Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area
Volume 34.1 — April 2011
BOOK REVIEW
LANGUAGES OF THE GREATER HIMALAYAN REGION, VOL. 1 RABHA
BY U.V. JOSEPH
Leiden, Brill, Brill’s Tibetan Studies Library 5, 2007.
[Hardcover 864 body + xxxii front-matter. ISBN: 978-90 04-13321-1]
Kristine A. Hildebrandt
Southern Illinois University
Brill publishers (Leiden, Netherlands) has put out an impressive number of
Tibeto-Burman reference grammars in its Languages of the Greater Himalayan
Region sub-series (editor, George van Driem, contained within the Tibetan
Studies Library). This review concerns U.V. Joseph‟s 2007 descriptive and
comparative grammar of Róngdani Rabha (endonym: Rábatang), a Bodo-Garo
language spoken in Assam, in North East India. This review is organized into
summaries of each chapter, along with comments on particular strengths or gaps.
The introductory chapter is extremely informative and useful. Aside from the
(expected, standard) discussion of taxonomy details and a preliminary typological
comparison with Bodo and Garo, Joseph provides a settlement-by-settlement
survey of Rabha use and non-use along with contextual factors (e.g. surrounding
Indo-Aryan/Assamese communities, migration, Bodo contact, village contiguity,
age and context of use). This attention to detail is particularly important for the
study and greater understanding of increasingly marginalized language
communities, such that more informed and sophisticated frameworks of vitality
and threat scenarios (e.g. as proposed in Edwards 1992 and tested by Grenoble &
Whaley 1998) may be established.
Chapter 2 contains a generally thorough Sound Level Analysis, which is a
combination of a brief description of the articulatory phonetics of segments and a
more lengthy discussion of phonemic contrasts and some (scattered) allophonic
variation. There is also a brief account of the tone system. The chapter definitely
benefits from long lists of minimal pairs and sets for initial, final, and medial
positions, but the transcription conventions are confusing and frustrating to the
reader at times, and other details are left out. For example, are we to assume that
words in the main analysis are not Indic in origin unless explicitly noted?
Additionally, the juncture symbol (+) is easily confused with the fronting
allophone (Introduction, p. 42), and morphological juncture (marked with a dash
in later chapters) is easily confused with Joseph‟s transcription of syllable
juncture (also marked with a dash in Chapter 2). It‟s not clear why a period/point
was not used to mark syllable boundaries, which is the standard convention in
linguistic analysis.
139
140
Kristine A. Hildebrandt
There are two particular accounts in this chapter that warrant further comment.
First: tone, where an acoustic profile (even if rudimentary) would greatly help in
illustrating the system, as it is interwoven with vowel qualities like length and
glottalization. Aside from a brief mention of rightward spread of the high tone,
there is very little discussion of the domain of tone or sandhi phenomena. The
author acknowledges (p. 56) that more work is needed, and admittedly tone is
dealt with more carefully in Chapter 7.
Second: complex nuclei/diphthongs, a large and heterogeneous group of vocalic sequences, which Joseph analyzes as /VV/ in Rabha because of a lack of
approximant consonants /w, j/ in the phoneme inventory. They are /oi, ai, ao, au,
ui, eo, eu, iu/ and /ɨi/ (all with low tone), and /ái, áo/ and /ói/ (with high tone).
Many of these sequences are marginal in frequency, occurring in only a couple of
words. The enduring mystery here is the nature of their different allophonic
alternations. Looking only to the most productive of the diphthongs, /oi, ai, ao, au/
/au/ is the most stable and straightforward in always being realized as [au],
although there are no data where [au] precedes another vowel (either within a root
or across morpheme boundaries) to fully test this hypothesis. The other three
sequences present some intriguing puzzles in terms of allophonic distribution. The
sequences with a front V2, /ai, oi/, are realized with the V1 lengthened and the V2
as a palatal approximant (e.g. [aːj, oːj]) before a word boundary or before a vowelinitial syllable, regardless of whether there is a morpheme boundary (there are no
data with V2 before a consonant-initial suffix). When adjacent to a consonantinitial syllable boundary within the same morpheme, the V1 retains its shorter
duration, and V2 is phonetically the palatal approximant (e.g. [aj, oj]). But /ao/
shows some idiosyncrasies, with V1 lengthened and V2 realized as a nonapproximant sequence ([aːo]) before a word boundary, or else as a lengthened V1
with labio-velar approximant V2 ([aːw]) before a vowel-initial syllable, regardless
of whether there is a morpheme boundary, or else as phonetically unaltered ([ao])
before a consonant-initial syllable.
A tempting analysis here is that the only true diphthong of this foursome is /au/
because it alone branches at the nucleus, and as such it satisfies the minimality
requirements that seem to be at play in the word structure of Rabha overall. The
other three vocalic sequences are likely branching at the rhyme level, and the
second rhyme position is specified only for backness features ([i ~ j] and [o ~ w]).
They alternate according to minimality and also onset requirements, which are
also highly active in Rabha phonology (as evident in the variety of hiatus-repair
phenomena observed throughout Chapters 2 and 3), allowing for re-syllabification
as necessary to provide onsets to syllables. The approximant realizations of these
diphthongs ([j, w]) are weightless, but they provide an onset to a vowel-initial
syllable. The weight for a (minimally) bi-moraic syllable is provided by the
lengthening of the vowel.
A problem with this analysis is the variation of /ao/ in particular, as it is
different from /ai, oi/ in retaining the [o] vocalic feature when in other diphthongs
the approximant is realized, but otherwise not patterning like /au/. A related
Review of Rabha
141
question also is how onset requirements are satisfied in contexts in which /au/
occurs. More data and description in this account would allow for a more certain
analysis of the hybrid status of diphthongs in this language. This is a non-trivial
issue because of the many related (and still-open) questions regarding syllable
structure, prosodic word properties and phonotactic patterns in this language and
in Tibeto-Burman languages as a whole (see e.g. Post 2009 for Galo; Hildebrandt
2007 and Hall & Hildebrandt 2008 for Limbu; and Bickel 2003 for genealogical
and areal perspectives).
Chapter 3 (Lexical Analysis) focuses on morpho-syntactic properties of verbs
and nouns, and while it briefly introduces the idea of adjectives and adverbs, these
are then left for further elaboration in Chapter 5. There is a distinction made
between true compounds and nouns in juxtaposed, modification structures, with
the comment that it‟s difficult to tell the difference in some cases because case
marking is enclitic in Rabha, attaching to the final element in the noun phrase.
One possible test would be whether the many (admittedly semantically restricted)
derivational noun suffixes could apply to noun-noun structures, indicating a single
grammatical word (e.g. can sam-goda „type of grass with tiny bulbs as tuber‟
(p. 153) take the locational derivational suffix -dam (p. 143)?). Also, the -kai
attributive suffix (p. 283), while occurring on verbs and verb-like adjectives
(presumably in a relative-like structure), also occurs on nouns, lending an
attributive function, so it might be that noun-noun juxtapositions without -kai on
the modifying element (at least on endocentric relationships) are structurally more
akin to compounds.
For the most part, adjectives are structurally identical to verbs, although
Joseph notes that verb-like adjectives do not participate in all of the
morphological operations that „true‟ verbs do (e.g. they take a more restricted
range of temporal suffixes). However, when considering this in more detail in
Joseph‟s account, verb-like adjectives do take the vast majority of verbal affixes,
and as such, a more organized and systematic comparison of verbs, nouns and
verb-like adjectives, perhaps in chart-like form at the end of the chapter, would be
useful (cf. the approach employed in Dixon and Aikhenvald, eds. 2004).
Chapter 3 also introduces the interesting valency adjustments available to
Rabha (e.g. three causativization strategies and a restricted passivization strategy),
and these operations also highlight the diversity in morphological complexity in
the language (e.g. the presence of infixes and circumfixes along with the expected
suffixes), but this is presented in a rather sketchy manner. Rather, a more focused
description of valency adjustments in Rabha (one that subsumes the reflexive
operations covered in Chapter 4) would be helpful.
Chapter 4 looks at the lexical class division more closely in terms of properties
within larger phrase structures, although the distinction between Chapters 3 and 4
is not always clear. One issue that is never fully resolved is the structural
difference between verbs and verb-like adjectives in attributive functions in the
noun phrase. It appears that most forms in attributive structures are suffixed with
-kai but this is not always the case. In particular, there is at least one instance of a
142
Kristine A. Hildebrandt
verb-like adjective in an attributive function that is encliticized directly with the
accusative marker, i.e. lacking -kai (the morpheme boundary markers and glosses
are Joseph‟s, but the phrasal bracketing is mine):
[náŋ-i
cola pidan-o]
ci-na
[you-GEN dress new-ACC] see-INF
„Let me see your new dress.‟ (p. 265)
This type of structure appears to be infrequent in the examples Joseph includes
in the grammar overall, but the distinction, along with the wide range of elements
suffixed by -kai and the wide range of semantic functions coded (e.g. subject,
object, temporal, locational and action nominalization), suggest a possible
substantive difference between post-nominal modification and relativization.
Chapter 5 (Adjective, Adverbs, Indeclinables) returns to the other lexical
classes alluded to in Chapter 4, focusing in on the small true adjective class, along
with adverbs and other function-type words like conjunctions, emphatics and
interjections (Joseph‟s “indeclinables”). As with some other Tibeto-Burman
languages (cf. Manange in Genetti and Hildebrandt 2004), the class of true
adjectives is small and (presumably) closed, restricted in this case mainly to the
semantic category of HUMAN PROPENSITY. Unlike verb-like adjectives, the true
adjectives show a much more restricted range of verbal affixes, limited to -a
„habitual/present‟ and -kai „attributive.‟ The coverage of adverb types is
comprehensive, as is the discussion of reduplication strategies in evidence with
this class.
At just under ten pages in length, Chapter 6 (Sentence Level Analysis) is the
shortest of the chapters, with some brief examples of coordination and
correlatives, but virtually no coverage of subordination strategies (although nonfinite suffixes are introduced Chapters 4 and 5). It is somewhat surprising, given
the range and quality of texts contained at the end of the book, that not more
analysis of clause combining is found in the grammar.
A major strength of this grammar is the presence of Chapter 7 (Correlative
Analysis of Bodo, Garo and Rabha, itself some 200-odd pages), an extensive
comparison of Rabha with its two closest relatives, Bodo and Garo, a type of
chapter that should be a part of all major reference grammars when comparative
information is available. There is a detailed segmental and suprasegmental
comparison between the languages, along with a rare study of the phonation-totone development process evident across the three languages (and to a certain
extent this compensates for a more detailed account of Rabha tone in Chapter 2).
Rabha retains more prefixal morphology than do the other languages, while there
are greater similarities in terms of suffixal forms and distributions.
The grammar closes with an assortment of transcribed and translated texts and
also a glossary. While the texts represent a wide variety of genres, the morpheme
glossing is irregular and incomplete, which makes advanced text analysis
difficult. The glossary is thorough and careful, and includes much-desired
loanword information.
Review of Rabha
143
Joseph‟s grammar of Rabha is easy to get lost in, and I mean that in both a
highly complimentary and also a frustrating way. It is incredibly rich in detail, for
example, providing discussions of noun and verb blends (often lacking altogether
in other grammars), commenting at length on complex allophonic alternations that
lack a singular clear phonological explanation, and carefully illustrating and
commenting on the different compounding strategies available to the language. At
the same time, it lacks an index (frustrating when forms are mentioned briefly,
dropped, and then returned to later on), morphologically complex forms are only
irregularly marked as such, and the texts could use more careful glossing.
Additionally, given the rich inventory of inflectional and derivational affixes in
Rabha (which also have numerous semantic restrictions and oftentimes complex
allophonic variation), a listing of the grammatical morphemes encountered in the
language would be useful at the start of the grammar, along with the page number
of the morpheme‟s first analysis (although cross-referencing is generally reliable).
At the same time, the nominal and verbal structure schematics found on pages
487-488 are useful.
Some minor typos aside (they are more noticeable and frequent in the first two
chapters), this is an excellent addition to the Brill series, and it more than
adequately provides a careful (comparative) overview of Rabha, along with ample
data for future theoretical and typological studies.
REFERENCES
Bickel, Balthasar. 2003. Prosodic tautomorphemicity in Sino-Tibetan. In David
Bradley, Randy LaPolla, Boyd Michailovsky & Graham Thurgood (eds.),
Language variation: Papers on variation and change in the Sinosphere and in
the Indosphere in Honour of James A. Matisoff, 89-99. Canberra: Pacific
Linguistics.
Dixon, R.M.W. & Alexandra. Y. Aikhenvald. (eds.) 2004. Adjective classes.
London: Oxford.
Edwards, John. 1992. Sociopolitical aspects of language maintenance and loss:
Towards a typology of minority language situations In Willem Fase, Koen
Jaspaert & Sjaak Kroon (eds.), Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages,
37-54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Grenoble, Lenore A. & Lindsay J. Whaley. 1998. Toward a typology of language
endangerment. In Lenore A. Grenoble & Lindsay J Whaley (eds.), Endangered
Languages: Current Issues and Future Prospects, 22-54. Cambridge
University Press.
Genetti, Carol & Kristine A. Hildebrandt. 2004. The two adjective classes in
Manange. In R.M.W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Adjective
Classes, 74-96. London: Oxford.
Hall, Tracy A. and Kristine A. Hildebrandt. 2008. Phonological and
morphological domains in Kyirong Tibetan. Linguistics 46(2).215-248.
144
Kristine A. Hildebrandt
Hildebrandt, Kristine A. 2007. Prosodic and grammatical domains in Limbu.
Himalayan Linguisticsl 8.1-34.
Post, Mark. 2009. The phonology and grammar of Galo words: A case study in
benign disunity. Studies in Language 34(4).931-971.