Prev
| Home | Next
The
alphabet-the inventory of letter-devised for an unwritten languages must equate
with the inventory of phonemes set up for that language. The earlier assumption
that the taxonomic phonemes set up in structural phonology form the basis for
the alphabet has been discussed recently (Chomsky and Halle 1968 : 49-50, Halle
1969). The role of non-linguistic, psycho-cultural factors in devising an alphabet
has also been discussed (Nida 1954). This paper does not discuss these questions
which arise in devising an alphabet but restricts itself to the question of giving
suitable symbols or shapes to the decided phonemes for an unwritten language.
It must, however, be pointed out hat the model of phonemic analysis is relevant
for the symbolization of alphabet also in some cases. In Irula, a Dravidian language
of the Nilgiris, voiceless and voicedstops contrast in the word initial position
but only the voiced stops occur in the intervocal and post nasal positions. (There
are be handled differently.) Ingenerative phonology, the underlying representations
can have voiceless or voiced stops in the initial position and voiceless stops
in the other two positions. If the Irula alphabet is drawn from the Tamil script
which has only one series of stops, the allophonic distribution of voiceless stops
will be identical in both languages and it will help the transfer of learning
from Irula to tamil. Moreover, Irula will have limited instances of modification
for voiced stops. (Periyalwar, forthocoming).
There is no purpose in inventing a new script to write an unwritten language and
it is wise to use one of the existing scripts for this purpose. It has been recommended
by one commission (GOI 1966 . 141) and more than one seminar on tribal education
(NCERT 1967 : 193, CIIL 1971) that the alphabet for the unwritten tribal languages
(and other majority languages) must be drawn from the script of the majority or
the official languages of the State (called the State language hereafter) in which
they are spoken for socio-economic and educational reasons. When the symbols in
the State languages have the same sound value as the phonemes of the unwritten
language, the same symbols will be used in the unwritten language also irrespective
of the fact that, by the strict structural principles, the phonemes in both languages
do not have the same value due to different structural relationships between them.
For devising alphabet the sameness of the substance of the phonemes in the two
languages is sufficient. When the state language has symbols for phonemes which
are not found in the unwritten languages, those symbols must be left out. They
must be left out even if the sounds they represent are available allophonically
in the unwritten language because for the speaker of the unwritten language only
the phonemes are psychologically real and having symbols for allophones will add
unnecessary complication.
When the unwritten language has phonemes which are not found in the State language,
new symbols must be devised for those phonemes. It is possible to give symbols
in such case which are totally unrelated to the script of the State language.
But they will stand out visually as foreign elements and may go contrary to the
direction of writing the symbols in the State language, thus interfering with
hand movement and lowering down the speed. Therefore, it is not normally advisable
to mix foreign symbols with the symbols of the State language. It is not completely
rules out. However, it has been suggested that in Gojri the phonetic sumbol e
may by used for the sound it represents (Sharma forthcoming). It blends with the
calligraphy of the Perso-Arabic script in which Gojri is written.1
One is normally left with two choices to represent new phonemes. The unused symbols
in the State language, i,e., the symbols which do not used to represent the new
phonemes. Or diacritic modifications may be made on the symbols whose sound value
is closer to the new phoneme.2 This may be explained with two illustrations from
the symbolization of the alphabet of Kok Borok, a Tibeto-Burman language spoken
in Tripura, using the symbols drawn from the Bengali script. Kok-Borok has / w
/ for which there is no symbol in the Bengali script. To represent this phoneme,
the symbol for the long vowel / u / in Bengali which is not a phoneme in Kok Borok
may be used, or a diacritic modification of the symbol for /u/ may be used. Kok
Borok does not have long vowels but has two tones, level and high. To symbolize
the vowels with high tone, the symbols for long vowels in Bengali script may be
used, or a small circle after (Chatterji 1972) the symbols for the corresponding
short vowel may be used.
The choice between the possible symbolizations can only rarely be made on pure
linguistic grounds. In the above example, the symbols for Bengali / u / cannot
be used to represent Kok Borok / w / if it is also used for / ú /, since
it will violate the linguistic principle that the relation between phonemes and
alphabet symbols must be unique. Another linguistic consideration may be the phonetic
relationship between the sound and the symbol. Even though the relationship between
the sound and the symbol. Even though the relationship between the sound and the
symbol from the State language which is phonetically closer to the sound of the
unwritten language. In Thadou (Thirumalai 1972), for example, the phonetic closeness
has decided on the choice of aw to represent
/ /. Extra-linguistic
factors must often be taken into consideration to make be whether a particular
choice will hinder or help the learning process of (1) the mothertongue and (2)
the State language, since a primary aim of devising a script for an unwritten
language is to help the education of the children of that language. Other consideration
such as distinctiveness of symbols for efficient reading, speed of writing and
printing-typing facility also relate in some way to the learning process. However,
no study has been made on the relative efficiency of scripts from the learning
point of view to tell whether using the existing symbols of the script of the
State language with new sound values or using modified symbols for the new sounds
will give the least problem to learn the State language. Controlled experiment
on this question is immediately necessary.
When long vowel symbols are not available in a script, the tones may be represented
linearly by utilising unused symbols or non-occuring sequences of symbols, or
concurrently by using a diacritic mark below, above or by side of the vowel as
mentioned above. For example, it was originally suggested for Ao Naga, which draws
its alphabet from the Roman script. that Q and q after vowels may be used for
high and low tones respectively (Gowda 1975).
The native literates objected to this since for them it makes the spelling of
words cumbersome and marks the visual beauty of the words. It is suggested for
Tangkhul Naga ( Arokianathan forthcoming) that repetition of the vowels as in
aa and addition of h as in ah may be used respectively for high tone and low tone.
It is suggested for Bolo, which uses the Devanagari script, that the visarga *
may be used for high tone and consequently o for low tone. There are other ways
of representing the tone linearly as in Punjabi where the symbol for voiced aspirated
stop indicates the tone of the following vowel. In the present writing practice
of Ao Naga a voiced stops, which are not contrastive at the segmental level, seem
to indicate the high tone of the following vowel.
When a diacritic mark is used to mark tones acute and obtuse accent marks above
the vowel as in á and à or a line above and below the vowel as in
a and * are some possibilities. When there are more than three tones, one is compelled
to use a combination of the different modes of representation. Use of diacritic
mark is necessitated for writing segmental; phonemes also in some cases. For example,
to use the Tamil script, which has no symbols for voiced stops and central vowels,
for writing Irula, which has these phonemes, diacritic marks like colon ( : )
before stops and umlaut ( .. ) above vowels or combinatory consonant - vowel symbols
are necessary.
The choice
between the various representation described above must be made from the point
of view of simplicity and the reading and writing difficulties it avoids. For
example, the line used above and below the vowel for high and low tones respectively
will be ambiguous as to whether it goes below the vowel in the first line or above
the vowel in the second line when they occur in consequentive lines and will create
reading difficulties.
It is argued by some that suprasegmental features like tone need not be symbolised
since the native speakers can identify a word with its correct tone in the given
context. This is not however a correct solution to the difficulties of representing
tone. There are situations where the non-native speakers have to learn the unwritten
language which is reduced to writing and they cannot predict the tone. The native
speakers themselves will need the tone marking in ambiguous contexts where more
than one word is possible. When the native children are taught reading in school,
tone marking will be required to help them to perceive the unique symbol-sound
correlations, which is an important step in the process of learning initial reading.
Often tones have dialect variation. Since a function of writing is standardization
of the language and in school the children must learn the standard forms, it will
be necessary to symbolize tones in words as in the standard dialect.
It must be clear from the earlier discussions that it is not necessary to have
a single unitary symbol for a phoneme. This is true of segmental phonemes also.
For example, a language like Lushai, which uses Roman script, may use ng for the
velar nasal, hm for the prereleased bilabial nasal, tl for the laterally released
dental stop and aw for the lower-mid back unrounded vowel as long as the sequences
of phonemes also. If they do, the invariant relationship between phonemes and
the symbols of the alphabet will be violated. It can be done, however, if these
sequences of phonemes are infrequent, by using an hyphen between the letters to
indicate that they are two segments. This will be a natural solutions if morpheme
boundary coincides with the hypen. For example, in Thadon (Thirumalai 1972) th
stands for aspirated dental stop and t-h for the cluster of /t/ and /h/.
One of the allophones is chosen as the basic allophone to represents the phoneme
on the basis of certain phonetic and phonemic factors of the language under analysis
and the symbols of the alphabet match these basic allophenes. However, in the
case of unwritten languages, symbols reflecting the sound of a non-basic allophone
may be chosen if the alphabet of the State language dose not have a symbol for
the basic allophone but has a symbol for a non-basic allophone.
When multiple analyses are possible, which are equally valid on linguistic grounds,
the choice between them may be made on the basis of the phonemic system of the
State language and the alphabet which reflects it. In Kok Borok, the non-syllabic
vowels may be analysed phonemically either as syllabic vowels or as semivowels.
Since in Bengali they are analysed as syllabic vowels and the Bengali alphabet
uses the symbols for pure vowels and not semivowels, from the point of view of
making the learning of Bengali easy, in Kok Borok also the symbols for pure vowels
may be represent the phonetically non syllabic vowels.
It is not sufficient to consider the phonetic inventories alone when choosing
symbols for writing. The combinatorial conventions of the symbols will also be
an important consideration, particularly when the script is not alphabetic. This
becomes a prime consideration when the Perso-Arabic script is used, since this
script uses different symbolizations in different combinations. This consideration
of consonant clusters. The Brahmi derived scripts (except the Tamil script) use
combinatory symbols (conjunct letters) to represent consonant clusters. There
is also another convention of using a diacritic in the word final position or
in unusual clusters. When we devise a writing system of the State language, the
2question to be decided is whether the conjunct letters or the halant are as follows.
First, if there is a contrast in the word final position between a pure consonant
and consonant plus the inherent vowel in the unwritten language, the halant will
be necessary anyway and it could be given wider functional value by use in clusters
also. Secondly, if there are considerable number of unusual clusters in the unwritten
languages, the halant will be necessary and it could be given universal value
by use in all clusters. Thirdly, it is easier and faster to learn reading and
writing of consonants with halant than conjoined consonants. Fourthly, the use
of mechanical devises such as typewriter is facilitated when halani is used. The
reason whieh weigh practice is established in the case of the unwritten language,
the learner, who will have to learn the reading and writing of the State language,
will have difficulty in learning a new practice when the facts remain the same
and the interference of the old practice will slow down the learning process.
It must be mentioned, however, that it is only an assumption and there is no empirical
evidence and research is needed in this area. The choice between the two becomes
more difficult when the State language uses conjunct letters for some clusters
and halant for others. Because, the question whether one should go in for internal
regularity or external commensurability will be answered differently depending
on whether he has a purely linguistic consideration or an educational consideration.
Another example of such a situation in the writing of diphthongs. There are cases
where the number of diphthongs in the State language and the unwritten language
may not be the same. And the State language may use unitary symbols for certain
diphthongs, the sequence of vowel and semi-vowel symbols for certain others and
the sequence of two vowel symbols for certain others. If external commensurability
is desired, the irregular system in the State language must be followed to represent
the identical diphtongs in the unwritten language and the new diphthongs may follow
any one of the ways. If internal regularity is desired, one of the ways must be
chosen and used uniformly for all the diphtongs of the unwritten language. Similar
question arises when using the Oriya script for Kuvi. Oriya has no long vowel
symbols for / e / and / e / but Kuvi needs them. Doubling of the short vowel symbols
may represent these long vowels. To keep this pattern consistency, it has been
suggested (Reddy et al 1975) to use double short vowel symbols for all the long
vowels of Kuvi. There is no research on the educational implications of this.
Another question regarding the writing convention is the value of inherent vowel.
The same value, whether / " / or / /, may be given as in the State
language in the unwritten language also. The problem comes up when the unwritten
language does not have a phoneme with the value of the inherent vowel in the State
language or has more than one phoneme contending for this position. It is true
that an unwritten language derives uses the same script. This will be very clear
in the case of a language is an important consideration in devising an alphabet
for the unwritten language, it is preferable to have the sound values in both
alphabets similar wherever possible. The problem mentioned above can be illustrated
with Bodo. Bodo has / " / and / o / with an allophone [] as distinct
phonemes. If Bodo derives its alphabets from the Bengali-Assamese script and the
learning of Assamese is the consideration, the phonetic value of the inherent
vowel must be / o /, which is closer to the Bengali-Assamese / /. The Bengali-Assamese
symbol for / a / must be used for the Bodo phoneme / " /. Consequently, some
modification of it will represent the Bodo / a /. If Bodo derives its alphabet
from the Devanagari script and learning Hindi is the consideration, then the phonemic
value of the inherent vowel-must be / " /, which is its value in Hindi.
Another convention in the writing system of many Indian languages is the use of
anusuar to represent the nasal preceding the homorganic stop. It is perfectly
possible to use the full nasal symbol with halant in this situation also as, for
example, the Tamil writing system does or to use a conjunct letter. In the case
of an unwritten language, therefore, there are three options. It is preferable
here again to follow the convention in the State language.
A question related to the discussion of the symbolization of alphabet in the spelling
of words borrowed from the State language. The question of their representation
arises when the pronunciation of the loan words has been assimilated to the phonemic
system of the unwritten language as well when the loan words consists of phonemes
which are not found in the native phonemic system of the unwritten language. Let
us take the second situation first. The choice is between writing the foreign
phonemes with available native letters or writing them with same letters used
in the State language. Many Tibeto-Burman languages do not have the phoneme /
j / but they use frequently the English words like jeep, Jesus, etc., which have
this phoneme. In such situations, following the setting up of marginal phonemes,
marginal symbols of alphabet may be set up. This will be particularly helpful
when the donor language is to be learnt.
In the first situation, the linguistic consideration and the educational consideration
are in conflict and therefore the choice is difficult. From the linguistic point
of view, it is preferable to write the loan words as they are pronounced in the
unwritten language so that the learning of the systematic relationship between
sounds and letters in initial reading and writing is not interfered with exceptions
to general rules. The Bengali word
/ ghn?t? / 'bell' is pronounced as
/gnta/ is Kok Borok, which does not have voiced aspirated and retroflex
consonants in its phonemic system. If this word is written as
/ ghn?t?
/ in Kok Borok, it is not only against the linguistic principle of phoneme - grapheme
match, but also the deviation from the pronunciation will cause reading and writing
problems. This problem will be acute when the writing system of the State language
from which the words have been borrowed is not phonemic like English. If words
like bus, church, rough, Christ, etc., are written as they are spelled in English
in the unwritten language since their pronunciation is different phonetic values
in the native language. If, on the other hand, the loan words are written as they
are pronounced, It may create problems when the spelling of the major language
is learnt as the spelling learnt in the native language is likely to be transferred
to the second language. Besides this learning problem, the speakers of the unwritten
language feel that spelling the loan words, particularly proper nouns and religious
words like Chirst, church etc., differently from the donor language destroys the
isomorphic identity tokens may be written as they are spelled in the donor languages.
This will also avoid complications in legal documents where the names have so
far been written in this fashion. Regarding common nouns, the solution may be
to write, particularly in text books, the loan words as they are pronounced by
the speakers of the recipient language but to give the spelling of the donor language
within parantheses or at the bottom of the page.
Another question to be dealt with is about the riting conventions followed in
the State language such as starting every sentence and some words with a capital
letter as in English, not starting a line with a pure consonant as in Tamil etc.
Having more than one type fo letters - e. g., print, cursive lower case and upper
case letters in English - also comes under this. There is no logical need to follow
such conventions in the newly written languages also. As a matter of fact, having
more than one type of letters complicates the learning of initial reading and
writing. Neverthless, psycho-cultural factors play a role in accepting or rejecting
the conventions of the State language.
The final question is about the organization and presentation of the alphabet
chart. It was noted above that a sequence of symbols (i.e. combined letters) can
be used for a single sound consisting of simultaneously occurring bundle of phonetic
features. The question is whether the sequences should be listed in the alphabet
chart. Should foir example, the Mizo symbols aw, ng, hm, tl be listed ? In the
current practice the first two are listed but not the rest. There is no logical
reason for this discrimination but it is not clear whether there is any psychological
basis. This kind of discrepancy is found also in the alphabets of languages with
long tradition of writing. In English, for example th, though phonetically is
unitary, is not listed as a unit in the alphabet. If a part of a combined letter,
it may be abstracted ans listed separately in any other unitary letter, it may
be abstracted and listed separately in order to reduce the number of units in
the inventory, as visarga, anusvar and chandrabindu are given in the Devanagari
script. If h stands only for the low tone with many vowels, it may be listed separately
and each combination of vowel and h need not be listed.
It
will not, however, be possible, when a phonetic features is represented by a process
and not by a unique symbol as in representing a high.
tone
vowel (v) by the repetition of that vowel (vv).
Another question regarding presentation is the order in which the symbols are
listed. For the educational point of view discussed above, the order of the alphabet
in the newly written language must follow the order in the State language with
the new symbols added after symbols which are phonetically close to them. For
language which use the Roman script, however. one may argue, from the point of
view of national patteran, that the articulation based order of the Brahmi derived
alphabets of India may be followed rather than the arbitrary order of the Greek
based Roman alphabets of the Europe.
F
O O T N O T E S
1.
Examples may be found in written languages also. Five of the Brahmi derived grantha
letters added to the Tamil alphabet have continued to have marginal existence
in spite of their non-acceptance by great literacy authors like Kamban and opposition
by purists. But the use of the Roman F for the voiceless labio-dental fricative
/ f / strated by a Tamil magazine called Thuglak did not find and acceptance.
2.
Either one of these two is followed by a written language also when it develops
new phonemes. To represent fricatives, Tamil uses one of its rarely used letters
called aytam (*) before the stops and Hindi uses the diacritic mark (dot) below
the stops.
R E F E
R E N C E S
Arokianthan,
S. (Forthcoming) - Tangkhul Naga Phonetic Reader, Mysore ; CIIL.
Chatterji,
Suhas, 1972. Tripurar Kok Bokar bhashar likhita rupe uttaran (Introduction to
the writing system of Kok Borok of Tripura). Calcutta : Institute of Languages
and Applied Linguistics.
Chomsky,
Noam and Morris Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English, New York :
Harper
and Row.
CIIL. 1971.
Conferences of Heads of Tribal Research Bureaus/Institutes, Etc. Mysore.
(cyclostyled.)
Govt.
of India, 1966. Report of the Education Commission (1964-66) Education and
National
Development. New Delhi : Ministry of Education.
Gowda,
K.S. G. 1975. Ao Naga Phonetic Reader, Mysore : CIIL
Halle.
Morris 1969. "Some thoughts on spelling", In Kennath S. Goodman and
James T.
Fleming (Ed) Psycholinguistics and the Teaching of Reading, Newark,
Delaware : International Reading Association.
Karapurkar,
P. 1972. Tripuri Phonetic Reader, Mysore: CIIL
NCERT,
1967. Tribal Education in India : Report of the National Seminar on Tribal
Eductaion
in India.
Nida, Eugene,
1954. Practical Limitations to a Phonemic Alphabet. The Bible Translator
vol.
5 No. 1.
Perialwar, R.
(Forthcoming). Irula Phonetic Reader, Mysore: CIIL
Reddy,
B. R. K., Upadhyaya, S., Reddy, J. 1975. Kuvi Phonetic Reader, Mysore : CIIL.
Sharma,
J. C. (Forthcoming). Gojri Phonetic Reader, Mysore ; CIIL
Thirumalai,
M. S. 1972. Thadou Phonetic Reader. Mysore : CIIL.