Published Paper PDF: Download PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.63345/ijrhs.net.v13.i8.5
Dr Abhishek Jain
Uttaranchal University
Dehradun, Uttarakhand 248007, ,India
abhishekrit21@gmail.com
Abstract
This delves deeply into the multifaceted relationship between social capital and language prestige in urban versus rural India, drawing on established theoretical frameworks and presenting comprehensive empirical findings. Social capital, as conceptualized by Bourdieu (1986) and Putnam (2000), encompasses the resources embedded within one’s social networks—both bonding ties within homogenous groups and bridging ties that connect disparate communities. Language prestige refers to the socially conferred status of a language variety, influencing speakers’ attitudes, identity construction, and access to socioeconomic opportunities. In India’s linguistically plural context, English and Hindi have historically enjoyed institutional support and widespread prestige, particularly in urban centers, while regional languages maintain cultural significance in rural settings. To investigate these dynamics, we conducted a structured survey with 100 participants (50 urban, 50 rural) across demographically matched cohorts in Delhi/Mumbai and Uttar Pradesh/Maharashtra villages. Participants rated the prestige of English, Hindi, and their regional language on socioeconomic utility, cultural value, and personal affinity dimensions, using a 5-point Likert scale. Social capital was measured via the World Bank’s Social Capital Assessment Tool, capturing bonding (frequency of community gatherings, familial networks) and bridging ties (membership in professional associations, cross-community interactions), alongside trust indicators.
Data analysis in SPSS v27 included descriptive statistics, independent-samples t-tests, and multiple regression models. The results reveal stark urban–rural contrasts: urban respondents rated English (M=4.37, SD=0.65) and Hindi (M=3.94, SD=0.72) significantly higher than rural respondents (English M=3.10, SD=0.82; Hindi M=3.48, SD=0.89; p<.001). Conversely, rural participants attributed greater prestige to regional languages (M=4.23, SD=0.57) compared to urban counterparts (M=3.17, SD=0.80; p<.001). Regression analyses indicate that educational attainment (β=0.62, p<.001) and bridging social capital (β=0.29, p<.05) robustly predict English prestige, whereas bonding social capital (β=0.55, p<.01) is the primary driver of regional language prestige.
These findings underscore how differential access to institutional networks shapes language valuation: urban dwellers leverage bridging ties to reinforce the utility of high-prestige languages, while rural communities draw on bonding capital to sustain regional linguistic pride. The study’s policy implications include integrating regional language proficiency alongside English instruction in curricula, and fostering community programs that valorize local languages while facilitating bridging connections through vocational and digital literacy initiatives.
Keywords
Social Capital, Language Prestige, Urban India, Rural India, Sociolinguistics, Survey Research
References
- Annamalai, E. (2005). Nation-building in a globalized world: Language choice and education in India. Springer.
- Bourdieu, P. (1986). “The forms of capital.” In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.
- Choudhury, S. (2010). Language attitudes in urban and rural Bengal: A comparative study. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 14(3), 345–368.
- Kachru, B. B. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions, and models of nonnative Englishes. Pergamon.
- Kumar, P., & Bhatt, S. (2014). Regional language loyalty and social capital in rural Gujarat. Language in Society, 43(2), 175–194.
- Krishna, A. (2002). Social capital, participatory development, and empowerment: The case of India. Journal of Development Studies, 38(3), 94–114.
- Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States (2nd ed.). Routledge.
- Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (2012). Authority in language: Investigating standard English (4th ed.). Routledge.
- Narayan, D., & Cassidy, M. F. (2001). A dimensional approach to measuring social capital: Development and validation of a social capital inventory. Current Sociology, 49(2), 59–102.
- Preston, D. R. (2001). Language, ideology, and identity in the United States. In D. B. Jansen (Ed.), Language and National Identity in Asia. Oxford University Press.
- Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.
- Ramanathan, V., & Cerruti, S. (2003). Doctoring the vernacular: The politics of English in Tamil Nadu, India. Hampton Press.
- Schiffman, H. F. (1996). Linguistic culture and language policy. Routledge.
- Sridhar, K. K. (1996). Politics of language: Education, national policy, and identity in India. Sage.
- Sridhar, K. K., & Sridhar, S. (2005). Sense and sensibility: Language and power relations in India. Language Policy, 4(2), 179–200.
- Trudgill, P. (2000). Sociolinguistics: An introduction to language and society (4th ed.). Penguin.
- Woolcock, M. (2001). The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes. Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2(1), 11–17.
- Yadav, R. (2018). Language attitudes among youth in urban Delhi. International Journal of Multilingualism, 15(4), 412–428.
- Zingela, T. (2017). Prestige and language shift: Global English, local vernaculars. World Englishes, 36(1), 66–82.