|
SOUTH ASIAN HISTORY
Pages from the
History of
the Indian sub-continent: Indian Linguistics and Colonial
Formulations Colonial
Constructs about Indian Languages Most educated Indians know that
most Indian languages are divided into two broad linguistic streams -
i.e. the "Indo-European" and the "Dravidian". Tied in with this
linguistic classification is the theory that the North Indian languages
came with "Aryan" settlers. During colonial rule, it may have
seemed comforting to North Indians to know that they enjoyed a
historical genetic and cultural connection with the "superior" races
of Europe who had by then come to rule much of the world.
Of course, this provided little comfort to the South Indians who
were indirectly told that their own cultural history was inferior
to that of the North because they lacked the all-important European
connection. To this day, influential
historians (such as Romila Thapar) and others at the JNU (and several
other leading Indian universities) continue to swear by this colonial
era model. Critics of this colonial-era formulation are usually
dismissed as "amateurs" or "national chauvinists" who are somehow
unable to comprehend the supposedly well-established "science" of
"modern" linguistics. But is this classification truly
"scientific" or a construct that derives more from purely political
considerations as some recent critics have argued? Hungarian
Critics of the "Indo-European" Scheme In recent decades, several
Hungarian and other Eastern European scholars have attempted to build
lexicons comparing Hungarian words with their Slavic counterparts.
Unsurprisingly, these lexicons show that the distance between Hungarian
and the Slavic langauges spoken by its closest neighbors in Europe is
not as large as might be implied by the conscious and deliberate
exclusion of Hungarian from the "Indo-European " schemata that
includes all the Slavic languages but excludes Hungarian.
Others have built lexicons comparing Hungarian with Sanskrit and Tamil
(along the lines of the lexicons built by adherents of the
"Indo-European" formula), and again, they show that a selective
interpretation of these lexicons could well lead to a new
classification in which both Tamil and Sanskrit would end up in the
same family of languages as Hungarian. Yet to Employ
Computerized Statistical Analysis In fact, such analysis might
reveal a greater overlap between North Indian and South Indian
langauages as well as between Adivasi langauges and their neighboring
Indic langauges that are presently placed under the "Indo-European"
umbrella. But to date, advocates of the
Indo-European paradigm have strenuously resisted such calls for a fresh
and unbiased scientific analysis of their classification methods.
Nor have they been open to analyzing their conclusions in the
context of geography, archaeology, anthropology, trade ties, cultural
exchanges and regional political developments. Few linguists ascribing to the
Indo-European/Dravidian divide have bothered to investigate the extent
of commonality between Sanskrit or Tamil or Munda and Hindi or Tibetan
and Bengali. The possibilities of overlapping vocabularies or shared
words between langauges that are currently placed in different
linguistic streams has simply not interested many Western-influenced
Indian linguists. Incorporating
DNA Data This would suggest the
commonality that was noted between the North Indian and European
languages may have been due to very early migration patterns -
when
language was still in a somewhat rudimentary phase and had not yet
developed into the more complex written form that comes with
urbanization and settled civilization. Although promoters of the
Indo-European scheme have shied away from saying so, the commonality
between the Indian and European langauges appears to be largely
confined to a vocabulary that one might associate with early humans who
were familiar with animal husbandry and fire and valued clan
relationships but had yet to develop advanced agriculture or the social
systems that go with more complex societies where a proportion of the
population has become urbanized and there is a growing degree of
specialization of labor accompanied with the expansion of trade
and commerce. (DNA might likewise explain the similarities noted
between Brahui and Tamil). Problems with
the "Indo-European" Construct Building primitive lexicons that
show similar roots for certain common words can hardly be an adequate
basis of linguistic classification. Especially if that
classification is going to be further used to generate implications
about sociological and cultural development. If the commonality
between Indian and European langauages extends only to a small
pastoral-era oral lexicon, the Indo-European theory of langauges
could hardly be called in to justify the "Aryan Invasion" theory let
alone infer that the Vedas were written by "Indo-European Aryan"
migrants. In fact, one of the unintended
(or
even intended) consequences of such linguistic speculation is that
there has been a needless intellectual division between North Indians
and South Indians, between Adivasis and "non-Adivasis" . Moreover, it
has strengthened the now increasingly untenable view that there is no
continuity between the Indo-Saraswati Harappan civilization and Vedic
civilization, and that India's languages (both in the oral and written
forms) must have been brought to India by more "civilized" outsiders. In accepting such constructs not
only must one throw away archaeolgical and anthropological
evidence that points to the many continuities in Indian civilization
but one must also obscure the significance of the pioneering work
done in the realm of linguistics by
Panini and his predecessors. India and the
Birth of Formal Linguistics Amongs the earliest known formal
Sanskrit lexicons is the Nighantu (a
thesaurus-like lexicon) ascribed to Yaska
(7th c BC) whose work attempted to systematize the various lexicons
that had been developed to aid in the understanding and intrerpretation
of the Vedic texts. These included lexicons of rare or difficult words
classified into chapters containing similes, metonyms, and other
categories of related words that were used to describe physical
things and objects in nature. A separate chapter contained words
that related to human physical/physiological and mental/emotional
qualities and yet another chapter confined itself to words
relating to abstract qualities and concepts. A separate book described
homonyms that presented special difficulties in their
interpretation or had ambiguous meanings. Yaska's Nighantu was accompanied by his Nirukta (a treatise on entymology
and word-parsing) in which rules for deriving words from roots
and affixes are described. Yaska
followed Sakatayana (an
older grammarian) and described four types of words: nama (or nouns), akhyata (verbs), upsarga (prefixes) and nipata (particles
such as prepositions). He defined verbs as those in which the process
or action predominated and nouns as that in which an entity or a being
or a thing predominated. He was also cognizant of how sometimes verbs
taken on a noun-like form - such as "going for a walk" where the verb
walk takes on a noun-like form. Yaska
also posited a semantic theory in which he argued that words had
inherent meanings in contrast to Panini
who argued that words had meanings only in their specific context. This
debate appears to mirror the modern-day debate between semantic
atomists and cognitive linguistics. Panini's Ashtadhyayi (Eight
Chapters) went deeper into linguistic morphology defining such terms as
phonemes, morphemes and roots. He
also described rules/algorithms for taking material from
lexical lists (dhatupatha) and
generating words from them in a structured and systematic manner.
Panini's influence on modern linguistics has been considerable (see
notes
below). In this entire body of work stretching, from Sakatayana to Panini, there is virtually nothing to link Sanskrit to
any European influence. On the other hand, both Sanskrit
and Tamil are syllabic languages and both treat consonants and vowels
very similarly. Just as in Sanskrit where aksharas (speech particles or
atoms) are divided into Svarams (vowels) and Vyanajanams (consonants),
in Tamil vowels (Uyir Ezhuttu)
are clearly distinguished from consonants Mey Ezhuttu. Alphabets
versus Syllables From the point of view of
classifying languages based on the organizational principles that
govern their written scripts no logic would permit the
Sanskrit-derived North Indian langauges to be placed in the same
language group as the European languages. For instance, languages (such as
Chinese or Japanese) that use pictograms, logograms and ideograms in
their written form are a unique group of languages and are classified
as "Semanto-phonetic". To understand the development of such
languages using morphological and entymological constructs as described
by Sanskrit linguists such as Yaska
or Panini would be absurd. Yet, Western scholars seem to
have no difficulty in clubbing Sanskrit with English and French
even though the manner in which Sanskrit developed and was formalized
was entirely unknown and alien to the Europeans. On the other
hand, structurally speaking (notwithstanding some differences),
Sanskrit and Tamil are like sisters, yet many Westerners persist with
placing them in entirely different language families. Pan-Indic
and Pan-Asian Commonalities This would suggest that in the
pre-colonial world, there was a broad similarity in language scripts
that extended across the Indian Ocean from Ethiopia to Indonesia and
extended further to the Phillipines and Thailand. Since the written form of any
language represents it in its most advanced form, it is curious how
Western linguists and their Indian apologists have strangely
ignored this important facet in classifying the langauges of the world.
Nor have they analyzed the important cultural and sociological
implications of this shared heritage. Phonetic
Repertoire and Awareness Consonants were likewise divided
between how they were sounded (as stops, approximants or
sibilants). Consonants were further divided by the place of
articulation (such as where a part of the tongue was placed in the
mouth to create the relevant sound - velar, palatal, retroflex, dental
or labial). They were aware of consonant combinations as well as how
consonants could be varied by using different parts of the tongue
(root, body or tip) or lower lip for labial. Consonants were
further distinguished between the effort of articulation (internal for
unaspirated, aspirated, unvoiced or voiced, and external for plosive,
approximate and fricative). This creates a repertoire of
consonant sounds that finds no exact parallel in any European language
but is partially or wholly replicated in the South Indian langauges. For instance, consonants
classified as {Sparsham, Nadam,
Mahapranam}
- i.e. <stopped voiced aspirated> consonants derived from the
unvoiced and unaspirated g, j, b or soft and hard d are alien to
English as are the <unvoiced aspirated) forms of k, p and
soft/hard t. Phonetically speaking, from
North to South, the languages of the Indian subcontinent have more in
common with each other than with any European language -
(especially English and French). Pan-Indic Linguistic Features While some forms of
rhyming reduplication are also to be found in English such as
bow-wow or willy-nilly, other types of reduplication appear to be
entirely absent or very rare in English. For instance, the
expression "Ram Ram" may be used to express anguish in Hindi, but its
analog "God God" or "Jesus Jesus" would be not be idiomatic in
English. Likewise Hay-re-Hay or Baap-re-Baap used to express shock or
dismay would be hard to replicate in English - the latter translating
to father-oh-father. In
both Tamil and Hindi, a guest may be welcomed with the
expression "va:nga va:nga" or "aiye aiye" - i.e. "come, come" to
suggest a special enthusiasm and graciousness. The correct analog for
such a
greeting in English might be "please do come", but not come come.
Repeated words may be
routinely used to designate emphasis - "piyo piyo" (drink drink) or
"jaldi jaldi" (quick quick) or "dekho dekho" (look look). Such
usage is also to be found in other Asian languages such as Bahasa
Indonesia where "tengo tengo" (look look) is a perfect translation of
"dekho dekho". In
other contexts a repeated word (whether noun, pronoun, adjective,
adverb, or verb) acquires a special semantic significance. Consider the Tamil " ra:tri
ra:tri maLHai peyyutu" (night night it rains ) meaning that
it rains frequently - every night or every other night. Or the Hindi "apne apne vichar
hain" (their their views/thoughts/opinions are) meaning that people
have their own opinions. In the interrogative form, in
Hindi one might ask "kya kya kiya" - (what what did) meaning what all
did you do? Or, "kahan kahan gaye" (where where went) meaning where all
did you go? One could also repeat a verbal
participle: "bolte bolte thak gaye" or "kahete kahete thak gaye"
- (talking talking got tired or telling telling got tired) i.e
(I/we) got tired telling (him/her/them) again and again. Thus word repitition is an
economic but meaningful way of expressing varied forms of frequency,
plurality or multiplicity. Note too that Indic languages
permit the dropping of pronouns (which become implied). In the previous
example both the subject (I/we) and object pronouns (him/her/them) may be dropped, but (got tired telling) would be
impermissable in English. Another form of repitition is
the use of an echo word to suggest a broader category than the word
echoed. Note that the echo word may not be a word itself and its only
requirement would be to partially repeat the first word. Thus we
may have "cha:y sha:y" to suggest (tea etc), or (tea and
something with it), or (tea or something like it). Or, "kuch kaam vaam kiya"
to ask if (you/he/she) did any work or anything else constructive? Here
"kaam" is work but "vaam" is used to denote something comparable
in signficance to work such as study or complete a chore or perform
some other important task. Here again, we observe a
linguistical feature that extends across all Indic langauges (and even
to other Asian langauges ) and to a European non "Indo-European"
langauge like Hungarian but is rare or entirely missing in an
"Indo-European" language like English. Sentence Word Order Word order also becomes flexible in the context of question and answer exchanges. Thus in Hindi "Gaye the Tum?" (Went did you?), "Tum Gaye The?" (You went did?) and "Tum Gaye?" (You went?) are all possible. Replies to where did you go could be equally varied from the standard SOV "Main Allahabad gaya tha" (I Allahabad went) to an OVS "Allahabad gaya tha main" (Allahabad went I) or simply OV "Allahabad gaya tha" (Allahabad went) or even VO "Gaya tha Allahabad" (Went Allahabad) In this respect, Indian languages are similar to each other but not to less flexible "Indo-European" languages like English. On the other hand, Russian and Czech (like Hungarian) do not require a fixed or default word order. In conclusion, it might be stated that the present scheme of bifurcating Indian langauges into the "Indo-European" and "Dravidian" scheme is unsatisfactory in many ways. Not only does it ignore vital commonalities between the langauges of Northern and Southern India, it has also precluded comprehensive comparitive studies between these Indic languages and other Indic langauges such as the Munda or those from the Tibetan-Burmese stream. Not only is the "Indo-European" classification based on very narrow grounds, it privileges an archaic oral history over later (and more important) developments when indic languages were studied systematically and formalized. Moreover, it entirely ignores the development of writing in the Indian subcontinent and also, the linguistic exchanges and enrichment that occurred between the Sanskrit and Tamil derived langauges as well as borrowings that must have occurred between these langauges and their Adivasi cousins . The classification also tends to mimimize commonalities and exchanges between the Indic languages and the languages of India's land-connected neighbors and oceanic neighbors. Also obscured is the scientific analysis and rational organization that went into the formalization of Sanskrit (in both spoken and written forms) and other Indic languages that created a solid foundation for India's largely self-propelled progress in philosophy, epistemology, law and governance, mathematics, art, theatre and music, mathematics, and the biological and physical sciences. Consciously or unconsciously, the "Indo-European" scheme not only divided India from within but also set it apart from from its intellectually-linked Asian brethren and oceanic neighbors in Africa. Undoubtedly, theories such as this complemented Britain's colonial "divide and conquer" strategy. Such disingenuous constructs (whether by accident or design) allowed the English to colonize, subjugate, and finally loot the Indian subcontinent - not only of of its legendary wealth, but by distorting its linguistic heritage, it also robbed the Indian people of their very essence and self-esteem. It is high time that
linguistic scholars in India revisit afresh this entire field and
rescue it from inappropriate and outdated colonial constructs. About the Author Acknowledgements
Lakshman Sarup, The Nighantu and The Nirukta (London,
H. Milford 1920-29), Repr. Motilal Banarsidass 2002, ISBN 81-208-1381-2. "Siddhanta Kaumudi" by Bhattoji Diksita and "Laghu Siddhanta
Kaumudi", by Varadaraja. "Telugulo Chandovisheshaalu" (In Telugu). Repitive Forms in Indian
Languages by G. Sankaranarayanan, Language in
India (9, Jan, 2002) Thirumalai, M.S. 2002. How to Learn Another Language?
in Language in India (http://www.languageinindia.com) Abbi, Anvita. 1980. Semantic Grammar of Hindi: A Study in Reduplications. New Delhi. Apte, M.L. 1968. Reduplication, Echo, Formation and
Onomatopoeia in Marathi. Pune. Gnanasundaram, V. 1985. Onomatopoeia in Tamil. Annamalainagar. Nayak, H. M. 1967. Kannada Literary and Colloquial: A Study of Two Styles. Mysore. Sankaranarayanan, G. 1976. "Associative Pairs in Tamil," in The Eighth India University Tamil Teachers' Conference, Mysore. Sankaranarayanan. G. 1983. "Reduplication in Tamil," in To
Greater Heights (1969-79). Mysore.
Notes:
Additional
References and Comments (as provided by S. Kalyanaraman) The following works postulate an Indian linguistic area, that is an area of ancient times when various language-speakers interacted and absorbed language features from one another and made them their own: Emeneau, MB, India as a linguistic area, Language 32, 1956, 3-16 Kuiper, FBJ, Proto-Munda words in Sanskrit, Amsterdam, 1948 The genesis of a linguistic area, IIJ 10, 1967, 81-102 Masica, CP, Defining a Linguistic area. South Asia. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1971 Przyludski, J., Further notes on non-aryan loans in Indo-Aryan in
Bagchi, P. C. (ed.), Pre-Aryan and Pre-Dravidian in Sanskrit. Calcutta : University of Calcutta 1929: 145-149
Southworth, F., Linguistic archaeology of South Asia, London, Routledge-Curzon, 2005 Ancient
texts of India
are replete with brilliant insights into formation and evolution of
languages.
Some examples are: Bharata’s Natya Shastra, Patanjali’s Mahabhashya,
Hemachandra’s Deshi naamamaalaa, Nighantus, Panini’s Ashtadhyayi,
Tolkappiyam – Tamil grammar. Manu (10.45) notes the
linguistic area: aarya
vaacas mleccha vaacas te sarve dasyuvah smrtaah [both aarya
speakers and
mleccha speakers (literary and colloquial dialects) are all remembered
as
dasyu]. (From http://sites.google.com/site/kalyan97/divinity-of-vaak-sarasvati-videos)
Central Institute of Indian Languages Manasagangotri Mysore 570006, India Wikipedia's Linguistic Resources, esp. those pertaining to Abugida Languages Various on-line lexicons that compare Hungarian to various "Indo-European" and other languages Related Articles
Back to main index for South Asian History (If you liked our site, or would like to help with the South Asian History project and help us expand our reach, please click here) Last updated: Aug , 2009 |