Developments in Indian Linguistics 1965- 2005: Phonology

Pramod PandeyCentre of Linguistics

Jawaharlal Nehru UniversityNew Delhi 110 067

I: INTRODUCTION

Historiography of modern linguistics is a subject of uncommon interest in India, unlike in

Europe. The organization of the present seminar in memory of Professor S. M. Katre,

who played a key role in institutionalizing modern linguistics in India, is thus of historic

significance. If the discussions and deliberations on the subject bring out significant

points regarding the growth and development of linguistics in India in focus, the purpose

of commemorating the birth centenary of the visionary linguist will be well served.

The development of phonological studies in India is not any different in its overall pattern

from that of linguistics, and, perhaps, sciences, in general. What I mean here is that in all

aspects of the development of the field, whether it is the research tools of data elicitation

and analysis, the assumptions underlying the ontology of the object of research, or the

ideological underpinnings concerning the investigation of the phenomena in question, for

the most part, researches in India echo researches in the west. The vast range of language

varieties and the complex network of language acquisition and use in the Indian context,

not to speak of a glorious grammatical tradition, have not yielded any significant body of

explanatory concepts or theories. Most of those that have come up have been on the

western ground. This state of affairs makes it difficult to use the term “Indian

Linguistics” in the theoretical sense of Indian linguistic approach(es), as terms such as

American Structural linguistics or Prague linguistics mean. By “Indian Linguistics” we

shall mean here the linguistic studies carried out in India, or on languages of India.

1

The MAIN TOPICS OF RESEARCH in phonology can be divided into two categories,

namely, aspects of phonological structure, and areas of research.

The main aspects of phonological structure are assumed to be the following:

(1)

Inventories of phonological units (in common terms, inventories of vowels,

consonants, syllables and tones (in tonal languages)).

Phonotactic constraints (i.e. constraints on the occurrence of speech segments, for

example, words end in vowels in some Dravidian Tibeto-Burman languages).

Alternation (i.e. alternation between segments in related forms, for example, f and

v in wife and wives).

Prosodic organization (in common terms, the organization of speech forms from

lower to higher levels, segments → syllables→ words→ phonological phrases→

intonational phrases).

Relation of phonology with syntactic, semantic and pragmatic structures.

The main AREAS IN LINGUISTIC STUDIES that employ phonology are assumed to be

the following:

(2)

Linguistic descriptions

Theoretical proposals

Historical linguistics

Comparative linguistics

Language typology

Indian grammatical tradition

Socio-linguistics, psycholinguistics and applied linguistics

The phonological studies can themselves be classified into at least three categories- full-

length phonological studies, studies that are part of a general description of the language,

and individual papers in journals, books and seminar proceedings.

2

II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The most productive area of research in phonology is PHONOLOGICAL

DESCRIPTIONS of Indian languages. The state of research here still represents features

of developing societies, which are self-absorbed rather than interested in other systems.

Let alone languages spoken in other parts of the world, such as Igbo or Kurdish, we do

not have studies of languages of the neighbouring countries spoken in India, such as

Gurung or Ceylonese, not to speak of the hundreds of languages that are spoken by the

tribes in eastern India. Phonological studies of Indian languages seldom exhaustively

cover all aspects of phonological structure listed in (1).

In the descriptions that we have, the descriptions, in general, follow the usual divide

between segmental and ‘suprasegmental’ phenomena. However, a bibliographical

collection of studies on a language is likely to yield a body of publications with a fairly

wide coverage. For instance, for Malayalam, studies by Shanmugam (1968), Schiffman

(1979), Vasanthakumari (1989), Christdas (1988), Vijaykrishnan (1982), and

Ravishankar (1988) cover a majority of the segmental and suprasegmental areas. There

are at least 85 more studies on different aspects of Tamil phonology. One difficulty in

this exercise is the use of different theoretical frameworks in the studies. This brings up

the question of an exhaustive description of a variety of a language within a common

framework. What kind of framework is likely to be the most useful in terms of being

most usable? We address this question in the final section. For now, let us assume that the

descriptions should at least cover all the aspects of the phonological structure for us to be

minimally contented that a full description of the language can be constructed from the

existing literature. The languages whose phonological structures are broadly covered are

the following with their language families specified: Korku (Austro-Asiatic), Kannada,

Malayalam and Telugu (Dravidian), Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Maithili, Marathi, and

Punjabi (Indo-Aryan), and Meitei (Tibeto-Burman). Languages that have found mention

in the linguistic literature but whose phonological structures have not been described are

the following, among others: Chang, Deuri, Dimasa, Dobka, Halam, Hrusso, J(/S)ingpho,

Khampti, Kondh, Koch, Koiren, Kora, Kom, Konyak, Kuki, Lalung, Liangmei, Manda,

Maram, Mog, Nocte, Paite, Pnar, Pochuri, Rengma, Romani, Tagin, Tai, Turing, Vaipei,

3

Yimchingre, Zeliang, Zemi, and Zou. A majority of these belong to the Tibeto-Burman

stock. For full bibliographic details on the phonological studies of Indian languages, see

Pandey (in preparation).

Descriptions of the dialects of the major Indian languages are an area that has drawn

attention for the languages of the south, such as Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil and Telugu.

However, we do not have full descriptions of the dialects of the national Official

language, Hindi, and many major languages.

The phonological studies on Indian languages have been carried out in varied

THEORETICAL APPROACHES. The great body of phonological literature on Indian

languages is in the framework of American structural linguistics. There are glaring

instances of rigorously written grammars that include fairly detailed treatment of their

phonologies, Biligiri (1965, Kharia), Goswami (1966, Assamese), Singh (1970,

Bangru/Haryanwi), Andress (1977, Muria Gondi), Giridhar (1992, Mao Naga), and

Osada (1992, Mundari), among others. However, a lot of the studies, for instance, many

of those published by the Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysore, are too sketchy.

This is not to undermine the yeoman service rendered by the institute in presenting

grammars of unwritten languages. For a lot of the languages, these sketches are the only

descriptions available, and are thus the only source of data on them. There is need,

however, to improve on them with careful consideration of research questions that arise

in the course of reading the descriptions. This can be achieved by a publication

committee of international experts. Full-length phonological studies of Indian languages

in the structuralist framework can be seen in Kelkar (1968), the most exhaustive yet

economic description of Hindi phonology, Periyalwar (1974, Irula), Pillai (1975,

Kasaba), Ramachandrarao (1987, Remo/Bonda), Rao (1987, Gondi), Ghai (1991, Dogri),

Shanmugam (1968, Madras Tamil).

Phonological studies in the British Firthian or Neo-Firthian framework are extremely

limited. The only instances to my knowledge are the studies on Telugu phonology by

Prakasam (1972, 1976, 1979, 1981, 1991).

4

The generative phonological approach has given rise to various in-depth studies. A

general feature of these studies is the equal importance given to theoretical concepts and

principles and the facts of the data analyzed. The theory has, as is well known, many sub-

theories that have found exponents in Indian linguistics. The prominent among them are

Classical Generative Phonology, as presented in Chomsky & Halle (1968). Studies

presented in this framework include Srivastava (1968, 1969, 1970, 1979), Ohala (1983),

Narang and Becker (1971), Kalra (1982) for Hindi, Ramachandra Rao (1987), Dasgupta

(1982, 1985, 2001), Singh (1980) for Bangla, Vasanthakumari (1989) for Tamil.

Studies of prosodic structure-based phenomena are found in Vijaykrishnan

(1982),Pandey (1989, 1990), Bharati (1994), Mahanta (2002), Mohanan and Mohanan

(1984) T. Mohanan (1989), Rao (1996), D’Souza (1985). These studies deal mainly with

syllable structure and word-stress. Although tones in Indian languages have received

stray treatments (e.g. Haudricourt 1971, Burling 1992), they have not received full length

study of good quality. A few Masters and doctorate theses have been submitted. Fanai

(1992) is noteworthy among them.

Phonological studies of intonation are few and far between. On that account they can be

mentioned at one place even though they have been treated under different approaches.

Pathak (1971, Bagheli), Gokhale (1992, Marathi), Kelkar (1998, Marathi), Hayes and

Lahiri (1991), Harnsberger (1994, 1999), and Ravishankar (1988) are full-length studies.

Among these Kelkar has a special importance. It is based on a conception of language in

which phonology manifests syntactic, semantic and pragmatic aspects of the linguistic

knowledge of a sentence. If supported by experimental evidence, Kelkar’s intonational

analysis of Marathi provides a most insightful model from the linguistic point of view.

Rajapurohit (1984, 1986) presents brief studies on tonal and intonational penomena of

some Indian languages as seminar proceedings. Sailaja (1995, Telugu) is the only study

on phonology-syntax interaction of an Indian language.

Mohanan (1986) is one of the main proponents of Lexical Phonology, a sub-theory of

generative phonology. The theory, which claims that phonological rules apply in the

5

grammar in two modules- lexical (roughly, word-level) and postlexical (roughly,

sentence level), has been the basis for other studies, including Christdas (1988, Tamil),

Sailaja (1994, Telugu, as mentioned above), Bharti (1994, Hindi), and Chellaiah (1990,

Manipuri), and Fanai (1992, Mizo/Lushai). Studies by Ford, Singh and Martohardjono

(1997) and Singh and Agnihotri (1987) present extended arguments against the theory of

lexical phonology and morphology, assuming in the main that morphology is neither

multi-stratal nor derivational in structure. Pandey (1997) investigates the nature of

constraints on optional rule application with a view to predict the implementation of

sound change.

An alternative to the rule-based theory of generative phonology, Optimality Theory

(OT), has emerged as a dominant theory since the 1990’s (see Prince and Smolensky

1993), McCarthy and Prince 1993). The theory assumes that constraints, not rules, are the

basic mechanism governing the relationship of underlying and surface representations of

forms. The constraints, it is assumed, are violable and have variant rankings yielding

different surface forms. Their application is non-derivational, that is, they do not apply in

an ordered series of steps to derive the surface forms. Some of the studies that have been

recently carried out in the OT theoretic framework are Ghosh (2001), Vijaykrishnan

(2003), Mahanta (2002, 2005). An opaque area in Sanskrit phonology, the development

of diaspirates in Old Indo-Aryan has been subject to significant OT analyses in Kim

(2003) and Calabrese (2005). It should be noted that one of the earliest contributions to

the rule versus constraint debate in generative phonology was Singh (1987).

A prominent feature of the theoretical studies in linguistics in India is that the

practitioners within an approach do not show any awareness of ontological and

epistemological issues relating to the theory in which the studies are couched. If you

believe that language is essentially a social object and the essential property of language

is communication, it should be expected that you will be interested in a functional or

communicational theory of language, but not in a theory that assumes linguistic structures

rather than communication to be the main property. Alternatively, if you believe that both

structure and communication are essential to language, then you will be expected to work

6

in a theory that gives cognizance to both aspects of language in its methods of data

collection and explanation. However, this is rarely observed. A notable exception here is

Kelkar (1998). The analyses of phonological, morphological, and syntactic phenomena in

this work show full awareness of the nature of the linguistic object, as noted in Pandey

(2004). Pandey (2004) argues for an integrated formal and functional approach to the

investigation of the nature of phonological and linguistic knowledge.

Studies in HISTORICAL PHONOLOGY are among the most widely contributed areas

with papers of considerably high quality in all the language groups of India. These are too

many to be listed. The major among these are Mishra (1967), Krishnamurthy (1976),

Krishnamurthy (19..), Donnegan and Stampe (1983), Hock 1984, 1996), and Hall (1997).

It is in the area of COMPARATIVE PHONOLOGY that we have the largest number of

contributions. Works such as Pattanayak (1966), Munda (1968), Bhattacharya (1975),

Subramanyam (1986), Zvelebil (1970), and Krishnamurthy (1991, 2001, 2003) are of

lasting value. The last of these is monumental in conception and execution on almost

every aspect of comparative Dravidian.

It may be noted that the period has seen claims regarding the affiliation of the indigenous

language families with language groups outside India, such as Dravidian and Japanese

(see eg. Ohno 1983, Shanmugadas 1990) and Dravidian and other language groups, as

discussed in Zvelebil (1991) and Krishnamurthy (2003).

A debate concerning the grouping of a Himalayan language, Bangani, to the ‘Centum’

rather than the ‘Satem’ group has recently emerged in the works of Zoller (1993), Abbi

(1997), on the one hand, and van Driem and Sharma (1997) on the other, requiring

further field study.

7

Another controversial issue that has come up for discussion in recent years is that of the

Indo-Aryan origin, either as invaders or as the original inhabitants of the land. Some of

the arguments offered for and against the invasion theory are based on phonology, for

example, the presence versus absence of the retroflexes. Two opposite views concerning

the retroflexes in Sanskrit, whether they were borrowed from the Dravidian substratum,

as held by Krishnamurthy or were innovated (e.g. Hock1975, 1984, 1996) can be found

in Krishnamurthy (2003), who also presents a brief discussion on the subject.

The period 1965-2005 has seen publication of a number of TYPOLOGICAL STUDIES,

such as Bhattacharya (1972), Ramanujan and Masica (1969), Reddy (1987), Ohala

(1991), Ramaswami, N (199.), and Pandey (2005). The complex linguistic situation in

India that has some of the oldest among textually and orally continuous languages of the

world has also some of the newer varieties. Mixed languages, arising out of the

interaction between languages of different groups, such as Bishnupuria (Assamese and

Manipuri, Sinha (1981), and a second language variety like General Indian English (e.g.,

Bansal and Harrison 1983 [1974]) are among these. The latter is one of the widely

studied areas, which has found treatment in various masters and doctoral theses,

especially those submitted at the Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages,

Hyderabad.

Since the publication of Emeneau’s famous paper entitled “India as a linguistic area”,

several studies have subsequently emerged that focus on the AERIAL FEATURES of the

region, studies such as Bhat (1973), Masica (1975), Emeneau (1980), and Krishnamurthy

(1991, 2003).

Application of phonological analyses in the investigation of phenomena from

INTERDISCIPLINARY AREAS is found mainly in applied linguistics and

psycholinguistics, but very little in sociolinguistics. The most common topic in applied

linguistics is contrastive linguistics. Contrastive phonological studies of Indian languages

are found in Velayudhan (1970, Malayalam-English), Radhakrishnan (1971, Kannada-

Tamil) Bhoopathy (1979, Tamil and Bengali), Prasanna (1983, Malayalam-English),

8

Gupta (1990, Punjabi-Tamil), Ramadas (1988, Russian and Telugu), Patel (1972,

Gujarati-Hindi), Aruna (1961, Hindi-Punjabi). Contrastive studies of the phonological

systems of Indian languages have also been carried out, especially at the Central Institute

of Hindi, Agra, but the references are not available to me as of now.

Psycholinguistic studies of the phonologies of Indian languages are rather limited.

Srivastava (1974) and Gupta (1993) present studies of the acquisition of some aspects of

Hindi phonology. A rather popular subject in this area is reading acquisition, which is

linked with phonology. Some important publications in the area are Patel and Soper

(1087), Patel (1995, 1996, 2004), Prakash et. al. (1993), Prakash (2004), Vaid and Gupta

(2002), Pandey (2003, 2004a, forthcoming).

There have been scholarly introductions to phonology in the INDIAN GRAMMATICAL

TRADITION, such as Chakraborty (1996) and Ghosh (2003). In addition, there have

been a number of illuminating studies on the subject by Kiparsky (e.g., 1967, 1972, 1973,

1979-80) and Kiparsky and Joshi (1978), among others. It should be noted that the

grammatical conventions of Panini’s Ashtadyayi governing the derivation of forms have

been at the basis of modern linguistic theories since Saussure, although not so well

acknowledged. The principles may have been formulated in different versions, but on

close investigation they can be found to be closely related to Paninian, and perhaps pre-

Paninian, concepts. One such principle is the “Elsewhere Condition” (Kiparsky 1973),

now also known as ‘Panini’s Theorem” (McCarthy and Prince 1993). The theorem says

that given two rules X and Y applying to identical strings and bringing about different

outputs, if Y is more specific that X, then Y should be allowed to apply first. The

principle is more of a cognitive principle than just a linguistic principle, and therefore is

found to retain its validity across theories. It is possible that there are several other such

principles and devices in Panini that have general cognitive validity. One such device is

of nulls (see e.g., Pandit 1990).

9

III: CONCLUSIONS

The review of developments in phonological studies in Indian linguistics brings out the

following:

i. There is hardly any difference in the concerns of Indian linguistics and

linguistics of the west.

ii. There is a general lack of good quality descriptions of the phonologies of

Indian languages.

iii. In spite of a long and recognized linguistic tradition, there has been no

interest in seeking a link between modern linguistics and the tradition, and

in building on it.

iv. General myths that underlie the researches in modern linguistics have also

guided research in Indian linguistics, myths such as

a. General theoretical studies are more valuable than good descriptions.

b. Adult language data are the main source of linguistic accounts; data

from language acquisition, speech pathology, and historical change are

of limited value, certainly not of main theoretical interest.

c. Aspects of linguistic variation across parameters such as region, class,

education, etc. are of marginal interest, and do not need rigorous

analysis.

d. Accurate and detailed observation of linguistic data is of secondary

importance, in comparison to general linguistic description and theory.

==============================

10

References

Abbi, Anvita. (1997). Debate on archaism of some select Bangani words. IL, 58:1-4, 1-15.Andres, Susie. (1977). A Description of Muria Gondi Phonology and Morphology with a

Transformational account of the Morpho-Phonological Processes Employed. PhD dissertation, Pune: DCPRI.

Aruna, Vidya, Bhaskar. (1961). A Comparative Phonology of Hindi and Punjabi. Ludhiyana. Balasubramanian, T. (1987). A Textbook of English Phonetics for Indian Students. New Delhi:

Macmillan India Limited. Bansal, R. K. and Harrison, J. B. (1983[1974]). Spoken English for India. New Delhi: Orient

Longman. 2nd edition. Bharti, Surabhi. (1994). Aspects of the Phonology of Hindi and English. New Delhi: Arnold

Publishers.Bhat, D. N., S. (1973). Retroflexion: An areal feature. Working Paper on Language Universals,

13: 27-67.Bhattacharya, S. (1972). Dravidian and Munda: A good field for areal and typological studies.

Third Seminar on Dravidian Linguistics, Annamalainagar: AU. 241-65.Bhattacharya, S. (1975). Studies in Comparative Munda Linguistics. Simla: IIAS.Bhoopathy, S. (1979). A Comparative Phonemic Study of Tamil and Bengali. PhD dissertation,

Calcutta: University of Calcutta. Billigiri, H., S. (1965). Kharia: Phonology, Grammar and Vocabulary. Poona:DC.Burling, Robbins. (1992). Garo as a minimal tone language. LTBA, 15:2, 33-51.

CardonaCardona, George and Jain, Dhanesh (eds.) (2003). Indo-Aryan. London: Routledge, Curzon.Chakrabarty, S. (1996). A Critical Linguistic Study of the Pratishakhyas. Calcutta: Punthi-Pustak. Chelliah, Shobhana, L. (1990). Level ordered morphology and phonology in Manipuri. LTBA,

13:2, 27-71.Christdas, Prathima. (1988). The Phonology and Morphology of Tamil. PhD dissertation, Ithacca:

Cornell University. Dasgupta, Probal. (1982). Phonology and the Bangla verb. IL, 43:1-2, 17-28.Dasgupta, Probal. (1985). On Bangla nouns. IL, 46:1-2, 37-65.Dasgupta, Probal. (2001). On a vowel template asymmetry in Bangla verbs. In Abbi, Anvita et.

al. (eds), Linguistic Structure and Language Dynamics in South Asia. New Delhi: Motilal Banarasidas Publishers. 164-84.

D'Souza, Jean. (1985). Schwa syncope and vowel nasalization in Hindi-Urdu: A non-linear approach. Studies in Linguistic Sciences, 15:1, 11-30.

Dyrud, Lars O. 1997. Hindi-Urdu: Stress Accent or Non-Stress Accent?. Doctoral thesis. North Dakota University.

Elizarenkova, T. Y. (1988). Morphophonology of Hindi. In M. S. Andronov and B. P. Mallik (eds.), Linguistics: A Soviet Approach. (Indian Journal of Linguistics). Calcutta. Pp. 367-386.

Fanai, L., T. (1992). Some Aspects of the Lexical Phonology of Mizo and English: An Autosegmental Approach. PhD dissertation, Hyderabad: CIEFL.

Ford, a. Singh, R. and Martohardjono, G. (1997). ‘Pace’ Panini: Towardsa Word-Based Theory of Morphology. New York, etc.: Peter Lang.

11

Ford, A., Singh, R. and Martohardjono, G. (1997). ‘Pace’ Panini: Towardsa Word-Based Theory of Morphology. New York, etc.: Peter Lang.

Rao, G. Uma Maheshwar, (1996). A nonlinear analysis of syllable structure and vowel harmony in Telugu. PILC Journal of Dravidian Studies, 6:1, 55-84.

Ghai, Ved Kumari (1991). Studies in Phonetic s and Phonology (with Special Reference to Dogri). New Delhi: Ariana Publishing House.

Ghosh, Tanmay. (2001). Vowel harmony in Bangla: An optimality account. In Abbi, Anvita et. al. (eds), Linguistic Structure and Language Dynamics in South Asia. New Delhi: Motilal Banarasidas Publishers. 164-84.

Giridhar, P. P. (1992). Mao-Naga Grammar. Mysore: CIILGokhale, S. B. (1982). Intonation in Marathi and Marathi English. Ph. D. thesis, CIE&FL,

Hyderabad.Goswami, Golok Chandra. (1966). An Introduction to Assamese Phonology. Poona: DC.Gupta, Baldev Raj. (1990). Indian Linguistics: Punjabi-Tamil Phonology. New Delhi: Asian

Publishing House.Gupta, Meenakshi. (1993). Acquisition of Fricatives and Affricates in Hindi. PhD disseration,

New Delhi: JNU.Hall, T., A. (1997). The historical development of retroflex consonants in Indo-Aryan. Lingua,

102: 203-21.Harnsberger, James. 1994. Towards an intonational phonology of Hindi. Unpublished

manuscript. [http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jharns/hindi.html]Harnsberger, James. 1999. The role of metrical structure in Hindi intonation. South Asian Haudricourt, A., G. (1971). On tones in Punjabi. Pakha Sanjam, 4:1-3.Hayes, Bruce and Lahiri, Aditi. (1991). Bengali intonational phonology. NLLT, 9: 5-96. Hock, H. H. (1975). Substratum influence on (Rg-Vedic) Sanskrit? Studies in Linguistic Sciences

5: 76-125.Hock, H. H. (1984). (Pre-)Rig-Vedic convergence of Indo-Aryan with Dravidian? Another look

at the evidence. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 14, 1: 89-108. Hock, H. H. (1996). Subversion or convergence? The issue of pre-Vedic retroflection

reconsidered. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences. 23, 2: 73-115.Junghare, Indira (1979). Topics in Pali Historical Phonology. Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass.Junghare, Indira, Y. (1979). Topics in Pali historical phonology. IL, 33:2, 128-34.Kalra. (1982). Some Topics in Punjabi Phonology. PhD dissertation, New Delhi: DU. Kelkar, Ashok R. (1968). Hindi-Urdu Phonology I. Pune: Deccan College.Kelkar, Ashok R. (1997). Language in a Semiotic Perspective: The Architecture of a Marathi

Sentence. Pune: Shubhada Saraswat Prakashan.Kiparsky, Paul. (1967). Metrics and Morphophonemics in the Kalevala. In C. Gribble (ed.),

Studies Presented to Roman Jakobson by his Students, Cambridge, MA: Slavica. Kiparsky, Paul. (1972). Metrics and Morphophonemics in the Rigveda. In M. Brame (ed.),

Contributions to Generative Phonology, Austin: University of Texas Press.Kiparsky, Paul. (1973). 'Elsewhere' in Phonology. In (with S. Anderson, eds.) A Festschrift for

Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Kiparsky, Paul. (1979-80). Panini as a Variationist. MIT Press and Poona University Press. Kiparsky, Paul and Joshi, S. D. (1978). Siddha and Asiddha in Paninian Phonology. In D.

Dinnsen (ed.), The Differentiation of Phonological Theories. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Krishnamurti, Bh. (1991). The emergence of syllable types of stems (C)VCC(V) and (C)VC(V) in Indo-Aryan and Dravidian; conspiracy or convergence?. In Studies in the Historical Phonology of Asian Languages, (eds) Boltz, W., G. and Shapiro, M., C. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 160-75.

12

Krishnamurti, Bh. (2001). Comparative Dravidian linguistics: Current perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University

Krishnamurti, Bh. (2003). Dravidian Languages. Cambridge University Press.Kumaraswami, Raja, N. (1969). Post-nasal Voiceless Plosives in Dravidian. Annamalainagar:

AU. Mahanta, Shakuntala. (2002). Some Aspects of Prominence inAssamese and Assamese English.

Unpublished M. Phil. Dissertation. Hyderabad: CIEFL.Mahanta, Shakuntala. (2005). Morpheme realization and direction of vowel harmony. Paper

presented at 5th Asian GLOW, 5-8 October 200. New Delhi: Jawaharlal Nehru University.

Masica, Colin, P. (1975). Defining a Linguistic Area. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Masica, Colin P. (1991). The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Misra, Bal Govind. (1967). Historical Phonology of Modern Standard Hindi. PhD dissertation,

Cornell University.Mohanan, K. P. and Mohanan, T. (1984). Lexical phonology of the consonant system in

Malayalam. LI, 15:4, 575-602.Mohanan, T. (1989). Syllable structure in Malayalam. LI, 20.Munda, Ram., Dayal. (1968). Proto-Kherwarian Phonology. Unpublished MA dissertation,

University of Chicago.Narang, G., C. and Becker, D., A. (1971). Aspiration and nasalisation in the generative

phonology of Hindi-Urdu. Lg, 47: 646-67.Ohala, Manjari. (1983). Aspects of Hindi Phonology. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas.Ohala, Manjari. (1991). Phonological areal features of some Indo-Aryan languages. Language

Science, 13:2, 107-24. Osada, Tosiki. (1992). A Reference Grammar of Mundari. Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign

Studies.Pandey, P (1982). On a description of the phonology of Indian English. CIEFL Bulletin XVII (1):

11-19. 1981. [Also in R. K. Agnihotri and R. L. Khanna (eds.) Second Language Acquisition. New Delhi: Sage Publicaitons.1992]

Pandey, P. (1989). Word accentuation in Hindi. 1989. Lingua 77:37-73. Pandey, P. (1990). Hindi schwa deletion. 1990. Lingua (North-Holland) 82: 277-311. Pandey, P. (1991). Schwa fronting in Hindi. Studies in Linguistic Sciences 21: 147-159.Pandey, P. (1992). Hindi-Urdu phonology since 1968. 1992. In R. N. Srivastava (ed.) Language

and Text: Studies in Honour of Ashok R Kelkar. Delhi: Kalinga Publications.Pp. 155- 170.

Pandey, P. (1997). Optionality, lexicality and sound change. Journal of Linguistics 33:91-130. Pandey, P. (2003). Phonetic and phonological bases of Hindi orthography. 2003.In: P.

Bhaskararao (ed.), WorkingPapers on International Symposium on Indic Scripts, ILCAA, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Tokyo.

Pandey, P. (2004a). GaNesha Vidya: On the significance of Akshara. In: S. K. Sareen and M. Paranjape (eds), Shabda : Text and Interpretation in Indian Thought. New Delhi: Mantra Books. Pp. 66-79.

Pandey, P. (2004b). Formal and Functional Aspects of Phonological Knowledge. In: R. K. Agnihotri et. al. (eds.), Proceedings of International Seminar on the Construction of Knowledge, (Vidya Bhavan, Udaipur, 16-18 April 2004). Udaypur: Vidya Bhavan.

Pandey, P. (2005a). The cognitive and communicative knowledge of a sentence. 2002-2003. In: Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-graduate and Research Institute [Professor Ashok R. Kelkar Felicitation Volume]. Pune. Volumes 62 & 63, 1-8.

Pandey, P. (2006). Vowel phoneme patterns in Indian languages. To appear. In: Indian Linguistics.

13

Pandey, P. (Forthcoming). Phonological and generative aspects of Brahmi and its derivatives. Forthcoming. In P. Patel, P. Pandey and D. Rajgor (eds): Indic Scripts: Paleographic, Linguistic and Neuro-Cognitive Perspectives.

Pandey, P. (In preparation). Sounds and Their Patterns in the Languages of India.Pandit, M. D. (1990). Zero in Panini. Pune: University of Pune Press.Patel, P.G. 1995. ‘Brahmi scripts, orthographic units, and reading acquisition’. In Taylor, I., and

Olson, D. (Eds.) Scripts and Reading: Reading and Learning to Read in the World’s Scripts, London: Kluwer Academic.

Patel, P. G. 1996. Linguistic and cognitive aspects of the Orality-Literacy complex in Ancient India. Language and Communication. 16. 315-29 Pp.

Patel, P. G. 2004.. Reading Acquisition in India: Script, Culture, and Models of Learning and Dyslexia. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Patel, P. G. and Soper, H. V. 1987. Acquisition od reading and spelling in a syllabo-alphabetic Writing system. Language and Speech, 1987, 30, 69-81.

Patel, P. G. (2004). Reading Acquisition in India: Models of Learning and Dyslexia. New Delhi:

Sage Publications [Research in Applied Linguistics, 6].Patel, U., R. (1972). A Contrastive Study of Gujarati-Hindi. PhD dissertation, Poona: University

of Poona, DCPRI.Pathak, R., S. (1977). The intonation of Bagheli. IL, 38:4, 197-209.Pattanayak (1966) A Controlled Historical Reconstruction of Oriya, Assamese, Bengali and

Hindi. Hague/Paris: Mouton.Pattanayak, D., P. (1966). A Controlled Historical Reconstruction of Oriya, Assamese, Bengali

and Hindi. Hague/Paris: Mouton. Perialwar, R. (1974). A Descriptive Study of Irula Dialect. PhD dissertation, Annamalainagar:

AU.Pfeiffer, M. (1972). Elements of Kurukh Historical Phonology. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Pillai, Chidabarnath, V. (1975). Phonology of Kasaba with Vocabulary. Annamalainagar: CASL,

AU.Prakasam, V. (1991). Length as a formative prosody in Telugu. In Linguistics at Large: Papers in

General and Applied Linguistics, (eds) Prakasam, V. and Parasher, S. Hyderabad: Booklinks Corporation.

Prakasam, V. (1972). A Systematic Treatment of Certain Aspects of Telugu Phonology. PhD dissertation, York: University of York.

Prakasam, V. (1979). Aspects of sentence phonology. Archivum Linguisticum, 10:1, 57-82.Prakasam, V. (1976). Functional view of phonological features. Acta Linguistica Academiae

Scientiarum Hungaricae, 26:1-2, 77-88.Prakasam, V. (1981). Non segmentals. In Papers in Linguistics, (eds) Sunkapur, M., S. and Kulli,

J., S. Mysore: Sharat Prakashana. 32-44. Prasanna, K. V. (1983). A Contrastive Study of Malayalam and English Sound Systems. PhD

dissertation, Raipur: Ravishankar University.Radhakrishnan, S. (1971). Contrastive Analysis of the Phonological Systems of Kannada and

Tamil Spoken at Trivendrum. MA dissertation, Trivendrum: University of Kerala. Ramadas, Akella. (1988). Phonological Systems of Russian and Telugu: A Contrastive Study.

PhD dissertation, Hyderabad: CIEFL.Ramanujan, A., K. and Masica, Colin. (1969). Towards a phonological typology of the Indian

linguistic area. In Current Trends in Linguistics, (ed) Sebeok, Thomas, A. The Hague: Mouton. 1: 534-77.

Ramaswami, N.(1983). Phonological patterns in Indian languages. In Greater Heights, (eds) Pattanayak, D. P. and Annamalai, E. Mysore: CIIL. 128-55.

14

Rao, C. Ramachandra. (1987). A Generative Approach to Telugu Phonology. MPhil dissertation, Hyderabad: OU.

Rao, G. Uma Maheshwara. (1987). A Complete Study of Gondi Dialects with Special Reference to Phonology and Morphology. PhD dissertation, Hyderabad: OU.

Rao, V. Ramachandra. (1986). The Sound System of Remo. MPhil dissertation. Hyderabad: OU. Ravishankar, R. (1988) The Intonational System of Tamil. Coimatore: Bharatiyar UniversityReddy, K. Nagamma. (1987). Constraints on consonant sequences across some Indian languages:

a typological view. OPIL, 13: 37-57.Sailaja, P. (1994). Tier conflation and bracket erasure: The case of Telugu. In Papers from the

15th South Asian Language Analysis Round Table Conference, (eds) Davison, A. and Smith, F., M. Iowa City: University of Iowa.

Schiffman, Harold, F. (1979). A Grammar of Spoken Tamil. Christian Literature Society.Schiffman, Harold, F. and Eastman, Carol, M. (1975). Dravidian Phonological System. Seattle:

University of Washington.Shanmugam, Ramakrishnan. (1968). Madras Tamil Phonology. PhD dissertation, Cornell

University.Singh, A. (1994). The Phonology-Morphology Interface: A Case from Hindi. University of Delhi.

Ph. D. thesis. Singh, Jag Deva. (1970). A Descriptive Grammar of Bangru. Haryana: Kurukshetra University.Singh, R. and Agnihotri, R. K. (1997). Hindi Morphology: A Word-Based Description. Delhi:

Motilal Banarasidass Publishers.Singh, R. and Agnihotri, R. K. (1997). Hindi Morphology: A Word-Base Description. Delhi:

Motilal Banarasidass Publishers. Singh, R. (1987). Well-formedness conditions and phonological theory. In W. U. Dressler (ed.), Phonologica 1984. Cambridge: CUP. Pp 273-285.Singh, R. (1991). Interference and contemporary phonological theory. Language Learning 41.2:

157-175. Singh, R. (1995). Natural phono(morpho)logy: a view from the outside. In B. Hurch, R. Rhodes

(eds.), Natural Phonology: The State of the Art. Berlin. 1-38. Singh, S. (1976). Morphophonemics in Contemporary Hindi. University of Lucknow. Ph. D.

thesis. Singh, U., N. (1980). Comments on rule ordering in Bengali morphology. IL, 41:2, 91-101.Sinha, Kali Prasad. (1981). The Bishnupuriya Manipuri Language.Calcutta: Firma KLM.Srivastava, G., P. (1974). A child's aquisition of Hindi consonants. IL, 35:2, 112-18.Srivastava, R., N. (1968). Theory of morphonematics and aspirated phonemes of Hindi. Acta

Linguistica, 18: 363-73.Srivastava, R., N. (1969). A review of Studies in Hindi-Urdu I, by A R Kelkar. Lg, 45: 913-17.Srivastava, R., N. (1970). The problem of the Hindi semivowels. IL, 31: 129-37.Srivastava, R., N. (1979). On capturing inaccessible mind: Further evidence for word final schwa.

In In Honour of D. Ko'stich, Belgrade.Subramanyam, P., S. (1986). Dravidian Comparative Phonology. Dlitt dissertation, Waltair:

Andhra University. Van Driem, George and Sharma, Suhnu Ram. (1997). Some grammatical observations on

Bangani. http//www.iias.nl/host/himalaya/driem/abstracts/sgo.html//Vasanthakumari, T. (1989). Generative Phonology of Tamil.Delhi:Mittal Publications.Velayudhan, S. (1970). Contrastive Phonological Study and Malayalam. PhD dissertation,

Trivendrum: University of Kerala.Vijayakrishnan, K., G. (1982). The Tamil Syllable. PhD dissertation, Hyderabad: CIEFL.Vijayakrishnan, K., G. (1987). Hierarchical representation of phonological features. Berkeley

Linguistic Society: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting, Berkeley: BLS. 310-20.

15

Vijayakrishnan, K., G. (1992). Terror types in Tamil of the Konological Phind. In Sound Patterns for the Phoneticians, (eds) Balasubramanian, T. and Prakasham, V. Madras: T R Publications. 243-82.

Vijaykrishnan, K. G. (2003). Weakening processes in the Optimality framework. In J. vander Weijer, V. j. van Heuven and H. van der Hulst (eds), The Phonological Spectrum, Volume I: Segmental Structure. Amsterdam: benjamins Publishing Company.

Yadav, R. (1979). Maithili Phonetics and Phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Kansas.Zide, N., H. (1965). Gutob-Remo vocalism and glottalized vowels in Proto-Munda. Lingua, 14:

43-53. Zide, N., H. (1965). Gutob-Remo vocalism and glottalized vowels in Proto-Munda. Lingua, 14:

43-53.Zoller, C. P. (1993). Note on Bangani. IL 54: 112-114.Zvelebil, Kamil, V. (1970). Comparative Dravidian Phonology. The Hague: Mouton. Zvelebil, kamil. (1991). An Introduction to Dravidian Languages. Pondicchery: Pondiccchery

Institute of language and Culture.

16