1.1.
History and Migration of the Community
During
the British period most of the key positions in the Government offices were
occupied by the Tamil Brahmins and it was Brahmins who brought Mudaliars from
Tamilnadu to help them in administration. Most
of the Mudaliars living at present in
Bangalore
have come from Arcot District of Tamilnadu.
Even now it is found that many houses of Mudaliars are named as ‘Arcot
House’. During the course of time,
many Mudaliars have migrated from Tamilnadu to
Bangalore
and they were offered generally the lower posts by the then British
administration.
Presently, Mudaliars are found in
Bangalore
in different employments starting from professionals to business people.
We can however find among Mudaliars more persons involved in business.
1.2.
Language Use by the Mudaliars
Mostly
bilingualism prevails among Mudaliars. That
is, they are bilinguals in Tamil and Kannada.
Among the early settlers whom the present study covers both Tamil and
Kannada are extensively used. A
broad two-way categorization can be made as far as the language use by the
Mudaliars in
Bangalore
are concerned. They are: (i)
Language use in the family domains which includes the communal meetings and
while interacting with the other Tamil speakers and (ii) Language use in other
context not included under the category (i).
Since the scope of the present study is not pertaining to language use,
much details on micro level language use is not explored.
However, it is observed that unlike Iyengars, Mudaliars distinctly
demarcate the choice of their language while they are interacting in the two
situations mentioned above. For
example, in home domain irrespective of the social class or the educational
background a speaker may belong to, the choice of the code is mostly Tamil and
at times with English depending upon the educational background of the
interlocutors in the speech situation. Whereas
in the other domains, that is, in office, market place and other areas the use
of Kannada and English are predominant due to the fact that Kannada is the
official and dominant language of the area and also due to the fact that
Mudaliars whom the present study covers are bilinguals.
In addition to the situations mentioned above, whenever the situation
demands the language choice will be made by the Mudaliars starting from Tamil to
English and Kannada. In public
places the language choice by the Mudaliars depends mainly on the interlocutors.
In short, the conditioning factor in public places for language choice is
not the domain involved but the person with whom the interaction takes place.
For example, it is observed that two persons from the same community (Mudaliar)
while talking in a public place, mainly Tamil is used.
Whereas, if a Mudaliar meets a Kannada mother tongue speaker known to him
or a stranger, the language used is only Kannada or English.
It is also important to note that while interacting with a stranger
either in Kannada or in English if the stranger starts the conversation in Tamil
there will not be any hesitation to continue the conversation in Tamil by the
Mudaliars. This type of linguistic
fluidity in language use obviously shows that the Mudaliars are intensively
bilinguals and have adopted the language of the area to a greater extent while
at the same time maintaining their mother tongue.
It is relevant here to observe that the children are compulsorily taught
Tamil either at home, school or with the help of the private teacher even in the
case of children studying through either English medium or Kannada medium
schools. The knowledge of Tamil and
its use is further improved and shaped mainly in the domain of family.
It is clear by the fact that most of the middle class and higher class
people are subscribing to Tamil magazines and dailies as well as taking active
part in the activities of Tamil Sangham where plenty of reading materials in
Tamil are available for the members. It
is indubitably discernible from the language use and behaviour of the community
that there is a full linguistic participation with the dominant linguistic
group. Also, the language loyalty to
Tamil is strictly adhered resulting in the maintenance of the ancestral language
simultaneously. This type of
functionally differentiated language use and code choice among Mudaliars is
found throughout the cross section of the community as well as those who live in
concentrated groups. An observation
of the linguistic interaction by Mudaliars in formal functions, like native
marriage ceremony, temple festivals, death ceremony of the dominant group, etc.,
would further substantiate our claim. In
such places it is commonly observed that the Mudaliars freely and constantly
switch from Tamil to Kannada in the same setting while interacting with their
family members and Kannada native speakers respectively.
It is evident from this linguistic behaviour that the community under
study possesses a verbal repertoire of two languages, viz., Tamil a minority
language and Kannada a dominant language. Also,
the effective use of these languages in specific situations are maintained at
ease.
Observations
on the basis of across generations also revealed the same language use
situation. As mentioned earlier, the
children are invariably taught Tamil and since Tamil is used in the domain of
family the peer group does not have any difficulty in maintaining it.
2.3. Sampling
Technique and Variables
Linguistic data
consist of total 12 samples. Each
sample has 500 sentences 300 words and conversation with the community members.
The variables selected for the present study are
1)
Period
of stay,
2)
Economic
status and
3)
Education.
1) Period
of Stay
The data were collected from those Mudaliars whose ancestors have
migrated to
Bangalore
at least two generations ago.
2) Economic
Status
Economic status was divided into three categories, namely lower (income
less than Rs.250/- p.m.), middle (income less than Rs.1,000/- and above Rs.500/-
p.m.) and higher strata (income above Rs.1,000/- p.m.).
3) Education
Education upto 10th Standard was considered as one category
and above matriculation as other category.
2.4. Area
of Data Collection
Though
Mudaliars found to be living in different localities of the city, in cantonment
and Ulsoor they are found living in a fairly large number.
Areas, such as Malleswaram, Seshadripuram, Jayanagar, etc., the Mudaliars
population is scattered. Data were
collected from the Mudaliars living in concentrated localities as well as in the
localities, where they are settled in a sporadic manner in order to find out
whether the neighbourhood has any impact on the Tamil used by the Mudaliars.
2.5.
Problems of Data Collection
Since
most of the informants, the researcher met, are either in business or working in
the offices it was difficult to get them during the day time for the data
collection. Most of the time the
data could be collected only in their house after the office hours or during the
holidays. In spite of their busy
life, the informants were much co-operative in sharing their knowledge of Tamil
with the investigator. Since the
knowledge of Tamil with most of the informants are considerably good, they were
not shy or reluctant to speak even while recording the conversations or
sentences.
2.6.
Analytical Technique and Methodology
The
transcribed Tamil data were compared with the Tamil spoken in Tamilnadu and the
convergent features identified in all the linguistic levels, viz., phonological,
morphological, lexical and grammatical were listed separately to identify the
source of the new item. In addition
to this, any innovative features, addition or reduction at grammatical,
morphological or phonological levels owing to the influence of the dominant
language (Kannada) were also listed separately.
The linguistic data obtained from an informant listed under a certain
variable were compared with the informants coming under other variable in order
to find any variation in use.
2.7.
Extent of Interference and Convergence
As
stated earlier in the section on language use, the Mudaliars, in the context of
the dominant linguistic situation they are embedded in, have the capacity to
appropriate selection of linguistic code with reference to the relationship of
interlocutors, topic, setting, etc. In
essence, Mudaliars are fully aware of the ‘ecology of language’, that is,
they know the relationship of language to its social environment.
At the same time they are maintaining their mother tongue also.
In prelude to the linguistic behaviour of the community and the less
affected nature of their mother tongue, it is not incorrect to say that
Mudaliars have more language loyalty and are contributing their might to
maintain and cultivate their mother tongue.
As a result of this type of positive attitude towards both their mother
tongue as well as the dominant language of the area the convergent features and
interference from the dominant language (Kannada) are found to be minimal in
their Tamil. However, the period of
stay in the dominant language situation and the impact and exertion of
socio-political and economic pressure on the migrated community by the dominant
linguistic group have resulted in the interference and convergence in the
language of the minority group to a lesser degree.
Mostly this type of features are observed at the phonological, lexical
and to some extent at the grammatical levels.
2.7.1.
Phonological
Level
At
the phonological level though not much deviation from the Tamil of Tamilnadu is
noticed in the speech of Mudaliars, at times certain features from Kannada do
interfere. For example, intervocalic
voiced stops in Tamilnadu Tamil lose its voiced nature in some instances.
This phenomenon of devoicing is not uniformly observed.
However, it is noticed in the fast speech of the Mudaliars.
Moreover, it is observed either in the words which are common to both the
language or in the borrowed lexical items from Kannada.
Common Vocabulary:
Tamil
Mudaliar
Kannada
Gloss
ku-d-umbam
ku-t-umpa ku-t-umba
‘family’
ka-d-e
ka-t-e
ka-t-e
‘story’
Tamil Words with Deviant Pronunciation:
Tamil
Mudaliar Tamil
Gloss
Sami-battula
sami-pattula ‘in the near future’
ma-h-an
ma-k-an ‘son’
pa-h-al
pa-k-al
‘day time’
ku:
-d-e
ku: -t-e
‘basket’
2.7.2.
Word
Initial Voicing
Certain
lexical items which are common to both Kannada and Tamil differe only in their
word initial sounds. That is, in
Tamil such words are prnounced with word initial voiceless sound whereas Kannada
it becomes voiced. In MT, such words
are pronounced with word initial voicing. Though
only a few examples are found in MT where the dissimilar lexical inclusions are
pronounced in Kannada at the same way as pronounced by the Mudaliars.
As a result of this it is difficult to say whether this is a phenomenon
of word initial voicing or simply lexical borrowing.
On seeing some of the items used in MT, like da:ndu
‘to cross over’ where word initial voicing has taken place, one can however
infer that it may be due to the influence of Kannada, because in Kannada the
word used is da:ttu ‘to cross over’.
Tamilnadu Tamil uses ta:ndu.
Word Initial Voicing (Identical Words):
Tamil
Kannada
MT
Gloss
ku:ndu/ku:du
gu:du
gu:ndu
‘cage’
pu:cci
bu:cci
bu:cci
‘insect’
Non-identical Words:
kili
gini
gili ‘parrot’
ta:ndu
da:ttu
da:ndu
‘to
cross over’
2.7.3.
Loss
of Word Final –m
It
is interesting to observe that most of the nouns used by Mudaliars where word
final –m is present in Tamil have lost that final –m in the
speech of Mudaliars. However, the
same words are used in Kannada without this word final –m.
Although MT does not employ the word final –m in such nouns, it
is incorrect to say that they have lost it completely as compared to the Tamil
speech of Iyengars. To indicate the
situation it is commonly observed that Mudaliars in general are conscious about
this phenomenon. That is, while they
are consciously speaking to a Tamil native speaker from Tamilnadu, it is found
that they are pronouncing the word final –m very clearly; but losing it
while conversing in a relaxed manner with their own community people.
As a repercussion to such controlled usage, one could clearly understand
that the phonological repertoire of Mudaliars has in it the complete
phonological structure of the lexical item involving word final –m.
The deletion and inclusion of this phonological phenomenon is conditioned
by the circumstances in which the speaker is involved, say the presence of a
Tamil native speaker. Such type of
functional diversity is lacking among Iyengars.
This has direct relevance with the language attitude of the community as
a whole towards their mother tongue.
Words Involving Word Final –m:
Tamil
Kannada
MT
*
Gloss
marõ
mara
mara
‘tree’
pustakõ
pustaka
pustaka
‘book’
palõ
hannu
pala
‘fruit’
ka:yõ
ga:ya
ga:ya
‘wound’
ni:lõ
ni:li
ni:la
‘blue’
2.7.4.
Lengthening
of Word Final –a:
Interrogative
pronoun found in Tamilnadu Tamil ennÃ
what’ has
been pronounced with an unusual lengthening of the final vowel a.
Moreover, in Tamilnadu Tamil the final vowel observed in the
interrogative pronoun ennÃ
is the lower mid back unrounded variety Ã
. Whereas
MT observes always the low back unrounded variety with extra length.
The vowel changes from Ã
to a: in this interrogative pronoun
is uniformly observed among the Mudaliars and also the vowel difference in such
usage predominantly affects the phonological system of the language at least
from the listener’s point of view once it is used in a full sentence.
In other words, there is a demarcating difference between the word
pronounced both in Tamilnadu Tamil and MT. Owing
to the lengthening of this vowel, it is observed that the intonation also
considerably changes when compared to the intonation pattern of Tamilnadu Tamil
specifically where this particular word comes.
Because of the presence of the long vowel at the end of this
interrogative pronoun, more stress is placed at the vowels.
In Tamilnadu Tamil wherever the interrogative marker –aa comes
similar type of stress is observed.
1)
ennÃ
sa:ppiduRa
‘what you eat’ (TNT)
1
2
enna
: sa:ppiduRa (MT)
2)
õ pe:ru ennÃ
‘what is your
name’ (TNT)
1
2 3
on
pe:ru enna: (MT)
The Kannada equivalent for this interrogative pronoun is e:nu
‘what’. It is interesting to
note that the usage of these two interrogative pronouns found in these two
languages by Mudaliars are not at all lucid.
In the strict sense some flexibility is observed in the usage.
For example, the same person while talking to his own community members
in Tamil will use e:nu at one instant and enna at the other.
The following sentence may be noted as example:
1)
ni:
e:nappa eppavu
an*geye
po:Ra onakku ave enna:
kodukkuRa
you why
always there only go
you for
he
what
give
‘Why
you are always going there? what he
is giving to you’
In the course of conversation the following sentence is also observed.
2)
enna:ppa
ave kedakuRa
what
he
lie
‘what is there? let him go to hell !’
By seeing these two sentences it is not possible to say that e:nappa
of sentence (1) is only a lexical borrowing from Kannada because Kannada has
this type of usage with long initial vowel.
In sentence (2) the length of vowel is shifted to the final vowel of the
interrogative pronoun which is not common to Kannada and thus coming to the
phonological pattern of Tamil. This
can be the result of ‘eye pronunciation’.
As stated earlier, Mudaliars are able to read and write but at the same
time are not frequently exposed to the actual pronunciation of Tamil prevalent
in Tamilnadu. Tamil orthography does
not distinguish the difference between the lower mid unrounded vowel Ã
with low back unrounded vowel a.
Orthographically only the latter variety is represented.
A an impact of this type of writing system, Mudaliars have adopted the
second variety of the vowel exclusively in the final position without aware of
the fact that in Tamilnadu Tamil the same vowel changes its quality in certain
environments. Moreover, the
interrogative marker a: which is a morphological category and also a long
back unrounded vowel in Tamil. Thus
the Mudaliars have combined both the interrogative marker –a: with the
interrogative pronoun ennÃ
along with the orthographic way of pronouncing the word final vowel.
2.7.5.
Quality
of the Word Final Diphthong –ai
Another
instance of eye pronunciation is the retention of the word final –ai as
such in the speech of Mudaliars. Tamil
has in its writing system only one orthographic representation to denote –ai;
but while pronouncing Tamilnadu Tamil employs always the front lower mid
open vowel E
at the word final position. For
example:
Tamil
Gloss
(Written)
(Spoken)
malai
mÃlE
‘mountain’
kalai
kÃlE
‘art’
talai
tÃlE
‘head’
valai
vÃlE
‘net’
The
above mentioned words are pronounced by the Mudaliars with a final diphthong.
In addition to the influence of eye pronunciation, this phenomenon may
also be viewed with reference to the phonological structure of Kannada.
In Kannada only mono-syllabic words, such as bai ‘scold’, kai
‘hand’, mai ‘body’ have diphthongised pronunciation.
These words are also written by using a secondary symbol of y and
pronounced as ai, whereas the other words are pronounced as well as
written by using the symbol E.
Kannada
Gloss
(Written)
(Spoken)
mÃlE
mÃlE
‘mountain’
kÃlE
kÃlE
‘art’
tÃlE
tÃlE
‘head’
bÃlE
bÃlE
‘net’
As
it is found in Kannada, in Tamil also the mono-syllabic words involving word
final diphthong are pronounced as such though Tamil does not make any
orthographic distinction, like Kannada. Interestingly
it is observed that Mudaliars in their Tamil speech make no distinction in
pronouncing the work final diphthong. Moreover,
lexical items common to both Kannada and Tamil, like the one cited above
involving the word final diphthongs are pronounced by the Mudaliars as a
diphthong at the word final position while speaking in Tamil and as an epsalone
while speaking in Kannada. This type
of duality in pronunciation further proves that Tamil orthography is playing a
dominant role in deciding the criterion for pronunciation.
2.7.6.
Pronunciation
of Vowel ‘o’
Similar
to the situations explained in section 2.8.4. and 2.8.5, another phonological
feature which is retained as per the orthographic representation in Mudaliars
Tamil is the high back rounded vowel u.
At the word initial position, especially in the oblique base of the
second person non-honorific pronoun un written Tamil employs the symbol u
to denote the initial vowel whereas during pronunciation always o is
used. For example:
Tamilnadu Tamil
Written:
adu unnudaya
pen
that you(non-hon.)dat. Pen
Spoken:
adµ
onnudÃya
pEn
that is your
pen
But, in Mudaliar’s Tamil speech, only the vowel u
is adopted in this place even during pronunciation.
The variations found at the phonological level are cited below.
1)
Word
initial voicing.
2)
Loss
of word final –m.
3)
Lengthening
of word final –a.
4)
‘Eye
pronunciation’ of word final diphthong –ai.
5)
Pronunciation
of vowel o.
2.8.
Grammatical Level
Under
this section some of the grammatical features used by the Mudaliars in their
Tamil speech which has similarity with Kannada but deviated by the Tamil pattern
are given. it is argued that these
resultant grammatical features have converged into the Tamil system from Kannada
due to the impact of the latter. Following
are some of the features discussed.
1)
Usage
of exclusive and inclusive pronouns.
2)
phenomenon
of pronominalization.
3)
Notion
of future.
4)
Use
of affirmation and interrogation.
5)
Verb
conjugation
6)
Negation.
2.8.1.
Exclusive
and Inclusive Pronouns
The
exclusive and inclusive pronouns used in Tamil are na:n*ga
and na:ma
respectively. Present day Kannada
does not make this distinction and it uses only na:vu to express both the
exclusive and inclusive notion. Only
the context can make the meaning explicit. However,
old Kanda, had this distinction and the forms used were na:m with
inclusive denotation and nan*gaļu with exclusive denotation.
Mudaliars in their form of Tamil speech often seem to be using the
pronoun nammaļ or na:mba extensively to convey both the
meanings. The selection of the
pronoun among these two are arbitrary. So
far no conditioning factor is observed.
However, it is observed that those who are in the lower economic strata
often prefer to use na:mba rather than nammaļ.
However the validity of this statement can be ascertained only after a
thorough investigation. It is
interesting to note that most of the Mudaliars are aware that Tamil demarcate
between these two pronominal categories. However,
the demarcating usage is not practiced. Probably
this type of simplicity in usage may be due to the constant impact of the
contact language where this distinction is not maintained.
Following examples will give the usage of both these pronouns in Tamil,
Kannada and Mudaliars Tamil.
Tamil
1)
na:n*ga
ella:ru)
sinima:kku po:Rõ
we(excl.)
all cinema(dat.)
go (P.T)
‘we are all going to cinema’
2)
na:ma
ellaru)
sinima:kku po:la:ma:?
we(incl.)
all cinema(dat.)
go shall we?
‘shall we go to cinema?’
3)
na:ma
sinima:kku
po:la:ma:?
we(incl.)
cinema(dat.) go
shall we?
‘shall we go to cinema?’
Kannada
4)
na:vu
ella sinima:kku hogutteve
we(incl.)
(excl.) all cinema(dat.)
go shall we?
‘shall we all go to cinema?’
5)
na:vu
sinima:kku
hogutteve
we(incl.)
(excl.) cinema(dat.)
go (P.T)
‘we are going to cinema’
Mudaliar Tamil
6)
na:mba/nammaļ
alsurile irukkuRo
we(incl.)
ulsur(loc.)
there(P.T)
‘we
are in Ulsur’
7)
nammaļ
kiţţe e):
ke:kkale
we(incl.)
(excl.)
why
ask-neg.
‘why you did not ask us?’
8)
nammaļ
ellaru)
sinima:kku
po:Ro
we(incl.)
(excl.) all
cinema(dat.) go (P.T)
‘we are going to cinema’
9)
nammaļ
ellaru)
sinima:kku
po:kalama:?
we(incl.)
(excl.) all
cinema(dat.) go
shall we
‘shall we go to cinema’
From the above examples, sentences (8) and (9) very closely indicate the
exclusive and inclusive notion of the same pronoun nammaļ.
That is, sentence (8) reveals the nature of the pronoun only through
the context whereas sentence (9) explicitly shows that it includes the listener
because that is the question put to the listener for his willingness to join the
speaker to go to the movie with him. Exactly
similar situation prevails in Kannada when we look at the following Kannada
sentence.
10)
na:vu
sinima:kke
hogonava?
we
cinema(dat.) go
shall we
‘shall we go to cinema?’
Although pronoun used in sentence (10) clearly
includes the listener, the exact meaning of the pronoun uses in sentence (5) is
context bound.
2.8.2.
Pronominalisation
The
impact of the dominant contact language (Kannada) is noticed if one observers
the frequency of usage of the pronominalised forms by the Mudaliars in their
Tamil speech. To cite an
illustration, the pronouns with possessive case marker d-udaya is
extensively used in Tamilnadu Tamil.
avanudaya
‘his’
ennudaya
‘mine’
unnudaya
‘yours’
adanudaya
‘its’
Although this is the widely accepted standard Tamil
usage, in different parts of Tamilnadu, in colloquial usage such constructions
are used in the pronominalised form, viz.,
avandu
‘his’
endu
‘mine’
undu
‘yours’
adandu
‘its’
In the above cited pronominalised usage, the
morpheme –du is the corresponding pronominal termination or personal
termination. As explained earlier,
though this type of usage is prevalent in Tamilnadu, it is less frequent and
generally not observed in the standard spoken variety of Tamil.
In the place of the above Tamil categories, spoken Kannada frequently
uses the following forms.
avandu
‘his’
nandu ‘mine’
nindu ‘yours (non-hon.)’
nimdu ‘your (hon.)’
adandu
‘its’
Written Kannada has
avanadu
nannadu
ninnadu
nimmadu
adaradu
with an explicit possessive case marker.
In MT, it is always noted that the pronominalised usage is in practice
which is totally on par with the usage observed in Kannada.
As stated earlier, though Mudaliars are affluent with the Tamil written
system and writings, they have adopted the simplified pronominal usage which may
be due to the direct influence of the dominant contact language.
2.8.3.
Notion
of Future
The
notion of future too has some distinctive characters between Kannada and Tamil.
In modern Kannada, there is no overt marker to denote the notion of
future. Instead only present is
denoted. Whereas in Tamil all the
three tenses are explicitly marked. Following
examples may be considered for comparison.
Tamil
1)
na)
: ne:RRu
vande)
I
yesterday
came (P.T)
‘I came yesterday’
2)
na)
: ippa varRe)
I
now come (P.T)
‘I am coming now’
3)
na)
: na:ļe
varuve)
I
tomorrow
come (P.T)
‘I will come tomorrow’
Kannada
4)
ninne
na:nu
bande
yesterday
I
came (P.T)
‘I came yesterday’
5)
na:nu
i:ge
bartini
I
now came
(P.T)
‘I am coming now’
6)
na:nu
na:ļe
bartini
I
tomorrow
come (P.T)
‘I will come tomorrow’
However, in spoken Tamil sometimes it is observed that if an assertion,
like ‘I will come tomorrow’ is made, both future and present tenses are used
by the same speaker. But the
selection is arbitrary one. Both the
type of sentences, such as,
7)
na)
: na:ļe
varuve):
(future)
I
tomorrow
come (P.T)
and
na)
: na:ļe
varRe (Present)
I
tomorrow
come (P.T)
are accepted by the Tamil speaker as grammatical.
But in Mudaliar’s Tamil, future tense is never used in such circumstances.
The expression is made only in present tense.
Also in the other type of expressions also future is totally merged with
the present tense. Thus making a
common non-past category on par with Kannada.
Mudaliar Tamil
8)
na:ļe
na)
varRe)
tomorrow
I
come (P.T)
‘tomorrow I will come’
9)
adutta
ma : sõ na:
avane pa:kRe)
next
month I
he(acc.) see (P.T)
‘I will see him next month’
10)
e)
sakotare)
varRa)
my
brother come
(P.T)
‘my brother will come’
Another phenomenon which has shown direct impact of
the dominant contact language over Mudaliar’s Tamil is the type of answering.
In Mudaliar’s Tamil the answer to a call is made in past even before
the action is actually started. This
of course shows the certainty of the listener’s acknowledgement of the call
and simultaneous action. This type
of usage involving past tense before the completion of the action is commonly
observed in Kannada and totally absent in Tamil.
Examples:
Mudaliar’s Tamil
1)
A :
ra:ma: in*ge va:
‘come here Rama’
o: Rama here
come
B
: vande
(past)
come ( P. T )
Tamil
2)
A
: ra:ma:
in*ge va:
B
:
varRe)
(Present)
come
( P.T )
Kannada
3)
A
: ra:ma : ba:
B
: bande
(past)
came (P.T)
Kannada uses both the forms bartini (present) and bande
(past). The selection of a
particular form depends on the urgency of the action followed.
For instance, if the past form is used the action is followed
immediately, whereas for a delayed action bartini is used.
But Tamil never used the past tense in the similar situation.
2.8.4.
Affirmation
and Interrogation
The
affirmative sentence used as reply to a question is a : ma ‘yes’ in
Tamil and haudu in Kannada. On
the contrary, if an affirmative or interrogative sentences expresses the
listener’s doubt or if the listerner is exclaimed about the statement the
usual interrogative form used in Tamil is appadiya ‘is it so’
and hauda in Kannada. Consider
the following sentences.
Tamil
1)
Q :
ave)
an*ge
po:rana:?
he
there
go (PT)
interr.
A : a
: ma
‘yes’ or
appadiya? ‘is
it so?’
Kannada
2) Q
: avanu
allige hoguttana:?
‘is he going
there?’
A :
haudu : ‘yes’
or hauda:?
‘is it so?’
Tamil
3) ave
tidi:runu kalya:ņõ
paņņiţţa)
he suddenly
marriage did
appadiya? ‘is
it so?’
Kannada
4)
avanu idukkidage
maduve ma:du
koņda
‘he
got married suddenly’
All the above
four sentences can follow either affirmative a : ma (Ta.) ; haudu (Ka.)
expression depending upon the listener’s knowledge about the question or
statement. But, in Tamil two
different forms are used, viz., a : ma to express one’s consent and appadiya
to express one’s ignorance about the statement, whereas in Kannada the basic
form is haaudu for both. By
adding an interrogative marker –a : to the case form haudu the
sentence is transferred into an exclamatory utterance in Kannada.
As against the pattern of usage in Tamil cited above, Mudaliar’s Tamil
has only one base form a : ma thus following the Kannada structure.
While it is used to express the notion of ignorance or exclamation, the
interrogative marker – a : is added to the base form as found in
Kannada. Thus the resultant form
will be a:mava: with a morphophonemic change following the general
morphophonemic rule
a
&
a
Ø
V
i
&
a
common to both the languages.
2.8.5.
Verb
Conjugation
A
peculiar type of innovative future conjugation of Tamil verbs which take –p-
as future marker is noticed in Mudaliar Tamil.
Generally all the –i and –a ending verbs in Tamil take –p-
as the future marker. Along with
this some verbs ending with –r also take –p- as the future
marker in Tamil. Corresponding
Kannada verbs are taking –uva as the future marker.
For example:
Tamil
Kannada
Gloss
pa:ppa:n*ga
no:duvaru
‘they will see’
adippa:n*ga
hodeyuvaru
‘they will beat’
pidippa:n*ga
hidiyuvaru
‘they will hold’
nadappa:n*ga
nadeyuvaru
‘they will walk’
padippa:n*ga
kaliyuvaru
‘they will read’
nadippa:n*ga
naţisuvaru
‘they will act’
In
Mudaliar’s Tamil speech, all the Tamil verb roots cited above are used but the
future marker resembles the Kannada pattern, while using the verbs with future
notion. However, in all the cases
Tamil –pp- is replaced by –kk- with a following –u
glide. This may be due to the direct
influence of Kannada where similar type of future conjugation is available.
Mudaliar Tamil
pa:kkuva:n*ga
‘they will see’
adikkuva:n*ga
‘they will beat’
pidikkuva:n*ga
‘they will hold’
nidikkuva:n*ga
‘they will act’
nadakkuva:n*ga ‘they will walk’
padikkuva:n*ga
‘they will read’
2.8.6.
Negation
As
opposed to the complicated negative formation observed in Bangalore Iyengar’s
Tamil due to the influence of Kannada, Mudaliar’s Tamil retains mainly the
Tamilnadu Tamil pattern with very little exception.
When we look into the negative formation of both Kannada and Tamil, we
can observe that certain tenses are neutralized in these languages.
For example, in Tamil, present tense and past tense are neutralized
whereas in Kannada present tense and future tense are neutralized.
Following are the examples involving past and future negative
constructions found both in Kannada and Tamil.
Tamil
1)
ave ne:RRu
enne
pa:kkale
he
yesterday I(acc.)
see(neg.)
‘he did not see me yesterday’
2)
ave
innu varale
he
so far come(neg.)
‘he did not come so far’
3)
ave
na:ļe enne
pa:kka ma:ţţa
he
tomorrow I(acc.)
see (neg.)
‘he will not see me tomorrow’
Kannada
4)
avanu
nine nannannu nodalilla
he
yesterday
I(acc.)
see(neg.)
‘he did not see me yesterday’
5)
illivaregu
avanannu nodilla
till
today he(acc.)
see(neg.)
‘I have not seen him till now’
6)
na:ļe
avanu nannanna
noduvudilla
tomorrow
he
I(acc.)
see(neg.)
‘he will not see me tomorrow’
The past negative construction in Tamil consists of
verb stem + infinitive suffix –a and the negative suffix –le.
padikk-a-le
‘did not study’
Future negative in Tamil is formed by replacing the negative marker –ma:ţţ
in the place of –le.
padikk-a-ma:ţţe
‘I will not study’
Kannada has also the similar construction as found in Tamil.
That is, past negative construction consists of verb stem + infinitive
marker –al + the negative marker –illa.
bar-al-illa (past)
‘did not come’
Also, the past negative construction is formed by the adition of past
participle form and the negative marker.
band-illa
‘did not come’
The past negative construction found in Mudalir’s Tamil is converged to
the Kannada construction, that is, the negative marker –ille is added
to the past participle form. This
type of construction is not known to Tamilnadu Tamil.
However, as opposed to Iyengar’s Tamil, Mudaliar’s speech variety
does not use this type of construction more frequently.
In short both the type of past negative constructions, viz., vandilla and
varale are in use. though
linguistically there is no conditioning factor involved in the selection of the
negative construction, one can observe certain sociological factors involved
during the grammatical choice pertaining to the negative construction.
Two situation bound perspectives are identified.
They are:
1)
Social
context –
(i)
Formal
(ii)
Informal
2)
Extent
of exposure and interest of the person concerned in knowing or maintaining the
mother tongue (Tamil).
1)
Social context : It is
observed that in a homogenous group involving only Mudaliars, or in the domain
of family, mostly the type of construction vandilla is used with very
less exception to the other construction. Whereas
while taking to a Tamilian or to a person belongs to other Tamil speaking
community generally the participle + negative type of construction is avoided.
The preference is given to infinitive + negative type of construction
which is more dominant in Tamilnadu Tamil.
2)
Another
factor, in this kind of selection depends on the linguistic background of the
person who uses. For instance, among
Mudaliars who are not having sufficient competence over the language skills
(reading and writing) in Tamil always towards the selection of participle +
negative construction. Because of
these sociological factors involved in the choice of the negative construction
one can think that such duality in usage may be due to their exposure to the
Tamil writing system and also the simultaneous exposure to the Kannada
environment.
Mudaliar
Tamil
Formal:
1)
ave
ne:RRu varale
he yesterday
come(neg.)
‘he did not come yesterday’
Informal:
2)
ave
ne:RRu
vandille
he
yesterday come(neg.)
‘he did not come yesterday’
For this study we have considered mainly three
variables. They are:
1)
Period
of Stay,
2)
Economic
Status, and
3)
Education.
Among
the three variables as stated earlier informants were selected from the families
whose ancestors have migrated to
Bangalore
at last two generation ago. But
other variables, such as economic status and education seem to have little
effect on convergent feature. The
overall conditioning factor for language convergence seem to be the attitude
towards the mother tongue. In this
situation, irrespective of the education and economic status of the Mudaliars,
most of them have positive attitude towards their mother tongue Tamil.
As a result of that, the convergent features found in their Tamil is much
less when compared to the Iyengar’s Tamil.