KANNADA VERSUS ENGLISH
LOCAL AND GLOBAL CONSIDERATIONS
Meti Mallikarjun
Dept. of Linguistics
Sahyadri Arts College
Kuvempu University
Shimoga-577203
metimallikarjun@yahoo.com
meti.mallikarjun@gmail.com
Abstract
This paper intends to explore the interactions and interfaces between Kannada and English in terms of linguistic value, myth and danger in the process of Globalization i.e. the way in which linguistic hegemony and domination occur at the local and global level in the context of linguistic choice, preferences and use in the functional domains. The domains, which we take into consideration in order to understand the linguistic hegemony and domination are; education, science, technology and wider communication. The impact of globalization, internationalism, information technology, economical reformations and international relations on the local language i.e. Kannada is the major concern of this paper. At the same time, how English plays an important role in order to make the Indian languages as an unpredictable therefore, this paper discusses hybridity as a strategy of survival for those caught between the languages of their colonization and their indigenous languages and illustrates how, through hybridization, postcolonial subjects use colonial languages without privileging colonial languages. Drawing on Bakhtinian notion of hybridization, this paper shows colonial and indigenous languages contesting each other’s authority, challenging and unmasking the hegemony of English and to some extent Kannada is indigenous language spoken in Karnataka. However, this paper conceives the relationship of English and Kannada as not always contestatory but as accomodating. the paper extends our understanding of hybridity as marking both contestation and communion. Of particular significance is the way in which English is criticized even in the using of it in literature, education and science and technology. This analysis of hybridity highlights the contradictoriness of colonized identity and establishes and confirms the idea of a hybridized postcolonial cultural and linguistic identity.How are language and identity related? This exploratory essay probes the conceptual and logical connections between these two elemental factors of human existence, offers thoughts about an alternative discourse, and looks at suggestive data regarding the tie between violence and identity... In this argumentative essay, language is seen as forming a nucleus of identity, identity as being forged in conflict, and discourse marking our path to, through and out of linguistic war and peace. Abating identity threats through identity-affirming discourse may, I conclude, be the best and most lasting tool towards linguistic peace.
1. Introduction
In the present paper, we discuss some of the dynamic links between Language and power, Language and hegemony and Language and Globalization, to underscore their impact and relevance to the study of intra and inter linguistic groups’ relations. In particular, we address the means by which the dominance and hegemonic act of English on Indian languages or Kannada in particular-English as the world’s lingua-franca, language of science, technology, law, international relations and language of education. It is without doubt that, since the days of British Raj, English is language of the domination, status and privilege in India. The hegemonic colonial project in India was to create and maintain a class of administrative officers, clerks and compliant civil servants. To establish these agendas of British Raj, in year 1835, in March, Lord Macaulay, a member of the supreme council in India, brazenly declared that the task of British in India was to... “do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect” (1919:16). It suggests that the arrival and establishment of English in Indian situation is not a simple phenomena, of course, it is a complex phenomena. When English came to India, it came as weapon of colonial and imperialism not as a language of culture and knowledge. There fore, it is very important and necessary to realize the socio-cultural, political, and linguistic realities of Kannada in the context of globalization i.e. sociolinguistic globalization. India, being a multilingual and multicultural country for a long time, in this multiplicity, everyone experiences the heterogeneity in terms of linguistic, cultural and social values, beliefs, practice and behavior which attest the political and cultural nationality of India. It is true; the linguistic situation of India has been a quite crucial factor in understanding the ‘Indianess’ of course, there are myths and realities regarding Indianess, but here, this notion is taken as collective phenomena which may helps us to understand the heterogeneous realities of this country. This persisting fundamental diversity is being approached and reflected in this paper under the concepts of multi-perceptivity, multi-expressiveness and multi-lingualism. In this sense, India is to be considered as multi-lingual country at each of its conspicuous aspects, parts and concerns not just based on several languages are being spoken by Indians. Where as all socio-linguistic groups and communities having multiple modes of expressions and communication live side by side even overly each other, without, necessarily, entering in conflict with one another. Thus, language and its diversity is one of the significant indicators for characterizing the unity and diversity of this country. Therefore, in the context of multilingual consciousness and identities, to examine the effects of the hegemony of English on the language attitudes of speakers of a given language at one hand at the other, to investigate the connections between the predominant use of English in education and other functional domains at the institutional level and the vitality or sub-ordination of selected Indian language i.e. Kannada. In this regard, the English language has become a dominant tool of communication, which raised several conflict and confusions in linguistic choice and preferences.
2. Linguistic and Cultural Conflict: Whether English is a Weapon or Liberating Force?
It is widely debated and discussed that, the end of the twentieth century was becoming a major turning point in the linguistic and cultural context, as it changes from a multilingual to an English monolingual environment as for as Indian situation (it means, in the functional domains) is concerned. The concepts like ‘Global Language’ and ‘Global Village’ are perishing the indigenous linguistic and social diversities at local level, in the sense, nativizing English in India. The relationship of English with the Indian languages is legitimized by its nativization. It has been nativized in grammar, semantics, and pragmatic acquiring the features of Indian languages (E.Annamalai:2004). This development is reinforced in the process of globalization, in this process, where all linguistic and socio-cultural diversities are disappearing, in the sense, the concept of pluralism are replaced by the concepts like global village and global language. By this way, monoculture and mono-language situations are taking their establishment in the avatar of neo-colonialism, this is how, linguistic and cultural hegemony is spreading across the world. At the same time, it is very significant to reevaluate the impact and influence of ‘English language’ and ‘Westernization’ on Indian cultural and linguistic entities. It does not mean that, the above-discussed arguments are strateforword and simple enough to agree. Consequently, there are voices, which witness and attest the assumptions, aspirations and perceptions of English language in globalization. The vast majority of people who are learning English are doing so to be able to use this lingua franca. It means that, they are not learning English with express purpose of communicating with native speakers of English. Non-native speakers with other non-native speakers are using English. The English that they use need not therefore reflect any “Anglo” cultural values. This implies that English is no longer some colonial language. We in Asia communicate with the world and one another by the means. Therefore, the demand of English learning in primary schools at first standard in Karnataka by backwards and Dalits has become very crucial phenomena. If at all Kannadigas would like to interact in intra-lingual situation in India itself, they can only choose English language. Such extended functions of English have a profound effect on the nature of multilingualism in India. The very disadvantage of this linguistic effect on Indian multiplicity of language and culture in terms, where the correlations interlinked between the great and little traditions (singer 1972) in the practiced of shared culture will be in endangered situation. The challenging task is, what are the mode of preserving strategies have to be followed by the indigenous speech communities in this socio-linguistic crises. In this respect, they have been practicing a happy but typical mixture of localization and globalization with reference to their mother tongue and the other tongue, English (A.P.Andrewskutty:2002). It may be the case of promoting ‘Local’ language and cultures has degree of importance for Indian (i.e. Kannada identity) identity, in that linguistic equality – or at least linguistic pluralism contributes to social cohesion (A.P.Andrewskutty:2002). Rehabilitating indigenous languages at the institutional level encourages the polity to engage with a shared history and has the effect of promoting national unity but as ‘legitimating symbols’ of a proto-nation state in era of globalization, pluri-lingual policies which promote languages are, on their own, not enough. There fore, it is felt that to the outside world any Indian language will not survive in the functional domains. Consequently, “the oppressed social groups want to appropriate English to serve them in their battle against upper castes, who have come to control the major Indian languages and the benefits from them. While becoming a powerful cousin to help the disadvantaged, English has simultaneously acquired a native elite cutting across regions and castes, and has spread from cerebral domains to expressive domains, which have been exclusive to Indian languages, in the name of modernity and cosmopolitanism” (E.Annamalai:2004). It is very much necessary to make English available to downtrodden and other Dalits and Backwards Classes in the domains like education alongside their local language. In this, way unprivileged social groups can be benefited the linguistic opportunities at global level. This also recognizes the role of language as the main vehicle for the construction, replication, and transmission of culture itself. Though language itself is a cultural construct, this does not imply that it can be deconstructed, changed, or radically altered by the application of particular political scrutinizes of one sort or another. Language (and languages) means different things to different people, and policy-formulation is often vague and ill defined. Perhaps the main contribution of this paper is to view language policy as not only the specific, the overt, the explicit, the de-jury embodiment of rules in laws or constitutions, but as a broader entity, rooted in covert, implicit, grass- roots, unwritten, de facto practices that go deep into the culture. In the end, every language policy is culture-specific, and it is in the study of linguistic culture that we will come to understand why language policies evolve the way they do, why they work (or do not work) the way they are planned to work, and how peoples' lives are affected by them. The challenge in the study of language policy is that there are so many variables that must be dealt with and those simplistic notions or one-note theories cannot hope to capture the complexity that is language and linguistic culture (Harold F. Schiffman: 1996). There is no danger that any group will learn English, so the politics of elite centricity must be seen as an attack on unprivileged social groups where they can be benefited the linguistic opportunities.
3. Language Use in Functional Domains: Linguistic Priority and Choice
Language is a communication medium for turning a power base into influence. However, more than that, the creation of power and its maintenance or change can also occur in and through language. The way in which language choice takes place based on linguistic priority in a multilingual situation is very complex factor. In which linguistic preference interplays between native language and English in various functional domains. What is especially interesting in this paper is that it analyses the different ways in which English as a means of communication is evolving, developing into literally separate languages, yet which are still understandable by those who speak any version of English. English is important not just for ‘competitiveness’ with regard to the IT sector but also because it has gone on to become glue for the whole of India which has several official languages to preserve. Indian English is really a language on its own, as evidenced by the body of Indian writing in English, and the fact that practically all higher education is in the English language. In fact, it is explaining very well how many Indians use only English to speak with each other. English is as Indian a language as any other is. English has a dominant position in science, technology, medicine, and computers, in research, books, periodicals, and software, in transnational business, trade, shipping and aviation; in diplomacy and international organizations; in mass media entertainment, news agencies, and journalism; in youth culture, sports; in education systems. As the most widely learnt, foreign language can estimate 115 million learners at school level the early 1970’s, (Gage and Ohannessian 1974; British councilling report 1989/9). English education has become most desirable thing for professional jobs and a mark of status in India where as, Kannada and other Indian languages do not fulfill their expectations in terms of economic and societal aspects. However, English has given a prominent place among elite and middle-class people. It is true; Kannada is oldest language, heritagious and got literary tradition than English. Nevertheless, in the global context, the amount of importance and privilege is given to English just because of it was a language of colonialism, imperialists and modernity i.e. enlightenment. Therefore, the traditional Hindu-intellectuals demanded the English language for education and other functional usages. This can be proved by stating Surendranath Banerjee, a Bengali intellectual, “English education has uplifted all who have come under its influence to a common platform of thoughts, feelings and aspirations. Educated Indians whether of Bengal, Madras, Bombay, or northwestern provinces are brought up under the same intellectual moral and political influences, kindred hopes, feelings and ideas are thus generated. The educated class of India is thus brought nearer together....” (N.krishnaswamy and Lalitha krishnaswamy: 2006: p-78) Its importance as a language of vital opportunities and international contact has become increasingly clear. On the other hand, all the major Indian languages and the number of minority and tribal languages that are claiming their share in the country is educational and power structure is increasingly multiplying. Nor could anyone deny the significance of Hindi developing as a national link language. Thus, the constitution also provides for the rights of its citizens to make representation in any language to the state. It also provides for instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage of education to children belonging to linguistic minorities the multiplicity of languages in the country and the continued presence of English for a variety of important functions made it clear that no straightforward simplistic solution could sustain the participatory nature of democracy in a plurilingual society. It is therefore not surprising that the three- language formula evolved as a consensus in 1961 even before India gained its independence in 1947; there were attempts to evolve a policy that would be more suitable to the needs of a self-governing India than that which was in effect in the British Raj, i.e. a policy that favored English. Consequently, negative attitudes have been developed among Indians especially among south Indians, thinking that Hindi is neither our official and nor the national language… where as, colonial rule has gone a long way in diluting negative feelings towards the English language. In the 1960s, a bitter conflict considering the status of various languages in India arose from concerns of the southern states (in which Hindi is not widely spoken) that the use of Hindi in the government services would disadvantage them for employment in those areas. They thought, also, that it was unfair for them having to learn both Hindi and English, whereas native speakers of Hindi would only have to learn English. Thus, in India, there is a great number of sociolinguistic pressures influencing the development of language education; Spolsky (1978: 55-64) has stated that the language policy of the school system is both a result of the pressures and a source of pressure itself. He, too, claims that education to be the strongest weapon for enforcing language policy. He proves by listing the following pressures to have an effect on language planning in a society: family (attitudes at home), religion (if the maintenance of a language is based on a belief in a "holy tongue"), ethnicity, political pressures (aiming at establishing national unity; a language tradition is acknowledged as a powerful force within a nationalist movement), cultural pressures, economic pressures (which include commerce, advanced science and technology: the idea is that not all languages have modern technological vocabulary and it is more rational to adopt a language such as English for this purpose), the mass media (e.g., if there is no media in a particular language, there will be strong pressure to learn another language which is better provided), legal pressures (lack of the official language can often become the basis for discrimination), military pressure (desirability to use one common language)” (Spolsky 1978: 53-63). In India, as in other linguistically and culturally pluralistic societies, the position of English is determined by various political, cultural and social considerations. English as a symbol of modernity for elites and Hindu-intellectuals-at the same time, English is also available for Dalits and other downtrodden people from setting-out of the socio-cultural exploitations and hegemony. In addition, the implicit intentions are always towards English education among middle-class for so many socio-cultural and political reasons and compulsions. Due to the colonialism, globalization and IT revolution, in the process, in which, the Indian languages are confronting several issues where it is necessary to make many considerations to bring at the mainstream at least in the local context. The issues and problems related to languages are not just linguistic problems; they are also socio-cultural conflicts and political issues. Therefore, it is very significant to discuss now the position of Kannada in the globalization context. Despite some priorities the very strange development has taken place is, demanding classical status for Kannada- it is very difficult to judge that how for it is relevant to declare a particular one, as a classical language in a multilingual situation. In the Info-Age and IT-revolution, the priorities must set as pro-common people not for specific group of people at least for near future, where as English has all the characteristics that make it likely to remain the dominant worldwide language, then also it has become a liberating force for colonized and hegemonic-class of people. Mark Tully (1997:161-162) points out that the elitist status of English in India creates problems for the economic development because that means that the education of the mass of people will be ignored. He argues that the solution for the situation would be that the spread of English throughout India would be encouraged so that it would become a "genuine link language of the country, not just, as it is at present, the link language of the elite.” That is how; Globalization has also favored the growing need to learn foreign languages. This language learning, in order to contribute to peace, has to be accompanied by the transmission of the culture that is behind these languages. At least, there can also be a language, which promotes tolerance, diversity and peace among Indians.
4. Wider Communication: Is English For All?
The spread of English is a significant in its way as is the modern use of wider communication and Info-technology. Within a short span of time (Minor language in 1600 AD), the remarkable development of English is ultimately the result of between 17th to 20th century British success in conquest, colonization, and trade. Nowadays, it is also felt that with the winds of change setting in with globalization and the advancement in IT, the need to communicate in English has acquired greater importance. It is beyond doubt that English being a global tongue can function as a bridge between language barriers. Approximately 700 million speakers use it, by the bulk of the world mailing system and electronic information services (A.P.Andrewskutty:2002). The question arises is that will it possible for Indian languages to take a technological and economic leap, without this language in future. At this moment, it is very difficult to predict the position of Kannada or any other Indian languages, as we shall see; English is one of the several languages, which are promoted internationally in similar ways. This shall explore why English has become the dominant international language and how language pedagogy has contributed to its hegemony. As a result, English has also become a lingua- franca to the point that any literate educated person in a very real sense deprived if he does not know English. English is a colonial language, and it continued to be the official language after independence, virtually, in Indian States that were under British rule. In some cases, it was retained to avoid ethnic tensions; in all cases, it was retained because of its prestige and association with power. In contrast, the vernaculars were viewed as backward and inferior so were not developed. Students were made to feel ashamed of their mother tongue and punished for speaking it. In Karnataka, for example, speaking in vernaculars was forbidden in schools and punished (i.e. in convent schools). It is also felt that, today it is difficult to use indigenous languages because they have not been codified and standardized. Therefore, there is not a systematic curriculum as for as language texts and trained teachers are concerned in the vernaculars. Moreover, this has often been used as an excuse for not adopting the innovative and modern linguistic aspects in vernaculars in schools. Even the terms used to refer to vernacular languages are controversial. They include such terms as dialects, minority languages and undeveloped languages - all of which suggest that the languages are not rich in expression and are unsuitable for modern needs. The long-standing neglect of indigenous languages has resulted in the popular belief that they are incapable of imparting a modern education, including science and technology. The prestigious status of the English language and its dominant role in globalization, added to the absence of the political will to implement policies that promote the use of indigenous languages, have led to the almost complete marginalization of mother-tongue education in most of the Indian private schools. A lack of resource-producing and the multiplicity of indigenous languages have also responsible to this socio-linguistic problems. Indians speak 1652 distinct languages- Where as, English still holds control despite a policy of medium of instruction in mother tongues. However, UNESCO has made up firm decisions to encourage the indigenous languages in schooling, as for as human/linguistic rights are concerned. Nevertheless, all the time the promotion of local languages will remain merely rhetorical. In addition, English will continue to take the pride of place at the expense of local languages. Which is the main medium of instruction at the postgraduate level, and it is taught as a second language in all states of India. In such a linguistic crisis, how would it be possible to bring the native languages to the main stream or at the global level? It does not mean that Indian languages are not potential to grow but they are potential, due the lack of socio-political interests, they have not been implemented. However, it is significant that what Kachru (1986b:20) sees primarily three questions which continue to be discussed. The first question concerns the position of English in early and in higher education. The second question is concerned with the roles of the regional language, Hindi and English. The third question deals with the model of English which, presented to Indian learners, and how that presentation can be made uniformly and effectively. The Government of India has primarily been concerned with the first two questions, which are directly related to language planning at both the national and state levels. There are, yet, no acceptable answers to any of these questions (Kachru 1986b:20). It is therefore, not surprising that English is being used in most all in functional domains. English, today, is undoubtedly the most powerful and viable international lingua franca. It represents a bridge across languages and their speakers and, in this sense, it has made a significant contribution to the development of transnational, international, and global identities (A .hatoss & D. Cunningham: 2004). At the same time, this is necessary to note that English-speaking community does not constitute a speech community. Similarly, it cannot be a either linguistic or cultural identity marker. Every Indian asserts his identity either through native language or through indigenous cultural vitality/ethos, thus, this attitudinal feature reinforce to preserve the native linguistic and cultural identity even in the globalization process. From another less optimistic perspective, the worldwide dominance of English is causing much agonizing over fear of encroaching ‘westernization’. It is seen as threatening cultures and values (c.f.Phillipson2003, Skutnab Kangas: 2000). As it is already mentioned that English is not a colonial language anymore, therefore, we could able to protect and preserve our linguistic and cultural ethos and identities.
5. Linguistic Borrowings: Linguistic contestatory or accomodating
There is one more perception, which can be employed to understand language is linguistic borrowings. In the process of linguistic contact, it so happens that is its function as a cultural or sub-cultural indicator. This is reason enough to indicate the prevalence of the multifarious dialects in Kannada and even in English. A linguistic borrowing is a historical process in multilingual-multicultural situation. One influences another one at the same time, it will be reciprocal process in most of the cases. As for as Indian languages are concerned either they borrow (linguistic) lexical items, concepts from Sanskrit or from English language in general. It is also noticeable that, regarding literary and socio-cultural concepts, either registers or lexical items are normally borrowed from Sanskrit at the other hand, linguistic borrowings related to science, technology and social science are from English. In most of the cases, these borrowings would be nativized by just adding ‘u’ at the word final. There fore, it is felt by U R Ananthamurthy in the context of nativizing the place names like Bangalore will be bengalooru etc that, “The intention is that even a foreigner who visits the city will use a kannada-sounding word by calling the city Bengalooru. The ‘u’ vowel distinguishes our language, just like the ‘o’ in kolkata is distinct to Bengali. By adding the ‘u’, even words like chair-u and table-u become Kannada” (c.f. Desha Kaala: II vol: V by M S Shriram). At the other side K V Narayana suggests that,” words from English must be directly incorporated into the Kannada vocabulary is refreshing when seen against the banal literal translation of terms, which do not connote any thing naturally (c.f. The Hindu: 20-1-2006: Friday Review’). Sociologically and linguistically, one needs little instruction to understand how vocabulary is borrowed from dominant languages for specialist uses, inter-lingual communication, and new occupations and so on and so forth (Sudhakar Marathe) as for as borrowing is concerned in any given language is not based on government polices or language planning. It is a common phenomenon, as and when the given speech community requires a lexical item based on availability, they just do it. There are apprehensions that linguistic borrowing causes a language loss/shift. In addition to this, linguistic borrowing may replace language diversities, for instance, in Kannada, ‘maduve, vivaaha, lagna, and kalyana’ all the lexical items more or less indicate the same meaning, ‘marriage or wedding’. However, the prevalence usage is marriage. It often occurs in case of kinship terms like; cousin is one of the profoundly used lexical items in almost all the languages despite the native kinship terms. One thing can be noticed this day is the language, which was being used in the cerebral domains now it has also entered to expressive and private domains. There fore, the apprehensions are taking place among native speakers of India. Contrary to this argument, there are opinions regarding linguistic borrowings are; language must be ‘receptive’ and ‘adaptive’ for this, English is the best example, by nativizing loan/borrowed words from different languages- English has enriched its vocabulary. At the present situation, all the native languages of India is tend to adapt the structural entities of English language which means, word-formation, lexicalization etc for example –ization, and -able, jaagatikaraNa, (globalization) noDeble (seeable) and tinneble (eatable) respectively. Apart from this, there are other kinds of borrowings also are taking place; creating literary sense and concepts and lexical innovations, which may be called, as hybrid innovations are common phenomena.
6. Conclusion:
As it is argued, so for the position and appropriation of Kannada and English are in the context of local and global considerations are intend to explore very crucial linguistic and cultural realities. At one hand, it suggests that accepting English as a second language, there is no threat and at the other, due to the domination and hegemony of English, the indigenous languages are under endangerment. Keeping in mind these two arguments, one can raise a question that this dominant language was not under the control of any native elite guarding access to it (like Sanskrit was under the control of Brahmins and Persian under the Muslim elite). This gave the dominant language English the image of having open access through education and standing apart from other native dominant languages. [Dua: 1994 and Annamalai: 2004]. There fore, it is felt that, English came to be viewed as the language of rational and scientific (as opposed to religious) thought and material (as opposed to spiritual) progress. It came to be viewed as fulfilling a need for the elite to work together on their political and economic agendas... (Annamalai: 2004) that is why, today cautions against the English language acquiring a monopoly over the Internet and computer media, and said this would stifle the development and growth of Indian languages. Undoubtedly, it can be declared that English pre-dominates in the domain of information technology. None of the languages of world has got this much of privilege. The requirement of English in every domains itself is a threat. It is also spreading from cerebral domains to private and expressive domains. Unless and until English constitutes as a speech community in India, there is no threat, as for as socio-cultural entities are concerned. However, in the domain of Internet it pre-dominates its domination. There fore, even in the context of a net search on "Kannada literature" yields about 500,000 results. In fact, with some exceptions such as Tamil, Hindi and Bangla, hits for most Indian languages fall somewhere in this region. A similar search on "English literature" would give you close to 300 million results. Hardly surprising, considering how language is one of the most important markers of the digital divide. However, even as English is increasingly becoming the language of information technology, there are parallel efforts at bending it to suit the local needs. One such bridge-building effort is kannadasaahithya.com, a portal that has been putting Kannada literature on the global information network for five years now. Says Shekharpoorna, the editor of the portal: "Modern technology is immensely powerful. It can create, sustain or destroy. We must put our stamp on all major tools of modern technology in order to ensure that cultures, as well as the languages that sustain those cultures, are not swallowed up by the dominant language forces governing technology." It is very significant to quote that Harold F. Schiffman (1996), “As we have noted, language status management in post-colonial India has involved a policy, since 1950, of attempting to restrict the domains of English in India as a whole, where as in some linguistic states (such as Tamilnadu) the effort has been one of limiting the domains of Hindi and Sanskrit so that Tamil can recapture the domains elementary and secondary education, the media, and so forth. This regional policy, because English is perceived in some way as a ‘buffer’ against Hindi, which is perceived as greater threat linguistic survival for the Tamils. In other words, English is virus-protection. English will not, it is believed, invade the cell in the same way that Hindi might; English is .safe. In addition, prophylactic, and will protect the inner domains from invasion, remaining safely in the outer ones. Earlier I might have agreed with this; today, with global job markets and other ways that English can be not only a useful part of a South Asian person’s linguistic repertoire, but also indeed a vital part, I am not so sure.” This signifies very clearly that between English and regional languages of India have linguistic accommodation rather contestation. Therefore, many people speak English. However, many of these people do not speak English as their first language. In fact, they often use English as a lingua franca in order to communicate with other people who also speak English as a foreign language. At this point students often wonder what kind of English they are learning. Are they learning English as it spoken in Britain? Alternatively, are they learning English as it is spoken in the United States, or Australia? No, in fact, English is being spoken in three different modes like what Braj Kacru (1986) classifies; as a native language, as a second language and as a foreign language which means inner circle, outer circle and expanding circle respectively. Thus, in India English is being taught as a second language more than that India has constituted that its own variety of English that is called Indian English. Indians can assert their identities through this variety of English as an Indian where as in side the country, there are sub varieties in which they can assert their identities like kanglish, tanglish, hinglish etc.
References
1. Annamalai.E:2004: Nativization of English in India and its effect on multilingualism (151-162) - in journal of language and politics 3:1, John Benjamins publishing Company.
2. Anderson, B. (1990). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.
3. Andrewskutty.A.P:1996: Globalization and Language: A case study of Malayalam in IJDL vol VI, No 2
4. Kachru, Braj B. 1983. The Indianization of English: the English language in India. Delhi and New York: Oxford.
5.Kachru, Braj B. 1986. The alchemy of English: the spread, functions, and models of non-native Englishes Oxford and New York: Pergamon.
6. Cunningham, D and Hotoss, A: 2005 an International Perspective on Language Policies, Practices and Proficiencies. (Eds)Begrave: FIPLV.
7. David Crystal: 1997: English as a Global Language
Cambridge University Press
8. Desha Kaala: II vol: V: 2006
9. Dua: 1994: Hegemony of English. Maysore: Yashoda Publications
10. Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11. Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12. Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power. Harlow, UK: Longman.
13. Krishnaswamy.N & Lalitha Krishnaswamy : The Story of English, Foundation, Books
14. Mark Tully: 1997 :( 161-162. "English: an advantage to India?" In ELT Journal vol. 51 no. 2: 157-164
15. Narayana K V: 2005: Nammodane Namma Nudi, Lohia Prakashana
16. Ngugi wa Thiong’o. 1994. Decolonizing the Mind. The Politics of Language in African Literature. London and Portsmouth: James Currey Ltd. and Heinemann.
17. Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. Harlow, England: Longman.
18. Phillipson: 2003, English-Only Europe? Challenging Language Policy, Rout ledge
19. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20. Phillipson, R., & Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1997). Linguistic human rights and English in Europe.
21: Singer, M. (1972) Weak States in a World of Powers (Free Press: New York).
22.Skutnab Kangas: 2000 Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education—or worldwide diversity and human rights. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
23. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. 2000, Linguistic Genocide in Education - Or Worldwide
Diversity and Human Rights. Mahwah, N.J. and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
24. Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Phillipson, R. (Eds.). (1994). Linguistic human rights: Overcoming linguistic determination. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
25. Schiffman, Harold F. 1996. Linguistic Culture and Language Policy. New York and London: Routledge.
26. Spolsky 1978:. Educational Linguistics: an Introduction. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
27. The Hindu: 20-1-2006
28. Viswanathan, G. (1989). Masks of conquest: Literary study and British rule in India. New York: Columbia University Press
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Monday, December 04, 2006
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Language Use in Movies: The semiotic conditions
of possible understandings
Meti, Mallikarjun,
Sahyadri Arts college,
Kuvempu university,
Shimoga. metimallikarjun@yahoo.com
This paper intends to focus the understanding of a language use in movies in terms of ‘social semiotics’. The concept ‘social semiotics’ is a concept of the ‘multi-accentuality’of the sign at the centre of semiotic theory and it also tries to apply the other key concepts like ‘style shifting’-Anti-language and Anti-groups’ (Halliday: 1978) and ‘the transformation of experience in narrative’ (Labove: 1978) of the semiotic theory. These concepts usually draw another semiotic system to express the basic set of meanings.
The focus of this paper is the development of ways of understanding the characteristics of multi-modal texts. That concern entails two independent but related projects. One is the analysis of the major modals of representation, through which a particular text is realized, and which it is produced. The second is an attempt to understand the culturally and historically produced potentials of any one semiotic mode for making meaning. Our assumption is that specific modes- the visual, the gesture, musical sound, images, Metaphors”etc,-have potentials for making meanings and have limitations.
In film, “DHWEEPA”1, the character, Nagi-is the representation of feminist projected character. The film at the surface level, it might depict the story on ANECUT and
its related story. However, the real concern of the implicit representation of the story of screenplay, to show a feminist message to the audience. The other mode is insensitive to the realities of the Indian context. It is feminism without a history. “DHWEEPA” is very much a product of the men-dominated society she lives in. In fact, as she tries to protect her family and family members from the dangerous events. At the same time, at the end of the film her husband “GANAPATHIYAPPA” says that ‘niinu neap maatra, ellaa deevara Daye’ (everything happens, because of god’s grace, you are just namesake), this particular discourse tend to suggest, the way in which men-domination plays an important role in order to build an oriental discourse. The strength of the film lies in its patient unhurried exploration of the experience
of ‘Naagi’ from an appendage to the men-dominated set up to an individual. ‘Dhweepa’ also confronts other things which need to look into; such as the problem of sexuality, in the sense, Naagi’s husband Ganapatiyappa suspects‘Naagi’ ,with Krishna in sexual relation. This is what Kasarvalli makes a subtle feminist discourse. On the one hand, the image / metaphorical discourses. Such as the Mantapa, which creates a myth in this particular film, which Sita- Rama used to stay here and share their feelings. Consequently, Naagi and her husband often go there and share their feelings. Metaphorical discourses are becoming very important to punctuate the possible understandings of the movie. It is very much obvious to note at this point, in the film, ‘TABARANAKATHE’, the dialogue, “surya huTTataanoo muLugutaanoo goottaagatilla”-whether sun rises or sunsets, it reveals several possible meaning potentials or conversational involvement. i.e.Tabar, is in confused state of mind, whether freedom has come or not. In the sense, even after independence, the struggle for justice is still going on beyond the capacity. In this way, the film depicts the flash back in order to understand the society, the system, the bureaucracy, this is one these metaphorical extensions. It also confronts us to derive another possible meaning, whether this lights up or not in his life. Every film depicts images, metaphors, in multi accentual manner, which create a lot of meanings and meaning potentials in order to understand the particular texture. The structuralism of the filmic structure is, are which reveals different possibilities of understandings of the given discourse. In the sense, “Tabarana Kathe’’ is a protagonist film of a system of society, government, and bureaucracy. The mode of representations of the “Tabarana Kathe” are persisting in, moral evaluation of on occurrence, on action, or a psychological stance related to a set of events of the system.
Multi-modality is a phenomenon; it has always been the case that a text was realized through a number of modes of representation and communication. The film is now much more prominent as a form communication that it has been for several decades, the film, as text, is producing texts, which are Multi-modal. That is, producers of texts are making greater and more deliberate use of a range of representational and communicational modes, which co-occur within, are text. It has become impossible to know texts reliably by paying attention to speech language alone; it exists as one representational element in a text, which always multi-modal and it has to be understood in conjunction with all the other semiotic mode of the text.
‘Taayee Saheba’ reveals the process of the past, being rendered into the present in a manner that does not convert the past into a remote. Static entity that we have to represent in representations of in it (Manu: 2003) in fact, the past comes through in the film with a life of its own and actually portrays a vibrant cultural dynamics in its scheme that seems to suggest a movements into the future. The cultural landmark that helps are traces the growth of feminist awareness in our context. This “Taayi Saheba” is greatly enhanced by the kind of ambivalence they display towards social institutions and historical situations and not because of the resolutions they offer-in any case this film does not resolve anything in simplistic terms. The common sense has come under sustained attack from two sources, one theoretical and, an empirical. The form originated in the broad field of post-modernism, with the writings of Derrida(1976) particularly important ‘Feminist-Theory’ has lunched a sustained attack on ‘logo centrism’ as a major effects of support for the structures of patriarchy representation of the ‘Taayisaheba’,brings a feminist awareness. ‘Taayisaheba’ extrapolate an experience of ‘reality’ from out of the world of ‘realism’ stated differently; it means that empirical reality is transformed into an ‘experimental reality’. Meaning potential is defined not in terms of the mind but in terms of the culture; not as what the speaker knows, but as what he can do- in the special sense of what he can do(abstract) linguistically(halliday:1978). Meaning potentials are very significant features in understanding the texture of a given film. In the film, ‘Taayisaheba’, ‘Waade’ (a palace) signifies the realities of the role of NARMADA, the way in which she suppresses her motherhood and sexuality, in the sense, APPAASAAHEBA has fathered by CHANDRA of a female child, MANJULI. This oriental discourse is the symbol of masculine authority and famine sexuality of feudal-world system. The irony of situation cannot be missed. APPAASAAHEBA has a mistress, and there by, an out let for his desires, where as NARMADA, the woman in a patriarchal setup, can only have a haranguing from the same man when she attempts to fulfill her physical needs(Manu:2003). Potential, what he can do, in the special sense of linguistics, what he/she can mean and avoiding the additional complication of a distinction between doing and knowing. The meaning potential can then be represented as a systematic option in meaning which may be varied in the degree of their specificity-in what has been called delicacy.
Considering the images, metaphors in its social context, then, we can describe them in broad terms as a behavior potential; and more specifically as a meaning potential, where meaning is a form of behaving. This leads to the notion of representing the experience of persons, regional and cultural identity, consequently, rich local text. This given rich local text depicts the individual experience in transforming the universal experience. The narrative structure of ‘TAAYISAAHEBA’ is unfolding the historical conflicts in order to understand the interplay between the past and present. In the post-structuralism’s point of view, the notion decent erring becomes very important for interpreting the feminist insights of the modern time. In the sense, ‘TAAYISAAHEBA’ could be a symbol of cultural and political freedom. The symbolic representation of the images and metaphors, are very much relevant in this film. The creativity, which underlies the sensibility of modern time in this film, is very relevant.
This paper’s focus is on textuality, on the social origins and production of text as much as on the understanding of text\film. We call this practice social semiotics to draw attention to all forms of meaning as a social activity, set in the field of politics; in structures of power; and subject therefore, to the contestations arising out of the differing interests of the markers of texts. This leads to one telling difference between social semiotics and conventional forms of semiotics. These interests of the marker of a sign lead to a sign to a motivated relation between signifier and signified, and therefore to motivated signs in this sense, in the film ‘TAAYISAAHEBA’, BAALASAAHEBA, the representative of the last generation tries to wash away the smell of perfume by washing his hands in the pond and then increasing desperation tries to rub damp soil on his hands hoping it would erase the perfume. However, it clings like the tangled web of money, power and masculinity, which constitutes the feudal-world. Defeated, he curls up in a foetal position, like a tired and helpless child. The other image is the smile, which light up ‘TAAYISAAHEBA’s face when the lawyer tells her about the possibility of freeing BAALASAAHEBA from the curse of his feudal inheritance (Chenni: 2003).
In a response, style shift, there is a regular association between language and social situation. The entry of outsiders to a local group, for example in a particular film, the character, and cook speaks a variety of language that reflects the attitudes of udapi\mangulerian, bhatts. However, this style signifies the derogator’s attitudes. In the film, Chamandudi. The dialect, which is spoken by Chena and his community, is representation of the Dalita community where as in the fiction; the sub-standard dialect is being used. This style shift takes place in this movie in order to bring out the linguistic, cultural\ethnic identity. This identity is something to do with the attitudes of anti-group and anti-language (Remember, sangybyala and ondandondu kaaladalli).
In understanding the cinemas’ communication in a particular language, the first task is to define at least tentatively the speech repertoire to be studied, attempt to gain some understandings of its social organization and other salient aspects of the culture, and formulate possible hypotheses concerning the diverse ways these socio-cultural phenomenon might relate to patterns of communication. It is crucial that the filmic description of communicative events and speech acts are discussed based on semiotic conditions in understanding the film. Because film is not a story-telling process, it is a constriction of metaphors, images and discourse building.
of possible understandings
Meti, Mallikarjun,
Sahyadri Arts college,
Kuvempu university,
Shimoga. metimallikarjun@yahoo.com
This paper intends to focus the understanding of a language use in movies in terms of ‘social semiotics’. The concept ‘social semiotics’ is a concept of the ‘multi-accentuality’of the sign at the centre of semiotic theory and it also tries to apply the other key concepts like ‘style shifting’-Anti-language and Anti-groups’ (Halliday: 1978) and ‘the transformation of experience in narrative’ (Labove: 1978) of the semiotic theory. These concepts usually draw another semiotic system to express the basic set of meanings.
The focus of this paper is the development of ways of understanding the characteristics of multi-modal texts. That concern entails two independent but related projects. One is the analysis of the major modals of representation, through which a particular text is realized, and which it is produced. The second is an attempt to understand the culturally and historically produced potentials of any one semiotic mode for making meaning. Our assumption is that specific modes- the visual, the gesture, musical sound, images, Metaphors”etc,-have potentials for making meanings and have limitations.
In film, “DHWEEPA”1, the character, Nagi-is the representation of feminist projected character. The film at the surface level, it might depict the story on ANECUT and
its related story. However, the real concern of the implicit representation of the story of screenplay, to show a feminist message to the audience. The other mode is insensitive to the realities of the Indian context. It is feminism without a history. “DHWEEPA” is very much a product of the men-dominated society she lives in. In fact, as she tries to protect her family and family members from the dangerous events. At the same time, at the end of the film her husband “GANAPATHIYAPPA” says that ‘niinu neap maatra, ellaa deevara Daye’ (everything happens, because of god’s grace, you are just namesake), this particular discourse tend to suggest, the way in which men-domination plays an important role in order to build an oriental discourse. The strength of the film lies in its patient unhurried exploration of the experience
of ‘Naagi’ from an appendage to the men-dominated set up to an individual. ‘Dhweepa’ also confronts other things which need to look into; such as the problem of sexuality, in the sense, Naagi’s husband Ganapatiyappa suspects‘Naagi’ ,with Krishna in sexual relation. This is what Kasarvalli makes a subtle feminist discourse. On the one hand, the image / metaphorical discourses. Such as the Mantapa, which creates a myth in this particular film, which Sita- Rama used to stay here and share their feelings. Consequently, Naagi and her husband often go there and share their feelings. Metaphorical discourses are becoming very important to punctuate the possible understandings of the movie. It is very much obvious to note at this point, in the film, ‘TABARANAKATHE’, the dialogue, “surya huTTataanoo muLugutaanoo goottaagatilla”-whether sun rises or sunsets, it reveals several possible meaning potentials or conversational involvement. i.e.Tabar, is in confused state of mind, whether freedom has come or not. In the sense, even after independence, the struggle for justice is still going on beyond the capacity. In this way, the film depicts the flash back in order to understand the society, the system, the bureaucracy, this is one these metaphorical extensions. It also confronts us to derive another possible meaning, whether this lights up or not in his life. Every film depicts images, metaphors, in multi accentual manner, which create a lot of meanings and meaning potentials in order to understand the particular texture. The structuralism of the filmic structure is, are which reveals different possibilities of understandings of the given discourse. In the sense, “Tabarana Kathe’’ is a protagonist film of a system of society, government, and bureaucracy. The mode of representations of the “Tabarana Kathe” are persisting in, moral evaluation of on occurrence, on action, or a psychological stance related to a set of events of the system.
Multi-modality is a phenomenon; it has always been the case that a text was realized through a number of modes of representation and communication. The film is now much more prominent as a form communication that it has been for several decades, the film, as text, is producing texts, which are Multi-modal. That is, producers of texts are making greater and more deliberate use of a range of representational and communicational modes, which co-occur within, are text. It has become impossible to know texts reliably by paying attention to speech language alone; it exists as one representational element in a text, which always multi-modal and it has to be understood in conjunction with all the other semiotic mode of the text.
‘Taayee Saheba’ reveals the process of the past, being rendered into the present in a manner that does not convert the past into a remote. Static entity that we have to represent in representations of in it (Manu: 2003) in fact, the past comes through in the film with a life of its own and actually portrays a vibrant cultural dynamics in its scheme that seems to suggest a movements into the future. The cultural landmark that helps are traces the growth of feminist awareness in our context. This “Taayi Saheba” is greatly enhanced by the kind of ambivalence they display towards social institutions and historical situations and not because of the resolutions they offer-in any case this film does not resolve anything in simplistic terms. The common sense has come under sustained attack from two sources, one theoretical and, an empirical. The form originated in the broad field of post-modernism, with the writings of Derrida(1976) particularly important ‘Feminist-Theory’ has lunched a sustained attack on ‘logo centrism’ as a major effects of support for the structures of patriarchy representation of the ‘Taayisaheba’,brings a feminist awareness. ‘Taayisaheba’ extrapolate an experience of ‘reality’ from out of the world of ‘realism’ stated differently; it means that empirical reality is transformed into an ‘experimental reality’. Meaning potential is defined not in terms of the mind but in terms of the culture; not as what the speaker knows, but as what he can do- in the special sense of what he can do(abstract) linguistically(halliday:1978). Meaning potentials are very significant features in understanding the texture of a given film. In the film, ‘Taayisaheba’, ‘Waade’ (a palace) signifies the realities of the role of NARMADA, the way in which she suppresses her motherhood and sexuality, in the sense, APPAASAAHEBA has fathered by CHANDRA of a female child, MANJULI. This oriental discourse is the symbol of masculine authority and famine sexuality of feudal-world system. The irony of situation cannot be missed. APPAASAAHEBA has a mistress, and there by, an out let for his desires, where as NARMADA, the woman in a patriarchal setup, can only have a haranguing from the same man when she attempts to fulfill her physical needs(Manu:2003). Potential, what he can do, in the special sense of linguistics, what he/she can mean and avoiding the additional complication of a distinction between doing and knowing. The meaning potential can then be represented as a systematic option in meaning which may be varied in the degree of their specificity-in what has been called delicacy.
Considering the images, metaphors in its social context, then, we can describe them in broad terms as a behavior potential; and more specifically as a meaning potential, where meaning is a form of behaving. This leads to the notion of representing the experience of persons, regional and cultural identity, consequently, rich local text. This given rich local text depicts the individual experience in transforming the universal experience. The narrative structure of ‘TAAYISAAHEBA’ is unfolding the historical conflicts in order to understand the interplay between the past and present. In the post-structuralism’s point of view, the notion decent erring becomes very important for interpreting the feminist insights of the modern time. In the sense, ‘TAAYISAAHEBA’ could be a symbol of cultural and political freedom. The symbolic representation of the images and metaphors, are very much relevant in this film. The creativity, which underlies the sensibility of modern time in this film, is very relevant.
This paper’s focus is on textuality, on the social origins and production of text as much as on the understanding of text\film. We call this practice social semiotics to draw attention to all forms of meaning as a social activity, set in the field of politics; in structures of power; and subject therefore, to the contestations arising out of the differing interests of the markers of texts. This leads to one telling difference between social semiotics and conventional forms of semiotics. These interests of the marker of a sign lead to a sign to a motivated relation between signifier and signified, and therefore to motivated signs in this sense, in the film ‘TAAYISAAHEBA’, BAALASAAHEBA, the representative of the last generation tries to wash away the smell of perfume by washing his hands in the pond and then increasing desperation tries to rub damp soil on his hands hoping it would erase the perfume. However, it clings like the tangled web of money, power and masculinity, which constitutes the feudal-world. Defeated, he curls up in a foetal position, like a tired and helpless child. The other image is the smile, which light up ‘TAAYISAAHEBA’s face when the lawyer tells her about the possibility of freeing BAALASAAHEBA from the curse of his feudal inheritance (Chenni: 2003).
In a response, style shift, there is a regular association between language and social situation. The entry of outsiders to a local group, for example in a particular film, the character, and cook speaks a variety of language that reflects the attitudes of udapi\mangulerian, bhatts. However, this style signifies the derogator’s attitudes. In the film, Chamandudi. The dialect, which is spoken by Chena and his community, is representation of the Dalita community where as in the fiction; the sub-standard dialect is being used. This style shift takes place in this movie in order to bring out the linguistic, cultural\ethnic identity. This identity is something to do with the attitudes of anti-group and anti-language (Remember, sangybyala and ondandondu kaaladalli).
In understanding the cinemas’ communication in a particular language, the first task is to define at least tentatively the speech repertoire to be studied, attempt to gain some understandings of its social organization and other salient aspects of the culture, and formulate possible hypotheses concerning the diverse ways these socio-cultural phenomenon might relate to patterns of communication. It is crucial that the filmic description of communicative events and speech acts are discussed based on semiotic conditions in understanding the film. Because film is not a story-telling process, it is a constriction of metaphors, images and discourse building.
metimallikarjun CONTRIBUTIONS OF WESTERN SCHOLARS TO KANNADA LINGUISTICS
CONTRIBUTIONS OF WESTERN SCHOLARS TO KANNADA LINGUISTICS
Meti Mallikarjun,
Kuvempu University,
Shimoga.
metimallikarjun@yahoo.com
This write up aims merely at introduction of western scholars’ contribution towards Dravidian linguistics, especially, Kannada linguistics. The debate on colonial impact on Indian culture and lives is still going on, however, in this context, the colonial impact, in fact, is taken for granted in order to understand the western’s contributions to the development of Indian linguistics (i.e. kannada).Therefore, I would like to introduce some of the western scholars who have laid foundation for the modern thinking, perspective and systematic approaches for looking at languages in order to substantiate their native / structural entities. The history of Indian languages which forms an integral part of history of general linguistics in general and in particular, as Dravidian linguistics in India traces back to some where in the first millennium B C, the first attempt was made by Mesopotamia, in old Babylonian times around 1600 B C (Jacobson:1974). Now we study the history of kannada linguistics, of course, in order to understand the contributions which are made by western scholars towards the development of kannada language and linguistics during the colonial and post-colonial periods, the interest which being shown by western linguists. There was time, once Indian grammatical tradition means it is nothing but Sanskrit grammatical tradition but, now this attitude has changed because of western scholars’ intervene, at the same time, Tholkopiam a old Tamil grammar proved that there is a different form of grammatical tradition from Sanskrit grammar in India or Indian grammatical tradition. There fore, the contributions of Christian missionaries to the development of Indian languages have great value. These missionaries laid foundation for the scientific and systematic study of Indian languages and literature. That is how; the contributions of western scholars have become very evident to understand the development of modern linguistics in the context of Kannada / any other in Dravidian languages. The systematic establishment of history of Kannada linguistics and literature has become for two major reasons; 1.political and 2.religion by the missionaries to strengthen their control over the common peoples’ live and culture. To do so, the missionaries tried at best to trace the origin, attitude and development of history of Kannada language and literature. As a result, ancient literature and language has become known and construction of history took place.
The contribution of the Christian missionaries to the process and modernization of Indian languages is a well-acknowledge fact which no serious student or researcher of Indian languages can afford to ignore. In addition to their missionary work, many scholar-priests devoted their lifetime to the study Indian languages, literature, and culture, left many monumental works for the future generations, and paved the way for language and development.
ROBERT CALDWELL (1814- 1891)
Of the many western intellectuals who served for the advancement of the dravidian languages, Bishop Dr Robert Caldwell stands fore most.
Bishop Robert Caldwell was born in a little village in Ireland. A few years after his birth, his parents returned to scotland their mother country and started life in the city of Glasgow. Till his sixteenth year, he lived with his parents and had his education. Later he joined an arts school in the neighbourhood and became an artist and won prizes. However, he was not satisfied with this profession; eager to serve God, he joined the london missionary society as a valunteer in his twentieth year. With its help he studied in the Glosgow Universitry and obtained the degree of Bachelor of Arts.
While he was a student, the study of languages was highly praised in Europe. The idea that by studing languages, one could know many facts in the history and life of people, found a place in the hearts of learned men. It was then that research in languages was done in a systematic way. In those days, the Germans advanced in this department. Experts in this department were rare in English Universities.but Sir Daniel sand ford , the professor of Greek in Glasgow University was an authority in comparative philology and induced his students and helps them to study the good qualities of other languages. Caldwell who was naturally interested in this department, decided to serve the department if he got a chance through the goodwill of this professor.
After his university education in 1837, Caldwell was selected by the London missionary society. and sent to south India for doing religious work .while coming to India, on the way he met a person in the ship who became friendly, he was Charles Philip brown who was the renowned scholar in Telugu,with his help, Caldwell able to understand the important aspects of Sanskrit and Telugu.
BISHOP ROBERT CALDWELL: A Pioneer in Dravidian Linguistics
Bishop Robert Caldwell (1814- 1891), author of ‘A Comparative Grammar of Dravidian or South Indian Family of Languages’ was a missionary who came to India as a member of the London Mission Society. Caldwell’s Comparative Grammar on Dravidian languages established the Dravidian as an independent family of languages. It proves that these languages are genetically different from Sanskrit and other Indo- Aryan tongues. When thoughts like ‘South Indian Languages are interrelated’, they did not emerge from Sanskrit and so on are substantiated by systematic analysis and investigation of Dravidian languages by Robert Caldwell. Because, there was a notion among traditional grammarians of India and abroad that “All Dravidian languages were emerged from Sanskrit and fit it”. Though, even before Caldwell, scholars like Rasmus Rask, Francis Ellis Whyte and Max Muller did point out that the Dravidian was an independent family, it was Caldwell’s work that established this beyond doubt and brought this to the attention of scholars all over the world. Characterized by a scientific approach, a large wealth of language data, widest possible coverage and intimate knowledge of the Dravidian languages, his comparative grammar won instant recognition and approval of scholars. This, the wake of Caldwell brought about a fundamental and revolutionary paradigm shift in the study of Indian languages, especially, of Dravidian languages. The belief that Sanskrit was the mother of Indian languages was shattered. Caldwell proved beyond doubt that language like Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam and Tulu etc are structurally different, and belong to a different family of languages. In addition, this work stimulated wide interest in Dravidian languages, and Dravidian studies emerged as a specialized field of knowledge. Caldwell is deservedly called the father of Dravidology. Nearly 150 years after its first publication, his comparative grammar continues to be the most consulted and studied work in Dravidian linguistics.
Bishop Robert Caldwell contributed a lot to Tamil both in language and literature, where as, it is less, comparatively Tamil to other Dravidian languages, of course, it is a great contribution, one con not deny it. However, it is necessary to present some of the important aspects of and about monumental works of Caldwell, viz A Comparative Grammar of Dravidian or South Indian Languages.
After 16 years of religious work, Caldwell left for England in 1854 and stayed there for 16 months during which period he wrote the Comparative Grammar. Even during these 16 months, he was immersed in religious work and the monumental Comparative Grammar was finished in a very short time. In recognition of this great research work, the Glasgow University conferred on him an LLD degree. In 1873, Caldwell returned to England for the second time and stayed for two years. During this time, he revised his book adding the material that he had collected during the 19 years since its first publication. The second (revised) edition was published in 1857. Towards the end of his life, due to failing health, Caldwell retired from active religious service and settled at Kodaikanal where he built a church in 1886. He had been ordained as Bishop in 1877. ‘History of Tirunelveli District’, Caldwell’s another great contribution to the south Indian studies was published in 1881
A Comparative Grammar of Dravidian or South Indian Family of Languages is a monumental work touching on such diverse aspects as the antiquity of the Dravidian family, affinities of the Dravidian family, Indo-Aryan and Dravidian relations, phonology, morphology and syntax of Dravidian element in Indo-Aryan speeches and Dravidian loan words in Sanskrit. Caldwell knew intuitively many linguistic principles formulated much later by modern linguists. His suggestions on etymology of numerals is remarkably close to the conclusions reached years after by Morris Swadesh who made a sweeping study of the homothetic aspects of languages. While Caldwell provides detailed evidence for the antiquity and
Independence of the Dravidian family, he is extremely objective in his statements and seeks to glorify his subject of study. Majority of Caldwell’s insights into the structure and affinities of the Dravidian were corroborated by the evidence from later linguistic research.
In the introduction to his work, Caldwell discusses the origin use of the term Dravidian that came to be the accepted name of the language family after Caldwell’s use of it. Before this, the languages were called Tamilian or south Indian languages. Following this, Caldwell enumerates the Dravidian languages known during his time. This included six cultivated languages and six tribal languages. Tamil, Kannada (canarese), Telagu, Malayalam, Tulu, and Kodagu (Coorgi) are Caldwell has cultivated languages. ToDa, Kota, Gond, KhonD, Rajmahal (Malto) etc are the tribal speeches listed by him. He also knew about the Dravidian elements, which found in Brahui, but has not included this language in his language list.
Based on the comparative study of sixty words, comprising the basic vocabulary of Sanskrit and Dravidian, Caldwell for once and all proved that the Dravidian languages are not related to Sanskrit. Dravidian-Scythian relations, antiquity of Tamil and Dravidian-Indo-Aryan relations are the other topics discussed by him in his introduction.
In the first part following the introduction, Caldwell describes the alphabets and phonology of Dravidian. The three types of scripts in vague in South Indian and the relation with North-Indian scripts are elaborated. The phonemes found in Dravidian, their variations in different contexts and borrowal of cerebral sounds into Sanskrit are also discussed. In section 2, the agglutinative characters of Dravidian and on analysis of verbal and nominal roots of Dravidian are attempted. In section 3, the noun, gender, number, and cases of Dravidian, adjectives and their derivation from nominals are analyzed. Section 4 deals with numerals, section 5 deals with pronouns, section six deals with verb. In the last section, glossarial affinities of Dravidian are discussed.
Caldwell has explicitly stated that the comparative study of a family of languages is the study of ‘comparison of the grammatical principles and forms of the various Dravidian languages in the hope of contributing to more thorough knowledge of (a) their primitive structure and (b) distinctive character’. This is first study in which Caldwell has compared Dravidian languages with other family of languages of Asia and Europe to establish the distinctive character of the Dravidian languages.
A Bibliography of Caldwell’s Books (Related to only Kannada).
Caldwell, R. 1856 (rep. 1961). A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Family of Languages. Madras: University of Madras.
REV. F. KITTEL (1832- 1903)
Rev.F.Kittel was a protestant Christian born at Rooster Hape in North-West Germany on April 7 1832 as a son of church official. After his school education, he went to Switzerland where he entered the services of Basel mission. At the young age of 21, he came to Dharwar as a missionary in 1853. In addition, later on he moved to Mangalore. Nothing much is known about his early years in Karnataka and about his study of Kannada language and literature. However, within 20 years, Kittel acquired mastery over Kannada, in addition to proficiency in Sanskrit, Persian, Tamil, Konkani and Marathi. In addition, he worked in various places like Dharwar, Hubli, Anandapura, Mangalore and Mercara. It was his in Mercara that he spent most of his stay, as the weather was suited him. During the first twenty years of his stay, he learnt Kannada, Sanskrit, Marathi, Tamil, Konkani and Persian. During this particular period, like other missionaries, Kittel wrote books on bible literature and school textbooks. His bible literature covers translations of bible, poems composed by him on the bible, bible stories and other religious literature. Among school textbooks, his Kannada grammar, school dictionaries, Kannada poems, history books and books on carnatic music, are important and those were published at the request of the department of public instruction, Government of Madras.
Rev. F. Kittel, though a missionary like others in the beginning working towards Christianity, later on , he did not study the language, culture and society of region only to achieve his missionary goal. Rather he developed great interest and love for the Kannada language and people of Karnataka. He made in depth study of the ancient manuscript and classics written by ancient Kannada scholars. He involved himself with the natives to understand their day-to-day language, culture, religion and traditions intimately. As a result, he was published many research and creative works in relation with linguistics and literature.
Kittel’s work and its impact on Dravidology:
Kittel made good use of his assignments: from 1860’s he started publishing extensively, including a considerable number of articles in research journals likes the Indian Antiquary and the journal of the German oriental society. He also authored a large number of Christian tracts and textbooks (see bibliography). From the beginning of the 1870’s Kittel had plans to write other Kannada grammar and dictionary, and from 1877 onwards, he devoted himself to this task nearly exclusively. These works substantiate Kittel’s linguistic and literary talents in Kannada language.
Rev. F. Kittel’s most significant writings on Kannada language are;
1. “Nagavarmana Chandhassu” (i.e. that Nagavarma’s ‘Canarese Prosody’). It is the ‘Naagavarmaa’s Chhandoombudhi’ a Kannada text on prosody was published by him with an elaborate introduction containing a historical out-line of Kannada literature.
2. Kittel is another significant work on Keeshiraaja’s ShabdamaNidarpaNa (1872), the most authentic classical grammar of Kannada. He edited this classical grammar by giving English interpretation and illustrations to every ‘sutra’ of ShabdamaNidarpaNa wherever it is necessary.
Kittel published his magnum opus, the Kannada-English Dictionary in 1894 after twenty years of meticulous work. In addition, Kittel became an authoritative on grammar and dictionary, which paved the way for the standardization and modernization of the Kannada grammar. Kittel collected the material for this Kannada-English Dictionary from 1871 to 1877 living in Karnataka. For this compilation of Kannada-English Dictionary, Kittel has used 18 literary works of old Kannada, 18 of middle Kannada, 4 of modern Kannada, 5 Dravidian dictionaries, 4 Sanskrit dictionaries, 1Marathi dictionary for the collection of lexical data and illustrations (M.Bhat:1984 ). At the same time, Kittel has collected various colloquial forms, idioms, regional forms, usages, citations, proverbs and possible senses of a given lexical item. Kittel might have been courageous to take up the project of bilingual dictionary mainly because he had a comprehensive understanding not only of the structure and function of Kannada, but also the syntactic and semantic (including select ional restrictions ) lexical formative in these languages.
A voluminous work of 1,762 pages was published in 1894; it is also a treasury of Kannada idioms and proverbs (nuDigaTTu and gaade). Another important feature of this dictionary is the use of thick fonts for native (desya) Kannada words of Dravidian origin and thin font for the words borrowed from Sanskrit and other sources. The utility of such a method followed by Kittel for researchers as well as common people is quite evident. Kittel tried to examine and write every word himself (1894: XXii) in to decide on distinctions he followed only trust-worthy and authentic manuscripts. Meanings given by the ancient and modern native writers were properly assessed and represented suitably, interestingly, Kittel states, the compiler’s aim has been to raise his work, as for as possible to the level of modern scholarship, avoiding the creation of such difficulties as con not easily be overcome by intelligent beginners’ (1894:XXV). Kittel tried to give good care of loan words borrowed by Sanskrit from Kannada and vice versa (1894: XXXI-LXIII). In this dictionary, cross-references have been given for variant forms. Moreover, cognates in other Dravidian languages are given after the meaning of the word in English. Similarly, all ‘tadbhavas’ were related to their Sanskrit origins and words of English language commonly used in Kannada are treated. Words of non-Dravidian origin have also been traced to their source. At the same time, all these special features, this made it an outstanding work of Rev. F. Kittel.
It is interesting to note that Kittel was both lexicographer and grammarian. In fact, there seems to be logic about it. His interest to become both will have to be appreciated in the light of a mutual dependence or interdependence of ‘lexicon’ and ‘grammar’ which is of first class importance (Zgusta:1971:18) in modern theoretical thinking in linguistics, especially in transformational grammar. More than grammar lexicography is an activity in which tradition plays a great role (Zgusta: 1971:18). There fore, Rev. F. Kittel could able to bring a grammar on Kannada in 1903 entitled “A Grammar of the Kannada Language”- this present volume of grammar is chiefly based on Keeshiraaja’s ShabdamaNidarpaNa, the terminology of this his grammar is simple, and fit for the three dialects of Kannada viz ancient, medieval and modern. At the same time, Kittel’s reliance on the ancient, medieval and modern dialects of Kannada in his grammar is indicative of his intentions on historical validation (Andrewskutty: 1998). Other than the above-discussed works, there are some more significant works and research papers on epigraphy, manuscripts, literature, Granthsampaadane, culture, language and society, most of which appeared in the journals ‘Indian Antiquary’ and other various Indian and German news papers and magazines.
The following list of works of Rev.F.Kittel can witness the outstanding contributions to the Kannada language and literature. Writings by Rev.F.Kittel lists 63 including both books and articles, these books and articles can be classified in different headings to the subject and content.
1) Bible and other writings
2) Coorgs, their language, social customs and superstitions
3) Dravidian language;
a) Meaning and derivation of certain Dravidian words
b) Dravidian numerals.
c) Transcription of Dravidian scripts
d) Dravidian philology
4) Indian prosody and poetry
5) Inscriptions
6) Kannada language
a) Kannada Dictionary
b) Kannada Grammar
c) Kannada Teaching
d) Kannada literature
7) Karnataka music
8) Lingayata literature
9) School textbooks
10) Translations
11) Rev.F.Kittel’s writings in newspapers and literary magazines.
Kittel’s contributions to Kannada are great in many other respects. He was an able scholar to do a lot of work in the area of linguistics, literature, theology, culture, and society.
EMENEAU.M.B (1904- )
Prof. Murry Barnson Emeneau (1904- ) is an outstanding and a renowned scholar in the field of Dravidian studies, Sanskrit and general linguistics. He was born in Canada on Feb.28th, 1904. Prof. Emeneau completed his 100th year on Feb.2004. Prof. Emeneau, through his extremely varied and prolific studies and writings on Dravidian studies ,Sanskrit , general linguistics as well and pioneering field work on unrecorded tribal speeches, Emeneau became one of well known indologists of previous and present century. The name of Prof. M.B.Emeneau is now synonymous with the concept of the great linguistic convergence that defines south Asia (U.N.Singh:2004).
Prof. Emeneau received a B.A. from the Dalhousie University, Halifax in 1923 and one from Oxford as Rhodes Scholar in 1926. He studied Sanskrit, Latin and Greek for his bachelor degree courses and studied under eminent scholars like Franklin and Edgerton and Edger H. Sturtevant. He took an M.A. from Oxford in1931 and PhD from Yale University in 1935. From 1931-1935, he studied Linguistics and Anthropology under Edward Sapir, a pioneer scholar of modern linguistics. Prof Emeneau started out as a Sanskritist and for his PhD; he edited “Vetaalapanchavimshati”, a Sanskrit work. Emeneau taught Latin (1926-1931) and Anthropology (1938-1939) at the Yale University, and then Sanskrit and general linguistics at the University of California, Berkley (1940-1946). From 1946 onwards, he was a full professor and also the chair of the Department of Linguistics (1953-1959) as well as Department of Classics. Emeneau continued teaching there until 1971. After 1971, Emeneau was made Professor Emeritus of Sanskrit and general linguistics, and he also served as president of the linguistic society of America in 1949.
Professor M B Emeneau’s Contribution and Achievements:
Prof. Emeneau is an exemplary scholar in a number of disciplines– Anthropology, Indology and Linguistics. He is also been among a rare tribal linguist who works on both on Dravidian as well as on Indo-Aryan languages. It was during 1935-1938 that Emeneau visited India and conducted field work on a number of tribal languages like toDa, koTa, koDagu and kolami for bringing out the research in the areas of comparative Dravidian, Areal linguistics , Ethnography etc. Emeneau’s publications include his extensive work on Dravidian linguistics, Sanskrit and India as a linguistic Area are original research. In addition to the volumes such as toDa songs, toDa grammar and texts, koTa texts, kolami: a Dravidian language. More than these work he compiled A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary with T. Burrow (1909-1986), is another outstanding Indologist. In addition, most recently came that Sanskrit studies: selected papers (edited by B.A.Van Nootan), Language and Linguistic area (essays: selected by Anwar S. Dil). Linguists have referred to his paper “India as a Linguistic Area” as a classic paper. A statement by K.R. Norman, his worthy of being recalled here , although the phrase ‘linguistic area’ is in common use among linguists. It is interesting to note that it was only invented in 1943 by H.V. Velton as a translation of the German term ‘sprachbund’, and its use did not become wide spread until Emeneau included it in the title of a paper 1956.
In the area of Dravidian linguistics, Emeneau’s contributions fall mainly under four categories:
1) The description of non-literary
2) Comparative interpretation of descriptive data of individual languages
3) Comparative Dravidian, involving a comparison of all languages of the Dravidian family.
4) Theoretical work on structural borrowing and linguistic area hypothesis
5) Identifying and reconstructing the etymological resource of all languages of Dravidian family.
Emeneau’s descriptions and interpretations of Dravidian languages served as ideal models for the later generation of linguists. His analysis of Dravidian languages data still remains authentic. On Kannada, Emeneau’s the most notable works are; Dravidian etymological dictionary (with T.Burrow), comparative phonology (1977), the south Dravidian languages (1966), Kannada Kamp, Tamil Kampan: Two proper nouns (1983) etc. In addition to that, the monumental work that has a place among the great lexicographic work of the world is an immense contribution to Dravidian studies is A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary: T. Burrow and M.B.Emeneau, reprint 1998, XXIX, 609P, ISBN 81-215-0856-8.
This work is a complete and systematic record of completely available Dravidian vocabulary. It covers four major literary languages viz, Kannada, Tamil, Telugu and Malayalam and some other fourteen minor languages, a considerable amount of material that is here published for the first time. The dictionary is etymologically arranged and the vocabulary is classified into 4572 numbered items. Complete indexes for each language follow. The meanings are given as exhaustively as is practicable in such a work, so that the full range of the application of the each word becomes evident. The dictionary is with some exceptions, confined to the native Dravidian elements to the exclusion of loans from Indo-Aryan. It is the first work of its kind that has been attempted, and it will be an indispensable tool to all those engaged Dravidian linguistics and to the Indian Philology.
A Bibliography of Professor M B Emeneau’s Books and Papers (Related to only Kannada).
1954: Linguistics Prehistory, PAPS, 98 P 282-92 University of California press
1955: Dialectology and comparative linguistics, University of California press
1955: India and Linguistics, JAOS 75, P 145-215
1956: India as a Linguistic Area, Language 32, P 3-16
1962: Dravidian and Indian Linguistics, University of California press
1962: Bilingualism and Structural Borrowing, PAPS 106, P432-42
1962: An Indo-Iranian areal isogloss in Dravidian and Indian linguistics, University of California press, Berkeley
1965: India and Historical Grammar, Annamalai University, Tamil Nadu
1965: Diffusion and evolution comparative linguistics, Annamalai University Tamil Nadu No 5 P1-24
1966: The south Dravidian languages, International seminar on Tamil studies, Kuala Lumpur in April 1966
1967: Dravidian Linguistics, Ethnology and Folk tales, collected papers, Annamalai University, Tamil Nadu
1968: Dravidian and Indo-Aryan: The Indian linguistic Area, conference on Dravidian civilization, Austin, Texas-Decb-1968
1969: Onomatopoetic in the Indian linguistic Area, Language-45 P 274-99
1971: Collected Papers, Annamalai University, Tamil Nadu
1971: The Indian linguistic area-symposium
1974: The Indian linguistic area, Revisited, IJDL-3 P92-132
1978: Review of defining a linguistic area: south Asia, Colin P Masica, Language 54
1961: with Thomas Burrow: A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary, Oxford
THOMAS BURROW (1909-1986)
Thomas Burrow (1909-1986) was an outstanding scholar of Dravidian and Sanskrit languages, who died on June 8, 1986 at the age of 76. He was boden professor of Sanskrit in the University Oxford from 1944 to 1976 and a distinguished international authority on Dravidian languages of India. Thomas Burrow was born on June 29, 1909 in the village of Leck in north Lancashire. He received his early education at Queen Elizabeth grammar school, Kirkby Lonsdale, from which he won scholarships to Christ’s college, Cambridge, in 1927. At Cambridge, he graduated in classics, having specialized in comparative philology, which in itself created a taste for Sanskrit studies and Dravidian languages as well. Prof Thomas Burrow subsequently read for the oriental languages (notably Sanskrit, Pali and Prakrits). Then followed three years of research, one at the school of oriental studies in London, after which he returned to Cambridge. In 1935, he was awarded his doctorate at Cambridge for a thesis on language of the ‘KarosThi’ documents discovered in central Asia by Sir Aurel Stein earlier in the century. From 1935 -1937 he was a research fellow at Christ’s college and from 1937-1944 he was Assistant keeper in Dept. of oriental printed books and Manuscripts at the British Museum. There he took up the Dravidian languages with which few Sanskritists have been acquainted. In 1944, he was appointed Boden professor of Sanskrit at Oxford and keeper of Indian instate, a post that carried with it a Fellowship at Balliol. He retired from professorship in 1976 but continued to hold Emeritus Fellowship of Balliol College, Oxford, until his death.
Thomas Burrow’s Contribution and Achievements:
Prof Thomas Burrow was well known for his extensive work in comparative Dravidian linguistics and Dravidian Etymological Dictionary (DED) in association with M B Emeneau, is another renowned scholar in Dravidian studies. He was a scholar of multidirectional specialization within the broad field of language study.
Thomas Burrow’s contribution to Kannada (Dravidian studies) is both extensive and erudite. In the field of Dravidian studies, Burrow contributed mainly to three areas:
1. Comparative Dravidian
2. Study of the interrelations between Dravidian and Indo-Aryan and
3. Study and description of tribal speeches
Burrow’s major published papers (until 1968) were collected in collected papers on Dravidian Linguistics (1968), published by Annamalai University.
Burrow’s one of the major contributions is Dravidian Etymological Dictionary in collaboration with M B Emeneau (DED: 1961; DEDs: 1968, DEDR: 1984 and Reprint in 1998). He was so much devoted and engrossed in this monumental work that he could recall, by memory, all the time under any particular etyma from the DED. He has not only planned, organized and executed the publication of these volumes along with his distinguished colleague, but has also incorporated lexical items from his field notes on the non-literary Dravidian languages of central India which inclusion has substantially enhanced the depth of coverage in collaboration with the late S. Bhattacharya. The Dravidian Etymological Dictionary is a monumental contribution to Comparative Dravidian Studies. This is an essential tool to any student or researcher of Dravidian working on any aspect of phonology or grammar of the Dravidian languages. This work for the first time brought together cognates from most of the Dravidian languages. Collections of cognates from the major four written languages were done in a limited way even earlier to the DED. However, DED attempted a thorough collection of cognates from literary as well as tribal languages and the compilation was much more systematic and scientific than earlier ones. The DED remains the most basic source for Dravidian Comparative Studies. Cognates grouped under 5,557 lemmas (4,572 in the 1961’s edition). The arrangement of the etyma groups follows the Tamil alphabets (from vowels to consonants i.e. a, aa, i, ii, u, uu, e, ee, ai, o, oo, au, k, k_, n~, c, n, T, N, t, d, p, m, y, r, l, v, R, L, RR, N). Within each order of the Dravidian Etymological Dictionary is moving from south to north, as well as the sub groupings. The second edition contains, etyma from Tamil, Kannada, Malayalam, kurak etc. this DED is the out come of twenty years of work by the compilers, other than, the major lexicographic works of the four written languages and grammars, and word lists of tribal languages.
He published a series of Articles in the Bulletin of the school of oriental (and African) studies, London, under the serial title DRAVIDIAN STUDIES, in this series I-VII dealing with various aspects of Dravidian Phonology, genetic ties, between Dravidian loanwords in Sanskrit. He published two important papers in the transaction of the philological society in 1945 and 1946 formulating and applying a precise methodology for identifying the possible loanwords in Sanskrit. In DRAVIDIAN STUDIES I, II, III, V, VI, Burrow has tackled a number of difficult phonological problems which were either not systematically dealt with or were wrongly formulated earlier. In Dravidian studies I, he established that initial voicing could not be attributed to proto-Dravidian because of the irregular distribution of voiced stop in cognates between Tamil and Kannada on the one hand and Tamil on the other. Thus, he refuted the earlier proposal of Jules Block and Gadavarm. He advanced the following arguments:
1. A large percentage of works in Kannada Telugu beginning with voiced stops have no cognates in Tamil.
2. Where there are such cognates, Tamil and Malayalam have borrowed these from Kannada or Telugu.
3. Voicing in many individual words in Kannada and Telugu can be shown to secondary.
4. Where the correspondences are ancient, there is fluctuation between voiced and voiceless stops in different languages.
In Dravidian studies II, he attacked the problem of the alterations between i/e and u/o in south Dravidian and could show through internal reconstruction that, not all cases of i/u in Tamil and Malayalam and e/o in Kannada and Telugu were traceable to proto-Dravidian.
A Bibliography of Professor Thomas Burrow’s Books and Papers (Related to only Kannada).
Burrow. T. 1938: Dravidian Studies I, BSOAS, 9, 711-722
Burrow. T 1940: Dravidian Studies II, BSOAS, 10, 289-297
Burrow. T 1943: Dravidian Studies III, BSOAS, 11, 122-139
Burrow. T 1944: Dravidian Studies IV, BSOAS, 11, 328-356
Burrow. T 1945: Dravidian Studies V, BSOAS, 11, 595-616
Burrow. T 1946: Some loanwords in Sanskrit, TPS 1-30
Burrow. T 1947: Dravidian Studies VI, BSOAS 12, 132-147
Burrow. T 1948: Dravidian Studies VII, BSOAS, 13, 365-396
Burrow. T and Emeneau M B: 1961: A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary, Oxford.
WILLIAM BRIGHT (1928- )
William Bright (1928- ), Professor Emeritus of linguistics, University of California, Los Angels is reputed scholar in the field of Kannada linguistics, sociolinguistics and the languages of North America and South Asia. He edited the influential journal ‘Language’ for 22 years. The International Encyclopedia of Linguistics and Oxford Studies in Anthropological Linguistics edited by him are two monumental works. An outline of Kannada (1958) is his most important contribution to Kannada linguistics. William Bright presided over the 24 All India Conference of Dravidian Linguists at Kuppam in 1996.
William Bright was born in Oxnard, California on 1928. He graduated from Oxnard Union High School in 1945 and won competitative four-year college scholarship offered by Pepsi-cola Company. In addition, he entered university of California, Berkeley, as premedical student. In 1947, he changed major to Spanish; attended summer school in Mexico City, became interested in Nahualt (Aztec) language. As a result, he started taking linguistic courses at Berkeley with M B Emeneau and Mary Haas, switched to individual major in linguistics. In 1949, he completed his B A in Linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley. From there he started fieldwork in spring on Karuk language of northwestern California and attended LSA Linguistic Institute in summer at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. In addition, in 1950 he continued fieldwork on karuk during summer, after that in 1951 he participated in LSA Linguistic Institute in summer at Berkeley, passed qualifying examinations for linguistics- doctorate and began writing dissertation on Karuk. William Bright married Elizabeth Hallo Ron in 1952. Moreover, drafted into US Army; assigned to military Intelligence unit in Lohfelden, near Kassel, Germany. He returned to US in 1954 and discharged from Army, subsequently; he continued his work at Berkeley on dissertation and again attended LSA Linguistic Institute in summer at University of Chicago. Due to this, he was awarded his PhD in Linguistics on A Grammar of the Karuk Language, Berkeley in 1955. He accepted Rockefeller Foundation Fellowship and came to India for two years to teach linguistics at Decon College, Poona, and to do research on the colloquial variety of the Kannada in Bangalore. At the same time in 1956, he became interested in sociolinguistics through discussion with John Gumperz. In 1957, he returned to US; hired as linguist, school of languages, Foreign Service Institute, Dept. of state, Washington, DC where he taught Hindi, Urdu and French. In 1958 Susannah Bright, Daughter, born in Arlington, Virginia and he was hired in full as Assistant Professor of speech in the University of California, Berkeley for teaching English to foreign students. At the very next year in 1959, hired as Assistant Professor of Anthropology, VCLA for teaching Linguistics, Hindi, and Anthropology. He also taught Hindi in summer session in 1960 at the University of California, Berkeley. William Bright was promoted to Associate Professor of Anthropology at VCLA in 1962. Again, he continued his fieldwork on Yarok in 1963, taught Anthropology in summer school, University of Colorado, Boulder. At the same time, served one year as chair, committee on the Linguistics program, VCLA served one year as Abstracts editor of International Journal of American Linguistics. In addition, became contributing editor, Hand Book of Latin American Studies until 1966. In the mean time, became Review editor of International Journal of American Linguistics. In addition, he participated in seminar on Sociolinguistics at summer LSA Linguistic Institute, Indiana University, Bloomington. He also positioned many editorial positions to various journals. In 1967, he was in Central Institute of English, Hyderabad and University of Delhi on Ford Foundation Fellowship. In 1987, he completed his service as editor of ‘Language’. Moreover, he retired to status Emeritus Professor of Linguistics and Anthropology in 1988, became president, Linguistic Society of America in 1989 and in 1996 , president, DLA, more than , in 1997 he initiated Journal, written language and literacy , Benjamin’s, Amsterdam.
An Outline of Colloquial Kannada, this work describes Kannada structure taxonomically the Bangalore dialect of Kannada, which is spoken by educated Brahmans. However, it is the first descriptive grammar on Kannada which figer-outs the comprehensive structural entities of Kannada. Based on this study, one can acknowledge for establishing the descriptive model in the Kannada Linguistics.
A Bibliography of Professor William Bright’s Books and Papers (Related to only Kannada).
Bright, W. An Outline of Colloquial Kannada, Poona, 1958.
.................. ``Linguistic Change in Some Indian Caste Dialects," IJAL, 26, 3, 1960.
.................. ``Social dialect and language history," CA, 1, 1960.
.................. ``Maisuru kannadada samajika bhasa prabhedagalu," PK. 45, 3 (177), 1960.
…, O shanta Roa & Meera, Narvekar, spoke Kannada (lesson 1-12). Berkeley: centre for south Asian studies, Institute International Studies, University of California, 1960.
Bright, W. and Ramanujan, A.K. ``A Study of Tamil dialects," University of Chicago, 1962 (mimeographed).
.................. ``Sociolinguistic variation and language change," ICL 9, 1964.
Bright, W. Rau, Sh. and Narvekar, M. Spoken Kannada: Lessons 1-12, University of California, Berkeley, 1960 (mimeographed). [PL 4643 B72.]
Bright, William O. 1966. ``Dravidian Metaphony." Lg. 42:2.311-22.
Bright, William O. 1970: ‘Phonological Rules in Literary and Colloquial Kannada’ Journal of American Oriental Society. 90. 1:140-144
ANDRONOV. M. S (1931- )
Mikhail Segreevich Andropov (1931- ) is one of the pioneering figures in Dravidian studies in the erstalile USSR. And has made commendable contributions to Dravidian linguistics, especially, Kannada and Tamil linguistics in order to understand Dravidian studies. Andropov was mastered in the Devanagari alphabet as a school boy and his first love was Bengali in which he specialized at the Moscow Institute of oriental studies. He took his M.A in 1954 from this institute, submitting a thesis on the Dravidian elements in Bengali. He had already developed a strong liking for Tamil and begins to learn Tamil from the writings of pope, Arden and the Russian-Tamil scholars, S. Bulich and Gerasim Lebedev. Later, he studied Tamil under P.Samsundaram and K. Subramaniyam, at Moscow. In 1958, he came to India on a scholarship and studied at the University of Madras under Professors R. Sethupillai, B C Lingam S Hameed. Returning to Moscow, he submitted his doctoral dissertation on Tamil language in 1960. In 1971, he received the D.Litt, degree, also on Tamil linguistics. Andronov initiated many Russian linguists to the study of Dravidian languages. He himself contributed many scholarly articles and books on Dravidian languages, especially Kannada and Tamil. Dravidian languages, which contains a sketch of Dravidian comparative grammar, published in Russian in 1965 and it is published in 1970, is his solid contribution to Dravidian studies. Equally well known is ‘The Kannada Language’, published in Russian in 1962, in 1969 it was published in English, and in 1979 it was published in Kannada by William Madtha. In addition, he also brought some important works in Tamil and Malayalam.
In his study, ‘The Kannada Language’, Andronov has emphasized the important features of literary Kannada. This book is an outline description of modern literary Kannada. In this study, one can find grammatical information about the ancient and medieval stages as well as the colloquial forms of Kannada. The work is quite useful to students of the oriental, philological and linguistic departments having descriptive and historical bias in their curriculum of studies.
A Bibliography of Professor M S Andronov’s Books and Papers (Related to only Kannada).
1968: Two Lectures on the Historicity of Language families, Annamalai University, Tamil Nadu
1969: The Kannada Language (TR, From Russian by V.Korotky, Moscow: Nauk publishing house 1962) in Kannada b y William Madtha in 1977.
1970: Dravidian Languages, Visalandhra Publications, Hyderabad and Moscow.
1975: Dravidian Pronouns: A Comparative Study, Journal of Tamil Studies
1976: Case Suffixes in Dravidian: A Comparative Study- Anthropos, St, Augustine
1977: Pronominal Suffixes in Dravidian: A Comparative Study, IJDL Vol-VI No I Andronov, M. ``On the Future Tense Base in Tamil," TC, 8, 3, 1959.
.................. Jazyk Kannada (Kannada Language), Moscow, 1962.
.................. Dravidijskije jazyki (Dravidian Languages: a Comparative Study), Moscow, 1965.
.................. ``New Evidence of Possible Linguistic Ties between the Deccan and the Urals," SPV, 1961.
.................. ``Dravidian Languages," Ar. Or., 31, 2, 1963.
.................. ``Lexicostatistic analysis of the chronology of disintegration of Proto-Dravidian," IIJ, 7, 2-3, 1964.
.................. ``Materials for a Bibliography of Dravidian Linguistics," TC, 11, 1, 1964.
.................. ``On the Typological Similarity of New Indo-Aryan and Dravidian," IL, 25. PL 4753, A 6413.]
Harold F. Schiff man (1938- )
Prof Harold Schiffman is one of the modern Dravidian Linguists who was born on Feb 19, 1938 in USA. He was educated from various institutions and universities. Therefore, he received his BA from Antioch College in 1960 by opting French and German languages. Moreover, he was in Germany during 1957-58 in the University of Freiberg and he was also there in Annamalai University, Tamilnadu, South India during 1965-66. In the year 1966, he got his MA in Linguistics in the area of specializations of Slavic and Dravidian from the University of Chicago. In addition, he did his PhD in Dravidian Linguistics in 1969 from University of Chicago.
Professor Harold Schiffman was held several positions in different capacities in different institutions. He was Lecturer in the Department of Anthropology in the University of California, Davis. During the years 1967-73, he was Assistant Professor; 1973-78 Associate Professor; 1978-95 Professor in the Department of Asian Languages in the University of Washington. In the mean time, between 1982-87 he was Adjunct Professor of the Chair of Linguistics and Anthropology in the Department of Asian Languages in the University of Washington. And in the years between 1994-95 he was the Director of The Language Center, University of Washington and during these periods 1995-2000 he was Director of Henry R Luce Professor of Language Learning Department Of South Asia Regional Studies and Pennsylvania Language Center, University of Pennsylvania. From 2002 onwards, he has been the Director for Pedagogical Materials Project, South Asia Language Resource Center.
Schiffman, Harold, F. A Reference Grammar of Spoken Kannada, settle& London: University of Washington press, 1983.
It is one of the significant contributions by schiffman. In this work, the author has brought the facts of Kannada language together rather than involving in debates of theoretical nature. All the sections of this work: phonology, the noun phrase, the verb phrase, Syntax gives a detailed description of the parole of the educated people Bangalore/ mysore area of Karnataka which is emulated in films and radio. Hence, it is based neither on caste nor on regional dialects of Kannada in sensu stricto. It includes a vast and useful Bibliography of books articles prepared painstakingly. The well-organized exhaustive index enables the reader to have easy reference.
Professor Harold schiffman was awarded many Fellowships, Awards and Grants; these are the following lists of Fellowships, Awards and Grants:
1) NDEA Title VI in Tamil, Kannada, and Telugu: Universities of Chicago, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Michigan State: 1963-5, 1968.
2) American Institute of Indian Studies: Junior Fellowship, 1965-66; Senior Fellowship 1976, Short-term Senior Fellowship, summer, 1978.
3) American Council of Learned Societies/Social Science Research Council: Grant for Research on Language Loyalty in Sri Lanka.
4) Graduate School Research Fund, University of Washington: Spring quarter1976. ``Language Loyalty in the German-American Church."
5) Office of Education, Institute of International Studies: Contract Reader for Advanced Spoken Tamil, 1971; Grant Reference Grammar of Spoken Kannada, 1979.
6) National Endowment for the Humanities: Three-year Grant for English-Tamil Dictionary, 1984-88. Smithsonian Institution: Grant for support of English-Tamil Dictionary in India, 1984-88. Graduate School Research Fund R.A.-ship, Autumn-winter, 1985-86.
7) Council for International Exchange of Scholars (Fulbright): Three-month award for research in Singapore and Malaysia, 1994.
8) The HenryR.Luce Foundation: Luce Professorship in Language Learning, University of Pennsylvania.
Professional Memberships
1) Linguistic Society of America; International Linguistic Association; Dravidian
2) Linguistic Association; Linguistic Society of India; American Anthropological Association
Professional Offices Held
1. Committee, SEASSI 1993— Chair Language Committee, South Asia Regional Council, AAS 1974—6
2. Chair Language Committee, American Institute of Indian Studies 1978-3
3. Trustee American Institute of Indian Studies 1979—83
4. Member South Asia Council, Association for Asian Studies 1982--85
5. Vice-President International Association of Tamil Research 1987—
6. Member Language Advisory Committee, SEASSI 1991--95
Chair Language (Advisory)95
A Bibliography of Professor Schiffman Harold’s Books and Papers (Related to only Kannada).
1. Dravidian Phonological Systems, (with Carol Eastman, Eds.) 1975. South Asian Studies Program, Institute for Comparative and Foreign Area Studies, and University of Washington Press, pp. i-xxii, 1-409.
2. Language and Society in South Asia. 1982. (With Michael Shapiro.) Delhi: Matilal Banarsidass. Pp.i-x, 1-283.
3. A Reference Grammar of Spoken Kannada. 1983. Seattle: University of Washington Press and School of International Studies Publications on Asia, Vol. 39. Pp. i-xx, 1-182.
4. Geolinguistics: Language Dynamics and Ethno-Linguistic Geography. 1991. Translation of La Géographie des Langues. (Roland Breton, Les Presses Universitaires de France, 1983.) Les Presses de l'Université d'Ottawa. Pp. i-vii, 1-155.
5. Linguistic Culture and Language Policy. (1996) Politics of Language Series, Rout ledge (London). Pp. i-x, 1-356.
Selected Articles:
1. 1968: Morphophonemics of the Kannada verb, Glossa 2.2: 191-212
2. 1965: Morphophonemics in Kannada, in seminar on Grammatical Theories in Kannada, mysore
3. 1975: ``On the Ternary Contrast in Dravidian Coronal Stops." in H. Schiffman and C. M. Eastman (eds.) Dravidian Phonological Systems, pp. 69-85...
4. 1991: Kannada. In Wm. Bright, (ed.), Oxford International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Vol. II, pp. 266-268. Oxford: the Clarendon Press.
William McCormack
William McCormack is one of the renowned scholars of Kannada language among western scholars who have contributed to Kannada Linguistics. His contribution to Kannada is considerably great in the areas of dialectology, sociolinguistics and language teaching. The focus of William McCormack’s study on Dharwar Kannada is significant in order to understand, the way in which language variation takes place in a multicultural and multilingual speech repertoire. Subsequently, McCormack’s study of Dharwar Kannada indicates substantial borrowing of Brahman forms by non-Brahmans, at the same time, in the region of north Karnataka urban non-Brahmans with white-collar jobs or good education speak like Brahmans.
A Bibliography of ProfessorWilliamMcCormack’s Books and Papers (Related to only Kannada).
1960: Social dialects in Dharwar Kannada. In: Ferguson and Gumperz (Ed).
1962: Elementary Kannada in three volumes with M G Krishnamurthy, S Krishnamurthy, S B Prasad and ShantaRam
1966: Kannada: A Cultural Introduction to the Spoken Styles of the Language. Madison: The University of Wisconsin press.
1968: Occupation and Residence in relation to Dharwar dialects. In: Singer and Cohn (Ed).
1968: Social dialect in Dharwar Kannada. In: Sebock (Ed) in 1969.
References:
1974: Indian Linguistics, vol.35: No: 4, Decan College, Poona
1977: International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, Vol: VI, No.1, DLA. Keral
1987: Ibid, Vol: XVI No.1
1989: Ibid, Vol: XVIII No.1
1997: Ibid, Vol: XXVI No.1
2000: Ibid, Vol: XXIX No 2
2003: Ibid, Vol: XXXII No.2
Madtha, William: 1988: Kannada Linguistics so for (1894-1986) A Rapid Survey and Analysis, Journal of the Karnataka University, Vol: XXXII, Dharwar
Mathew K M: 1994: Rev. F. Kittel: Ondu Samagra Adhayana, Kittel College, Dharwar
Madtha, William etl(Ed):1998: A Dictionary with Mission, The Karnataka Theological Research Institute, And Mangalore
1998: Dravidian Encyclopedia. Vol: 1 &2, DLA, Keral
Websites: of William Bright, Harold. Schiffman and Wilkin Encyclopedia
Meti Mallikarjun,
Kuvempu University,
Shimoga.
metimallikarjun@yahoo.com
This write up aims merely at introduction of western scholars’ contribution towards Dravidian linguistics, especially, Kannada linguistics. The debate on colonial impact on Indian culture and lives is still going on, however, in this context, the colonial impact, in fact, is taken for granted in order to understand the western’s contributions to the development of Indian linguistics (i.e. kannada).Therefore, I would like to introduce some of the western scholars who have laid foundation for the modern thinking, perspective and systematic approaches for looking at languages in order to substantiate their native / structural entities. The history of Indian languages which forms an integral part of history of general linguistics in general and in particular, as Dravidian linguistics in India traces back to some where in the first millennium B C, the first attempt was made by Mesopotamia, in old Babylonian times around 1600 B C (Jacobson:1974). Now we study the history of kannada linguistics, of course, in order to understand the contributions which are made by western scholars towards the development of kannada language and linguistics during the colonial and post-colonial periods, the interest which being shown by western linguists. There was time, once Indian grammatical tradition means it is nothing but Sanskrit grammatical tradition but, now this attitude has changed because of western scholars’ intervene, at the same time, Tholkopiam a old Tamil grammar proved that there is a different form of grammatical tradition from Sanskrit grammar in India or Indian grammatical tradition. There fore, the contributions of Christian missionaries to the development of Indian languages have great value. These missionaries laid foundation for the scientific and systematic study of Indian languages and literature. That is how; the contributions of western scholars have become very evident to understand the development of modern linguistics in the context of Kannada / any other in Dravidian languages. The systematic establishment of history of Kannada linguistics and literature has become for two major reasons; 1.political and 2.religion by the missionaries to strengthen their control over the common peoples’ live and culture. To do so, the missionaries tried at best to trace the origin, attitude and development of history of Kannada language and literature. As a result, ancient literature and language has become known and construction of history took place.
The contribution of the Christian missionaries to the process and modernization of Indian languages is a well-acknowledge fact which no serious student or researcher of Indian languages can afford to ignore. In addition to their missionary work, many scholar-priests devoted their lifetime to the study Indian languages, literature, and culture, left many monumental works for the future generations, and paved the way for language and development.
ROBERT CALDWELL (1814- 1891)
Of the many western intellectuals who served for the advancement of the dravidian languages, Bishop Dr Robert Caldwell stands fore most.
Bishop Robert Caldwell was born in a little village in Ireland. A few years after his birth, his parents returned to scotland their mother country and started life in the city of Glasgow. Till his sixteenth year, he lived with his parents and had his education. Later he joined an arts school in the neighbourhood and became an artist and won prizes. However, he was not satisfied with this profession; eager to serve God, he joined the london missionary society as a valunteer in his twentieth year. With its help he studied in the Glosgow Universitry and obtained the degree of Bachelor of Arts.
While he was a student, the study of languages was highly praised in Europe. The idea that by studing languages, one could know many facts in the history and life of people, found a place in the hearts of learned men. It was then that research in languages was done in a systematic way. In those days, the Germans advanced in this department. Experts in this department were rare in English Universities.but Sir Daniel sand ford , the professor of Greek in Glasgow University was an authority in comparative philology and induced his students and helps them to study the good qualities of other languages. Caldwell who was naturally interested in this department, decided to serve the department if he got a chance through the goodwill of this professor.
After his university education in 1837, Caldwell was selected by the London missionary society. and sent to south India for doing religious work .while coming to India, on the way he met a person in the ship who became friendly, he was Charles Philip brown who was the renowned scholar in Telugu,with his help, Caldwell able to understand the important aspects of Sanskrit and Telugu.
BISHOP ROBERT CALDWELL: A Pioneer in Dravidian Linguistics
Bishop Robert Caldwell (1814- 1891), author of ‘A Comparative Grammar of Dravidian or South Indian Family of Languages’ was a missionary who came to India as a member of the London Mission Society. Caldwell’s Comparative Grammar on Dravidian languages established the Dravidian as an independent family of languages. It proves that these languages are genetically different from Sanskrit and other Indo- Aryan tongues. When thoughts like ‘South Indian Languages are interrelated’, they did not emerge from Sanskrit and so on are substantiated by systematic analysis and investigation of Dravidian languages by Robert Caldwell. Because, there was a notion among traditional grammarians of India and abroad that “All Dravidian languages were emerged from Sanskrit and fit it”. Though, even before Caldwell, scholars like Rasmus Rask, Francis Ellis Whyte and Max Muller did point out that the Dravidian was an independent family, it was Caldwell’s work that established this beyond doubt and brought this to the attention of scholars all over the world. Characterized by a scientific approach, a large wealth of language data, widest possible coverage and intimate knowledge of the Dravidian languages, his comparative grammar won instant recognition and approval of scholars. This, the wake of Caldwell brought about a fundamental and revolutionary paradigm shift in the study of Indian languages, especially, of Dravidian languages. The belief that Sanskrit was the mother of Indian languages was shattered. Caldwell proved beyond doubt that language like Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam and Tulu etc are structurally different, and belong to a different family of languages. In addition, this work stimulated wide interest in Dravidian languages, and Dravidian studies emerged as a specialized field of knowledge. Caldwell is deservedly called the father of Dravidology. Nearly 150 years after its first publication, his comparative grammar continues to be the most consulted and studied work in Dravidian linguistics.
Bishop Robert Caldwell contributed a lot to Tamil both in language and literature, where as, it is less, comparatively Tamil to other Dravidian languages, of course, it is a great contribution, one con not deny it. However, it is necessary to present some of the important aspects of and about monumental works of Caldwell, viz A Comparative Grammar of Dravidian or South Indian Languages.
After 16 years of religious work, Caldwell left for England in 1854 and stayed there for 16 months during which period he wrote the Comparative Grammar. Even during these 16 months, he was immersed in religious work and the monumental Comparative Grammar was finished in a very short time. In recognition of this great research work, the Glasgow University conferred on him an LLD degree. In 1873, Caldwell returned to England for the second time and stayed for two years. During this time, he revised his book adding the material that he had collected during the 19 years since its first publication. The second (revised) edition was published in 1857. Towards the end of his life, due to failing health, Caldwell retired from active religious service and settled at Kodaikanal where he built a church in 1886. He had been ordained as Bishop in 1877. ‘History of Tirunelveli District’, Caldwell’s another great contribution to the south Indian studies was published in 1881
A Comparative Grammar of Dravidian or South Indian Family of Languages is a monumental work touching on such diverse aspects as the antiquity of the Dravidian family, affinities of the Dravidian family, Indo-Aryan and Dravidian relations, phonology, morphology and syntax of Dravidian element in Indo-Aryan speeches and Dravidian loan words in Sanskrit. Caldwell knew intuitively many linguistic principles formulated much later by modern linguists. His suggestions on etymology of numerals is remarkably close to the conclusions reached years after by Morris Swadesh who made a sweeping study of the homothetic aspects of languages. While Caldwell provides detailed evidence for the antiquity and
Independence of the Dravidian family, he is extremely objective in his statements and seeks to glorify his subject of study. Majority of Caldwell’s insights into the structure and affinities of the Dravidian were corroborated by the evidence from later linguistic research.
In the introduction to his work, Caldwell discusses the origin use of the term Dravidian that came to be the accepted name of the language family after Caldwell’s use of it. Before this, the languages were called Tamilian or south Indian languages. Following this, Caldwell enumerates the Dravidian languages known during his time. This included six cultivated languages and six tribal languages. Tamil, Kannada (canarese), Telagu, Malayalam, Tulu, and Kodagu (Coorgi) are Caldwell has cultivated languages. ToDa, Kota, Gond, KhonD, Rajmahal (Malto) etc are the tribal speeches listed by him. He also knew about the Dravidian elements, which found in Brahui, but has not included this language in his language list.
Based on the comparative study of sixty words, comprising the basic vocabulary of Sanskrit and Dravidian, Caldwell for once and all proved that the Dravidian languages are not related to Sanskrit. Dravidian-Scythian relations, antiquity of Tamil and Dravidian-Indo-Aryan relations are the other topics discussed by him in his introduction.
In the first part following the introduction, Caldwell describes the alphabets and phonology of Dravidian. The three types of scripts in vague in South Indian and the relation with North-Indian scripts are elaborated. The phonemes found in Dravidian, their variations in different contexts and borrowal of cerebral sounds into Sanskrit are also discussed. In section 2, the agglutinative characters of Dravidian and on analysis of verbal and nominal roots of Dravidian are attempted. In section 3, the noun, gender, number, and cases of Dravidian, adjectives and their derivation from nominals are analyzed. Section 4 deals with numerals, section 5 deals with pronouns, section six deals with verb. In the last section, glossarial affinities of Dravidian are discussed.
Caldwell has explicitly stated that the comparative study of a family of languages is the study of ‘comparison of the grammatical principles and forms of the various Dravidian languages in the hope of contributing to more thorough knowledge of (a) their primitive structure and (b) distinctive character’. This is first study in which Caldwell has compared Dravidian languages with other family of languages of Asia and Europe to establish the distinctive character of the Dravidian languages.
A Bibliography of Caldwell’s Books (Related to only Kannada).
Caldwell, R. 1856 (rep. 1961). A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Family of Languages. Madras: University of Madras.
REV. F. KITTEL (1832- 1903)
Rev.F.Kittel was a protestant Christian born at Rooster Hape in North-West Germany on April 7 1832 as a son of church official. After his school education, he went to Switzerland where he entered the services of Basel mission. At the young age of 21, he came to Dharwar as a missionary in 1853. In addition, later on he moved to Mangalore. Nothing much is known about his early years in Karnataka and about his study of Kannada language and literature. However, within 20 years, Kittel acquired mastery over Kannada, in addition to proficiency in Sanskrit, Persian, Tamil, Konkani and Marathi. In addition, he worked in various places like Dharwar, Hubli, Anandapura, Mangalore and Mercara. It was his in Mercara that he spent most of his stay, as the weather was suited him. During the first twenty years of his stay, he learnt Kannada, Sanskrit, Marathi, Tamil, Konkani and Persian. During this particular period, like other missionaries, Kittel wrote books on bible literature and school textbooks. His bible literature covers translations of bible, poems composed by him on the bible, bible stories and other religious literature. Among school textbooks, his Kannada grammar, school dictionaries, Kannada poems, history books and books on carnatic music, are important and those were published at the request of the department of public instruction, Government of Madras.
Rev. F. Kittel, though a missionary like others in the beginning working towards Christianity, later on , he did not study the language, culture and society of region only to achieve his missionary goal. Rather he developed great interest and love for the Kannada language and people of Karnataka. He made in depth study of the ancient manuscript and classics written by ancient Kannada scholars. He involved himself with the natives to understand their day-to-day language, culture, religion and traditions intimately. As a result, he was published many research and creative works in relation with linguistics and literature.
Kittel’s work and its impact on Dravidology:
Kittel made good use of his assignments: from 1860’s he started publishing extensively, including a considerable number of articles in research journals likes the Indian Antiquary and the journal of the German oriental society. He also authored a large number of Christian tracts and textbooks (see bibliography). From the beginning of the 1870’s Kittel had plans to write other Kannada grammar and dictionary, and from 1877 onwards, he devoted himself to this task nearly exclusively. These works substantiate Kittel’s linguistic and literary talents in Kannada language.
Rev. F. Kittel’s most significant writings on Kannada language are;
1. “Nagavarmana Chandhassu” (i.e. that Nagavarma’s ‘Canarese Prosody’). It is the ‘Naagavarmaa’s Chhandoombudhi’ a Kannada text on prosody was published by him with an elaborate introduction containing a historical out-line of Kannada literature.
2. Kittel is another significant work on Keeshiraaja’s ShabdamaNidarpaNa (1872), the most authentic classical grammar of Kannada. He edited this classical grammar by giving English interpretation and illustrations to every ‘sutra’ of ShabdamaNidarpaNa wherever it is necessary.
Kittel published his magnum opus, the Kannada-English Dictionary in 1894 after twenty years of meticulous work. In addition, Kittel became an authoritative on grammar and dictionary, which paved the way for the standardization and modernization of the Kannada grammar. Kittel collected the material for this Kannada-English Dictionary from 1871 to 1877 living in Karnataka. For this compilation of Kannada-English Dictionary, Kittel has used 18 literary works of old Kannada, 18 of middle Kannada, 4 of modern Kannada, 5 Dravidian dictionaries, 4 Sanskrit dictionaries, 1Marathi dictionary for the collection of lexical data and illustrations (M.Bhat:1984 ). At the same time, Kittel has collected various colloquial forms, idioms, regional forms, usages, citations, proverbs and possible senses of a given lexical item. Kittel might have been courageous to take up the project of bilingual dictionary mainly because he had a comprehensive understanding not only of the structure and function of Kannada, but also the syntactic and semantic (including select ional restrictions ) lexical formative in these languages.
A voluminous work of 1,762 pages was published in 1894; it is also a treasury of Kannada idioms and proverbs (nuDigaTTu and gaade). Another important feature of this dictionary is the use of thick fonts for native (desya) Kannada words of Dravidian origin and thin font for the words borrowed from Sanskrit and other sources. The utility of such a method followed by Kittel for researchers as well as common people is quite evident. Kittel tried to examine and write every word himself (1894: XXii) in to decide on distinctions he followed only trust-worthy and authentic manuscripts. Meanings given by the ancient and modern native writers were properly assessed and represented suitably, interestingly, Kittel states, the compiler’s aim has been to raise his work, as for as possible to the level of modern scholarship, avoiding the creation of such difficulties as con not easily be overcome by intelligent beginners’ (1894:XXV). Kittel tried to give good care of loan words borrowed by Sanskrit from Kannada and vice versa (1894: XXXI-LXIII). In this dictionary, cross-references have been given for variant forms. Moreover, cognates in other Dravidian languages are given after the meaning of the word in English. Similarly, all ‘tadbhavas’ were related to their Sanskrit origins and words of English language commonly used in Kannada are treated. Words of non-Dravidian origin have also been traced to their source. At the same time, all these special features, this made it an outstanding work of Rev. F. Kittel.
It is interesting to note that Kittel was both lexicographer and grammarian. In fact, there seems to be logic about it. His interest to become both will have to be appreciated in the light of a mutual dependence or interdependence of ‘lexicon’ and ‘grammar’ which is of first class importance (Zgusta:1971:18) in modern theoretical thinking in linguistics, especially in transformational grammar. More than grammar lexicography is an activity in which tradition plays a great role (Zgusta: 1971:18). There fore, Rev. F. Kittel could able to bring a grammar on Kannada in 1903 entitled “A Grammar of the Kannada Language”- this present volume of grammar is chiefly based on Keeshiraaja’s ShabdamaNidarpaNa, the terminology of this his grammar is simple, and fit for the three dialects of Kannada viz ancient, medieval and modern. At the same time, Kittel’s reliance on the ancient, medieval and modern dialects of Kannada in his grammar is indicative of his intentions on historical validation (Andrewskutty: 1998). Other than the above-discussed works, there are some more significant works and research papers on epigraphy, manuscripts, literature, Granthsampaadane, culture, language and society, most of which appeared in the journals ‘Indian Antiquary’ and other various Indian and German news papers and magazines.
The following list of works of Rev.F.Kittel can witness the outstanding contributions to the Kannada language and literature. Writings by Rev.F.Kittel lists 63 including both books and articles, these books and articles can be classified in different headings to the subject and content.
1) Bible and other writings
2) Coorgs, their language, social customs and superstitions
3) Dravidian language;
a) Meaning and derivation of certain Dravidian words
b) Dravidian numerals.
c) Transcription of Dravidian scripts
d) Dravidian philology
4) Indian prosody and poetry
5) Inscriptions
6) Kannada language
a) Kannada Dictionary
b) Kannada Grammar
c) Kannada Teaching
d) Kannada literature
7) Karnataka music
8) Lingayata literature
9) School textbooks
10) Translations
11) Rev.F.Kittel’s writings in newspapers and literary magazines.
Kittel’s contributions to Kannada are great in many other respects. He was an able scholar to do a lot of work in the area of linguistics, literature, theology, culture, and society.
EMENEAU.M.B (1904- )
Prof. Murry Barnson Emeneau (1904- ) is an outstanding and a renowned scholar in the field of Dravidian studies, Sanskrit and general linguistics. He was born in Canada on Feb.28th, 1904. Prof. Emeneau completed his 100th year on Feb.2004. Prof. Emeneau, through his extremely varied and prolific studies and writings on Dravidian studies ,Sanskrit , general linguistics as well and pioneering field work on unrecorded tribal speeches, Emeneau became one of well known indologists of previous and present century. The name of Prof. M.B.Emeneau is now synonymous with the concept of the great linguistic convergence that defines south Asia (U.N.Singh:2004).
Prof. Emeneau received a B.A. from the Dalhousie University, Halifax in 1923 and one from Oxford as Rhodes Scholar in 1926. He studied Sanskrit, Latin and Greek for his bachelor degree courses and studied under eminent scholars like Franklin and Edgerton and Edger H. Sturtevant. He took an M.A. from Oxford in1931 and PhD from Yale University in 1935. From 1931-1935, he studied Linguistics and Anthropology under Edward Sapir, a pioneer scholar of modern linguistics. Prof Emeneau started out as a Sanskritist and for his PhD; he edited “Vetaalapanchavimshati”, a Sanskrit work. Emeneau taught Latin (1926-1931) and Anthropology (1938-1939) at the Yale University, and then Sanskrit and general linguistics at the University of California, Berkley (1940-1946). From 1946 onwards, he was a full professor and also the chair of the Department of Linguistics (1953-1959) as well as Department of Classics. Emeneau continued teaching there until 1971. After 1971, Emeneau was made Professor Emeritus of Sanskrit and general linguistics, and he also served as president of the linguistic society of America in 1949.
Professor M B Emeneau’s Contribution and Achievements:
Prof. Emeneau is an exemplary scholar in a number of disciplines– Anthropology, Indology and Linguistics. He is also been among a rare tribal linguist who works on both on Dravidian as well as on Indo-Aryan languages. It was during 1935-1938 that Emeneau visited India and conducted field work on a number of tribal languages like toDa, koTa, koDagu and kolami for bringing out the research in the areas of comparative Dravidian, Areal linguistics , Ethnography etc. Emeneau’s publications include his extensive work on Dravidian linguistics, Sanskrit and India as a linguistic Area are original research. In addition to the volumes such as toDa songs, toDa grammar and texts, koTa texts, kolami: a Dravidian language. More than these work he compiled A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary with T. Burrow (1909-1986), is another outstanding Indologist. In addition, most recently came that Sanskrit studies: selected papers (edited by B.A.Van Nootan), Language and Linguistic area (essays: selected by Anwar S. Dil). Linguists have referred to his paper “India as a Linguistic Area” as a classic paper. A statement by K.R. Norman, his worthy of being recalled here , although the phrase ‘linguistic area’ is in common use among linguists. It is interesting to note that it was only invented in 1943 by H.V. Velton as a translation of the German term ‘sprachbund’, and its use did not become wide spread until Emeneau included it in the title of a paper 1956.
In the area of Dravidian linguistics, Emeneau’s contributions fall mainly under four categories:
1) The description of non-literary
2) Comparative interpretation of descriptive data of individual languages
3) Comparative Dravidian, involving a comparison of all languages of the Dravidian family.
4) Theoretical work on structural borrowing and linguistic area hypothesis
5) Identifying and reconstructing the etymological resource of all languages of Dravidian family.
Emeneau’s descriptions and interpretations of Dravidian languages served as ideal models for the later generation of linguists. His analysis of Dravidian languages data still remains authentic. On Kannada, Emeneau’s the most notable works are; Dravidian etymological dictionary (with T.Burrow), comparative phonology (1977), the south Dravidian languages (1966), Kannada Kamp, Tamil Kampan: Two proper nouns (1983) etc. In addition to that, the monumental work that has a place among the great lexicographic work of the world is an immense contribution to Dravidian studies is A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary: T. Burrow and M.B.Emeneau, reprint 1998, XXIX, 609P, ISBN 81-215-0856-8.
This work is a complete and systematic record of completely available Dravidian vocabulary. It covers four major literary languages viz, Kannada, Tamil, Telugu and Malayalam and some other fourteen minor languages, a considerable amount of material that is here published for the first time. The dictionary is etymologically arranged and the vocabulary is classified into 4572 numbered items. Complete indexes for each language follow. The meanings are given as exhaustively as is practicable in such a work, so that the full range of the application of the each word becomes evident. The dictionary is with some exceptions, confined to the native Dravidian elements to the exclusion of loans from Indo-Aryan. It is the first work of its kind that has been attempted, and it will be an indispensable tool to all those engaged Dravidian linguistics and to the Indian Philology.
A Bibliography of Professor M B Emeneau’s Books and Papers (Related to only Kannada).
1954: Linguistics Prehistory, PAPS, 98 P 282-92 University of California press
1955: Dialectology and comparative linguistics, University of California press
1955: India and Linguistics, JAOS 75, P 145-215
1956: India as a Linguistic Area, Language 32, P 3-16
1962: Dravidian and Indian Linguistics, University of California press
1962: Bilingualism and Structural Borrowing, PAPS 106, P432-42
1962: An Indo-Iranian areal isogloss in Dravidian and Indian linguistics, University of California press, Berkeley
1965: India and Historical Grammar, Annamalai University, Tamil Nadu
1965: Diffusion and evolution comparative linguistics, Annamalai University Tamil Nadu No 5 P1-24
1966: The south Dravidian languages, International seminar on Tamil studies, Kuala Lumpur in April 1966
1967: Dravidian Linguistics, Ethnology and Folk tales, collected papers, Annamalai University, Tamil Nadu
1968: Dravidian and Indo-Aryan: The Indian linguistic Area, conference on Dravidian civilization, Austin, Texas-Decb-1968
1969: Onomatopoetic in the Indian linguistic Area, Language-45 P 274-99
1971: Collected Papers, Annamalai University, Tamil Nadu
1971: The Indian linguistic area-symposium
1974: The Indian linguistic area, Revisited, IJDL-3 P92-132
1978: Review of defining a linguistic area: south Asia, Colin P Masica, Language 54
1961: with Thomas Burrow: A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary, Oxford
THOMAS BURROW (1909-1986)
Thomas Burrow (1909-1986) was an outstanding scholar of Dravidian and Sanskrit languages, who died on June 8, 1986 at the age of 76. He was boden professor of Sanskrit in the University Oxford from 1944 to 1976 and a distinguished international authority on Dravidian languages of India. Thomas Burrow was born on June 29, 1909 in the village of Leck in north Lancashire. He received his early education at Queen Elizabeth grammar school, Kirkby Lonsdale, from which he won scholarships to Christ’s college, Cambridge, in 1927. At Cambridge, he graduated in classics, having specialized in comparative philology, which in itself created a taste for Sanskrit studies and Dravidian languages as well. Prof Thomas Burrow subsequently read for the oriental languages (notably Sanskrit, Pali and Prakrits). Then followed three years of research, one at the school of oriental studies in London, after which he returned to Cambridge. In 1935, he was awarded his doctorate at Cambridge for a thesis on language of the ‘KarosThi’ documents discovered in central Asia by Sir Aurel Stein earlier in the century. From 1935 -1937 he was a research fellow at Christ’s college and from 1937-1944 he was Assistant keeper in Dept. of oriental printed books and Manuscripts at the British Museum. There he took up the Dravidian languages with which few Sanskritists have been acquainted. In 1944, he was appointed Boden professor of Sanskrit at Oxford and keeper of Indian instate, a post that carried with it a Fellowship at Balliol. He retired from professorship in 1976 but continued to hold Emeritus Fellowship of Balliol College, Oxford, until his death.
Thomas Burrow’s Contribution and Achievements:
Prof Thomas Burrow was well known for his extensive work in comparative Dravidian linguistics and Dravidian Etymological Dictionary (DED) in association with M B Emeneau, is another renowned scholar in Dravidian studies. He was a scholar of multidirectional specialization within the broad field of language study.
Thomas Burrow’s contribution to Kannada (Dravidian studies) is both extensive and erudite. In the field of Dravidian studies, Burrow contributed mainly to three areas:
1. Comparative Dravidian
2. Study of the interrelations between Dravidian and Indo-Aryan and
3. Study and description of tribal speeches
Burrow’s major published papers (until 1968) were collected in collected papers on Dravidian Linguistics (1968), published by Annamalai University.
Burrow’s one of the major contributions is Dravidian Etymological Dictionary in collaboration with M B Emeneau (DED: 1961; DEDs: 1968, DEDR: 1984 and Reprint in 1998). He was so much devoted and engrossed in this monumental work that he could recall, by memory, all the time under any particular etyma from the DED. He has not only planned, organized and executed the publication of these volumes along with his distinguished colleague, but has also incorporated lexical items from his field notes on the non-literary Dravidian languages of central India which inclusion has substantially enhanced the depth of coverage in collaboration with the late S. Bhattacharya. The Dravidian Etymological Dictionary is a monumental contribution to Comparative Dravidian Studies. This is an essential tool to any student or researcher of Dravidian working on any aspect of phonology or grammar of the Dravidian languages. This work for the first time brought together cognates from most of the Dravidian languages. Collections of cognates from the major four written languages were done in a limited way even earlier to the DED. However, DED attempted a thorough collection of cognates from literary as well as tribal languages and the compilation was much more systematic and scientific than earlier ones. The DED remains the most basic source for Dravidian Comparative Studies. Cognates grouped under 5,557 lemmas (4,572 in the 1961’s edition). The arrangement of the etyma groups follows the Tamil alphabets (from vowels to consonants i.e. a, aa, i, ii, u, uu, e, ee, ai, o, oo, au, k, k_, n~, c, n, T, N, t, d, p, m, y, r, l, v, R, L, RR, N). Within each order of the Dravidian Etymological Dictionary is moving from south to north, as well as the sub groupings. The second edition contains, etyma from Tamil, Kannada, Malayalam, kurak etc. this DED is the out come of twenty years of work by the compilers, other than, the major lexicographic works of the four written languages and grammars, and word lists of tribal languages.
He published a series of Articles in the Bulletin of the school of oriental (and African) studies, London, under the serial title DRAVIDIAN STUDIES, in this series I-VII dealing with various aspects of Dravidian Phonology, genetic ties, between Dravidian loanwords in Sanskrit. He published two important papers in the transaction of the philological society in 1945 and 1946 formulating and applying a precise methodology for identifying the possible loanwords in Sanskrit. In DRAVIDIAN STUDIES I, II, III, V, VI, Burrow has tackled a number of difficult phonological problems which were either not systematically dealt with or were wrongly formulated earlier. In Dravidian studies I, he established that initial voicing could not be attributed to proto-Dravidian because of the irregular distribution of voiced stop in cognates between Tamil and Kannada on the one hand and Tamil on the other. Thus, he refuted the earlier proposal of Jules Block and Gadavarm. He advanced the following arguments:
1. A large percentage of works in Kannada Telugu beginning with voiced stops have no cognates in Tamil.
2. Where there are such cognates, Tamil and Malayalam have borrowed these from Kannada or Telugu.
3. Voicing in many individual words in Kannada and Telugu can be shown to secondary.
4. Where the correspondences are ancient, there is fluctuation between voiced and voiceless stops in different languages.
In Dravidian studies II, he attacked the problem of the alterations between i/e and u/o in south Dravidian and could show through internal reconstruction that, not all cases of i/u in Tamil and Malayalam and e/o in Kannada and Telugu were traceable to proto-Dravidian.
A Bibliography of Professor Thomas Burrow’s Books and Papers (Related to only Kannada).
Burrow. T. 1938: Dravidian Studies I, BSOAS, 9, 711-722
Burrow. T 1940: Dravidian Studies II, BSOAS, 10, 289-297
Burrow. T 1943: Dravidian Studies III, BSOAS, 11, 122-139
Burrow. T 1944: Dravidian Studies IV, BSOAS, 11, 328-356
Burrow. T 1945: Dravidian Studies V, BSOAS, 11, 595-616
Burrow. T 1946: Some loanwords in Sanskrit, TPS 1-30
Burrow. T 1947: Dravidian Studies VI, BSOAS 12, 132-147
Burrow. T 1948: Dravidian Studies VII, BSOAS, 13, 365-396
Burrow. T and Emeneau M B: 1961: A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary, Oxford.
WILLIAM BRIGHT (1928- )
William Bright (1928- ), Professor Emeritus of linguistics, University of California, Los Angels is reputed scholar in the field of Kannada linguistics, sociolinguistics and the languages of North America and South Asia. He edited the influential journal ‘Language’ for 22 years. The International Encyclopedia of Linguistics and Oxford Studies in Anthropological Linguistics edited by him are two monumental works. An outline of Kannada (1958) is his most important contribution to Kannada linguistics. William Bright presided over the 24 All India Conference of Dravidian Linguists at Kuppam in 1996.
William Bright was born in Oxnard, California on 1928. He graduated from Oxnard Union High School in 1945 and won competitative four-year college scholarship offered by Pepsi-cola Company. In addition, he entered university of California, Berkeley, as premedical student. In 1947, he changed major to Spanish; attended summer school in Mexico City, became interested in Nahualt (Aztec) language. As a result, he started taking linguistic courses at Berkeley with M B Emeneau and Mary Haas, switched to individual major in linguistics. In 1949, he completed his B A in Linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley. From there he started fieldwork in spring on Karuk language of northwestern California and attended LSA Linguistic Institute in summer at University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. In addition, in 1950 he continued fieldwork on karuk during summer, after that in 1951 he participated in LSA Linguistic Institute in summer at Berkeley, passed qualifying examinations for linguistics- doctorate and began writing dissertation on Karuk. William Bright married Elizabeth Hallo Ron in 1952. Moreover, drafted into US Army; assigned to military Intelligence unit in Lohfelden, near Kassel, Germany. He returned to US in 1954 and discharged from Army, subsequently; he continued his work at Berkeley on dissertation and again attended LSA Linguistic Institute in summer at University of Chicago. Due to this, he was awarded his PhD in Linguistics on A Grammar of the Karuk Language, Berkeley in 1955. He accepted Rockefeller Foundation Fellowship and came to India for two years to teach linguistics at Decon College, Poona, and to do research on the colloquial variety of the Kannada in Bangalore. At the same time in 1956, he became interested in sociolinguistics through discussion with John Gumperz. In 1957, he returned to US; hired as linguist, school of languages, Foreign Service Institute, Dept. of state, Washington, DC where he taught Hindi, Urdu and French. In 1958 Susannah Bright, Daughter, born in Arlington, Virginia and he was hired in full as Assistant Professor of speech in the University of California, Berkeley for teaching English to foreign students. At the very next year in 1959, hired as Assistant Professor of Anthropology, VCLA for teaching Linguistics, Hindi, and Anthropology. He also taught Hindi in summer session in 1960 at the University of California, Berkeley. William Bright was promoted to Associate Professor of Anthropology at VCLA in 1962. Again, he continued his fieldwork on Yarok in 1963, taught Anthropology in summer school, University of Colorado, Boulder. At the same time, served one year as chair, committee on the Linguistics program, VCLA served one year as Abstracts editor of International Journal of American Linguistics. In addition, became contributing editor, Hand Book of Latin American Studies until 1966. In the mean time, became Review editor of International Journal of American Linguistics. In addition, he participated in seminar on Sociolinguistics at summer LSA Linguistic Institute, Indiana University, Bloomington. He also positioned many editorial positions to various journals. In 1967, he was in Central Institute of English, Hyderabad and University of Delhi on Ford Foundation Fellowship. In 1987, he completed his service as editor of ‘Language’. Moreover, he retired to status Emeritus Professor of Linguistics and Anthropology in 1988, became president, Linguistic Society of America in 1989 and in 1996 , president, DLA, more than , in 1997 he initiated Journal, written language and literacy , Benjamin’s, Amsterdam.
An Outline of Colloquial Kannada, this work describes Kannada structure taxonomically the Bangalore dialect of Kannada, which is spoken by educated Brahmans. However, it is the first descriptive grammar on Kannada which figer-outs the comprehensive structural entities of Kannada. Based on this study, one can acknowledge for establishing the descriptive model in the Kannada Linguistics.
A Bibliography of Professor William Bright’s Books and Papers (Related to only Kannada).
Bright, W. An Outline of Colloquial Kannada, Poona, 1958.
.................. ``Linguistic Change in Some Indian Caste Dialects," IJAL, 26, 3, 1960.
.................. ``Social dialect and language history," CA, 1, 1960.
.................. ``Maisuru kannadada samajika bhasa prabhedagalu," PK. 45, 3 (177), 1960.
…, O shanta Roa & Meera, Narvekar, spoke Kannada (lesson 1-12). Berkeley: centre for south Asian studies, Institute International Studies, University of California, 1960.
Bright, W. and Ramanujan, A.K. ``A Study of Tamil dialects," University of Chicago, 1962 (mimeographed).
.................. ``Sociolinguistic variation and language change," ICL 9, 1964.
Bright, W. Rau, Sh. and Narvekar, M. Spoken Kannada: Lessons 1-12, University of California, Berkeley, 1960 (mimeographed). [PL 4643 B72.]
Bright, William O. 1966. ``Dravidian Metaphony." Lg. 42:2.311-22.
Bright, William O. 1970: ‘Phonological Rules in Literary and Colloquial Kannada’ Journal of American Oriental Society. 90. 1:140-144
ANDRONOV. M. S (1931- )
Mikhail Segreevich Andropov (1931- ) is one of the pioneering figures in Dravidian studies in the erstalile USSR. And has made commendable contributions to Dravidian linguistics, especially, Kannada and Tamil linguistics in order to understand Dravidian studies. Andropov was mastered in the Devanagari alphabet as a school boy and his first love was Bengali in which he specialized at the Moscow Institute of oriental studies. He took his M.A in 1954 from this institute, submitting a thesis on the Dravidian elements in Bengali. He had already developed a strong liking for Tamil and begins to learn Tamil from the writings of pope, Arden and the Russian-Tamil scholars, S. Bulich and Gerasim Lebedev. Later, he studied Tamil under P.Samsundaram and K. Subramaniyam, at Moscow. In 1958, he came to India on a scholarship and studied at the University of Madras under Professors R. Sethupillai, B C Lingam S Hameed. Returning to Moscow, he submitted his doctoral dissertation on Tamil language in 1960. In 1971, he received the D.Litt, degree, also on Tamil linguistics. Andronov initiated many Russian linguists to the study of Dravidian languages. He himself contributed many scholarly articles and books on Dravidian languages, especially Kannada and Tamil. Dravidian languages, which contains a sketch of Dravidian comparative grammar, published in Russian in 1965 and it is published in 1970, is his solid contribution to Dravidian studies. Equally well known is ‘The Kannada Language’, published in Russian in 1962, in 1969 it was published in English, and in 1979 it was published in Kannada by William Madtha. In addition, he also brought some important works in Tamil and Malayalam.
In his study, ‘The Kannada Language’, Andronov has emphasized the important features of literary Kannada. This book is an outline description of modern literary Kannada. In this study, one can find grammatical information about the ancient and medieval stages as well as the colloquial forms of Kannada. The work is quite useful to students of the oriental, philological and linguistic departments having descriptive and historical bias in their curriculum of studies.
A Bibliography of Professor M S Andronov’s Books and Papers (Related to only Kannada).
1968: Two Lectures on the Historicity of Language families, Annamalai University, Tamil Nadu
1969: The Kannada Language (TR, From Russian by V.Korotky, Moscow: Nauk publishing house 1962) in Kannada b y William Madtha in 1977.
1970: Dravidian Languages, Visalandhra Publications, Hyderabad and Moscow.
1975: Dravidian Pronouns: A Comparative Study, Journal of Tamil Studies
1976: Case Suffixes in Dravidian: A Comparative Study- Anthropos, St, Augustine
1977: Pronominal Suffixes in Dravidian: A Comparative Study, IJDL Vol-VI No I Andronov, M. ``On the Future Tense Base in Tamil," TC, 8, 3, 1959.
.................. Jazyk Kannada (Kannada Language), Moscow, 1962.
.................. Dravidijskije jazyki (Dravidian Languages: a Comparative Study), Moscow, 1965.
.................. ``New Evidence of Possible Linguistic Ties between the Deccan and the Urals," SPV, 1961.
.................. ``Dravidian Languages," Ar. Or., 31, 2, 1963.
.................. ``Lexicostatistic analysis of the chronology of disintegration of Proto-Dravidian," IIJ, 7, 2-3, 1964.
.................. ``Materials for a Bibliography of Dravidian Linguistics," TC, 11, 1, 1964.
.................. ``On the Typological Similarity of New Indo-Aryan and Dravidian," IL, 25. PL 4753, A 6413.]
Harold F. Schiff man (1938- )
Prof Harold Schiffman is one of the modern Dravidian Linguists who was born on Feb 19, 1938 in USA. He was educated from various institutions and universities. Therefore, he received his BA from Antioch College in 1960 by opting French and German languages. Moreover, he was in Germany during 1957-58 in the University of Freiberg and he was also there in Annamalai University, Tamilnadu, South India during 1965-66. In the year 1966, he got his MA in Linguistics in the area of specializations of Slavic and Dravidian from the University of Chicago. In addition, he did his PhD in Dravidian Linguistics in 1969 from University of Chicago.
Professor Harold Schiffman was held several positions in different capacities in different institutions. He was Lecturer in the Department of Anthropology in the University of California, Davis. During the years 1967-73, he was Assistant Professor; 1973-78 Associate Professor; 1978-95 Professor in the Department of Asian Languages in the University of Washington. In the mean time, between 1982-87 he was Adjunct Professor of the Chair of Linguistics and Anthropology in the Department of Asian Languages in the University of Washington. And in the years between 1994-95 he was the Director of The Language Center, University of Washington and during these periods 1995-2000 he was Director of Henry R Luce Professor of Language Learning Department Of South Asia Regional Studies and Pennsylvania Language Center, University of Pennsylvania. From 2002 onwards, he has been the Director for Pedagogical Materials Project, South Asia Language Resource Center.
Schiffman, Harold, F. A Reference Grammar of Spoken Kannada, settle& London: University of Washington press, 1983.
It is one of the significant contributions by schiffman. In this work, the author has brought the facts of Kannada language together rather than involving in debates of theoretical nature. All the sections of this work: phonology, the noun phrase, the verb phrase, Syntax gives a detailed description of the parole of the educated people Bangalore/ mysore area of Karnataka which is emulated in films and radio. Hence, it is based neither on caste nor on regional dialects of Kannada in sensu stricto. It includes a vast and useful Bibliography of books articles prepared painstakingly. The well-organized exhaustive index enables the reader to have easy reference.
Professor Harold schiffman was awarded many Fellowships, Awards and Grants; these are the following lists of Fellowships, Awards and Grants:
1) NDEA Title VI in Tamil, Kannada, and Telugu: Universities of Chicago, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Michigan State: 1963-5, 1968.
2) American Institute of Indian Studies: Junior Fellowship, 1965-66; Senior Fellowship 1976, Short-term Senior Fellowship, summer, 1978.
3) American Council of Learned Societies/Social Science Research Council: Grant for Research on Language Loyalty in Sri Lanka.
4) Graduate School Research Fund, University of Washington: Spring quarter1976. ``Language Loyalty in the German-American Church."
5) Office of Education, Institute of International Studies: Contract Reader for Advanced Spoken Tamil, 1971; Grant Reference Grammar of Spoken Kannada, 1979.
6) National Endowment for the Humanities: Three-year Grant for English-Tamil Dictionary, 1984-88. Smithsonian Institution: Grant for support of English-Tamil Dictionary in India, 1984-88. Graduate School Research Fund R.A.-ship, Autumn-winter, 1985-86.
7) Council for International Exchange of Scholars (Fulbright): Three-month award for research in Singapore and Malaysia, 1994.
8) The HenryR.Luce Foundation: Luce Professorship in Language Learning, University of Pennsylvania.
Professional Memberships
1) Linguistic Society of America; International Linguistic Association; Dravidian
2) Linguistic Association; Linguistic Society of India; American Anthropological Association
Professional Offices Held
1. Committee, SEASSI 1993— Chair Language Committee, South Asia Regional Council, AAS 1974—6
2. Chair Language Committee, American Institute of Indian Studies 1978-3
3. Trustee American Institute of Indian Studies 1979—83
4. Member South Asia Council, Association for Asian Studies 1982--85
5. Vice-President International Association of Tamil Research 1987—
6. Member Language Advisory Committee, SEASSI 1991--95
Chair Language (Advisory)95
A Bibliography of Professor Schiffman Harold’s Books and Papers (Related to only Kannada).
1. Dravidian Phonological Systems, (with Carol Eastman, Eds.) 1975. South Asian Studies Program, Institute for Comparative and Foreign Area Studies, and University of Washington Press, pp. i-xxii, 1-409.
2. Language and Society in South Asia. 1982. (With Michael Shapiro.) Delhi: Matilal Banarsidass. Pp.i-x, 1-283.
3. A Reference Grammar of Spoken Kannada. 1983. Seattle: University of Washington Press and School of International Studies Publications on Asia, Vol. 39. Pp. i-xx, 1-182.
4. Geolinguistics: Language Dynamics and Ethno-Linguistic Geography. 1991. Translation of La Géographie des Langues. (Roland Breton, Les Presses Universitaires de France, 1983.) Les Presses de l'Université d'Ottawa. Pp. i-vii, 1-155.
5. Linguistic Culture and Language Policy. (1996) Politics of Language Series, Rout ledge (London). Pp. i-x, 1-356.
Selected Articles:
1. 1968: Morphophonemics of the Kannada verb, Glossa 2.2: 191-212
2. 1965: Morphophonemics in Kannada, in seminar on Grammatical Theories in Kannada, mysore
3. 1975: ``On the Ternary Contrast in Dravidian Coronal Stops." in H. Schiffman and C. M. Eastman (eds.) Dravidian Phonological Systems, pp. 69-85...
4. 1991: Kannada. In Wm. Bright, (ed.), Oxford International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Vol. II, pp. 266-268. Oxford: the Clarendon Press.
William McCormack
William McCormack is one of the renowned scholars of Kannada language among western scholars who have contributed to Kannada Linguistics. His contribution to Kannada is considerably great in the areas of dialectology, sociolinguistics and language teaching. The focus of William McCormack’s study on Dharwar Kannada is significant in order to understand, the way in which language variation takes place in a multicultural and multilingual speech repertoire. Subsequently, McCormack’s study of Dharwar Kannada indicates substantial borrowing of Brahman forms by non-Brahmans, at the same time, in the region of north Karnataka urban non-Brahmans with white-collar jobs or good education speak like Brahmans.
A Bibliography of ProfessorWilliamMcCormack’s Books and Papers (Related to only Kannada).
1960: Social dialects in Dharwar Kannada. In: Ferguson and Gumperz (Ed).
1962: Elementary Kannada in three volumes with M G Krishnamurthy, S Krishnamurthy, S B Prasad and ShantaRam
1966: Kannada: A Cultural Introduction to the Spoken Styles of the Language. Madison: The University of Wisconsin press.
1968: Occupation and Residence in relation to Dharwar dialects. In: Singer and Cohn (Ed).
1968: Social dialect in Dharwar Kannada. In: Sebock (Ed) in 1969.
References:
1974: Indian Linguistics, vol.35: No: 4, Decan College, Poona
1977: International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, Vol: VI, No.1, DLA. Keral
1987: Ibid, Vol: XVI No.1
1989: Ibid, Vol: XVIII No.1
1997: Ibid, Vol: XXVI No.1
2000: Ibid, Vol: XXIX No 2
2003: Ibid, Vol: XXXII No.2
Madtha, William: 1988: Kannada Linguistics so for (1894-1986) A Rapid Survey and Analysis, Journal of the Karnataka University, Vol: XXXII, Dharwar
Mathew K M: 1994: Rev. F. Kittel: Ondu Samagra Adhayana, Kittel College, Dharwar
Madtha, William etl(Ed):1998: A Dictionary with Mission, The Karnataka Theological Research Institute, And Mangalore
1998: Dravidian Encyclopedia. Vol: 1 &2, DLA, Keral
Websites: of William Bright, Harold. Schiffman and Wilkin Encyclopedia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)