Verb ‘say’ in Indic Languages: A study in Grammaticalization
Hifzur Rahman Ansary
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India
The present paper proposes to examine and explore a number of cases of grammaticalization (also known as grammatization or grammaticization) of verb ‘say’ in Indic Languages (Bangla, Telugu, Kannada and Dakkhani Urdu). The verb ‘say‘ is semantically polysemous in nature in the sentence. The paper scrutinizes the verb ‘say’ in which the verb retains its natural and grammatical category but gives up its actual semantic meaning and shows a different new meaning in the contexts. In particular, the verb “say” has been found to be used as a complementizer, quotative markers, reason marker, embedded questions, introducers, purposive markers, onomatopoeic expressions, manner adverbs etc.
Key words: complementizer, desemanticization, grammaticalization, polysemous, quotative, semantic bleaching and semantic fading
-
INTRODUCTION
DAKKHANI URDU and Telugu are largely spoken in the state of Andhra Pradesh, with the largest number of Dakkhani Urdu speakers residing in Hyderabad. Telugu speakers are the linguistic majority in the state while Dakkhani Urdu speakers constitute linguistic minority in the state. Among the districts of Andhra Pradesh, Kurnool and Guntur have a comparatively large percentage of Dakkhani Urdu speakers. Telugu is a Dravidian language native to India. It is an official language in Andhra Pradesh, Telengana and Yanam. The immediate source of Dakkhani Urdu has been a debatable issue with different scholars such as Masud H. (Masud 1969); Shakeel, A.S. (Shakeel 1975); Beg, Mirza Khaleel A. (Beg 1977); Mustafa, K.S. (Mustafa 2000), positing different sources like Punjabi, Haryanvi, Khariboli, Brajbhasha and Mewati. According to Schmidt (Schmidt 1981:4) Dakkhani Urdu is a descendent of the New Indo-Aryan dialects spoken in the Jamuna-Ganges Doab during the 13th-15th centuries, which were imported into the Deccan with the Muslim rulers who exercised control over most of that area during the latter half of the middle age.
Today, as a linguistic entity, Dakkhani Urdu has come a long way since its evolution in the 13th-14th centuries. It has undergone subtle changes in its structure as a result of coming in contact with different languages, and is marked by great diversity and heterogeneity. This has been pointed out in several studies such as Kachru’ (Kachru 1986), Mustafa’ (Mustafa 2000), Harbir’ (Harbir 1986), Subbarao and Harbir’s works (Subbarao, Harbir 1989).
The major aim of this paper is to explore the various processes of grammaticalization of verb ‘bol ke’ – ‘to say, speak’ in Dakkhani Urdu. Following are the objectives of the study –to scrutinize from the point of syntax, taking the verbs as instances of a lexical category to a functional category with effects of semantic bleaching and extension; to study and investigate the various usages of verb ‘bol ke’ in which the verb retains its natural and grammatical category but gives up its actual semantic meaning and shows a different new meaning in the contexts.
The first and second sections are focused on Dakkhani Urdu and Telugu languages. The third and fourth sections deal with the concept of grammaticalization and the various parameters of grammaticalization respectively. In the fifth section there is discussion of the grammaticalization of ‘bol ke’. The last section attempts to investigate the verb ‘bol ke’ and ‘ani’ as a complementizer and its diverse usages.
-
CONCEPT OF GRAMMATICALIZATION[1]
The idea (description and theory) of grammaticalization is already contained in the works of Bopp (Bopp 1816), Schlegel (Schlegel 1818), Humboldt (Humboldt 1825), Gabelentz (Gabelentz 1891) and Heine, Claudi & Hunnemeyer (Heine, B., Claudi, U.& Hunnemeyer. F 1991) – it might even go back as far as Condillac (Condillac 1746), according to Lehmann (Lehmann 1982:1).
The term “grammaticalization” itself was apparently introduced by the French linguist Antoine Millet (Millet 1912). The probably most cited, “classical,” definition is the following one by Jerzy Kuryłowicz (Kuryłowicz 1975), where, probably for the first time, the idea of a continuum of grammaticality is contained:”Grammaticalization consists in the increase of the range of morpheme advancing from a lexical to a grammatical or from a less grammatical to a more grammatical status, e.g. from a derivative formant to an inflectional one” (Kuryłowicz [1965] 1975:52). “With the term “grammaticalization” Heine and Reh (Heine, Reh 1984:15) refer essentially to an evolution whereby linguistic unit loses its semantic complexity, pragmatic significance, syntactic freedom, and phonetic substance, respectively.”
There have been a number of alternative terms suggested by various scholars in the recent past for similar phenomenon, such as “syntacticization” (Givon 1979:208 ff), “semantic bleaching”, “semantic weakening” (Guimier 1985:155), “semantic fading” (Antilla 1989:199), “condensation” (Lehmann 1982:10–11), “reduction” (Langacker 1977:103–107), “subduction” (Guillaume 1964:73–86) etc., each of them characterizing a specific aspect of the phenomenon of grammaticalization. Most of the authors believe that grammaticalization is a diachronic process which is gradual in nature.
-
PRAMETERS OF GRAMMATICALIZATION
According to Heine and Kuteva (Heine, Kuteva2002) there are four interrelated mechanisms of grammaticalization namely:
- Extension, i.e. the rise of novel grammatical meanings when linguistic expressions are extended to new contexts (context-induced reinterpretation),
- Desemanticization (or “semantic bleaching”), i.e. loss (or generalization) in meaning content,
- Decategorialization, i.e. loss in morpho-syntactic properties characteristic of lexical or other less grammaticalized forms, and d. Erosion (or “phonetic reduction”), i.e. loss in phonetic substance.(Heine, Kuteva 2002:2)
-
GRAMMATICALIZATION OF ‘SAY’
Dakkhani Urdu and Telugu have a verb ‘bol ke’ and ‘ani”– ‘to say, speak’ which, in terms of morphology, behaves phonologically in the same way as any other consonant-ending verb of this type (such as kar- ‘to do’, paɽh – ‘to read’, likʰ – ‘to write’ and dekʰ – ‘to see’) would do. This paper investigates the various usages of the verb “bol ke” and “ani” in the selected South Asian Language –Dakkhani Urdu and Telugu. The samples have been taken from the informants of native speakers of Hyderabad as well as secondary sources such as Grammar books, M. Phil dissertation and PhD theses.
The verb “bol ke” and “ani” (say) have the following extended usages: Complementizer, Quotative, Adjectival Complementizer, Reason Marker, Purposive Marker. It is also used with Onomatopoeic Expressions, Constructions Expressing Desire, Intention and Thought. It is used with Question word Complementizer to express deliberateness too. The adjectival participial form of the verbs “bol ke” and “ani” has the extended usage of Introducing[2], Naming and Labeling (Subbarao et al.1989:91).
-
THE COMPLEMENTIZER
The finite Complementizer occurs only when the embedded clause is finite. Notice the following sentences where a complement sentence is introduced by “bol ke” and “ani” in Dakkhani Urdu and in Telugu.
Dakkhani Urdu
(1) us ku cale ʤa:o bol ke bol d̪yo
he-DAT go away COMP tell-Give-AGR
‘Tell him to go’.
Bangla
(2) O-ke cole ɟa:o bole bole d̪a:o
he-DEM go away COMP tell give
‘Tell him to go’.
The above sentence can be said in the following way too:
(3) O-ke cole ɟet̪e bolo
he-DEM go Go-INF tell
The “bole” in Bangla functions as a complementizer can be shown if the same embedded sentences receive “ɟe” complementizer.[3]
Telugu
(4) [ a:jana ki pomm-ani ] ceppu
he-DAT go COMP tell
‘Tell him to go’.
Kannada
(5) avaniɡe hoɡu ant̪a hajɭu
he-DAT go COMP tell
Bangla has also another complementizer “ɟe” which is similar to “bole” complementizer. The following example is illustrative:
(6) anweʃa aʃ-b-e bole ami ʃuni ni
Anwesha come-FUT-AGR COMP I hear neg-PERF
‘I did not hear (any talk of) Anwesha coming’.
(7) ami ʃuni ni ɟe jʰilam aʃbe
I hear-ARG NEG-PERF COMP Jhilam come-FUT-ARG
‘I have not heard that Jhilam will come’
When a listener hears (6), he/she does not find that it is suggested that Anwesha will or not come. In case of (7), one would surely conclude that Jhilam would, in fact, come. It is as if /bole/ tends to put the truth-value of its proposition ‘within parentheses’, while /ɟe/ is somewhat more ‘factitive’.
Dakkhani Urdu
(8) si:t̪a: ɡã:v ku cale ɡaji: bol ke mereku ma:lum naĩ:
Sita village DAT went away COMP I-DAT known NEG
‘I did not know that Sita had gone to the village’
Telugu
(9) [si:t̪a u:ri ki weɭɭind̪ –ani ] na:ku t̪elijad̪u
Sita village-DAT went COMP I-DAT me know-NEG
‘I did not know that Sita had gone to the village’
Kannada
(10) nanaɡe sit̪a helliɡe hoɡid̪d̪-ɭu ant̪a ɡot̪t̪-iral-illa
for me Sita village-DAT had gone-She COMP know-did-NEG
‘I did not know that Sita had gone to the village’
Dakkhani Urdu has another post-sentential complementizer /karke/which is syntactically similar to /bol ke/ complementizer. This is a conjunctive participle form of the verb /kar/ ‘to do’.[4]
Let us now consider some further data on Complementizers in Dakkhini Urdu, Bangla, Telugu and Kannada.
Dakkhini Urdu
(11) ra:m kab a:t̪a ki /*bol ke mere ku kja: ma:lum?
Ram when comes COMP/COMP I-DAT what known
Bangla
(12) ra:m kobe aʃ-b-e bole ami ki ʤani?
Ram when come-FUT-AGR COMP I what known
‘How do I know when Ram will come?’
Telugu
(13) ra:muɖu jeppuɖu ost̪a: -o: na:ku je:mi t̪elusu?
Ram when come-COMP I-DAT what is known
‘How do I know when Ram will come?’
Kannada
(14) ra:m javaɡa bart̪ʰane ant̪a nanaɡe heɡe ɡot̪t̪u
Ram when come-FUT COMP me how known
Dakkhini has another post sentential complementizer /kar ke/which is syntactically similar to /bol ke/ complementizer. This is a conjunctive participle form of the verb /kar/ ‘to do’.[5]
According to Harbir (Harbir 2002: 65) only the /kar ke/ complementizer is found in earlier Dakkhani Urdu texts. The existence of this post-sentential complementizer might have acted as a catalyst for the borrowing of the /bol ke/ complementizer with various functions from Telugu into Dakkhini Urdu. Telugu does not have a complementizer which corresponds translationally to /karke/ of Dakkhani Urdu.
5.1. ADJECTIVAL COMPLEMENTIZER
The sentence such as (15) below from Dakkhani Urdu in which the verb of the embedded sentence is in the infinitival form and the complementizer is ‘bol ke’ or ‘kar ke’.
Dakkhani Urdu
(15) mereku numaiʃ-ku ʤa:na: bolke / karke kʰa:iŝ ai
I-DAT exhibition DAT go-inf COMP/COMP desire is
‘I have a desire to go to the book fair’.
kannada
(16) nanaɡe calana cit̪ra hoɡu beku ant̪a apekʃe id̪e
I-DAT movie go need COMP desire have
However, Telugu uses an adjectival form of the verb say as a complementizer when the lexical head is overtly present in the matrix sentence. The following sentence is illustrative:
Telugu
(17) na:ku sinema: ki weɭɭʰa:li ani / anina ko:rika unnad̪i
I-DAT movie DAT go-oblig COMP/COMP desire is
‘I have a desire to go to watch the movie’
Dakkhani Urdu too, has as adjectival complementizer so which occurs postsententially.[6]
Kannada
(18) nanaɡe balamma barutʰane ant̪a viʃaja ɡot̪t̪u
I Balamma comes COMP news know
‘I know the news that Ballama is coming/comes’.
Another postposed complementizer in Dakkhini Urdu is sarka: / sari:kha: / vaisa: ‘as though’, ‘it appears’. When this complementizer occurs the verb of the embedded sentence is always finite. The predicate of the matrix sentence is always a non factitive such as hona:, ma:lum hona:, dikhna:, lagna: ‘to appear, ‘karna: “to see to it’ etc. the following sentences are illustrative: (Harbir 2002)
Dakkhhani Urdu
(19) pa:ni: paɽe sarka:/vaisa: ai
water fall-perf COMP/COMP is
‘It appears as though it is going to rain/ It has rained’.
Kannada
(20) id̪u maɭe barut̪t̪e ant̪a kanisut̪t̪a id̪e
It rain comes COMP appear is
Telugu too has a complementizer /aTlu/ with the similar meaning which only when the embedded verb is finite.[7]
5.2. AS A REASON MARKER
Both “bol ke” and “kar ke” in Dakkhani Urdu are used to express the reason function just like the complementizers “ani” in Telugu and “anta” in Kannada.
Dakkhini Urdu
(21) a:ʤ ɡarmi paɽi hai bol ke/ kar ke humloɡ bahar naĩ: ɡja:
today hot has-fallen COMP/COMP we outside neg go
‘Because it was hot today, we didn’t go outside’.
In Bangla ‘bole‘ is used to express the reason function just like the complementizers ‘ani’ in Telugu and anta in Kannada. bole could be used as reason marker and that in all sentences, tai ‘therefore’ could replace it.
(22) a:pni e-l-en na bole /tai ama:-r kʰub kʰoti hoje ɡe-l-o
you came-PAST-AGR neg COMP I-GEN this much loss happen go-PAST-AGR
‘I had to bear great loss because you did not come’.
(23) a:ɟ ɡOrOm poɽ-ecʰ-e bole /tai amra baire ɟai ni
today hot fall-PERF-AGR COMP we outside go NEG.PERF
‘Because it was hot today, we didn’t go outside’.
The corresponding Telugu and Kannada sentences are as follows:
Telugu
(24) mi:ru ra:le:d̪-ani, naku ca:na nuksa:n ajind̪i
you did NEG come COMP I-DAT a lot of loss happened
‘I had to bear great loss because you did not come’.
Kannada
(25) ninu baral-illa ant̪a nanu bahaɭa naʃta horabekajit̪u
You did not come COMP I great loss had to bear
‘I had to bear great loss because you did not come’.
5.3. AS A PURPOSIVE MARKER
Here the verb “bol ke/kar ke” are grammaticalized (or desemanticized) and leave its own original meaning and feature and provide a new interpretation, that is, Purpose.
Dakkhani Urdu
(26) jã: pe ka:m karna: bol ke / kar ke a:ji: ũ:
here LOC work do-inf COMP COMP come have
‘I have come here for work.’
Bangla
(27) ekʰane eʃe-cʰ-i ka:ɟ kor-b-o bole
here come-PERF-AGR work do-FUT-AGR COMP(in order to)
‘I have come here for work.’
In Bangla, the complementizer is performing the PURPOSIVE FUNCTION. Another point to be mentioned here is that there is an alternate constructions in Bangla in which the postposition ‘ɟonnyo’(for) and infinitive marker ‘t̪e’ (to) can occur respectively.
(28) ekʰane ka:ɟer ɟonnjo eʃecʰi-l-am
here work-GEN for come-PAST-AGR
‘I came here to work’
(29) ekʰane ka:ɟ kor-t̪e eʃecʰi-l-am
here work do-INF come-PAST-AGR
‘I came here to work.’
Telugu
(30) ikkaɖa pani cejed̪d̪a:m-ani occina:
here work do-hort COMP came
‘I have come here for work.’
Kannada
(31) nanu illiɡe kelasa maɖabeku-ant̪a band̪id̪d̪ene
I here work in order to COMP come-PERF
5.4. AS A QUOTATIVE MARKER
In Dakkhani Urdu “bol ke/kar ke” occur as a quotative marker when the verb of the matrix sentence is bolna: ‘to speak’, kahna: ‘to tell’; etc. In Telugu too ani occurs with verbs such as an ‘say’/ cepp ‘tell’ etc.
Dakkhani Urdu
(32) mon a:t̪a: ũ: bol ke / kar ke bola: pan naĩ: a:ja:
Mohan will come COMP / COMP said but neg came
‘Mohan said that he will come but he did not’.
In a paper, Kachru (Kachru 1978; 1979) had already noted that an important function of Bangla bole, Oriya boli, Dakkhini bolke, Marathi mha Nuun, Sinhalese kiya, Tamil enru, Kannada endu and Telugu enri was that these could be used as ‘quotative’ markers in the way iti was used in Sanskrit. One important difference between bole in Bangla and iti in Sanskrit was that the former could not occur freely with one of the verbs of perception, i.e., dekʰ ‘to see’, although it could occur with ʃun ‘to hear’, ɟan ‘to know’ or bʰab ‘to think’. That is why the following sentence is ungrammartical with dekh: (U.N. Singh 1980:192).
(33) a:pni baɽi ɟaccʰen bole {*dekʰ-l-am}
{ bʰəb-l-am}
{ ʃun-l-am}
{ ɟan-l-am }
you house go-PROG COMP
see/think/hear/know -PAST-AGR
‘I thought/heard/came to know/*saw/ (quotative)
you were going to house’
In Dakkhini ‘bol ke’ and ‘kar ke’ occur as a quotative marker when the verb of the matrix sentence is bolna: ‘to speak’, kahna: ‘to tell’; etc. In Telugu and Kannada too ‘ani’ and ‘anta’ occur with verbs such as an ‘say’/ cepp ‘tell’ and hajɭu ‘say’ etc.
Dakkhani Urdu
(34) ap kalkatta jare bol ke / kar ke suna
you kolkata go+PROG COMP/COMP hear
‘I heard that you are going to Kolkata’.
Telugu
(35) mohan wast̪a:n -ani ceppi ka:nira:le:d̪u
Mohan will come COMP said but did not come
‘Mohan said that he will come but he did not’.
Kannada
(36) mohana bar-t̪ini ant̪a heɭid̪d̪a ad̪re avanu baralilla
Mohan come-FUT COMP said but he come-PAST-NEG
‘Mohan said that he will come but he did not come’.
5.5. IN CONSTRUCTIONS EXPRESSING DESIRE, INTENTION AND THOUGHT
When ‘bol ke’ and ‘kar ke’ complementizers are used with the verbs expressing desire, intention or thought it provides another instance of syntactic change which can be attributed to Telugu influence. In such constructions the verb in the matrix sentences in Dakkhani Urdu and Kannada is either verb be or a conjunct verb and the embedded verb is in the infinitival form. The following sentences are illustrative:
Dakkhani Urdu
(37) mereku naye bike kharidna bolke ai/ dil bolta:
I-DAT new bike buy+INF COMP is/ feel like
‘I have a desire to buy a new bike’
Telugu
(38) na:ku ca:na ɖabbu unɖa:l -ani und̪i / ko:rika und̪i
I-DAT a lot of money have-oblig COMP is /desire is
‘I have a desire to have a lot of money’
Kannada
(39) nanaɡe t̪umba haNa hond̪a beku ant̪a apekʃe id̪e
I a lot of money have -INF COMP desire is
‘I have a desire to have a lot of money’
5.6. TO EXPRESS DELIBERATENESS
Dakkhani Urdu, Telugu and Kannada use a similar construction with bol ke/ kar ke, ani and anta to convey the meaning of doing something intentionally. It should be emphasized that it is the presence of the participial form of the verb /bol/ and /kar/ with the verb hona: ‘to need’ in Dakkhani Urdu and /ani/ with the verb ‘ka:va:li’ ‘to need’ in Telugu and /ma:ɭu/ and /hajɭu/ with the verb ‘beku anta’ ‘to need’ in Kannada convey the sense of deliberateness.
Dakkhani Urdu
(40) rashid hona: bolke ɡila:s t̪oɽa:
Rashid needed (deliberately) COMP glass broke
‘Rashid broke the glass deliberately’
Telugu
(41) rashid ka:va:li ani ɡila:su paɡa:la ɡoʈʈe:ɖu
Rashid needed COMP glass deliberately broke
‘Rashid broke the glass deliberately’
Kannada
(42) rashid beku ant̪a ɡaʤannu oɖed̪anu
Rashid needed(deliberately) COMP glass broke
Further, Dakkhani Urdu shares another construction with Telugu in which the embedded verb and the matrix are IDENTICAL, the embedded verb is in the obligative mood and the complementizer is the conjunctive participle form of the verb bol ‘say’ or kar ‘do’.[8]
Telugu
(43) kamala paɖa:li ani paɖind̪i
kamala fell+obl C.P. of ‘say’ fell
Kannada
(44) kamalaɭu beku ant̪a bid̪d̪aɭu
Kamala intentionally fell
It may be noted that in Telugu and Kannada, the sentences, (43) and (44) above express intentionality of the subject.
5.7. ONOMATOPOEIC EXPRESSIONS
Dakkhani Urdu in most of the cases uses “bol ke/kar ke” in onomatopoeic expressions, where some of the expressions the occurrence “bol ke” results into ungrammatical sentences the “kar ke” is used instead. In Telugu and Kannada, the complementizers /ani/ and /anta/ is used in onomatopoeic expressions which is a typical Dravidian feature.
Dakkhani Urdu
(45) t̪ʰakk bolke/ karke[i][9] ɟor se a:va:z hui:
onomatopoeic C.P of ‘say’/C.P. of ‘do’ loudly sound happened
‘there was a loud thud’
(46) uski ã:kʰo se pa:ni: ʈapʈap karke / *bolke ɡirra: t̪ʰa:
her eyes from water onomatopoeic C.P.of ‘do’/ C.P.of ‘say’ falling was
‘Tears were coming from her eyes incessantly’.
Bangla, in most of the cases uses “kore” in onomatopoeic expressions, where in the occurrence “bole” results into ungrammatical sentences the “kore” is used instead.[10]
It is also to be mentioned that in Bangla the occurrence of bole is not permitted in some onomatopoeic expressionism. Instead of bole Bangla allows kore. The following examples are illustrative:
(47) ɟol kol kol *bole/kore boicʰe
water onomatopoeic C.P of ‘say’/C.P. of ‘do’ flowing
‘Water is flowing with the noise ‘kolkol’.
Kannada
(48) avaɭa kannu ɡaɭinda paʈa paʈa ant̪a kanni:ru barut̪id̪d̪avu
her eyes from onomatopoeic COMP tears come-PROG-PAST
‘Tears were coming from her eyes incessantly’.
It is also to be mentioned that in Telugu the occurrence of ‘ani’ is not permitted in some onomatopoeic expressionism. Dakkhani Urdu, however, does not have any such constraint with regard to the use of ‘kar ke’.[11]
Kannada
(49) ʤaɭa ʤaɭa ant̪a ʃabd̪a maɭut̪t̪a ni:r hariut̪t̪it̪t̪u
onomatopoeic COMP noise making water flowing
‘Water is flowing while making the noise ‘ʤaɭa ʤaɭa’.
-
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, it has been tried to show that the verb “say” has various usages in Dakkhani Urdu and Telugu. The verb “bol ke” and “ani” are very productive lexeme in the grammar of Dakkhani Urdu as well as Telugu. In the process of grammaticalization, the verb “say” widely combines with other grammatical categories (Noun & Verb)and produces a new kind of meaning while it loses its natural meaning that is, desemanticization but it maintains and retains its grammatical category. In particular, “bol ke” and “ani” have been found to be used as a complementizer, quotative markers, reason marker, embedded questions, introducer, purposive markers, onomatopoeic expressions, manner adverbs etc.
Bibliography
Books:
Anttila 1989: Anttila, Raimo. Historical and Comparative Linguistics. 2nd edition. [1st edition 1972, New York: Macmillan]. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 6), Amsterdam: Amsterdam Benjamins,1989.
Bopp 1816: Bopp, F. Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache. Nebst Episoden aus dem Ramajana und Mahabharata in genauen metrischen Übersetzungen aus dem Original texte und einigen Abschnitten aus den Vedas. Herausgegeben und mit Vorerinnerungen begleitet von Dr. K. J. Windischmann, Frankfurt/M: Frankfurt Andreäsche Buchhandlung, 1816.
Condillac 1746: Condillac, É. B. de, Essai sur l’origine des connoissances humaines. Ouvrage où l’on réduit à un seul principe tout ce qui concerne l’entendement humain, 2 vols. Amsterdam: Amsterdam P. Mortier, 1746.
Gabelentz 1891: Gabelentz, George von der. Die Sprachwissenschaft. Ihre Aufgaben, Methoden, und bisherigen Ergebnisse. Leipzig: Leipzig Weigel, 1891.
Givon 1979: Givon, T. On Understanding Grammar. New York: New York Academic Press,1979.
Guillaume 1964: Guillaume, Gustave. Langage et science du langage. Paris: Paris Nizet; Québec Presses de I Université Laval, 1964.
Harbir 1986: Harbir, K. A. ‘Some Aspects of Dhakkhini Hindi-Urdu Syntax with special reference to Convergence’. Delhi: University of Delhi, 1986.
Harbir 2002: Harbir, K. A. “Syntactic Convergence: The Case of Dakkhini”. Delhi: PhD. Dissertation, Delhi University, 2002.
Heine, Kuteva 2002: Heine B., Kuteva, T. Word Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Heine, Claudi & Hunnemeyer 1991: Heine, B., Claudi, U. & Hunnemeyer .F. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991.
Heine, Reh 1984: Heine, B. and Reh Mechthild. Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages. Hamburg: Hamburg Buske, 1984.
Kachru 1986: Kachru, Yamuna. ‘The syntax of Dhakkhini’: A study of Language variation and language change. New Delhi: In Bh. Krishnamurti,1986.
Mustafa 2000: Mustafa, K.S. ‘A Descriptive Grammar of Dhakkhini’. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, Pvt. Ltd, 2000.
Lehmann 1982: Lehmann Christian. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Munich: Munich Lincom Europa, 1982.
Schlegel 1818: Schlegel, A. W. von, Observations sur la langue et la littérature provençales, Paris: Paris Librairie grecquelatine-allemande, 1818.
Schmidt 1981: Schmidt, R.L. ‘Dakhini Urdu: History and structure’. New Delhi: Bahri Publication, 1981.
Shakeel 1975: Shakeel, A.S. Dakkhini Urdu and Punjabi, In Pakha Sanjan Vol. vi, Punjab: Punjab University, 1975.
Traugott, Heine 1991: Traugott, E. C., Heine. B, “Approaches to Grammaticalization”, Vol- I, 22. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company Masterdam, 1991.
Articles in collections:
Beg 1977: Beg, Mirza Khaleel A. ‘Review of Sharma, Shriram 1964. “Dakkhini Hindi Ka Udbhav aur Vikas,”. Allahabad: Hindi Sahitya Sammelan’ II, Vol. 38.No.4. p. 259, 1977.
Harbir, Subbarao 1989: Harbir, K.A. and Subbarao, K.V. ‘Noun Modification in Dhakkhini Hindi-Urdu and Telugu’. India: Indian Journal of Linguistics, 13, 1989.
Masud, 1969: Masud Husain. ‘Urdu’ in Current trends in Linguistics. Vol. 5. Ed. Thomas A. Sebeok . Paris: The Hague, p.270-280, 1969.
Subbarao, Rao and Saxena 1989: Subbarao, K. V., C. Viswanath Rao, N.Rao and A. Saxena. In: “verb Say in South Asian Languages”. Ed. A. Mukherjee. Language Change and Language Variation. Hyderabad, India: Centre of Advanced Study, Osmania University. 89-104, 1989.
Articles in periodicals:
Guimier 1985: Guimier, Claude. On the origin of the suffix -ly. In Fisiak, 1985, pp. 155-70.
Humboldt 1825: Humboldt, Wilhelm von. Ober das Entstehen der grammatikalischen Formen und ihren Eifluβ auf die Ideenent wicklung. A bhandlullgen der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenchaften zu Berlill, 1825, pp. 401 -30.
Kachru 1978: Kachru, Yamuna. The quotative in South Asian Languages. Paper read at the first ICSALL, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Later appeared in 1979. In : SALA, I/1979, pp.63-77.
Kuryłowicz 1975 : Kuryłowicz Jerzy. The evolution of grammatical categories. Esquisses
linguistiques 2:38–54. (Originally publ. in Diogenes 1965:55–71.), Munich: Munich Fink,1975, pp. 38-54.
Langacker 1977: Langacker, Ronald W. Syntactic reanalysis. In Li, ed, 1977, pp. 57- 139.
Meillet 1912: Meillet, Antoine. L’evolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia (Rivista di Scienza) 12, no. 26, 6. Reprinted in Meillet 1958, pp. 130-48.
Singh 1980: Singh, U. N. ‘Bole- an unresolved problem in Bengali syntax’. Indian Linguistics 41/1980, pp.188-195.
[1]Grammaticalization is a historical process, a kind of change that has certain consequences for the morpho-syntactic categories of a language and thus for the grammar of the language. (Traugott and Heine , 1991:38 )
[2]bolke in Dakkhini is also used as an introducer, just like ani in Telugu and anta in Kannada.
Dakkhani Urdu
je icʰaira:dʰa: bolkemeri: frenɖ
this emph is Radha C.P. of ‘say’ my friend
‘This is my friend Radha’
[3] (i) amar ɟana nai ɟe ʃi:t̪a: ɡra:m cʰeɽe cole gecʰe
‘I did not know that Sita had gone to the village’.
(ii) amar biʃʃaʃ ɟe ʃe aʃbe
‘My belief (is) that he will come’
[4] (i) arfat university ku a:t̪a bolke/karke bola: pan naĩ a:ja
Arfat University DAT will come COMP said but neg come
‘Arfat said that he would come to the University but did not come’.
[5] (i) ra:m a:t̪a bol ke / karke bola: pan naĩ a:ja:
ram will come COMP / COMP said but neg come
‘Ram said that he would come but did not come’.
[6] (ii) ba:lamma: a:ra sokʰabar mere kuma:lum
Ballama is coming adj. news I-DAT known
‘I know the news that Ballama is coming/comes’.
[7] (i) wa:na paɖin-aʈlu und̪i
rain fall COMP is
‘It appears as though it is going to rain/ has rained’.
[8]Dakkhani Urdu
(i) kamala: ɡirna: bol ke/ kar ke ɡiri
Kamala fall+inf. C.P ‘say’/ C.P of ‘do’ fell
‘Kamala fell intentionally’
[9] Here ‘bolke’ / ‘karke’ and ‘ani’ are used as a conjunctive participle (C.P).
[10] (i) dhopaʃ kore/*bole ɟore ʃobd̪o holo
onomatopoeic C.P. of ‘do’/ C.P. of ‘say’ loudly sound happen-PAST
‘there was a loud thud’
(ii) Or cokʰ t̪ʰeke ʈopʈopkore / *bole ɟol poɽ-cʰi-l-o
her eyes from onomatopoeic C.P. of ‘do’/ C.P. of ‘say’ water fall-PROG-PAST-AGR
‘Tears were coming from her eyes incessantly’.
[11]Dakkhani Urdu
(i) pa:ni: khalkhal *bolke / karke ubalra
water onomatopoeic C.P of ‘say’ / C.P. of ‘do’ flowing
‘Water is flowing with the noise ‘khalkhal’.
Telugu
(ii) ni:ɭɭu ʤala: ʤala: *ani/ 0 prava:hist̪unna:i
water onomatopoeic COMP/0 is falling
‘Water is flowing while making the noise ‘ʤala: ʤala:’.
About the author
Hifzur Rahman Ansary is a PhD Scholar at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (India) and his interests include Phonology-Phonetics, Syntax, Historical Linguistics and Language Studies.
Email: hafizansary@gmail.com