Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T19:51:36.986Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regularity of sound change through lexical diffusion: A study of s > h > in Gondi dialects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Bh. Krishnamurti
Bh. Krishnamurti
Affiliation:
University of Hyderabad
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Gondi is a Dravidian language spoken by 2.2 million speakers (Census of India 1981) in the mountains and forests of four adjacent states in central India. Gondi is a chain of several dialects, some of which, at distant points, are perhaps not mutually intelligible. A major dialect division is provided by a two-step sound change: s- > h- in the west, north, and northwest and h- > - in the south and southeast. The present article studies this two-step sound change, which is still in progress, and establishes two facts. First, contrary to the normal expectation that this sound change would be phonetically gradual and lexically abrupt (Neogram-marian type), there is evidence that it has been lexically gradual and perhaps also phonetically gradual (lexical diffusion). Second, phonetic gradualness and regularity in implementation of sound change are properties not incompatible with the mechanism of lexical diffusion. Labov's observation that s > h > has not been reported as a lexically diffused change in many quantitative studies of Portuguese and Spanish (1981) finds a clear exception in Gondi. Under the lexical diffusion model, the regularity of a sound change is defined as the final outcome in a three-stage change of the relevant lexicon: unchanged (u), variant (u ˜ c), and changed (c). If the entire eligible lexicon passed from u to c through u ˜ c, the change would become regular. If all u ˜ c became c and for some reason no item under u became u ˜ c, the sound change would die prematurely, since the variant stage which provided the rule for the innovation would be absent. Since a regular sound change can result from either the Neogrammarian model or the lexical diffusion model, Labov's (1994:542–543) theoretical proposal of complementarity between the kinds of changes resulting from the two mechanisms calls for more studies of sound change in progress to decide the issue.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , July 1998 , pp. 193 - 220
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beine, David Karl. (1994). A sociolinguistic survey of the Gondi-speaking communities of central India. Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University.Google Scholar
Burrow, T., & Bhattacharya, S. (1960). A comparative vocabulary of the Gondi dialects. Journal of the Asiatic Society 2, 73–251.Google Scholar
Burrow, T., & Emeneau, M. B. (1961). A Dravidian etymological dictionary [DED]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Burrow, T., & Emeneau, M. B. (1968). A Dravidian etymological dictionary: Supplement [DEDS]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Burrow, T., & Emeneau, M. B. (1984). A Dravidian etymological dictionary (revised) [DEDR]. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. (1996). On sound changes and challenges to regularity. In Durie, Mark & Ross, Malcom (Eds.), The comparative method reviewed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 7–89.Google Scholar
Census of India 1981. (1987). Households and household population by language mainly spoken in the household. New Delhi: The Registrar General of India.Google Scholar
Emeneau, M. B. (1994). Proto-Dravidian *c- and its developments. Dravidian studies: Selected papers. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. 339–386. Reprinted from Journal of the American Oriental Society 108: 239–268 (1988).Google Scholar
Grierson, G. A. (1906). Linguistic survey of India. Volume IV: Munda and Dravidian languages. Calcutta: Government of India.Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bh. (1976a). Sound change: Shared innovation vs. diffusion. Phonologica 4:205–211.Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bh. (1976b). Review of Kamil Zvelebil, Comparative Dravidian phonology. Lingua 39:139–53.Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bh. (1978). Areal and lexical diffusion of sound change: Evidence from Dravidian. Language 54:1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bh. (1998). Patterns of sound change in Dravidian. In Singh, Rajendra (Ed.), Yearbook of South Asian languages and linguistics 1998. New Delhi: Sage India. 63–79.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1981). Resolving the neogrammarian controversy. Language 57:267–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. (1994). Principles of linguistic change. Volume 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rao, G. Uma Maheshwar. (1982). Lexical diffusion and sound change in progress. M.Phil, thesis, Osmania University.Google Scholar
Rao, G. Uma Maheshwar. (1987). A comparative study of the Condi dialects. Doctoral dissertation, Osmania University.Google Scholar
Rao, G. Uma Maheshwar. (1991). Subgrouping the Gondi dialects. In Bai, B. Lakshmi & Reddy, B. Ramkrishna (Eds.), Studies in Dravidian and general linguistics (A festschrift for Bh. Krishnamurti). Hyderabad: Department of Linguistics, Osmania University. 73–90.Google Scholar
Smith, Ian. (1991). Interpreting conflicting isoglosses: Historical relationships among the Gondi dialects. In Bai, B. Lakshmi & Reddy, B. Ramkrishna (Eds.), Studies in Dravidian and general linguistics (A festschrift for Bh. Krishnamurti). Hyderabad: Department of Linguistics, Osmania University. 27–38.Google Scholar
Wang, William S.-Y. (1969). Competing changes as a cause of residue. Language 45:9–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, William S.-Y. (Ed.). (1977). The lexicon in phonological change. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, William S.-Y. (1979). Language change: A lexical perspective. Annual Review of Anthropology 8:353–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar