Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Contact
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Contact
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Maps Volume I
- Figures Volume I
- Tables Volume I
- Contributors
- Preface
- Introduction
- Part One Language Contact and Genetic Linguistics
- Part Two Linguistic Areas
- 7 The Balkans
- 8 The Amazon Basin: Linguistic Areas and Language Contact
- 9 Migration and Trade as Drivers of Language Spread and Contact in Indigenous Latin America
- 10 Language Contact in South Asia
- Part Three Language Spread
- Part Four Emergence and Spread of Some European Languages
- Part Five Language Diasporas
- Author Index
- Language Index
- Subject Index
- References
10 - Language Contact in South Asia
from Part Two - Linguistic Areas
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 June 2022
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Contact
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Contact
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Maps Volume I
- Figures Volume I
- Tables Volume I
- Contributors
- Preface
- Introduction
- Part One Language Contact and Genetic Linguistics
- Part Two Linguistic Areas
- 7 The Balkans
- 8 The Amazon Basin: Linguistic Areas and Language Contact
- 9 Migration and Trade as Drivers of Language Spread and Contact in Indigenous Latin America
- 10 Language Contact in South Asia
- Part Three Language Spread
- Part Four Emergence and Spread of Some European Languages
- Part Five Language Diasporas
- Author Index
- Language Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
Language contact in South Asia has been studied since the early nineteenth century. The prevailing approach operates with the concept of “substratum influence” or “subversion,” a unilateral structural influence of one language or language family on another. An alternate approach operates with the notion “convergence,” a bi- or multi-directional structural interaction between languages in contact. Evidence from the interaction between English and South Asian languages, as well as many South Asian languages with each other, lends strong support to the second approach and suggests that apparent cases of unilateral influence in South Asia deserve reexamination.
For convergence to take place, a pattern of long-standing non-replacive bi- or multilingualism is required. This pattern is now endangered by the fact the states of India, organized in terms of different majority languages, are making use of the state language mandatory in public affairs and government jobs. As a consequence there is a relatively sudden shift from minority languages to state languages, and “tribal languages” spoken by marginalized groups are greatly endangered.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language ContactVolume 1: Population Movement and Language Change, pp. 299 - 324Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Abbi, Anvita. 2013. A grammar of the Great Andamanese language: An ethnolinguistic study. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Abbi, Anvita. 2016b. The situation in India and adjacent areas. In Hock & Bashir 2016, 632–7.Google Scholar
Anderson, Gregory D.S. (ed.). 2008. The Munda languages. Oxford & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Anderson, Gregory D.S. 2016. Austroasiatic languages of South Asia. In Hock & Bashir 2016, 107–30.Google Scholar
Anderson, Gregory D.S., Gomango, Opino, & Dangada-Majhi, Sonia. n.d. Remo talking dictionary. Available at http://remo.swarthmore.edu.Google Scholar
Arora, Harbir. 2004. Syntactic convergence: The case of Dakkhini Hindi-Urdu. Delhi: University of Delhi.Google Scholar
Barua, Bimala Kanta & Deodhai Phukan, N.N.. 1964. Ahom lexicons, based on original Tai manuscripts. Guwahati: Department of Historical and Antiquarian Studies. (Second edition, 1991.)Google Scholar
Bergunder, Michael. 2002. Umkämpfte Vergangenheit: Anti-brahmanische und hindu-nationalistische Rekonstruktionen der frühen indischen Religionsgeschichte. In “Arier” und “Draviden” (Hallesche Berichte, 2), ed. by Bergunder, Michael & Das, Rahul Peter, 135–80. Halle: Verlag der Franckeschen Stiftungen.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rakesh M. 2008. Indian English: Syntax. In Varieties of English: Africa, South and Southeast Asia, ed. by Mesthrie, Rajend, 547–62. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bloch, Jules. 1924–5. Sanskrit et dravidien. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 25.1.1–21. (English translation in Pre-Aryan and pre-Dravidian in India, ed. and trans. by P.C. Bagchi, 35–62. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 1929.)Google Scholar
Bloch, Jules. 1929. Some problems of Indo-Aryan philology. Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies 5.719–56.Google Scholar
Bloch, Jules. 1934. L’indo-aryen du véda aux temps modernes. Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve. (English translation by A. Master, with retention of 1934 pagination in the margin. Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve, 1965.)Google Scholar
Bühler, George. 1864. On the origin of the Sanskrit linguals. Madras Journal of Literature and Science, No. I, Third Series, 116–36.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, Dilip K. 1997. Colonial indology: Sociopolitics of the ancient Indian past. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.Google Scholar
Chelliah, Shobhana & Lester, Nicholas. 2016. Contact and convergence in the northeast. In Hock & Bashir 2016, 300–9.Google Scholar
Coupe, Alexander R. 2007. A grammar of Mongsen Ao. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dua, Hans Raj. 2001. Science policy, education, and language planning. Mysore: Yashoda Publications.Google Scholar
Ellis, Francis W. 1816. Note on the introduction. In Grammar of the Teloogoo language, ed. by Campbell, A.D., xx–yy. Madras: College [of Fort St. George] Press.Google Scholar
Emeneau, Murray B. 1956. India as a linguistic area. Language 32.3–16. (Reprinted in Emeneau 1980a: 105–25.)Google Scholar
Emeneau, Murray B. 1965. India and historical grammar (Annamalai University Publications in Linguistics 5). Annamalainagar: Annamalai University.Google Scholar
Emeneau, Murray B. 1980a. Language and linguistic area, essays selected by Anwar S. Dil. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Emeneau, Murray B. 1989. The language of the Nilgiris. In Blue mountains: The ethnography and biogeography of a South Indian region, ed. by Hockings, Paul, 133–43. Delhi & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Paul. 1976a. The devil’s case: PIE as Type II. In Linguistic studies offered to Joseph Greenberg, ed. by Juilland, Alphonse, 463–80. Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri.Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol. 2016. The Tibeto-Burman languages of South Asia. In Hock & Bashir 2016, 130–55.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. & Wilson, Robert. 1971. Convergence and creolization: A case from the Indo-Aryan/Dravidian border. In Pidginization and creolization of languages, ed. by Hymes, Dell, 151–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1975. Substratum influence on (Rig Vedic) Sanskrit? Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 5.2.76–125.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1984. (Pre-)Rig-Vedic convergence of Indo-Aryan with Dravidian? Another look at the evidence. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 14.1.89–107.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1986. Principles of historical linguistics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (Second edition, 1991.)Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1996a. Pre-Ṛgvedic convergence between Indo-Aryan (Sanskrit) and Dravidian? A survey of the issues and controversies. In Ideology and status of Sanskrit: Contributions to the history of the Sanskrit language, ed. by Houben, J.E.M., 17–58. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1996b. Subversion or convergence? The issue of pre-Vedic retroflexion reconsidered. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 23.2.73–115.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1999. Out of India? The linguistic evidence. In Aryan and Non-Aryan in South Asia: Evidence, interpretation, and ideology (Harvard Oriental Series, Opera Minora, 3), ed. by Bronkhorst, Johannes & Deshpande, Madhav M., 1–18. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 2000. South Asia: Historical. In The yearbook of South Asian languages and linguistics, ed. by Singh, Rajendra, 220–37. New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 2015a. The northwest of South Asia and beyond: The issue of Indo-Aryan retroflexion yet again. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 2.1.111–35.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 2015b. Proto-Indo-European verb finality: Reconstruction, typology, validation. In Proto-Indo-European syntax and its development, ed. by Kulikov, Leonid & Lavidas, Nikolaos, 51–78. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 2015c. Yamuna Kachru’s contributions to South Asian discourse and convergence studies. World Englishes 34.1.68–77.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 2016a. Daic or Tai languages of South Asia. In Hock & Bashir 2016, 155–7.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 2016b. English and South Asian languages. In Hock & Bashir 2016, 325–32.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 2016e. Other contact, regional and local. In Hock & Bashir 2016, 309–25.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 2016f. Post-Vedic contact linguistics. In Hock & Bashir 2016, 260–3.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 2016g. Structural features and geography. In Hock & Bashir 2016, 256–60.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich & Bashir, Elena (eds.). 2016. The languages and linguistics of South Asia: A comprehensive guide. Berlin & Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich & Joseph, Brian D.. 2009. Language history, language change, and language relationship: An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics, 2nd ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hutton, J.H. 1933. Census of India, 1931, vol. 1, part 1. Delhi: Manager of Publications.Google Scholar
Irschick, Eugene. 1969. Political and social conflict in South India: The non-Brahmin movement and Tamil separatism 1916–1929. Berkeley & Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Jha, N. & Rajaram, Navaratna Srinivasa. 2000. The deciphered Indus script: Methodology, readings, interpretations. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.Google Scholar
Sir Jones, William. 1786. The third anniversary discourse, delivered 2nd February 1786: On the Hindus. Published 1789 in Asiatick Researches 1.415–31.Google Scholar
Kachru, Braj B. 1969. English in South Asia. In Current trends in linguistics, vol. 5, ed. by Sebeok, Thomas A., Emeneau, Murray B., & Ferguson, Charles A., 627–78. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kachru, Braj B. 1983. The Indianization of English: The English language in India. Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kachru, Braj B. 1990. The alchemy of English: The spread, functions, and models of non-native Englishes. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Kachru, Braj B. (ed.). 1992. The other tongue: English across cultures. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Kachru, Braj B. 2017. World Englishes and culture wars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kachru, Yamuna. 1989. Corpus planning for modernization: Sanskritization and Englishization of Hindi. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 19.1.153–64.Google Scholar
Kachru, Yamuna. 1992. The Indian face of Indian English: Speech acts in the other tongue. Seminar 43–6.Google Scholar
Kachru, Yamuna. 2003. Conventions of politeness in plural societies. In Anglophone cultures in South-East Asia: Appropriations, continuities, contexts, ed. by Ahrens, Rüdiger, Parker, David, Stierstorfer, Klaus, & Tam, Kowk-Kan, 39–53. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Kachru, Yamuna. 2020. Speaking and writing in World Englishes. In The handbook of World Englishes, ed. by Nelson, Cecil L., Proshina, Zoya G., & Davis, Daniel R., 349–67. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kindersley, A.F. 1938. Notes on the Indian idiom of English: Style, syntax, and vocabulary. Transactions of the Philological Society 37.25–34.Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju. 2003. The Dravidian languages: A comparative, historical and typological study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kulkarni-Joshi, Sonal. 2016. Forty years of language contact and change in Kupwar: A critical assessment of the intertranslatability model. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 3.2.147–74.Google Scholar
Macaulay, Thomas Babington. 1835. Minute of 2 February 1835 on Indian Education. Published 1957 in Macaulay, prose and poetry, selected by Young, G.M., 721–4, 729. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Masica, Colin P. 1976. Defining a linguistic area: South Asia. Chicago, IL & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Misra, S.S. 1992. The Aryan problem: A linguistic approach. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.Google Scholar
Morey, Stephen. 2002. The study and revival of the Ahom language. Indian Journal of Tai Studies 2.89–103.Google Scholar
Morey, Stephen. 2007. [Language documentation recordings of Ahom.] Available at www.language-archives.org/item/oai:paradisec.org.au:SDM04–2007.Google Scholar
Morey, Stephen. 2014. Ahom and Tangsa: Case studies of language maintenance and loss in North East India. In Language endangerment and preservation in India, ed. by Hugo C. Cardoso, special edition of Language Documentation & Conservation 7.46–77.Google Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2005. Globalization and the myth of killer languages: What’s really going on? In Perspectives on endangerment, ed. by Huggan, Graham & Klasen, Stephan, 19–48. New York: Georg Olms Verlag.Google Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2008. Globalization and the myth of killer languages: What’s really going on? In Language evolution: Contact, competition and change, by Mufwene, Salikoko S., chapter 12. London & New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Müller, Friedrich Max. 1847. On the relation of the Bengali and the Arian and aboriginal languages in India. Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science 17.319–50.Google Scholar
Murugaiyan, A. & Pilot-Raichoor, Christiane. 2004. Les prédications indifférenciées en dravidien: témoins d’une évolution typologique archaïque. In Les constituants prédicatifs et la diversité des langues, ed. by François, J. & Behr, I., 155–77. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
Nadkarni, Mangesh V. 1975. Bilingualism and syntactic change in Konkani. Language 51.672–83.Google Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 2003. Recent language contact in the Nepal Himalaya. In Language variation: Papers on variation and change in the Sinosphere and Indosphere in honour of James A. Matisoff, ed. by Bradley, David, 65–88. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Pardo, Jennifer S., Jay, Isabel Cajori, Hoshino, Risa, Hasbun, Sara Maria, Sowemimo-Coker, Chantal, & Krauss, Robert M.. 2013. Influence of role switching on phonetic convergence in conversation. Discourse Processes 50.4.276–300.Google Scholar
Peterson, John. 2010. Language contact in Jharkhand: Linguistic convergence between Munda and Indo-Aryan in eastern-central India. Himalayan Linguistics 9.2.56–86.Google Scholar
Pilot-Raichoor, Christiane. 2012. Tamil Brahmi inscriptions: A critical landmark in the history of the Dravidian language. In New dimensions in Tamil epigraphy: A multi-disciplinary approach, ed. by Murugaiyan, A., 285–315. Chennai: Cre-A publishers.Google Scholar
Pott, August Friedrich. 1833–6. Etymologische Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen, 2 vols. Lemgo: Meyer.Google Scholar
Pray, Bruce R. 1980. Evidence of grammatical convergence in Dakhini Urdu and Telugu. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 90–9.Google Scholar
Purandhare, Vaibhav. 2015. Ban English, says Jnanpith winner, hits out at Naipaul and Rushdie. The Times of India (February 6). (Available at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Ban-English-says-Jnanpith-winner-hits-out-at-Naipaul-and-Rushdie/articleshow/46149589.cms).Google Scholar
Puri, Vandana. 2011. The influence of English on the history of Hindi relative clauses. Journal of Language Contact 4.250–68.Google Scholar
Ramesh, B. S. 2008. The language policy issue continues to boil. The Hindu (July 16). (Available at www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-karnataka/The-language-policy-issue-continues-to-boil/article15261952.ece).Google Scholar
Rask, H.K. (ed.). 1834. Samlede tildels forhen utrykte afhandlinger af R.K. Rask, vol. 1. Copenhagen: Det Poppske Bogtrykkeri.Google Scholar
Schiffman, Harold F. 2016. Language policy and language planning in South Asia. In Hock & Bashir 2016, 645–56.Google Scholar
Shaffer, Jim G. 1984. The Indo-Aryan invasions: Cultural myth and archaeological reality. In The people of South Asia: The biological anthropology of India, Pakistan, and Nepal, ed. by Lukacs, John R., 77–90. New York & London: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Shaffer, Jim G. & Lichtenstein, Diane A.. 1999. Migration, philology and South Asian archæology. In Aryan and Non-Aryan in South Asia: Evidence, interpretation and ideology (Harvard Oriental Series, Opera Minora, 3), ed. by Bronkhorst, Johannes & Deshpande, Madhav M., 239–60. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies.Google Scholar
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. 2002. Language policies and education: The role of education in destroying or supporting the world’s linguistic diversity. World Congress on Language Policies. Barcelona. 16–20 April. Available at www.linguapax.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/CMPL2002_Plenari_TSkutnabb-Kangas.pdf.Google Scholar
Snell, Rupert. 1993. The hidden hand: English lexis, syntax and idiom as determinants of Modern Hindi usage. In Institutions and ideologies: A SOAS South Asia reader, ed. by Arnold, David & Robb, Peter, 74–90. Richmond: RoutledgeCurzon.Google Scholar
Swarajya Lakshmi, V. 1984. Urdu influence on Telugu. Hyderabad: Department of Linguistics, Osmania University.Google Scholar
Talageri, S.G. 1993. Aryan invasion theory and Indian nationalism. New Delhi: Voice of India.Google Scholar
Talageri, S.G. 2008. The Rigveda and the Avesta: The final evidence. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey & Kaufman, Terrence. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley & Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Tikkanen, Bertil. 1987. The Sanskrit gerund: A synchronic, diachronic, and typological analysis (Studia Orientalia 62). Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society.Google Scholar
Tikkanen, Bertil. 1988. On Burushaski and other ancient substrata in northwestern South Asia. Studia Orientalia 64.303–25.Google Scholar
Tikkanen, Bertil. 1999. Archaeological–linguistic correlations in the formation of retroflex typologies and correlating areal features in South Asia. In Archaeology and language IV: Language change and cultural transformation, ed. by Blench, Roger & Spriggs, Matthew, 138–48. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tikkanen, Bertil. 2008. Some areal phonological isoglosses in the transit zone between South and Central Asia. In Proceedings of the Third International Hindu Kush Cultural Conference (Chitral, 26–30 September, 1995), ed. by Israr-ud-Din, 250–62. Karachi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vivekananda, Swami. 1897. The future of India. Published 1908 in Lectures from Colombo to Almora, 101–11. Almora: Prabuddha Bharata Press.Google Scholar
Yule, Henry & Burnell, A.C.. 1886. Hobson-Jobson: A glossary of colloquial Anglo-Indian words and phrases, and of kindred terms, etymological, historical, geographical, and discursive. London: John Murray. (Second edition, ed. by William Crooke. London: John Murray, 1903.)Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by