain and/or revitalize their languages before they disappear. The heightened interest in language maintenance could be attributed to the expansion of social media and continued interactions among peoples through democratic processes, which according to Weinberg (2021) have been instrumental in increasing people’s consciousness of and desire for the mother tongue-based schooling. This study will add to the existing knowledge base on the consequences of the standard language ideology on the maintenance of NDLs and NDL children’s schooling to contribute to reducing inequality, exclusion, and social injustice caused by linguistic marginalization.

Located between Tibet in the north and India in all the other directions, Nepal has deep ethnic, cultural, and linguistic ties with both Tibet and India; hence, most of the languages spoken in the country fall under either the Tibeto-Burman or Indo-Aryan language group. Yet, the country’s largest segment of the population speaks the Indo-Aryan languages: Nepali (44.6%), Maithili (11.7%), Bhojpuri (5.98%), Tharu (5.77), etc. (NSO, 2021). The Nepali language (hereafter Nepali) is derived from Sanskrit and uses Devanagari script (Nepal Law Society, 2015; Phyak, 2021). It is the only officially used language at the federal level (Himalaya, 1991; Nepal Law Society, 2015), promoted as a lingua franca (Bradley, 1996), and the primary MOI in most public schools (Poudel & Choi, 2022; Sah & Karki, 2023). In contrast, most of the Nepali ethnic and Indigenous languages are limited to the oral tradition in their family and community spaces and many lack a written tradition (Gautam, 2019; Phyak, 2021). On the other hand, English is the foreign and de facto official language at the federal level taught as a subject in the fourth grade and above in public schools and used as the main MOI in most private schools (Gautam, 2021; Sah & Karki, 2023; Weinberg, 2021), where approximately 18% of the country’s children study up-to the higher secondary school level (Ministry of Education, Science & Technology [MOEST], 2017). While there is no clear legal basis for the imposition of Nepali and English as MOI in Nepal, the practice is a reminder of the colonial era, which elevated European languages as superior to local languages and proclaimed the later useless (Pope, 2002), endangering NDLs globally. Given Nepal’s long history of the suppression of minority languages (Weinberg, 2021), it is not unfair to state that the country maintained a colonial attitude toward NDLs by prohibiting them in school until the 1990s.

Need for language maintenance

Language maintenance is a process to stop the ultimate extinction of NDLs and associated funds of knowledge. According to Bradley (2022), language maintenance ‘involves efforts to maintain an existing language, as opposed to language planning […] which may implement changes [or a shift] to an existing language’ (Introduction). It encourages continuous use of NDLs in the face of competition against DLs in the globalized world. Because languages other than Nepali and English have been de facto officialized and used as MOI in Nepal (Gautam, 2021; Phyak, 2021; Weinberg, 2021), all other languages are facing shift and endangerment, which are the processes of languages becoming extinct or replaced by other languages. Due to the historical imposition of DLs, many vernaculars in Nepal are being left on their own. This is particularly true with languages that lack written scripts and have a small community of speakers. The endangerment is also fueled by urbanization and globalization as they have contributed to dispersing linguistic communities with a small number of speakers in such a way that they cannot find sufficient language communities to continue lively interaction solely in their mother tongue.

Relevance of language policy

A linguistically diverse country with many minority languages on the verge of extinction (Turin, 2007), Nepal can benefit from a robust language policy. Indeed, a healthy language policy encourages cross-cultural communication, and recognizes and respects linguistically marginalized communities (Esman, 1992). It also helps keep endangered languages alive and transmit funds of knowledge to new generations (Tsui & Tollefson, 2010), which are critical to preserving identities and cultural heritage at the minimum. That said, a wrong language policy could lead to linguistic genocide through linguistic assimilation and domination (Esman, 1992; Tsui & Tollefson, 2010), and making invisible identities, ideas, activities, and sociolinguistic phenomena (Irvine & Gal, 2000). Regrettably, the continued elevation of Nepali and English as official languages and MOI has limited the benefits that linguistic minorities can accrue, implying that the current language practices have marginalizing effects on NDLs’ maintenance and educational development of NDL children (Sah & Karki, 2023).

Historically, Nepal promoted a one nation, one language policy, emphasizing linguistic homogenization. Evidence shows that minority languages started to lose official status after the country’s unification process in 1769 (Weinberg, 2021), suggesting that Nepali statehood became a major stumbling block for the maintenance of NDLs. The preference for DLs has promoted a monolingual mindset, which fails to view the world from a multilingual perspective and questioned the relevance of NDLs that forcibly lost official status since Nepal’s unification, thereby making many NDLs vulnerable to extinction. The elevation of DLs has also overlooked multilingual education, therefore, NDL children have limited access to education. Scholars in international contexts have unambiguously pointed out several advantages of multilingual schooling: enhanced academic performance in the early years of schooling (Awopetu, 2016), and cognitive, psychological, sociological, and economic development (Cummins, 2009). So, the lack of multilingual education contributes to linguistic minority students’ low school enrollment, high school dropout, and poor school performance, hence Nepal’s achievement disparity.

With all these problems and their consequences on current language policy and practice in Nepal, examining the major sources of impediments to language maintenance and multilingual schooling is essential to address those unique challenges for Nepal. Also, because a growing number of field-based studies have substantiated multiple benefits of the maintenance of local languages and MOI in the mother tongue, such as the preservation of local identity, and NDL students’ increased school attendance and learning (Pradhan, 2017), it has become imperative to investigate the linguistic marginalizing elements. In that context, this paper is germane, examining the discourse on language policy aimed at Nepal’s 1990 and 2015 constitutions because it overrides all other policy discourses.

The analysis of constitutional discourse is useful for unraveling and critiquing the inherent ideologies of the constitutions at hand. This offers insights into comprehending how ideologies have influenced language policy and observing the progress made toward the maintenance of NDLS and schooling of NDL children. In other words, the current analysis will help disclose the primary sources of problems related to language maintenance and schooling among linguistic minority children, and intellectually hammer the marginalizing discourse. This research will also encourage the probing of many other micro-level policy discourse suspected of perpetuating the standard language ideology in Nepal and other similar sociolinguistic contexts. Because legal stipulations shape a nation-state’s language policy, constitutions must undergo continued critical appraisal to contribute to eliminating the inequality, exclusion, and social injustice caused by linguistic domination and deprivation of education in the mother tongue. Even though research related to language policy is expanding lately, the lack of research in critiquing the major policies, like the constitutions, is largely absent in Nepal, adding to the relevance of this study.

Nepal’s 1990 and 2015 constitutions

Because constitutions are the major sources of language policy in Nepal (Gautam, 2021), they are the focus of this analysis. Set apart by two and half decades, Nepal’s 1990 and 2015 constitutions are its most recent language policy resources. The 1990 constitution was promulgated after the successful people-led uprising against Nepal’s erstwhile autocratic royal regime that followed the fall of the Berlin Wall and communist dictatorship around the world. The constitution curtailed the monarchy’s absolute power and promised the Westminster model of democracy. Nepal’s second Constituent Assembly promulgated the 2015 constitution following a peace deal of November 21, 2006, signed between Nepal’s government and the Maoist rebels, who fought the parliamentary democracy to establish a communist dictatorship. The new constitution ratified fundamental principles like universal human rights, freedom of speech, and inclusive democracy in the 1990 constitution and the Interim Constitution of Nepal 2007 (also, 2007 constitution) and ended the monarchical rule in support of a federal republic (Himalaya, 1991; Nepal Law Society, 2015). The new constitution has been invoked to promote multilingualism (Fillmore, 2020) and subsequently NDLs’ maintenance and schooling in local languages. Despite their perceived similarities on many accounts, including education for all (EFA), the 1990 and 2015 constitutions necessitate a thorough appraisal to unfold their inherent attributes perpetuating the standard language ideology about language policy, which forms the basis for the maintenance of endangered languages, and schooling in the mother tongue. Constitutions as the most sacred legal documents are the primary sources of language policy as they provide legal framework for policy formulation (Zhang et al., 2023); hence, analysis of them helps expose and challenge marginalizing ideologies affecting the promotion of NDLs, and the reduction of educational disparities caused by the lack of MOI in the mother tongue. The comparative analysis is important as the earlier constitution has been perceived confusing in the way ethnic and Indigenous and Nepali languages are discriminated (Giri, 2011). Also, the language policy provisions in the new constitution are not wholeheartedly embraced and implemented in the schooling process despite being celebrated in recent scholarship devoted to multilingual schooling (Gautam, 2021; Phyak, 2021; Pradhan, 2020; Weinberg, 2021) and also being reemphasized in recent educational act (Nepal Law Commission, 2018):

Right to get education: […] Every Nepali community residing in Nepal shall have the right to acquire education in the mother tongue (p. 3).

Language of instruction: (1) The medium of instruction to be provided by the schools shall be the Nepali language, English language or both the languages or mother tongue of the Nepali community concerned (p. 11).

Indeed, the multilingual schooling issue has remained overtly contentious in Nepal (Pradhan, 2020), suggesting the need for more robust research to build a strong case its favor. While recent scholarship has largely called for the honest implementation of the existing constitutional provisions, the prolonged lack of weak implementation of the constitutional provisions has raised doubts about the constitution’s impartiality. So, this study departs from many existing studies as it documents the progression in multilingual policy reform from one constitutional era to another and looks into the constitutions’ more nuanced linguistic properties to unfold linguistic marginalization. Since it offers a fresh interpretation of the policy in place, it can help explicate the reasons behind the lack of effective implementation of the policy in place.

Standard language ideology as a theoretical construct

For this study’s analytical framework, this paper conceptualizes the standard language ideology as a construct that projects a very positive image of DLs over NDLs (Ricento, 2013; Silverstein, 1979); hence, a threat to the maintenance of NDLs and instruction in minority languages. Standard language ideology is alleged to underscore ‘a bias toward an abstracted, idealized, non-varying spoken language that is imposed and maintained by dominant institutions’ (Lippi-Green, 2004, p. 293). This researcher views that language policymakers, such as constitutional authors and/or officials in-charge of taking decision on medium of instruction policy, who hold the standard language ideology tend to favor DLs by adopting marginalizing strategies, such as prescribing specific DL registers and forms, and indexing the most preferred DL varieties.

One key agenda of policymakers embracing the standard language ideology is to prioritize linguistically dominant people’s political, moral, and economic interests (Irvine, 2016; Kroskrity, 2010), which are influenced by monolingual habitus (Gogolin, 1997) and attained through the promotion of preferred DLs and their features, such as specific dialects, varieties, scripts, and/or registers. The elevation of DLs and their features is detrimental to the survival of NDLs, and/or lesser-known dialects of the same DL as they often get neglected, rejected, and considered irrelevant, or inferior. From the schooling perspective, the preference for DLs and their specific features results in everyday discrimination of NDL students through stereotyping and marginalization (Flores & Rosa, 2015) as those students are less likely to use DL features as effectively as their DL classmates. Also, as language elements are never static because they shift over time and sometimes, depending on the interests of those who use them (Agha, 2011), NDL students must struggle to conform to the purity of DLs. Eventually, they may become the object of DL groups’ gaze.

The standard language ideology compromises NDL people’s identity and culture because of its absolute faith in DLs. As a complex relationship exists among language speakers, their home language, and their environment (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2011; Wendel, 2005), such connection could break when home languages are marginalized. Indeed, people fail to accurately describe their identity and culture when their home language perishes (Haynes, 2010; Mercuri, 2012) because languages are valuable resources to project self-image, maintain group identity, express the ‘values, beliefs, and customs [, and foster] feelings of group identity’ (Bakhtin, 1981 cited in Mercuri, 2012, p. 14). Moreover, identity and culture are deeply associated with people’s past, and language is a means to transmit valuable information on identity and culture from one generation to another (Rovira, 2008). So, the elevation of DLs can also be perceived as a threat to NDL people’s identity and culture.

Nationalism and linguistic hegemony are two concepts that offer a more holistic overview of the effects of the standard language ideology on language policy and practice. Nationalism in particular highlights the importance of DLs for singular national identity and cohesion by implementing one nation, one language policy (Carter & Sealey, 2007; Major, 2011; Wright & Kelly, 1994). Ironically, even multilingual states have not rejected the supposed unifying potential of DLs in the nation-building process (Manan et al., 2017, p. 67), suggesting that the choice and elevation of DLs and their intrinsic features are globally approved (Carter & Sealey, 2007; Wright & Kelly, 1994). Though there are no ways nations can achieve purely homogeneous language communities they envision, such realization never comes to fruition when one is blindsided to the standard language ideology. Linguistic hegemony, on the other hand, promotes DLs by means of persuading linguistically suppressed people to approve of the norms and standards of DLs (Suarez, 2002). Because it attempts to homogenize DLs, it does not allow linguistic self-determination, therefore, controls power in favor of DLs (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1996). So, linguistic hegemony employs power and domination to expand the scope and influence of DLs, perpetuating the standard language ideology.

To recap, tied to nationalism and linguistic hegemony, the standard language ideology disseminates the values and interests of DL groups by means of linguistic homogenization. It is a threat to the existence of NDLs because it creates conditions to eliminate NDL peoples’ identity and culture and weakens the efforts to maintain NDLs by taking away NDL communities’ linguistic self-determination rights. Given these pejorative attributes identified so far, the standard language ideology eliminates the possibility for minority language development and MOI in the mother tongue. Therefore, language policy texts like Nepal’s constitutions must undergo in-depth examinations to unpack the marginalizing elements of the standard language ideology using appropriate critical tools for transformative purposes, which can be achieved through critical approaches like the CDA.

Methodology

This study lends itself to the CDA, which ideally deals with discursive text, talk, or narrative. Since policy discourse, such as constitutional discourse, represents social acts and contexts in which those acts get promoted (Johnson, 2011), and policy narrative relies on popular ideology (Avineri et al., 2015), they are integral to CDA.

Three reasons call for the use of CDA in this paper. First, Nepal adopted three constitutions within less than three decades since 1990, so shuttle issues of inequality are less likely to be addressed in such rushed undertaking because the constitutional amendment and endorsement processes are rather careful and time-taking businesses. Second, those people who get involved in public policy formation often represent the privileged people, who are more interested in maintaining the status quo, or more precisely, their own interests. Johnson (2011) confirms that policymakers tend to side with mainstream groups and promote their interests to stabilize social inequalities. The argument on the status quo is true to Nepal because of the dominance of historically privileged people in the country’s politics and bureaucracy, hence engagement in public policy. Third, the CDA recognizes that power is used to maintain social hierarchy; therefore, it is helpful to probe how the action or freedom of others are controlled (Liasidou, 2008; Mullet, 2018; van Dijk, 1993; Wodak & Meyer, 2009). More specifically, it helps how power is used to suppress linguistic minorities and their linguistic aspirations.

Because this researcher is interested in interpreting the language policy focusing attention to underlying semantics, or linguistic features, the CDA is desirable as one aspect of it pays attention to language forms and contexts (Liasidou, 2008; Mullet, 2018). As Liasidou (2008) puts it, CDA examines both the ‘linguistic micro-structures of the text’ and ‘historical and social context[s] of the textual discourse’ (p. 487). According to van Dijk (1995), the CDA examines how hierarchy, dominant rhetoric, and forms of dominations are preserved and promoted in textual discourse. Also, as ideologies are achieved by exploiting language features and discursive strategies (Fairclough, 2010), the CDA helps reveal ideological girth. As an example, Wu and Fitzgerald (2021) used linguistic properties, such as ‘quotation, allusion [,] and irony’ (p. 369), to reveal Chinese social media’s opposition to the state censorship against public expressions. Notably, recognizing that power is manifested through language structures and the fact that language expressions are never neutral, scholars are motivated to analyze linguistic features in policy discourse (Mullet, 2018; van Dijk, 1993; Wodak & Meyer, 2009).

This paper utilizes foregrounding, indexicality, backgrounding, and erasure as the linguistic categories intricately linked with the standard language ideology and they help us unpack whose vision, voices, and values are represented, referred to, refuted, reinforced, or repressed in the proposed policy discourse for analysis. The decision to utilize the above features is based on the prior reading of the constitutions as this researcher noticed their overwhelming presence. This paper hopes that the current analysis would lead to a deeper understanding of the influence of the standard language ideology on Nepal’s language policy. Undeniably, with the promulgation of the 1990 constitution, Nepal’s erstwhile monarchy, the oldest institution in the country at the time, and people-led democratic forces agreed on participatory democracy and recognized the need to address the growing aspirations of people, including their desire for multilingual education (Upadhyaya, 2011). Within the next decade and a half, Nepal entered another more critical phase in history by abolishing the monarchy that promoted a one nation, one language policy (Upadhyaya, 2011; Weinberg, 2021); hence, it aimed to pave the way to address people’s grievances related to language policy. Yet, though it is too early to speak on the contributions of those unprecedented political transformations on the maintenance of NDLs and school access and achievement gap among NDL children, locating and understanding the policy discrepancies through the analyses of constitutional discourse are initial steps toward preventing the endangerment of NDLs and reducing the educational inequalities caused by linguistic inequalities for emancipatory purposes. Such analyses are critical to unveil how power is used or misused and the standard language ideology is produced, reproduced, enacted, and exhibited to marginalize multilingual aspirations of NDL communities. As Liasidou (2008) argues, the CDA could unveil the discursive modes of hegemonic practices―normalization, homogenization, and the construction of hierarchies, the unpacking of underlying assumptions of the constitutional discourse is important to challenge the intricacies of the standard language ideology.

Analytical steps

This study relied on Mullet’s (2018) seven analytical steps for data analysis as much applicable in the current analysis: (1) identifying and selecting discourse, (2) gathering data for analysis, (3) providing background of the data, (4) identifying broad themes, (5) looking at the relationship of texts with other texts, (6) examining the relationship of the texts within, and (7) analyzing data using the criteria expressed in (4) through (6). Initially, this paper identified the language policy discourse using inclusion and exclusion criteria. So, only the constitutional provisions containing the keywords―language, linguistic, or vernacular were selected for this analysis. The keywords were utilized to avoid selection bias and do a comprehensive analysis as scholars have called for dodging cherry-picked non-representative data as a strategy to become transparent about the CDA process (Sriwimon & Zilli, 2017; Wodak & Meyer, 2009). Such a strategy allows systematic and detailed approaches to data selection and analysis. Indeed, the CDA underscores completeness and accessibility of data to meet the requirement of trustworthiness and the methodical, theoretical, and source triangulation (Mullet, 2018; Wodak & Meyer, 2009). The selected data were grouped under the four linguistic categories—foregrounding, indexicality, backgrounding, and erasure—which can be employed to perpetuate the dominant language ideology. Finally, data interpretation was done by comparing the discourse within each constitution and between them.

Analyses of the constitutional provisions

Using the CDA, this article examines Nepal’s two democratic constitutions―the 1990 and 2015 constitutions―to reveal the extent the standard language ideology has perpetuated in the language policy provisions, and because of its marginalizing effects weakened the maintenance of NDLs and schooling of NDL children. This paper analyzes the language policy discourse by paying attention to the employment of four marginalizing linguistic features―foregrounding, indexicality, backgrounding, and erasure―emerged from the prior reading of the constitutions. This analysis is centered around the two research questions presented earlier.

Foregrounding

Foregrounding plays a critical role in perpetuating the standard language ideology through several strategies. Particularly, it highlights specific texts and omit others or ‘[leave] certain things out of the text’ (Miller, 1997, p. 82). It gives prominence to certain characteristics, qualities, and subjectivities, and understate others (Baker & Ellece, 2011; Miller, 1997). Policymakers use foregrounding to highlight certain languages, language registers, and language communities, and emphasize the subjects, their roles, and activities. Below this paper explains how foregrounding elements with marginalizing consequences have been employed in the language policy discourse in the two constitutions.

A comparison between the language provisions of the 1990 and 2015 constitutions shows no considerable difference in the manner the new constitution has departed from the previous constitution in dealing with DLs. A cursory glance at the 1990 constitution reveals that the Nepali language is superimposed over NDLs. Nepali is recognized as the official language or the ‘language of the nation of Nepal’, which is contrasted with the ‘national languages of Nepal’ (Himalaya, 1991, Article 6), a reference to NDLs, devoid of official status. Moreover, the 1990 constitution elevates the Nepali language as a national heritage attached to the Nepali citizenship (Article 6(4)):

After the commencement of this Constitution, the acquisition of citizenship of Nepal by a foreigner may be regulated by law which may, inter alia, require the fulfillment of the following conditions: (a) that he can speak and write the language of the nation of Nepal.

Contrarily, Nepal’s 2015 constitution departs from the earlier constitution in that it does not discriminate between Nepali and NDLs. Article 6 of the new constitution reads, ‘All the mother tongues spoken in Nepal shall be the national language’ (Nepal Law Society, 2015). Indeed, the unambiguous equal treatment of languages demonstrates that the new constitution is promising for the development of NDLs. Yet, this provision does not contradict the message of the 1990 constitution: ‘All the languages spoken as the mother tongue in […] various parts of Nepal are the national languages of Nepal’ (Himalaya, 1991, Article 6(2)). So, the separate provision alone does not build a case in favor of NDLs.

Another marginalizing effect of foregrounding can be observed in the constitutions’ highlight on DL script. In fact, both the constitutions foreground Devanagari script as: ‘The Nepali language in the Devanagari script is the language of the nation of Nepal [and] shall be the official language’ (Himalaya, 1991, Article 6(1)); ‘The Nepali language written in Devanagari script shall be the language of official business in Nepal’ (Nepal Law Society, 2015, Article 7(1)). Because most of the ethnic and Indigenous languages in Nepal are constrained to oral tradition and/or use non-Devanagari scripts (Gautam, 2019; Phyak, 2021), the preference for Devanagari script implies the influence of monolingual habitus (Gogolin, 1997).

Indexicality

Like foregrounding, indexicality plays a pivotal role in perpetuating the standard language ideology in language policy discourse. Hanks (1999) defines indexicality as the contextually dependent utterances that include regional accents portraying speaker’s identity, expressions of respect and demeanor, and the use of ‘pronouns (I, you, we, he, etc.), demonstratives (this, that), deictics adverbs (here, there, now, then), and tense’ (p. 124). When people use language, they use different indexical clues: When they say you, they refer to the person involved in communication; when they say there, they refer to a point in time or location the speaker is speaking about. Additionally, indexicality helps derive non-referential meaning, such as speakers’ language register and accent to point to their social-economic status or linguistic background. Also, while these clues refer to something specific, the reference could mean multiple things and events, or ambiguity. For instance, who the word you alludes to may depend on the context it is used. Language policymakers could exploit indexical clues to delay meanings of an important policy that they do not appreciate, therefore effort to deny linguistic rights to linguistic minority groups.

The overt interplay of semantics in Nepal’s 2015 constitution leads to context-based interpretation of constitutional discourse resulting in marginalizing effects on minority languages. Article 7(2) states, ‘In addition to the Nepali language, a province shall select one or more national [language(s)] that is spoken by a majority of people in that province as the [language(s)] of official business, as provided for by the provincial law’ (Nepal Law Society, 2015, Article 7(2)). In the excerpt provided, neither one or more gives specific direction for provincial governments nor authority to promote all the local languages. Therefore, the phrase select one or more national languages gives provinces the ultimate power to elevate or reject NDLs based on their own judgment or interpretation of the provision. Put differently, this lack of clear allusion leaves the door open to denying or delaying recognition and officialization of NDLs.

The referent used to denote the term minority in the new constitution also encourages context-based interpretation, reinforcing the marginalizing effects on minority languages. Article 306(1)(a) refers to minority as the ‘caste, language, and religious communities, whose population is less than that determined by the law, and who has their own specialties, and who aim to protect them; it also signifies those groups who have faced discrimination and [been] harassed’ (Nepal Law Society, 2015). What is ironic about this provision is its assertion that not all ethnic and Indigenous groups could be labeled minorities without official endorsement, meaning that not all marginalized groups and languages are entitled to special treatment accorded to minority. So, actual minorities could still be denied linguistic rights for failing to meet an unspecified population threshold. Interestingly, the definition of minority is based upon an unspecified law. Then, a question arises: What will happen if a minority group is forcibly categorized as a majority group?

The indexical use of all associated with language identity is also an issue in the 1990 and 2015 constitutions with detrimental effects on marginalized languages. The constitutions introduce Nepal’s languages as: ‘All the languages spoken as the mother tongue in […] various parts of Nepal are the national languages of Nepal’ (Himalaya, 1991, Article 6(2)); ‘All the mother tongues spoken in Nepal shall be the national language’ (Nepal Law Society, 2015, Article 6). Indeed, both constitutions have promised to recognize all languages spoken in Nepal, but unsuccessfully, because what the word all alludes to in the context of languages is not available to cite. Put differently, neither of these constitutions have named the NDLs spoken in Nepal, nor have they alluded to any official records that have endorsed those languages.

The indexical reference of each and their is another problem explicit in the constitutions that reinforces the marginalization of NDLs. While the 1990 constitution brings up the linguistic rights of communities (Himalaya, 1991, Article 18), it does not recognize minority and/or endangered languages.

(1) Each community residing within the Kingdom of Nepal shall have the right to preserve and promote its language, script, and culture. (2) Each community shall have the right to operate schools up to the primary level in its own mother tongue for imparting education to its children.

In the excerpt, the use of each community refers to all or to both the DL and NDL groups, implying that the constitution takes care of all communities. Indeed, not all linguistic communities need special treatment and protection, but only the ones facing linguistic discrimination. The failure to directly acknowledge the minority language communities overshadows their issues. Similar problems persist in the 2015 constitution: ‘(1) Each person and community shall have the right to use their language. (3) Each community living in Nepal shall have the right to preserve and promote its language, script, culture, cultural civilization, and heritage’ (Nepal Law Society, 2015, Article 32). While these provisions assure linguistic rights, bestowing rights to people alone is insufficient for the preservation of NDLs, and schooling in the mother tongue due to the target linguistic groups’ historically marginalized situation. Finally, the deixis their used in Article 32(1) in the new constitution, ‘Each person and community shall have the right to use their language’ (Nepal Law Society, 2015) may not necessarily allude to a particular L1, especially when people have more than one mother tongue; hence, it allows context-based interpretation and complicates the implementation of language policy for official use and schooling purposes.

Backgrounding and erasure

Backgrounding and erasure are other linguistic categories often employed to perpetuate the standard language ideology. These categories may overlap and/or are strongly associated with each other. Backgrounding is a discourse strategy of suppressing the actors, actions, and people’s roles through the acts of exclusion, which does not entail total removal from the discourse (Baker & Ellece, 2011). Rather the exclusion is maintained by mentioning actors, their roles, and their actions elsewhere in the text. Put another way, backgrounding is exploited to minimize unwanted people, their actions, and roles. On the other hand, erasure is broadly associated with identity. Strategically, it is employed to make invisible those whose identities are considered deviant (Andronis, 2004). Baker and Ellece (2011) describe three important functions of erasure: ‘denial of [the] existence of a particular identity’, such as, using man to refer to all people to make invisible the existence of women and girls’ identity, tracing the identity in the background, and incorporating an ‘erased identity under another identity’ (p. 40). Erasure is problematic because it is a form of linguistic oppression designed to make NDLs, excluding them from ‘public discourse and institutions, leading to their elimination’ (Roche, 2019, p. 490). A closer look into Nepal’s constitutions by paying attention to backgrounding and erasure allows the reader to see more marginalizing effects of the standard language ideology on NDLs’ development and schooling in NDLs.

In contrast to Article 6, Article 9 of the 1990 constitution makes explicit that the ability to use languages other than Nepali would not meet the criteria for Nepali citizenship. Put another way, Article 9 marginalizes the role of NDLs in the acquisition of Nepali citizenship or to demonstrate Nepali identity. The constitution reads (Himalaya, 1991, Article 9(4)),

After the commencement of this Constitution, the acquisition of citizenship of Nepal by a foreigner may be regulated by law which may, inter alia, require the fulfillment of the following conditions: (a) that he can speak and write the language of the nation of Nepal.

As discussed earlier, ‘the language of the nation of Nepal’ presented in the above excerpt refers to Nepali as a symbolic representation of Nepali identity, therefore Article 9 tacitly diminishes the value of NDLs (Giri, 2010).

An important strategy to give legitimacy to languages is through language officialization, which happens through legal endorsement of languages (e.g., naming languages), their forms (e.g., scripts, dialects, or varieties), and functions (e.g., their uses in official business, or schools). Language officialization recognizes both languages and language communities as valuable assets to serve nation-states’ broader interests, such as solidifying national unity. Officialization is also important because it ensures speakers’ legal rights and access to services in their language (Hawkey & Horner, 2022). Though the 1990 constitution values NDLs by emphasizing the promotion of languages to achieve social cohesion, cultural diversity, and national unity, it refuses to call those languages (Himalaya, 1991, Article 26(2)):

The State shall, while maintaining the cultural diversity of the country, pursue a policy of strengthening the national unity by promoting healthy and cordial social relations amongst the various religions, castes, tribes, communities, and linguistic groups, and by helping in the promotion of their languages, literatures, scripts, arts [,] and cultures.

As evident in the above excerpt, the linguistic groups allude to language communities indiscriminately. Yet such reference without name recognition is problematic because it suppresses linguistic communities’ identity and denies their legal rights. Disappointingly, the 1990 constitution is not alone in not doing enough to elevate NDLs as the 2015 constitution, too, has failed to officialize the NDLs as evidenced in Article 6 and Article 7. So, it is not difficult to comprehend that NDLs are deliberately backgrounded and/or erased in Nepal. Because NDLs are living vernaculars, officialization is a way to encourage their widespread use for language maintenance and mother tongue-based education.

As evidenced in the new constitution (Article 7), erasure is maintained by making invisible NDL forms and denying the NDL communities’ rights to linguistic self-determination, which challenges linguistic domination, assimilation, homogenization inter alia (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1996). The foregrounding of the Devanagari script tacitly makes languages without scripts or languages that borrow scripts from other languages inviable. Similarly, the delegation of authority to provincial level to determine official languages makes NDL communities inviable in the language policymaking process. Because State policy is often controlled by DL groups, their ideology is likely to be imposed. The constitution reads (Nepal Law Society, 2015, Article 7):

(1) The Nepali language written in [the] Devanagari script shall be the language of official business in Nepal. (2) In addition to [the] Nepali language, a province shall select one or more national languages […] spoken by [a] majority of people in that province as the language of official business, as provided for by the provincial law.

As the above except unveils, the 2015 constitution’s preference for languages with officially recognized Devanagari script is evident. Indeed, Devanagari script is a common characteristic of most of the Indo-Aryan languages descended from Sanskrit, including Nepali. It is important to note that language recognition comes with political power and the values accorded to respective languages (Wolfram, 2004). Because language scripts other than Devanagari are not recognized in the new constitution, competing languages with non-Devanagari scripts are made invisible. As social institutions like schools are bound to follow the State policies, they embrace only languages with recognized forms; hence, they make NDLs invisible at the grassroots levels and deny linguistic self-determination of NDL communities.

The denial of linguistic self-determination is also the denial of local identity, hence another form of erasure prevalent in the new constitution. According to Article 7(2), provinces are authorized to endorse languages that they consider appropriate for official business (Nepal Law Society, 2015). Because the DL groups often represent policy level (Skutnabb-Kangas, 1996), they control and execute language policy. So, it is unrealistic to assume that language policymakers can be tolerant toward endorsing any competing NDLs for official purposes. Also, since people from dominant groups often control political power, the interests of DL constituents are likely to prevail in policy decisions. Undeniably, dominant people are likely to emphasize their own values, beliefs, and interests (Ricento, 2013) associated with their own language.

The denial of linguistic self-determination is not confined to provincial execution of authority. According to the 2015 constitution, the Federal Government preserves the ultimate power to decide on language policy, stating that the ‘matters concerning language shall be as decided by the Government of Nepal on the recommendation of the Language Commission’ (Nepal Law Society, 2015, Article 7(3)). In so doing, the constitution clearly alienates linguistic minorities from the process of making decisions on languages and language use. Ironically, the new constitution fails to ensure and encourage proportional representation of NDL communities in the Language Commission. The constitution reads (Nepal Law Society, 2015, Article 287(4)),

The persons having possessed the following qualifications may be appointed to the position of chairperson or member of the Language Commission: (a) Having attained master’s degree on the concerned subject from a recognized University. (b) Having the experience of at least 20 years in studies, teaching, and research on various languages of Nepal; (c) Having attained the age of 45 years. d) Having high moral character’

As per the above excerpt, a member or the chairperson of the Language Commission is required to hold an advanced degree and substantial experience in the related field. These requirements may limit NDL communities’ ability to provide recommendations to the Federal Government on matters related to language policy as a vast majority of NDL advocates and/or scholars may not meet the required academic threshold due to their historically marginalized status.

Discussion

The substantial deployment of four linguistic categories―foregrounding, indexicality, backgrounding, and erasure―in the constitutions analyzed not only have evidenced the perpetuation of the dominant language ideology in Nepal’s language policy, but they have also weakened the transformative agenda of the constitutions, especially of the 2015 constitution. The foregrounding of DLs over minority languages is akin to the process of language subordination (Kroskrity, 2004). The greater weight accorded to Nepali and its forms and functions in the constitutions legitimizes the linguistic domination and marginalization of NDLs and language minority children. Notably, of the 124 vernaculars in Nepal (NSO, 2021), many of them do not have official status due to the lack of either language standardization or written script. Because officialization is a process of making languages legitimate and emblematic, it has a tremendous psychological consequence, such as the power of evoking positive emotions among native users (Limerick, 2017). So, the naming of NDLs is important for their symbolic value as it is a recognition associated with people’s sense of ownership of and inclusion (Limerick, 2017; Skutnabb-Kangas, 1996).

The elevation of Nepali and its script in the context of Nepal should be viewed as a norm as linguistically dominant people have controlled political power since the country’s unification in 1769 (Gautam, 2021; Weinberg, 2021). Scholars agree that linguistically dominant people have very positive views about their language and pejorative views about minority languages (Ricento, 2013; Silverstein, 1979); therefore, they have the inclination toward embracing monolingual habitus (Gogolin, 1997), which in turn effects detrimental consequences on minority languages and affect schooling in NDLs. Also, as Piller (2015) states that linguistically privileged people tend to prefer language forms that they are familiar with, in the current scenario the Devanagari script, their penchant for the Nepali language and attempts to perpetuate the upper-middle class language ideology is not a surprise (Lippi-Green, 2004).

Another key takeaway from the current analyses is the proficient use of ambiguous language. Due to this, the constitution permits misinterpretation and/or interpretations to serve the interests of people in power, which empowers linguistically dominant people to interpret constitutional provisions to fulfil their socio-linguistic interests. Also, when linguistic minority groups face everyday discrimination and marginalization (Flores & Rosa, 2015), obstruse provisions create a problem for legal remedy. Though the new constitutions’ more explicit provisions in favor of multilingualism seem noteworthy, the overt use of indexical references interrupts straightforward interpretation of language provisions in support of minority languages. There is no doubt that people in the upper echelon of power use pretexts to undermine any transformative language policy. The overt indexical allusions also complicate the promotion of and education in minority languages as stakeholders may interpret the constitutional provisions differently.

Relatedly, as the constitutions reject minority languages in gaining Nepali citizenship, NDLs’ relevance and legitimacy is put into question. This looks bad on minority languages and their prestige. The denial of minority languages is also a refusal to value linguistic minorities, their actions, and roles, implying linguistic minorities’ loss of legitimate representation in language policy and practice decisions. Such backgrounding of minority languages confirms the perpetuation of the standard language ideology, which undermines NDLs by placing emphasis on dominant languages and their forms (Gates & Ilbury, 2019). This current linguistic disparity weakens language maintenance and mother tongue-based schooling efforts, which cannot happen unless languages in question are considered assets, and the government is willing to use and promote them. Also, the lack of recognition of minority languages has legitimacy problems because interpretation of laws often relies on concrete evidence.

Finally, the lack of representation and linguistic self-determination issues evidence the erasure of minority languages. Since self-determination allows NDL groups the rights to control their language (Higgins & Maguire, 2019) and respond appropriately for language planning and MOI policy, the top-down language policy imposition from the Language Commission and the State governments violates linguistic minorities’ linguistic rights. Skutnabb-Kangas (1996) argues that language is associated with power and identity; so, depriving people of linguistic rights removes their power and denies their existence. The denial of linguistic self-determination contributes to making invisible the identity of linguistic minorities, therefore their engagement in language policy and practice lacks legitimacy. These situations lead to the perception that the new constitution does not belong to linguistic minorities. The implementation of constitutional provision requires unambiguous language pressuring government’s proactive engagement and investment in promoting NDLs and multilingual schooling which cannot happen unless concerned actors and agencies are legally mandated.

Conclusion

This analysis is insightful in unpacking how Nepal’s two democratic constitutions have perpetuated the standard language ideology. The examination of language policy employing the linguistic categories of foregrounding, indexicality, backgrounding, and erasure allowed this investigator to navigate the effects on language maintenance and schooling of linguistic minority children. As the current analysis unfolded, the 2015 constitution is more conciliatory and liberating than its predecessor, the 1990 constitution, in favor of NDLs because of the favorable treatment of minority languages, and specific language policy provision. Nevertheless, the current analysis found that the 2015 constitution reinforced Nepali language and the Devanagari script over NDLs and other scripts through language standardization and officialization. The current analysis also discovered that the new constitution used several indexical utterances creating ambiguities, which could be used to maintain hierarchy, thus promoting the interests of DL groups. Additionally, the analysis revealed that the constitution did not treat all languages on equal footing as it did not associate NDLs with the Nepali identity. Moreover, the new constitution failed to specify NDLs by name, contributing to the erasure of their identity, the maintenance of status quo. Finally, the constitution did not pave the way to remove barriers for NDL communities to participate in the language policy platform; hence, it opposed the NDL community’s rights for self-determination.

In conclusion, critical analyses of various layers of policy discourse unfolded nuanced elements of the standard language ideology impeding the multilingual education policy intervention in Nepal. Such analyses lead to unpacking the roots of linguistic marginalization and their implications, challenging the hegemonic discourse, and working toward policy transformation to foster a more equitable sociolinguistic and educational environment. Because linguistic minorities have been underrepresented, marginalized, and disadvantaged throughout the world, and presumed to be transformative language policy provisions like the new constitution’s provisions are not implemented despite reassurance through additional legal acts (Nepal Law Commission, 2018), the current analysis is useful to bring into light the issues of linguistic marginalization. This study benefits those interested in social transformation, such as scholars, language activists, and researchers, who can use the current strategy to examine similar other policy discourse and to challenge the marginalizing policy discourse that implicitly prevents social transformation. Similarly, this study provides educational policymakers and school leaders with the opportunity to reflect on the existing policies and to evaluate their merits from equity, inclusion, and social justice perspectives.

Acknowledgment

The authors acknowledge that no other persons were involved in preparing this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Puskar R. Joshi

Puskar R. Joshi is a Ph.D. Candidate in Curriculum and Instruction with Emphasis on Teaching and Teacher Education at Texas A&M University. He graduated from Teachers College, Columbia University, University of Manchester, and Texas A&M University. His research interests include teacher education, language education, international education, multilingual education, and education policy and practice.

Zohreh R. Eslami

Dr. Zohreh R. Eslami is a Professor at Texas A&M University in Educational Psychology where she mentors master’s and doctoral students conducting research on Bilingual/ESL Education, applied linguistics, and multilingualism. She is the managing and co-editor of Applied Pragmatics journal and serves in several journal editorial boards.