INTRODUCTION
The Assamese Language, i t s G e o lin g u istics;
I,
S p a tia lly Assamese is the easternmost member o f the Indo-
Aryan fam ily o f languages. It is the o f f i c i a l language o f
the
State o f Assam, and is recogn ized in the Schedule V III o f
the
C o n stitu tion o f India as one o f the major Indian languages. It
i s most w idely spoken in the Brahmaputra v a lle y d is t r ic t s o f
Assam with the Lakshimpur and Dibrugarh d is t r ic t s in the
east
and the Goalpara, Dhubri and Kokrajar d is t r ic t s in the west. In
the Barak V alley d i s t r i c t o f S ilc h a r , Assamese is spoken in
a
c lu s te r o f v illa g e s . I t is the mother tongue o f 89,28,^06 oersons
liv in g in the Brahmaputra and Barak v a lle y d is t r ic t s and
of
30,571 persons liv in g outside the s t a t e 1 in In d ia.
II.
Assamese, derivin g u ltim a tely from S a n sk rit, through v a r i­
ous stages o f e v o lu tio n , change and growth, at present comprises
the fo llo w in g major d ia le c ts (with s t i l l minor d ia le c t a l d iv e r genQffiawithin them) t
The Census Report o f In d ia, 1971 .
( 1)
2
(i)
the Eastern Assam d ia le ct, spoken in the eastern and
central parts of Assam, on both the banks of the Brahmaputra
riv e r,
(ii)
the North Kamrup dialect spoken in the Nalbari d is t r ic t ,
( i i i ) the Barpeta dialect spoken in the Barpeta d is tr ic t ,
(iv )
the South Kamrup dialect spoken in the southern cart
of the Kamrup d is tr ic t ,
(v)
the North Goalpara dialect spoken in the Dhubri and
Goalpara (North) d is tr ic ts ,
(v i)
the South Goalpara dialect spoken in the Goalpara
(South) d is tr ic t ,
(v ii)
the Mangaldoi dialect spoken in the Darrang d is trict
and
( v i i i ) the Cacher dialect spoken in the Silchar d is tr ic t.
It must be pointed out in this context that in the absence
of a proper lin g u istic survey o f Assam the names of the dialects
d iffe r from study to study and the names used above are arbitra­
r i l y coined. Although a particular dialect is id en tified with a
s p e c ific area in the discussion a’-.ove, It must not be assumed that
these areas are not characterized by pockets o f diverse dialects
o f the language. Moreover, in the areas bordering distinct dialect
areas, the p o s s ib ility of compromise d ia le ct(s) is not ruled out.
3
III.
In addition, a number of b a s ile cts have developed because
o f contact between Assamese with some Tibeto-Purman languages
surrounding Assamese. Of these, Nagamese and Arunachalese
most widely known. These two are used as lingua francas
are
by
d iffe r e n t Naga and Arunachal tr ib e s re s p e c tiv e ly speaking mutually
u n in te llig ib le languages.
The locations o f the p rin c ip a l dialects
and b a silects are shown in the accompanying map.
I t is worth mentioning that within the d ia le c t areas
enormous va ria tio n s , c o r r e c ta b le t o s p a tia l va ria tio n s , and
class and caste d istin ction s are perceived. I t is not feasib le
t o furnish an exhaustive l i s t o f sub-dialects (th at is , s p a tia l
variation s o f d ia le c ts ) and s o cio lects (that is , caste and class
d ia le c ts ) in th is study.
IV.
The present study purports to be an analysis o f the Eastern
Assamese d ia lect which is recognized by a l l the d ia le c t <rrouns
as the standard Assamese (henceforth S A ), having passed through
the processes o f (a ) S election , (b ) C od ification , ( c ) Elaboration
2
o f Functions and (d ) Acceptance .
Decamp, D. t The Study o f P id gin and Creole Languages (bein^
the Introduction t o P id g in iza tio n and C reoliza tion
o f Languages e d i t e d by Hymes, D, ^Cambridge univer­
s i t y Press 1971).
2
Hudson, R .A .: S o c io lin g u is tic s , pp. 32-33, Cambridge U niversity
Press, 19P0.
4
The study is la r g e ly based on the observations of the speech
of Mr. Siba Hazarika, a monodialectic a 1 speaker h a ilin g from
Dergaon in the Golaghat d i s t r i c t , with re gu la r cross-checking of
data from other lin g u i s t ic a lly homogenous speakers.
V.
The th e o re tic a l model of analysis is b a s ic a lly that of the
Bloom fieldian school (a ls o re fe rre d t o as the American Descrip­
tiv e
or S tru ctu ra l S c h o o l),
and which comprises a number
of
d istin c t sub-schools1. This study is shaped by the ideas of
2
Bernard Bloch - who is regarded as the tru est Bloom fieldian and
•who reshaped B lo om field 's doctrines in many fundament-el wavs'
(Hymes and Fought1) .
V I.
The choice of the th e o re tic a l model is best accounted for
by a few remarks o f an autobiographical nature. Unquestionably,
the re se arch e r's thinking about language has been influenced by
the fact that he was train ed in lin g u is t ic s at the Gauhati Univer­
s it y while doing the M aster's degree course in AssamOse. American
D escriptive lin g u is t ic s constituted a major component of
Hymes, d .
and
Fought, j :
the
American Structuralism P. 100 f f , Mouton, The
Hague, 1981.
Bloch B s
and
Trager, G.L. : ( i )
Outlines of L in g u istic An alysis. Special
P u b lic a tio n of the L in gu istic Society of
America, Baltim ore, 1941.
( i i ) A Set of P o stulates fo r Phonemic Analysis
Language p, 243-46, 1948.
5
t e a c h i n g programme. T h is t r a i n i n g was f u r t h e r r e i n f o r c e d b v
dip lo m a l e v e l t r a i n i n g i n l i n g u i s t i c s
a
a t th e G a u h a ti U n i v e r s i t y .
These fo rm a l e x p o s u re s t o t h a t S c h o o l r e s u l t i n g i n some d eg ree
o f u n d e rs ta n d in g o f i t s
assu m p tio n s and methods prom oted th e
r e s e a r c h e r t o opt f o r t h i s s p e c i f i c model o f l i n g u i s t i c a n a l y s i s .
These b ack gro u n d f a c t s e x p l a i n th e n o n -a d o p tio n o f any o f
th e
Chomskyan or p ost-C h om skyan t h e o r i e s w hich r e l e g a t e d S t r u c t u r a lis m
or U e s c r i p t i s w ^ o th e b ackgro u n d from th e c e n t r e
o f th e s t a r e .
The r e s e a r c h e r ’ s a b s o r p tio n as a r e g u l a r incum bent o f th e t e a c h ­
in g f a c u l t y or th e B .B .K . C o l l e g e , Nagaon, a c o n s t i t u e n t c o l l e g e
o f th e G a u h a ti U n i v e r s i t y s to o d o n jth e way o f any s u s t a in e d fo rm a l
e x p o su re ( b a r r in g a few s h o r t d u r a t io n c o u r s e s ) t o any o f th e new
d o c t r in e s o f modern l i n g u i s t i c s
and as a r e s u l t he was l e f t w ith
no c h o ic e o th e r th a n o p tin g f o r th e
tic
o n ly c o h e re n t model o f l i n g u i s ­
a n a l y s i s - B lo o m fie ld ia n S t r u c t u r a l i s m
or D escripti& m ^ as th e
fram ework o f th e r e s e a r c h program m e.
V I,
T h is c o n s c io u s ly t h e o r y - b a s e d s y n c h r o n ic s tu d y o f one o f
t h e l e a s t e x o lo r e d a r e a s o f Assam ese i s i n no way a c o n t i n u i t y o f
e a r l i e r works o f th e p r e d e c e s s o r s i n th e f i e l d
and t h i s e x n la in s
th e c h o ic e o f th e t o p i c .
V II.
A lth o u gh i t
i s d e s ir a b l e t o g iv e b r i e f resum es o f th e
works o f th e p r e d e c e s s o r s i n th e f i e l d
th e p r i o r i t i e s
o f Assamese l i n g u i s t i c s ,
o f th e o r e s e n t work p r e c i p e s ) th e f e a s i b i l i t y
su c h an e x e r c i s e . The fo rm a l academ ic works th e r e s e a r c h e r
of
is
6
familiAr with are :
(i)
Dr.B.K.Kakati x Assamese x i t s Formation and Develop­
ment, Calcutta U n iversity p u b lic a tio n s , 1935 ( a diach ronic study
H rtJt
in AJules Bloch t r a d it io n ) $
(ii)
Dr.U.N.Goswami : A Study o f Kamrupi : a d ia le c t o f
Assamese, H is to r ic a l and Antiquarian S tu dies, Govt, o f Assam,
Gauhati, 1975 (a synchronic Study in the B loom fieldian model)$
(iii)
Dr.G.C.Goswami : Structure o f Assamese, Department
o f P u b lica tio n , Gauhati U n iv ersity, Gauhati, 1982 (a synchronic
study in the B loom fieldian model)y
(iv )
Dr.R.K.Mahanta : A Phonetic
o f Assamese, unpublished
and P h on ological Study
London U n iversity
Ph.D. d is s e r ta tio n ,
1970 (a synchronic study in the F irth ian m odel))
(v )
Mr. B.Kakati : Structures and Classes in the (grammar
o f Assamese, unpublished London U n iversity F .P h il d is s e r ta tio n ,
1973^ (a synchronic study in the Systemic model o f H allid ay)}
(v i)
Dr.B.Moral x The Semantics of Assamese, unpublished
Gauhati University Ph.D. d is s e r t a tio n , 1988 (a svnchronic study
in the Structural model).
The omissions and commissions that the present work shares
with those of the e a r lie r works o f the predecessors are inadver­
t e n t . Agreements and
disagreements are acknowledged in the
relevan t contexts w ithin the body o f the t h e s is .
7
VIII.
The tenets of structuralism (Bloomfieldianism) are too
well known, So as to render it rather presumptuous on the part
of the researcher t o be recounted here. It is worth while mentionins; it right here and now that the present study is conspicuous
by its detachment from the in tricacies of Bloomfieldian behaviour­
ism.
It is not the intention of th is study t o get involved in
debates like interpenetrations'*' of levels in lin g u istic deseriotio n s , place of semantics in lin g u istic analysis and so on2 . The
morpho-syntactic analysis is preceeded by sketchy phfjnetic and
phonalo^ical analyses. This is ju s tifie d on the ground that t>is
is an analysis of spoken Sa and not of written SA and Phonetics
and phonology constitute studies of sounds and sound patterns the very basis of spoken language^. The phonological analvsis
also fa c ilita te d the transcriptions of the examples cited
in
phonemic and allophonic terms. The phonological analysis anticipa­
ted neither morphology nor syntax, because the analytic techninue
adopted here and as prescribed by Bloomfield is u n i-direction al.
Phonological features exhibiting congruence with morpho-svrrtactic
features were taken note of in the relevant sections subseauerrtly.
This study is not# intended to be a phonelogical syntax of
the
^ P ik e , K.L. : Interpenetrations of Phonology, Morphology and
Syntax, Seventh International Congress o f Linguists,
Oslo.
p
g
Bloomfield, L
j
Language, Chapter 9, N otilal Banarsidavas, 1^64.
Hockett, C.F. : A Course in 14Odern Linguistics, Chapter 2,
Macmillan, New York, 1965.
8
1
Tracer-Smith type .
1
IX.
The th eoretical ^ r e q u isite s led the researcher to co lle ct
his data as exhaustively as possible keeping in mind the cla rity
norm, within the permissible time limit and to cla s s ify and
arrange the data collected as rigorously as possible 2 , The units
and terms posited are defined in terms of descriptive techniques,
that is , in terms ^paradigmatic and syntaamatic relations between
A
comparable units at s p e c ific levels of analysis. The crite ria
posited are applied
with strictg;ness and consistency. This stydy
can claim absence of any contradiction in the application
of
th eoretical tenets, in the postulation and d efin ition and use of
the terms and units at a ll the levels — phonological, morpholo­
g ica l and syntactic. The canons of observational adeauacy and
3
descriptive adequacy guided the analysis .
X.
The basic assumptions are that languages exhibit diversity^
^Trager, G.L.
and
Smith, V.L. : An Outline of English Structure, Studies in Linguis­
tic s Occasional Papers 3, 1951.
2
Sampson, G. : Schools of Linguistics, pp. 57-80, Hutchinson, London1987.
also Crystal, D. t A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics,
P. 290, Basil and Blackwell, Oxford, 1985.
■^Chomsky, N. : ( i ) Syntactic Structures, Mouton, 1957.
( i i ) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax^lT press, 1965.
and Lynns, J . : Structural Semantics, Chapter I , Oxford, Blackwell 191.
1963.
lx
Sampson, G. t School* of Linguistics.
9
and th at a language is an integrated stru ctu re^ . The enrohasis
is on the processes o f segmenting and c la s s ify in g the p h ysical
features o f u tteran ce.
XI.
The resea rch er, oust t however, admit the fa c t that the study
incorporates many terms introduced by the sch olars o f the o o s t B loom fieldian era on both sid es o f the A tla n tic t o the exclu sion
o f many terms and u nits lik e taxem^ tagmewoe
and so on used by
B loom field . But mere e x clu sio n o f a few terms and t h e ir su b stitu ­
t i o n by others is not tantamount t o a departure from the th eore­
t i c a l model adopted. The guiding p r in c ip le s are in no way v io la te d
and a l l new terras are defin ed and made use o f in terms o f tte
b a s ic B loom fieldian p o stu la te s.
Hyraes, d .
and
Fought, J .
:
American S tru cturalism . L 7 )