Discourse level evidence for south Asia as a linguistic area

Language

Sciences,

Volume

13, Number 2, pp. 229-254,

1991

0388-0001191 $3.00+.00

Printed in Great Britain

Pergamon

Press plc

Discourse Level Evidence for South Asia as a Linguistic Area

Rodney F. Moag

Robert Poletto

University of Texas at Austin

University of Texas at Austin

ABSTRACT This paper presents evidence supporting areas of lexicon, phonology,

by shared features at the discourse Malayalam

level in both Dravidian

and Hindi as representative

mented in four separate

the claim that, in addition to the long-acknowledged

and syntax, the area1 hypothesis of the two language

areas of discourse

for South Asia is also supported and Indo-Aryan. families,

Using data from

shared features are docu-

grammar.

It is first shown that the paragraph

and other text units have a nonlinear, spiral organization with a constant seesawing between relevant new and old topics, a system grounded in the conventions of oral discourse. A short Malayalam text analyzed for text organization and topic shift and maintenance by Poletto is presented in the Appendix, since no data of this kind has heretofore been published for this language. It is next proposed that the genre of expository writing in South Asian languages manifests the same basic communicative goal of creating a certain mood in the hearer/ reader found in other genre and art forms within the Indian tradition. The work of Y. Kachru on South Asian English is cited to demonstrate that, unlike the native varieties, the norms of paragraph organization and communicative goals for expository prose reflect the indigenous South Asian discourse traditions. Next, zero anaphora is defined and distinguished from other types of deletion and ellipsis. Examples from Hindi and Malayalam illustrate that zero anaphora functions as a device for text cohesion in both language families in a nearly identical manner. Several additional aspects of zero anaphora are also explicated, including two proposed conventions of shared discourse grammar. Finally, the use of the compound verb to convey the speaker’s attitude is further explored. Examples illustrate that two specific pragmatic functions - deixis away

230

Language Sciences, Volume 13, Number 2 (1991)

from the speaker, or scene, and the speaker’s disgust with an action, or its results are accomplished by the compound verb in the example languages, thus making them shared area1 features as well. The paper closes with some suggestions for future research in the area of discourse. INTRODUCTION The linguistic area hypothesis, as articulated by Emmeneau, and earlier by Kuiper, is well-known, and will not be reiterated here. All of the evidence adduced in support of this theory has, nearly without exception, been lexical, phonological, and syntactic reflecting the focus of the discipline of linguistics in the 1950s. With the notable exception of Kenneth Pike and some other tagmemicists, it was not until the 1970s that the discipline, as a whole, began to seriously recognize the importance of the discourse level and initiated efforts in investigating it. In her paper contrasting discourse phenomena in Marathi and Indian English, Pandharipande (1983) scents, “It will be interesting to see if there area1 features of discourse which are commonly shared by South Asian languages”. This paper will present evidence relating to this question in four main areas: (1) the organization of the written paragraph; (2) the commonality of communicative goals between expository writing and other genre; (3) conventions relating to anaphora; and (4) certain pragmatics of the compound verb. Limitations

The proposed investigation is subject to a number of limitations. Firstly, relatively little organized material has been published on the discourse conventions of the various South Asian languages, or language families. The preponderance of what has appeared in print deals with the Indo-Aryan languages, most notably Hindi-Urdu (see works by Balentine, Bhatia, Hook, Y. Kachru and Wadley cited below) and Marathi (works by Pandharipande). The only published works dealing specifcally with discourse phenomena in the Dravidian languages to date are the work of two very productive scholars. Bla~kburn’s paper presenting a structural analysis of the highly specialized bow-song narrative in Tamil (1986) and his book on performance narratives (1988) contain some useful information on the discourse of highly specialized genres. Several very excellent papers by Susan Herring (1988, 1989a, 1989b and forthcoming) contain information of much more direct interest to the linguist. However, the number of scholars working in this area is very few, and the amount of data is very limited. Scattered information on pragmatics in Dravidian also appears in some language teaching texts such as Moag 1980 and 1986 for Malayalam, and in some unpublish~ masters and doctoral theses such as Mohanan 1981 and Nayar 1983 for Malayalam, and in Schiffman (1969) for Tamil. These scattered

Evidence for South Asia as a Linguistic Area

sources are in general very different rendering

comparison

more difficult.

in focus as well as untheoretical If data is scarce,

approach,

231

thus

the lack of methodological

guidance is far greater, as no comparisons with the discourse conventions of unrelated languages in other acknowledged linguistic areas, such as Balkans could be found in the literature. Purview Despite these limitations, the principal author was prompted to attempt the study; partly for the challenge of exploring relatively uncharted waters, but more basically because of a firm belief in the overarching role of the discourse level in language, and in the benefits to be realized from promoting this viewpoint with respect to South Asian languages, and within the community of South Asian language specialists. South Asian languages are a particularly rich source of data on discourse conventions, as noted by both Andrewskutty (1988) and Kachru (1983). Since these conventions differ markedly from those found in Western languages (which seems to be the predominant fare in the literature on discourse) it behooves South Asianists to study these conventions and make them available to the field of discourse analysis in general. Because of the limitations stated above, the scope of the current paper must be limited. Due to the area1 focus, I will treat only those discourse conventions on which there is some comparative data, either in the professional literature, or in unpublished sources. I will attempt comparisons only between Dravidian and Indo-Aryan languages, as the few sources on the discourse conventions of Munda and Sino-Tibetan languages in South Asia do not lend themselves to comparison. Moreover, I have no personal knowledge of any of these languages to bring to bear. I will, wherever possible, take Hindi-Urdu and Malayalam as representatives of Indo-Aryan and Dravidian, respectively, since these are the languages I have the greatest experience in and some intuitive feel for, and since some data in printed sources is available on both. I have elicited additional data in both languages where needed in order to better make certain comparisons. Data from other South Asian languages, where available, is also brought in. The small amount of work done to date on Indian or South Asian English is also included (see Kachru 1988, 1989) since it is accepted by most scholars as a ‘nativized’ (Kachru 1977) or as I prefer to call it ‘indiginized’ (Moag 1982) variety within the South Asian context. Though the resulting paper is, perforce, rather incomplete and, in some instances, somewhat tentative in nature, it is hoped that the modest information presented below may help to point the way for some of the many topics yet to be researched in the area of shared area1 features at the discourse level in South Asia. A real contribution is made to the paper by Robert Poletto in the form of his analysis of the textual organization and topic tracking in a short piece from a Malayalam childrens’ reader

232

Language Sciences, Volume 13, Number 2 (1991)

consisting of 100 clauses in 70 finite first work on discourse to appear on subsequent analysis in the following cipal author, and any and all errors

ORGAN~ZA~ON

sentences presented in the Appendix. His is the this language. Apart from this appendix, and its section, all work in the paper is that of the prinfound here are my responsibility alone.

OF THE PARAGRAPH

Kachru (1989: 7) characterizes the structure of the paragraph in expository writing in Hindi and Indian English as having a “non-linear, spiral organization”, rather than the linear progression of topics and themes conventional in American English and other so-called native varieties. In an earlier work (1983) she tabulated the progression of themes in ark-paragraph sequences in expository passages in Hindi, showing an interweaving and seesaw approach to thematic organization. Individual paragraphs were not restricted to a single theme, as is the idealized convention in native American English, and the same theme was revisited in succeeding paragraphs, again unlike American English. She explains, “there is a greater degree of tolerance for digressions in an orthographic paragraph in Hindi, as compared with English. provided that the digressions link various episodes in the discourse in a spiral-like structure”

(Kachru

1983: 58).

Pandharipande (1983) finds the same spiral structure for Marathi language texts. One significant factor not pointed out by either of these scholars is that in a tradition where writing reflects a mode of thought which conventionally operates “in a circle, or in a spiral of continuously developing potentialities,”

(Heinemann

cited in

Lannoy 1971).

the division into orthographic paragraphs will, unlike Western writing, be quite arbitrary, and, at best, quite difficult to establish. There is no precisely comparable study of text organization for any other South Asian language, but Poletto has traced the topics through a conversational vignette in a Class Two school reader in Malayalam (presented as an appendix to this paper). He found that the overall text divided into thematic paragraphs based on arguments against and in favor of keeping a cow. The overall discourse topic, the specific cow Nandini, is really a symbol for the larger discourse theme, the virtues of the cow in general, a theme of extreme significance within the Indian sociocultural context. More interesting, Poletto found that surrogate topics such as milk and milk products (see thematic paragraph 3) and mother were employed to stand in for the main topic, Nandini. The concept of surrogate topic is one which merits further investigation. Though this piece presents exposition of a sort, the device of conveying the

Evidence for South Asia as a Linguistic Area

233

information through conversation between two small boys imposes orthographic paragraphization based on change of speaker, thus seeming to mitigate against comparison with Kachru’s

Hindi passages.

The fact that the Malayalam

piece was a small self-

contained unit with the goal of communicating a basic cultural value to seven yearolds, and that the Hindi paragraphs were part of a much longer text with the goal of imparting information about the development of the Deccani variety of Hindi to adult readers further inhibits comparison. Nevertheless, both pieces show a similarity in approach of reiterating themes in a way that something is added to them each time, hence the characterization of text organization as ‘spiral’ seems to hold for both texts. Pandharipande (1983: 119) suggests that this spiral organization stems from the imposition of the conventions of the time-honored medium of oral transmission onto the more recent written medium. She indicates that instead of paragraph structure and other devices that strategies such as repetition, thorough knowledge of grammar, and correct pronunciation are discussed in Sanskrit poetics. Both she and Kachru (1983: 63) connect the spiral organization to the mode of thinking of Indians according to Heinemann, as reported in Lannoy (1971) points out the dramatic difference between the syllogism of the classical Indian logicians and that of the Greek logicians which gave rise to the philosophical traditions of the West. As he indicates, the final step in the five-part Indian syllogism called ‘conclusion’ actually is a reiteration of the first step or ‘hypothesis’. It is interesting that Potter (1977) places the original source of the Indian syllogism, the Nyuaya Sum-a, Book 1, Portion 1, Topic VI, under the heading ‘Nature of an Argument’. Indeed, how to construct a line of reasoning, and what in a discussion is considered relevant to the principal line of reasoning are concepts which vary from culture to culture. At the same time, one must be very careful not to expect everyday practice to be totally in conformity with the stated ideals in any culture. All this having been said, it seems unequivocally the case that the Western-trained participant in Indian discourse generally feels that the Indian participants are following a very different grammar with respect to both what is relevant, and how to proceed systematically toward a logical conclusion.

Much work will be needed in order to come to even

a tentative formulation of the rules of that grammar, but I make one observation here which came out of a seminar on discourse in South Asian language at the University of Texas in fall 1989, i.e. that personal experience holds a much higher value as both relevant to, and as proof in support of an argument in Indian discourse than it does in Western conventions. Communicative

Goals

Lannoy suggests that various modes of expression including art and music have the shared goal of creating a particular feeling or mood in the beholder. Pandharipande

234

Language Sciences, Volume 13, Number 2 (1991)

(1983) quotes the Sanskrit

text which maintains

that

“the grammatical units as well as the principles of organization should be in total consonance with the ‘rasa’. feeling or aesthetic emotion, the writer tends to invoke in the reader or hearer.”

In fact, one may convincingly argue that the goal of all art forms such as painting, sculpture, and music in any culture is to produce an emotional effect in the viewer/ hearer, and even that evoking a desired emotion in the hearer is a practice of orators in all cultures. Where South Asia may be unique, and what most, if not all, of its languages may have in cormnon despite their diverse genetic origins, is the extension of these essentially preliterate goals to certain written genres, which in Western cultures have goals not of creating a mood or feeling, but of conveying information. In her 1983 study, Kachru compared the organization of narrative and expository pieces in Hindi, thinking that since the latter was a relatively new genre introduced into the region that it might have brought with it different goals and schemes of organization, but found this not to be the case.

Implications

of Shared Communicative Goals

These communicative goals which appear to be shared by all oral and written genre in South Asia doubtless derive from the Sanskrit traditions cited by Pandharipande (1983), and these traditions just as surely contributed directly, and significantly, to the discourse conventions of the derivative vernacular languages spoken in North India today. It would be important to know whether similar communicative goals were espoused by the ancient Tamil writers, or whether these goals were imported along with many other linguistic

features of the Sanskritic

period in the South in the eleventh century, certainly went on for centuries before it.

traditions during the Hindi revival

and/or

in the extensive

contact which

I should like to point out that the more recent written traditions imported into, or created within the sub-continent did nothing to modify this universality of communicative goals. Urdu poetry which developed from Perso-Arabic influences, beginning from the thirteenth century, is a very widespread and highly appreciated art form in South Asia. Both it, and the Hindi film song, which is a recent spin-off from it, and certainly the most universal genre in the area have a similarly emotive goal. This, then, reinforces the cultural values which I propose are inferable from this singularity of communicative goal, i.e.: (1) the supercedence of mood over information; and (2) the primacy of form over content. It is noteworthy, too, that the even more recently imported genre of expository prose, rather than modifying the cultural values and communicative goals just mentioned, was made to conform to them. This took place for the written genre both in Hindi and in South Asian English as Kachru’s work

Evidence for South Asia as a Linguistic Area

(1988,

1989) demonstrates.

Thus,

we now have evidence

expressed in Moag (1982) that ‘indigenization’ place not only on the well documented on the level of discourse as well.

in support

of English in non-native

levels of lexicon,

phonology,

235

of the view contexts takes

and syntax, but

Anaphora Anaphora is one of the more widely reported aspects of discourse in South Asian languages, particularly if one includes the related- areas of topic maintenance and ellipsis. Table 1 lists the types of anaphora identified by various writers for one or more South Asian languages. It seems safe to say that all five types are found in most, if not all, languages of the world, and hence may be considered virtually universal. Of these, only zero anaphora has particular relevance to the area1 unity of South Asia, and its apparent distinction from other areas where members of the language family are spoken outside the region. Due to its relative uniqueness, phonetically-based anaphora will be briefly discussed at the end of this section.

TABLE 1 Types of Anaphora Full NP Pronoun Zero Sense anaphora (metonymy) Phonetically-based anaphora

Zero Anaphora I define zero anaphora as “the absence of any overt segment in a clause to represent an element which is clearly a part of the argument structure of that clause”. For a fuller discussion of this definition, and of the phenomenon of zero anaphora, see Moag (forthcoming A). Kachru (1987B) cites “zero pronominalization” and “deletion” as separate anaphoric devices, apparently following Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) list of cohesive devices for English. She provides no separate examples to distinguish the two phenomena. Zero anaphora is used by more writers on South Asian discourse conventions to represent the absence of an element which would, if recovered, take the form of a pronoun, and have its referent in a proceeding clause. Both Wadley (1986) and Kachru (1987B) use “zero pronominalization” interchangeably with “zero anaphora”. I shall use only zero anaphora, despite the fact that my proposed definition above contains no mention of the preceding referent which is a basic element of the

236

Language Sciences, Volume 13, Number 2 (1991)

meaning

of the word “anaphor”.

Reasons for this omission are discussed in Moag (forthcoming). I prefer to limit the term “deletion” to the obligatory syntactic rules which delete identical elements within the clause, and to regard the optional, though often conventionalized, dropping of elements whose referents appear in a preceding sentence as “ellipsis”. For a fuller treatment of the distinction between ellipsis and deletion see Andrewskutty (1988) and Andrewskutty and Moag (forthcoming). Discourse Versus Syntactic Amphora. Needless haggling over terminology can be an obstacle to scientific inquiry. In the case of zero anaphora, deletion, and ellipsis, however, it is necessary to illuminate an area of some confusion over the operation of processes at the syntactic versus the discourse level. I agree with Andrewskutty that those processes operating within a single clause which are obligatory should be distinguished from those rules which are optional and relate to referents in an earlier, or in the case of cataphora, later clause. Halliday and Hasan (1976) include in their list of anaphoric devices used in maintaining discourse cohesion: reflexives and reciprocals. These are phenomena occurring within the same clause, or, in extreme cases, several clauses distant, but dominated by a single superordinate S (see Mohanan 1981: 24 for particularly convoluted examples of such multi-embeddings in Malayalam), and I suggest that the rules governing them are obligatory and operate at the syntactic level. Either we must adhere to the currently accepted absolute boundary between syntax and discourse based on the single clause criterion, or we must revamp our theories to acknowledge that some of the rules and constraints operating on the single clause function at the level of discourse. The line becomes particularly fuzzy when dealing with multi-clause sentences. For a fuller discussion of this issue see Moag (forthcoming). Ared Distribution of Zero Anaphora. Examples of zero anaphora in the two representative languages appear below. Additional examples may be found in Moag (forthcoming). The same sentences are given in both Hindi and Malayalam in order to illustrate the identity of the process of zero anaphora in the two genetically unrelated languages. 1.

Yes/no question and response: Speaker A: Hin: turn ne : use : :

:

vah rumaal

he + oblq./dat. : that handkerchief You Mal. nii avanu : aa kaileesu “Did you give him the handkerchief?” Speaker B: Hin. 0 : 0 : 0 : de diyaa : (to him) : (it) : give + past (I) Mal. 0 : 0 : 0 : koTuttu “Yes, I gave it to him.”

:

di- -yaa?

: give past? : koTutto?

Evidence for South Asia as a Linguistic Area

2.

Information

question

237

and response:

Speaker A: : Hin. vah baat : sun kar that matter : hear + perf : Mal. aa kaaryam : keeT- -iTTu : “What did he do when he heard

us ne

: kyaa : kiyaa? he : what : do + past avan : entu : ceyytu? (about) that matter?”

Speaker B: Hin. 0 : muskaraayaa (he) : smile + past Mal. 0 : ciriccu “He smiled.” Kachru (1987: 68) has referred to the fact that zero pronominalization and deletion are preferred devices among Hindi-Urdu speakers for achieving cohesion in speech as well as writing. Lutz (1985: 226) notes that this absence of pronouns in Hindi-Urdu causes difficulty for native English-speaking readers. I have found this to be a major problem in my own 25 years of teaching American and European learners of both Hindi and Malayalam. They invariably express consternation at how much is left out of sentences in running discourse. This results not only in difficulty in interpretation, but in distinctive interlanguage (see Selinker 1972) varieties of these languages which are replete with all arguments pertaining to the given clause. In fact, one of the marks of students achieving advanced competence in these and, I suspect, other South Asian languages is when they begin automatically to zero out such elements in running discourse. Discourse Functions of Zero Anaphora. In her study of an oral Hindi narrative, Wadley (1986: 222) found a connection between the use of zero anaphora and the larger discourse organization of the text. She reported that lines that did not introduce a change in scene begin either with an initial particle or with pronoun deletion. In other words, zero anaphora occurs within scenes, but no across scene boundaries. No comparable study of a narrative in a Dravidian language was available, but the instances of zero anaphora in the Malayalam text analyzed by Poletto also occurs within major sections as defined by thematic boundaries. The restriction of zero anaphora to text-internal units is explained by a more basic fact about pronominalization itself. A pronoun, by its very use, bespeaks old or known information, as distinct from that which is new or unknown. Therefore, zero anaphora can occur only with items of old information. This is supported by Wadley’s observation (1986: 24): “Zero anaphora occurs only after the scene and its major participants have been set”. The opposition between old and new information is one which is probably made by most, if not all, languages. What will vary, of course, are the

238

Language Sciences, Volume 13, Number 2 (1991)

particular mechanisms employed by a given language, language family, or within a specified linguistic area, to distinguish the one category from the other. Scope

of Zero Anaphora.

When

looking

at the response

sentences

in the Hindi

and Malayalam examples above, it can be observed that most of the elements in the argument structure have been zeroed out. This is similar to the process in the scenes in Wadley’s narrative, where once the actors and props have been introduced into the discourse they become old information, and are, hence, subject to zeroing in succeeding utterances. Indeed, whenever someone with native, or near-native, competence in Hindi or Malayalam encounters a sentence where all of the possible arguments carried by the verb are not present, he recognizes the phenomenon to clearly mark those missing elements as old information, and as requiring him to examine the linguistic, and/or physical context to recover the referents. Thus, it seems undeniably the case that zero anaphora is a “highly preferred device” not only for maintaining cohesion as Kachru asserts (1987: 68), but also in that it bears an equally high functional load in marking the distinction between old versus new information. The examples above further demonstrate that these functions are operative on an areawide level, rather than just for Hindi-Urdu. However, the distinction between old and new information is not a purely digital one. Herring (1989) proposes an analog device which she terms scale ofaccessibils’ty. Though her examples relate mostly to implicature and shared cultural knowledge and information, it is clear that referents in the prior linguistic context also vary in their degree of accessibility to the hearer/reader. Givon (1983) tested his concept of “topic decay ’ ’ , in which topics become increasingly less accessible to the reader as the number of clauses increase since its last mention, and found that after twenty intervening clauses, the topic is no longer recoverable. Kachru (1987a) has examined this and related questions of topic maintenance in a Hindi text. Clearly, much more study is needed of the relationship between zero anaphora and the relative distance of their referents in all the language families of South Asia. It has already been mentioned that one of the problems in mastering Hindi-Urdu and Malayalam for native speakers of English and other European languages is their acquisition of the convention of zero anaphora. Moag (1986) frequently reminds the learner of Malayalam that the normal response to yes/no questions consists simply of a verb, with all previously expressed or implied argument omitted, and the response to an informational question consists of a verb plus whatever specific information has been requested. The situation is largely the same for Hindi-Urdu. Both language families have particles which can be used as positive and negative replies, but there is a strong preference for using the verb in response to such questions rather than a particle (see examples 1 and 2 above). The two languages exhibit one minor difference with respect to particles. Hindi-Urdu, like its Indo-European relatives, has a single pair of particles meaning “yes” and “no” which can be employed in responses to all

Evidence for South Asia as a Linguistic Area

yes/no questions. containing

Dravidian,

has two sets of particles,

239

one set used only for questions

the copula and a second set used for all other verbs (Moag 1986). With

respect to anaphora,

the two language

families

seem to share a convention

in con-

nected discourse for zeroing out most, and frequently all, old information which is capable of pronominalization. However, zeroing of old information in the form of pronouns is not limited to responses to questions, or to the realm of conversation. It occurs in written genres as well. Wadley (1986: 224) found zero anaphora in both the oral and written versions of the Hindi narrative she studied, but reports that it was far more common in the oral version. It does seem obvious that zero anaphora will be more common in face to face communication where non-verbal devices such as gaze and the like are also present to foster cohesion. It is my observation, for example, that zeroing of the subject pronoun is the unmarked condition in diadic exchanges in South Asian languages. When the utterance is a question, the addressee is assumed to be the subject, of the verb, unless otherwise specified, while in a statement, the speaker is assumed to be the subject. Moag (forthcoming) proposes a Subject Deletion Convention as a part of the discourse grammars of Hindi and Malayalam to account for this phenomenon. It is noteworthy that one observes this subject zeroing no less commonly with the so-called dative construction, where the personal subject holds the role of patient. If a third person were the already established topic of conversation, hence, old information, that person would be the unmarked and zeroed subject or patient (see examples 3 and 4). This would apply even where a subject/patient were not articulated in previous conversation, i.e. in the prior linguistic context. If the attention of the two or more interlocutors is drawn to some non-participant in the physical context, such as a child, foreigner, or what have you, this is sufficient to establish that person as old or given information and for it, therefore, to be zeroed out in seemingly initial comments made about the person. In fact, the initiation of the topic took place non-verbally through visual cues. This function of topic maintenance is a further confirmation of the central role which zero anaphora plays in South Asian languages as a device for text cohesion. Moag (forthcoming) proposes a Topic Maintenance Convention to handle this function in the discourse grammars of these languages. It should be remembered, however, that the role of zero anaphora as a cohesive device is limited. Wadley (1986: 223-4) alludes to its role in narrative structure, but only within scenes. I have already suggested in the preceding paragraph that zero anaphora is limited to old information. As such, it could function effectively only so long as the basic parameters of the particular segment, or unit of discourse remain in force. More studies are needed to determine whether this limitation on zero anaphora is absolute, or whether it can, under certain conditions, function across constituent boundaries in a discourse of any particular genre. LX-U/Z-J

240 3.

Language Sciences, Volume 13, Number 2 (1991)

Hin: Mal:

use avanu

: :

pasand iSTam

he + dat : liking “Did he like it?” 4.

Hin: Mal:

: :

aayaa? aayiiyoo?

:

become + past + Interrog

: kitaab 0 + dat. 0 + dat. : pusakam you +dat. : book “Did you get the book?”

: :

milii? kiTTiiyoo?

:

accrue to + past + ?

One final aspect of zero anaphora deserves mention. Kachru (1987) has pointed out that Hindi-Urdu speakers use agreement such as person and gender marking on verbs and other clues to establish antecedent anaphoric relations. It is true that these cues are available not only in Hindi-Urdu, but to a greater or lesser degree, also in most of the other Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages. It must be remembered that such markers, in the main, provide cues only about the subject pronoun, and in the ergative languages, also about the object of the verb in certain instances. Though this covers many, it by no means covers all the pronouns which are customarily zeroed in these languages. The real test of the pressures of conformity to area1 discourse conventions would be finding similar conventions in a language where such markers are not available as clues. Malayalam provides such a case in that, unlike its fellow inhabitants of the subcontinent, even its nearest Dravidian relative Tamil, it has neither person nor gender markings on verbs, yet it zeroes pronouns every bit as readily as other area languages with more highly inflected verb systems. Some Eastern dialects of Hindi have less elaborated verb morphologies, with the gender distinctions and ergativity found in the standard variety being absent. The derivative koineized spoken by overseas Indian communities have even more reduced verbal morphologies, with fewer distinctions in person than their parent dialects or, as I would prefer, languages. See, for example, Moag (1977) for a detailed description of the verb system of Fiji, Hindi and Mohan (1978) for a similar treatment of Trinidad Bhojpuri. Though no statistical counts have been done, my firm impression after functioning for three years in the Fiji-Indian linguistic community is that zero anaphora is also a very common device there, and probably no less prevalent than in the discourse of homeland Indians. Phonetically-based Anaphora I take a few lines here to bring to not widely reported. Wadley (1986: an oral narrator when voicing lines she does not elaborate on it further,

the readers attention a type of anaphora hitherto 219) reports a special nasal tone being used by spoken by the god in the Tale of Sakat. Though it is easy to see how the use of a marked voice

Evidence for South Asia as a Linguistic Area

quality to represent

a specific character

of function as agreement

would, once established,

serve the same type

markers on the verb (see above), to remove ambiguity

the subject while, at the same time, rendering

redundant

241

about

the use of an overt subject.

Such a device is, needles to say, restricted to the oral narrative and closely related genres. Blackburn (1986) mentions similar devices in the presentation of the long bowsong tradition narratives in Tamil. It seems certain that this is an area-wide convention in South Asia, but that it is by no means limited to that region, and hence serves no role in defining the linguistic area. Nevertheless, it bears mention as a little reported convention of one performance genre observed in South Asia. THE COMPOUND

VERB

The compound, sometimes called serial verb (Steever 1988 and others), has received considerable attention, both within its own right and with respect to the area1 hypothesis (see Masica 1976). Typical of South Asian linguistics, the most work has been done on the compound verb in Hindi-Urdu. See for example Hook (1974), Kachru (1979), Porizka (1967), among others. There is at least one dissertation done on this structure for both of the South Dravidian languages, Nayar (1983) for Malayalam, and Schiffman (1969) for Tamil. The prime focus of all these works has been the syntactic and semantic properties of the compound verb, but some attention has also been given to the pragmatics of the construction, c.f. Kachru (1979), Hook (1988) and Moag (1989). The dissertation by Herring (in progress) on the pragmatics of the verb in Tamil narrative should provide important new data on the discourse functions of the compound verb in at least one much studied genre, which may then be testable for other less rigidly formalized genre such as conversation. In her paper on the pragmatics of the compound verb in Hindi-Urdu, Kachru (1979) suggested that the use of serial verbs to indicate attitude of speaker was a feature in other South Asian languages also. At the time, she had only one source on Dravidian (Schiffman 1969) to draw on. Additional work has been done in more recent years, including a very substantive chapter on the compound verb in a dissertation on verb sequences in Malayalam by Devi Nayar (1983) which further confirms Kachru’s assertion. Aside from the general principle of the pragmatic use of the compound verb, two specific discourse level functions are of the compound verb, two specific discourse level functions are now revealed to be operative in both Hindi and Malayalam. These are listed with examples in Table 2 and are treated in turn in the subsections below.

Deixis Sinha (1972) pointed out the deictic functions

of the verbs a~uaaa ‘come’ and juanaa

242

Language

‘go’ in Hindi. languages, Whereas

Sciences, Volume 13, Number 2 (1991) Though this is a shared discourse

function

the common source is found on the semantic, the lexical verbs ‘go’ in both languages

for the two representative

rather than the lexical, level.

are used as explicators

to indicate

completion of an action or process, and this can also be construed to, some sense, often represent distancing from the speaker or focal point, the verbs employed to represent this deixis most clearly are different lexical items in the two languages (see examples under 5 in Table Two below). Malayalam uses the verb kaLayuka whose lexical meaning is ‘to throw away’ or ‘waste’. Hindi sometimes uses the verb juana ‘to go’, but also, I allege, uses the verb dent-u ‘to give’. The verb ‘give’ has one more element in its argument structure than does ‘throw away’, but it is in this extra argument - the recipient or benefactee - that the common semantic element appears. The verb ‘give’ contains the sense of ‘away from its subject’, in its benefactee argument, whereas the verb ‘throw away’ carries this sense as a semantic feature of the lexical item itself. Examples under A of Table Two below show the use of these two verbs as explicators to signify movement away from the speaker or from a focal point of an action of state. The Malayalam sentence is from Nayar (1983), while the Hindi rendition is my own. I believe this is the first time that the deictic function of denm has been pointed out. The verb ‘come’ has a semantically opposite deictic function in Hindi as Sinha (1972) and Kachru (1979) illustrate, but this is not the case in Malayalam. TABLE Shared Discourse A. 5.

Hin: Mal:

Deixis Showing usne avan he

6.

7.

Hin:

Mal:

of the Compound

Verb

movement

: :

: ‘He sold

B.

Functions

2

Conveying Explicator

away from the speaker or focal point bet diyaa ghar : viiTu : *virru kaLannu sell + away from speaker : house : the house (off).’ the speaker’s attitude signifying ‘away from person or event, used to show distaste

for action, or its results’ : pii ja- -a0 jaldii se : davaa : medicine : drink + exp. quickly ‘Drink the darn medicine up quickly.’

+ command

: oFticcu kaLannu raajan : paalu : niLattu : milk : floor + lot. : pour + exp. + past Rajan ‘Rajan poured the milk on the floor, darn him.’

*: /rr/ systemically

and phonetically

is an alveolar stop.

Evidence for South Asia as a Linguistic Area

Conveying

243

Speaker Attitude

The examples under B in Table 2 illustrate how explicators may be used to indicate the speaker’s distaste for something in the situation. Again, the Hindi example is from Kachru (1979) but the Malayalam example is taken from two sources Nayar (1979) and Nayar (1983) (different authors). V. R. P. Nayar (1979) ascribed the meaning of ‘intentionality of action’ to this example. Devi Nayar, in her 1983 dissertation, takes issue with this interpretation, suggesting instead the connotation of bad effects from the speaker’s point of view. I have discussed the sentence with several native speakers, and their intuitions favor the view that the intentionality is present, but in the basic semantics of the verb ‘pour’ and that what is added by the explicator, whose lexical meaning is ‘to waste or throw away’, is the regrettable nature of the event. Nayar was apparently not aware of Kachru’s formulations, as the article does not appear in her bibliography, so we must conclude that she arrived at this conclusion independently. Moag (1989b) listed six different pragmatic functions of the compound verb which have been identified by various scholars as operational in Hindi-Urdu. Two of those functions (shown in Table 2 above) are also found in Malayalam, and perhaps in other Dravidian and Aryan languages. A third feature, that of marking the ends of paragraphs or other textual units (see Hook 1988), in preliminary testing by the principal author appears not to be operative in Malayalam prose. The other three functions are found in Kachru (1979) and have also proven not to bc present in Malayalam and hence will not be discussed here. Suggested

Future Studies

As mentioned

in the introduction,

the bulk of the work on discourse

in South Asia

has been done on Hindi. Some of these works were not mentioned earlier, as there have been no similar studies in other languages to provide a basis for comparison. These works do, however, provide worthwhile models to be followed in the examination of discourse norms in other languages with a view to identifying shared discourse strategies

across language

boundaries.

Bhatiya (1987) presents

an interesting

analysis of the structure of printed advertisements in Hindi, and how lexical sets of varying origins - English, Hindustani, Sanskrit and Urdu - are selected for different components in order to produce the desired emotive effect. Mehrotra, though presenting a treatment of the sociolinguistic conditioners of modes of greeting in Hindi, contains information relating to discourse structures and norms as well. Tamara Valentine (1983, 1985 and 1988) has treated various aspects of sex-based differences in language, both in Hindi and Indian English. These provide models for studies of these highly specialized but interesting topics in other South Asian languages. Even with the good and, in some cases, prolific work on various aspects of discourse

244

Language Sciences, Volume 13, Number 2 (1991)

analysis

cited here, we still do not have even the barest outline of a description

of a

full discourse grammar for any of the South Asian languages. It will be a long time, indeed, before the full extent of area1 unity at the discourse level can be assessed. It is hoped that the meagre information presented here will motivate scholars of various South African languages, especially those of non-Indo-Aryan stock, to attempt further studies so that additional shared features may be brought to light.

NOTES 1.

Address correspondence to: Dr R. F. Moag, Department of Oriental and African Languages and Literatures, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, U.S.A.

REFERENCES Andrewskutty, A. P. 1988 “Ellipses in Malayalam,” International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, Vol. XVII No. 1, 107-17. Bhatia, Tej K. “English in Advertising,” World English, 6. 33-48. 1987 Blackburn, 1986

1988

Stuart H. “Performance Markers in an Indian Story-Type,” in Another Harmony: New Essays on the Folklore of India, pp. 167-94, S. Blackburn and A. K. Ramanujan (eds), Berkeley: University of California Press. Singing of Birth and Death: Texts in Perjbrmance, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Givon , Talmy 1983

Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Halliday, M. A. K. and R. Hasan 1976 Cohesion in English, London: Longman. Herring, Susan C. “Aspect as a Discourse Category in Tamil,” Berkeley Linguistics Society 1988 14. 280-92. Chicago 1989a “Verbless Presentation and the Discourse Basis of Ergativity,” Linguistics Society 25. 123-37. 1989b “Accounting for Verbless Sentences in Tamil Narrative: A Discoursefunctionalist Approach,” Paper delivered at SALA XI, Madison WI. June 3, 1989.

Evidence for South Asia as a Linguistic Area

n.d.

“The Grammaticalization Approaches

of Rhetorical

to Grummaticulizution,

Questions

in Tarnil,”

245

to appear in

Vol. 1, Berndt Heine and Elizabeth

Trouget (eds), Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Discourse Grammar: A Functional Analysis of the Verb in Tamil Narration, n.d. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Hook, Peter Edwin The Compound Verb in Hindi, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Center 1974 for South and Southeast Asian Studies. “The Hindi Compound Verb: What It Is and What It Does,” in Readings in Hindi-Urdu Linguistics, pp. 130-57, K. S. Singh, (ed.), New Delhi: National Publishing House. “Discourse Functions of the Compound Verb in Hindi,” paper presented 1988 in the Panel on Discourse in South Asian Languages, SALA X. Seattle: June, 1988. Kachru, Braj B. “The New Englishes and Old Models,” English Teaching Forum 15.3. 1977 29-35. 1978

Kachru, Yamuna “Pragmatics and Verbs Serialisation in Hindi-Urdu,” Studies in the 1979 Linguistic Sciences 9.2. 157-69. 1983 “Linguistics and Written Discourse in Particular Languages: Contrastive Studies: English and Hindi,” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 1982, pp. 50-69. Rowley, MA: Newburyhouse. 1987a “Ergativity, Subjecthood and Topicality in Hindi-Urdu,” Lingua 71. 223-38. 1987b “Cross Cultural Texts, Discourse Strategies and Discourse Interpretation,”

1988 1989

in Discourse Across Cultures: Strategies in World Englishes, pp. 87-100, L. E. Smith (ed.), New York: Prentice Hall. “Interpreting Indian English Expository Prose,” IDEAL 3. 39-50. “Language and Cultural Meaning: Expository Writing in South Asian English,”

paper presented at TESOL conference,

San Antonio, Texas, 1989.

Lannoy, Richard “Indian Thought, ” in The Speaking Tree: A Study of Indian Culture and 1971 Society, Part 4, Ch. 1, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lutz, Richard D. i%e Effect of Pronoun Type on First and Second Language Perceptual 1985 Strategies in Hindi, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champagne. Masica, C. P. Dejming a Linguistic Area: South Asia, Chicago: University of Chicago 1976 Press.

246

Language Sciences, Vohune 13, Number 2 (1991)

Mehrotra, 1978

R. R. “Modes of Greeting in Hindi: A Socio-Linguistic

in Hindi-Urdu Linguistics, pp. 206-53, National

Publishing

Statement,”

House.

Moag, Rodney F. 1977 Fiji Hindi: A Basic Course and Reference Gr~ National University Press. 1980 1982

nd.

n.d. 1989a 1989b

in Readings

K. S. Singh, (ed.), New Delhi:

r, Canberra:

Australian

Malaya/am: A University Course and Reference Grammar, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies. “The Life Cycle of Non-narrative Englishes,” in Size Other Tongue: English Across Culrures, pp. 217-288, Braj B. Kachru (ed.), Urbana: University of Illinois Press. “Zero Anaphora as an Area1 Feature in South Asia,” to appear in Proceedings of the International Seminar on Anaphora, K. V. Subbarao (ed.), 1990, New Delhi: Motilal Benarsi Das. “Ellipsis Versus Deletion: Straddling the Discourse-Syntax Line,” Paper delivered at SALA XII, Berkeley: June, 1990. “The Compound Verb in Hindi and Malayalam,” Paper presented at SALA XI, Madison Wisconsin June, 1989. “Discourse Functions of the Compound Verb in Hindi and Malayalam,” Paper delivered during the Panel on Discourse SALA XI. Madison, Wisconsin. June 1989.

Mohan , Peggy 1978 Trznkiad Bhojpu~, Unpublish~

in South Asian Language,

Ph.D. Dissertation,

University of Michigan,

Ann Arbor, Mohanan, 1981

K. P.

Grammatical Relations and Anaphora in Malayalam, Unpublished Thesis,

M.A.

MIT, Cambridge.

Nayar, Devi 1983 Verb Sequences in ~a~a~~rn, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Nayar, V. R. Prab~hachandran International Journal of Dravidian “Aspectual System in Malayalam,” 1979

Linguistics 8.2. 189-99. Pandharipande, Rajeswari “Linguistics and Written Discourse in Particular Languages: Contrastive 1983 Annual Review of Applied Linguistics Studies: English and Marathi,” 1982, 118-36, Rowley, MA: Newburyhouse. “On Nativization of English,” World Englishes 6.2. 149-58. 1987

Evidence for South Asia as a Linguistic Area

Porizka, 1967

247

Vincent “On the Perfective 64-88,

208-31,

Verbal Aspect in Hindi,”

233-51,

19-47,

Archiv Orienfalni,

35-37,

345-64.

Potter, Karl 1977 Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophy, New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas. Schiffman, Harold 1969 A Transformational Grammar of the Tamil Aspectual System. Studies in Linguistics and Language Learning, Vol. 7., Seattle: University of Washington. Selinker, L. 1972 “Interlanguage,” Intemutional Review of Applied Linguistics, 10.3.209-31. Sinha, Anjani K. 1972 “On the Deictic Use of ‘Coming’ and ‘Going’ in Hindi,” Chicago Linguistics Society 8. 35 l-8. Trawick, Margaret 1988 “Spirit and Voices in Tamil Songs,” American Ethnologist, 15.2. 193-215. Valentine, Tamara M. 1983 “Sexism in Hindi: Forms, Functions and Variation,” Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 13-2, Fall 1983, 143-158. 1985 “Cross-sex Conversation in Indian English Fiction,” World Englishes 4.3. 319-32. 1988 “Developing Discourse Types in Non-native English: Strategies of Gender in Hindi and Indian English,” World Englishes 7.2. 143-58. Wadley, Susan S. 1986 “The Katha of Sakat: Two Tellings, ” in Another Harmony: New Essays on the Folklore of India, pp. 195-232, S. Blackburn (eds), Berkeley: University of California Press.

and A. K. Ramanujan

APPENDIX I - TRANSLITERATION AND TRANSLATION Grammatical Abbreviations Words or items in curly braces (i.e. “{ }“) are examples of anaphors. If a word is elided resulting in a zero anaphora, a {0} is placed in the text and the word is glossed in the translation within curly braces. If there is another form of anaphora in use, that form will be indicated within the curly braces. For example, “mother{sense}” indicates sense anaphora for ‘cow’ is being carried by the word “mother”. Additionally, those words or anaphoras referring to Nandini, being the primary example of the usefulness of cows and the main discourse theme, are printed in bold type in order for the reader to better follow their progression in the text. Note that a reference to

248

Language Sciences, Volume 13, Number 2 (1991)

Nandini appears usually within one clause of the transition from one thematic paragraph to the next. Because the original text was in the form of a dialogue, it was necessary to indicate where the natural thematic breaks occur in the text. These are referred to as Zhematic Paragraphs and are made on the basis of a change in the topic of the discourse. Words connected by a hyphen are linked in text and speech. Implied information and items not readily translated into English are given in parentheses. For example, “We(ex)” stands for the first person plural pronoun which excludes the hearer. Items in italics and brackets are grammatical endings, particles, case markers, etc. The future tense is often used for habitual actions. Des stands for the desiderative verb ending, which indicates desire (with a dative subject). Pob stands for the potential verb ending, which indicates ability (with a dative subject), or future intended action (with a nominative subject). Quot is the quotative particle, which marks embedded sentences and reported speech. Gnl represents the presence of the generalizing particle, which adds absolutive sense to the word to which it is attached. Adj represents the adjectival ending, which is usually attached to a verb phrase, often acting like a relative clause headed by the following word. Perf represents the conjunctive/perfective verbal ending: this ending is not finite - there must be a main verb in the sentence. Lot represents the locative case. Add represents the associative or addressive case. Nom refers to a nominalizing particle. Cia refers to the citation form of the verb. Znstr refers to the instrumental case. Transcription

System

The transcription system is phonemic except for: (1) WI, an epenthetic or echo vowel; (2) [nd] ,/n/ +/r/; and (3) Ml, /r/+/r/. Nonstandard phonemic symbols are: 1 (palatalized laminal alveolar tap) and 7: (voiced retroflex approximate). To account for the distinction which is not graphically made between dental and alveolar nasal found only in Malayalam, iinahha!ute we(ex)[pos] Qhematic Ahar:

are used, respectively.

qandini nandini Paragraph

W?nii,

venu/voc] velp.l:

“IJ” and “n”

p&i%

insufficient.

1)

kuraccunegumktiti some-time-more enikkU I[dut]

vegam quick

ka!iccittU play[perfl

pOyCi1 pO@? go-if insufficient

p6kanam. go[des].

ende I[pos]

kuttan friend

[inrerrog]

enne I[ucc]

ksttirikkum. waitlfub].

Evidence for South Asia as a Linguistk Area

ri:

a@inU ninte who-is youfpos]

v:

atU ninakkariyille? that you[dat]-know[~o?~~neg]~~~errog~ kuttiySt$J child-is

5:

V:

pinne! then!

pinneyum again ‘.

ni you

kutmn. friend.

@urn. runlfut].

pin&e after

kuttivizttum. butt-fall[caas]-lfut] v:

enikkentistamanennii? I[dat]-what-liking-is-(quot][interrog]?

@urn. runffut].

iEn I

{0} atuttettiyal {I} near-arrive-if

(0) otum. {he) knots

avande he[pos]

avane he&cc]

iiamu3htte ~diiippaSuvinde our(ex)~pQs] Nadine-cow~p~s]

ktite kalikkumii? with play/&t]finterrogfl

avan tu~~it~!?i he jump-jump

pinnale after

S.

kuttan? friend?

ende I[pos]

avan ninde he you[pos]

avane he(accJ

avan he

orotta one-single

itiinU fiaprtahtte this-is we(ex)~~s~ otiyal run-if

avande helpos]

pit&k&n (0) catch@@ {he&or]} tullal tullum. jump jumpmt].

kali. game.

taIla mother{Nandini}

ninne you[acc]

nbkkikko! take care(imp]! wtndini

~ina~entariy~! you(dat]-what-know(pot]!

iiaimalute we(ex)[pos]

pavaminenno! gentle-is-[quot][intm-og]!

kuttilla. areyum IO} {nandini} who[acc]-[gnl] buttlfut][neg].

dhafalam a lot amma mother

pal tayum. milk give~t] pal milk

249

nandini

kuftan vayaruniraye stomach-fill child

karannetukkti. milk-take-only,f@].

venfatiladhikam kittum. want~~~m]~~oc]-more get@&].

entU what

kuticcitte drink~e~[emp~]

ennSllum itirialkkU then[gnl] we(ex)(dat]

(01 {nandini} ende I[pos]

250

Language Sciences, Volume 13, Number 2 (1991)

(Thematic Paragraph 2) S:

fianriahrte

ayalpakkattu

o&J

paSuv@_J.

{0}

kompU

our(ex)[pos]

neighborhood@&]

one

cow-exists.

{you}

horn(s)

kantalttanne see-if-indeed

petiylvum. fear-be@].

Breyum who[acc][gnl]

sammatikkilla. agreelfitt][neg]. v:

atinU she[dat]

atU

she palum milk

kuravanu lack-is.

atukkan approach[infl

(01 {she[add]}

.

atU

nalla

inamallayuirikkarn.

aandini

that

good

breed-be[neg][probabiMy].

nanini

nalla

inamanU.

(0)

ranfuneyuvumktiti

pattu

littar

pal

karakkum .

good

breed-is.

{we}

two-times-with

ten

liter

milk

milk/@]

(Thematic Paragraph 3) S:

enkilum

pasuvine

va!arttunnatU

if[gnl]

cow[acc]

raise[pres][nom]

IO)

v:

{you[dat]}

ismmp6le like-as

entinU what[dat]

innane this way

vitjil house[loc]

IO) {you}

palppoti milk-powder {0} {you[dat]}

valiya large vannan buy[infl

patalle? trouble-is[neg][interrog]? pinne so

kittumallo. getlfut][emph].

[email protected]@ram? trouble-experienceldes]?

karannetutta milk[perJI-get[past][adj]

palinde milk[pos]

svadU taste

onnU one[nom].

v&etanneylpU. another-indeed-is

s

itrayadhikam this much-a lot vaccal keep-if

pal milk

palkontU milk-with

niriria! you

entU what

ketuvarille? defect-come/j%t][negJ(interrog].

ceyyum? do/jLtj?

pit2 next

divasatt&kU day[loc]-until

Evidence for South Asia as a Linguistic Area v:

adhikamujja

pal

a lot-is]@]

milk {mother} curd-make[pot][emph].

pa1 milk

(0)

kacciyetukkum. boil-takelfur].

tairakkama116.

(0) {she}

naiuia&kU we(ex)[d&]

sv%i&-LJ atinenno! taste-is this[dut][quot][interrog]! madhuram. sweetness.

bakkiyu!!a rest-exist@!]

tai~kataiiiiU curd-churn[perjJ

iianna! we(ex)

moruktittum. buttermilk-add@t]

vilkkukayum sell[cit][gnl] (Thematic 6:

mother

skin-form-without

tarurn. givelfut].

tairuktittum; curd-add*t]; vemrayum, butter-and,

avaSyakkaruptenki1 needfium. pl.]-exist-if

palurn milk-and

nalla good

tai@kkum.

to) {she}

curd-makes?].

(0) vennayuyukki {she} butter-melt[pefl

psll mBtramalla, milk only-is[neg],

entU what

neyyun@kum . ghee-make @a].

{0} {we(ex)}

cilapp6j some-time

tairumonnum curd-and-one[gnl] tairum curd-and

iiainia! we(ex)

neyyum butter-and

ceyyum. do/j%].

Paragraph

pa&vine cow[ucc]

cilappo! some-time

Qaket@te

c&ttillenkilum mix[past][neg]-if[gnI]

urayoziccU starter-pour[perjJ

venqayetukkum, butter-takemt],

unnump6j dinefit]-when

v&inarilla. buy[hab][neg]

pS1 milk

amma

kutikk2n drink[injJ

paiicasfiba sugar

251

4)

{0} {you}

va!arttiyal raise-if

vitum house-and

totiyum compound-and

vyttike@ville? clean-lack-is,$t][neg][interrog]? v:

to1 {you}

vyttike@v&c clean-lack-be[negl

kauki wash[petjj

vrttiyiikkum. clean-makelfut].

nokkanam. take care[de.r]. c@takam dung

fiaririal we(ex) stiksikk& keep[in.

ennum day[gnl] pratyekam separate

toqlttu cowshed kuziyuntU . pit-exist.

252

Language Sciences, Volume 13, Number 2 (1991)

canakam cow dung

nalla

valam8nU.

atinal

good

manure-is.

this[instr]

atukkalatt6ttattil&kU kitchen-garden&c]-to amma mother

toquttu

valam manure

vrttiyakkum. clean-makelfut].

cow-shed

pamttikkuru cotton-seed ‘.

v&e another

fiahnalute we(ex)[ppos] v%nienfiva~arilla.

{0} {we(ex)[dur]} cEcciy6 sister-or

buy~des]~orneFab]~~eg]

ammayo mother-or

araykkum. grind&t].

S.

itokke this-etc.

valiya large

v:

pato? trouble-(is)]interrogr!

p@alle? trouble-is[neg][interrogJ? itra this-much

joli job

yasamulla pleasure-have]@]

vheyilla. another-to-exist[neg].

(Conclusion) ninde you[pos]

ammay6tU mother[add]

oru a

pasuvine cow[acc]

vannan buy[infl

parayu . tell[imp].

Our Nandini (Free Translation) !&khar:

Vemi, Will it be too long if you play some more time?

Venu :

It will be. I have to go. My friend is waiting for me.

s

Who is your friend?

V:

Don’t you know that? Our cow’s calf is my friend.

s

Does he play with you?

V:

s

I like him so much!

Of course. He runs and jumps. I run after him to catch him. If I get near him he jumps. Then he runs. This is our game. If you run after him, his mother will butt you and knock you over. You should be careful!

Evidence for South Asia as a Linguistic Area

V:

What do you know? Our Nandini

253

is such a dear! She doesn’t butt anyone.

She gives a lot of milk. Only after her child has drunk his fill does my mother milk her. We get more than we need. S

There is a cow in our neighborhood. If you saw her horns, you would be afraid. She doesn’t let anyone approach her. And, she doesn’t give much milk.

V:

She probably isn’t a good breed. Nandini is a good breed. With two milkings, we get ten litres of milk.

S

But, isn’t raising a cow a big bother? You can buy powdered want. So, why go through the trouble?

V:

Nothing

S

What do you do with so much milk? If you keep the milk doesn’t it go bad

milk as you

has the taste of milk that you milk at home.

by the next day? V:

We make curd with the leftover milk. Mother boils the milk without letting the skin form. Then, she gives it to us to drink. What a taste it has! It is nice and sweet even without adding sugar. She thickens and removes the rest of the milk to make curd. She churns the curd’ to get butter; she melts the butter to get ghee. When we eat, sometimes we add curd, sometimes we add buttermilk. It’s not just milk, we don’t have to buy butter, curd or anything either. If there are people who need it, we sell the milk, curd and butter.

S

Doesn’t raising a cow get the house and garden dirty?

V:

Make sure it doesn’t get dirty. Everyday, we wash and clean the cowshed. There is a separate pit to keep the dung. Cow dung is a good manure. Because of this, we don’t have to buy any other manure for our kitchen-garden. you ever seen our vegetable garden?

Have

S

I have. I liked it a lot. I also made one like it. But, the plants didn’t turn out well.

V:

You need to add manure.

Only then do the plants turn out well.

’ According to the informant, in South India, it is the curd (yoghurt) that is churned to extract the butter, rather than the cream.

254

Language Sciences, Volume 13, Number 2 (1991)

s

Don’t you need money to buy manure?

v:

You won’t need to spend money to buy manure

s

Don’t you need to feed a cow‘?

V:

So what if you need to give it food. It will give you a lot of milk. If you have to buy milk, won’t you have that expense? We give our Nandini grass, straw, cotton-seed, oil-seed, rice-gruel, etc. I pluck tender grass and give it to the calf. He likes to eat grass from my hand so much!

s V:

s V:

if you raise a cow.

Do you bathe the cow daily? I do. I’m the one who bathes Nandini and her calf. Mother cleans the cowshed. And sister or mother grinds the cotton-seed. Isn’t this a big bother? A bother? There is no job with so much pleasure. a cow.

Tell your mother to buy