A sixth language family of India: Great Andamanese, its historical status and salient present-day features

Abstract

Historical Linguistics and Linguistic Typology have been used to demonstrate that PGA is an independent language family of India. Data from extra-linguistic sources such as anthropology, archaeology and genetics have been used as additional supportive evidence. This chapter will give a summary of the findings and will familiarise the audience with some distinct characteristics of the highly endangered language of the hunter-gatherer society of the Great Andamanese population.

Full text

Chapter 9
A sixth language family of India:
Great Andamanese, its historical status
and salient present-day features
Anvita Abbi (Simon Fraser University)
1. Introduction
The results reported in the present paper are based on rst-hand language data
collected in the Andaman Islands (refer to Figure 9.1) by the author during the period
of 2005–2009.1 The Great Andamanese language family is represented by 10
languages (Figure 9.1) which can be grouped into three subgroups: Southern, Central
and Northern. The present form of Great Andamanese (PGA for short) is a ‘koiné’
(Manoharan 1980; 1983) or ‘mixed’ language and derives its lexical resources from
the four northern languages, Khora, Sare, Bo and Jeru.2 The grammar of the language
is largely based on Jeru. Except for Jeru and Sare (previously known as Aka-Cari), all
Great Andamanese languages are now extinct. There are only ve speakers of PGA
left in a community of 56, although the results presented here are based on a study
conducted at a time when there were 10 speakers. Two different, but interrelated,
methodologies drawing from Historical Linguistics and Linguistic Typology have
been used to demonstrate that PGA is an independent language family of India. Data
from extra linguistic sources such as anthropology, archaeology and genetics have
been used as additional supportive evidence. This presentation will give a summary
of the ndings and will familiarise the audience with some distinct characteristics of
the highly endangered language of the hunter-gatherer society of the Great
Andamanese population. The grammatical structures, unique in their own right,
expose us to the cognitive world of an extremely ancient civilisation and perhaps give
us a glimpse of ‘possible human language’.
2. The genetic history of the Andamanese population
The genetic history of the Andamanese tribes in general, and the Great Andamanese
specically, is highly important for understanding the evolution of modern humans.
1 My eldwork on Great Andamanese was nancially supported by the Hans Rausing Endangered Language
Fund, SOAS, University of London, under the Endangered Language Documentation Programme for the
project Vanishing Voices of the Great Andamanese (VOGA), 2005–2009.
2 Not to empower one language over the other, I am using PGA for the koiné variety of the present speech
form.
Dynamics_of_language_chap9.indd 134 2018/06/06 12:04

Chapter 9 – A sixth language family of India 135
All living non-African human populations in South, Southeast Asia, New Guinea
and Australia are derived from a single dispersal of modern humans out of Africa,
followed by subsequent serial founder effects (Ruhlen 1994; Cavalli-Sforza 2001).
Research by geneticists indicates that the Andamanese are survivors of the rst
migration from Africa that took place 70 000 years before the present. They are the
last representatives of pre-Neolithic Southeast Asia (Weber 2006). Linguistic research
undertaken by Abbi (2003; 2006; 2009) established for the rst time that there were
two distinct language families in the Andaman Islands.3 This was made possible by
drawing rst-hand data from three accessible languages of the Andamans, viz. Onge,
Jarawa, and Great Andamanese, and employing two distinct but interrelated methods
from Comparative Historical Linguistics and Language Typology. The results of the
research were corroborated by geneticists (Thangaraj et al. 2005: 996).
Earlier, Greenberg (1971) proposed an Indo-Pacic macrofamily, which groups
together the Papuan languages of New Guinea and Melanesia with the languages of
3 Blevins later (2007) conrmed my results of two independent language families in the area, however,
named: the second family Austronesian consisting of Onge and Jarawa — which has been disputed by
scientists.
Figure 9.1: Southeast Asia and location of the Andaman Islands
Dynamics_of_language_chap9.indd 135 2018/06/06 12:04

136
The dynamics of language
the Andaman Islands and Tasmania but excludes languages of the Austronesian
family. His proposal has not been accepted by linguists. The linguistic evidence that
Greenberg adduced for Indo-Pacic is unconvincing because of the paucity of lexical
similarities and supercial typological similarities.
Present Great Andamanese (PGA) is an endangered and moribund language
spoken by the Great Andamanese tribes living in Strait Island and Port Blair, Andaman
and Nicobar, who were hunters and gathers till the middle of the 20th century. The
development of the Great Andamanese linguistic structures followed a completely
different trajectory from the languages of agrarian and pastoral societies. Indigenous
tribes of the Andaman Islands are hunter-gatherers of the Negrito4 ethnic group
(Kashyap et al. 2003). The tribes residing in Great Andaman and their various
languages are known as Great Andamanese. Another tribe that lives on the western
coast of Great Andaman is known as Jarawa and speaks a language of the same name.
Little Andaman is home to the Onge who speak the language of the same name. Both
Jarawa and Onge call themselves as əŋ and hence, I will refer to their languages as
Angan languages (see Figure 9.2).
Figure 9.2: Geographical distribution of Andaman Islanders in the present times and in the
early 19th century
4 It had been customary to refer to a member of any various small-statured, indigenous peoples of Africa, the
Philippines, the Malay Peninsula, the Andaman Islands and southern India by the term ‘Negrito’ in the
disciplines of genetics and anthropology. They are believed to represent an early split from the southern
coast migrants from Africa.
Dynamics_of_language_chap9.indd 136 2018/06/06 12:04

Chapter 9 – A sixth language family of India 137
Great Andamanese constitutes the sixth language family of India (Abbi 2006; 2008–
2009), the other ve being Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Tibeto-Burman, Austroasiatic,
and Tai-Kadai,5 all spoken on the mainland of India. Initially, Great Andamanese was
considered an ‘isolate’ (Basu 1952; 1955; Manoharan 1980; 1983). Categorisation of
Onge-Jarawa as ‘Ongan’, within Austronesian argued for by Blevins (2007) may
have its merits but has proved controversial and far from universally accepted (see
Blust 2014).6 Although it is not conclusively established whether the group Jarawa-
Onge belongs to Austronesian, its typological and genealogical distinction from
Great Andamanese has been established by Abbi (2003), who nds corroboration in
5 Although the Tai group of languages were considered to be the members of the Siamese-Chinese family of
the Indo-Chinese forms of speech (Grierson 1904: 59–61), subsequent researchers establish that these
languages spoken in India belong to the ‘Southwestern branch of the Tai family and some, maybe all, have
been in the area since the 13th century AD’. (Hock 2016: 155). Also refer to Edmondson and Solnit (1997),
Blust (2014: 304) and Sharma (2014). Tai languages are found in Assam and the adjacent areas of Arunachal
Pradesh. Out of seven languages, only ve survive now. These are Khamti, Aiton, Khamyang, Phake and
Turung. Nora and Ahom became extinct recently.
6 Blust (2014: 329) after investigating all the pieces of evidence given by Blevins comes out very strongly
against her hypothesis. To quote him: ‘To put it bluntly, the AON hypothesis is a castle built on sand, an
elaborate illusion fostered by the misplaced hope that a major discovery has been made which somehow
eluded the investigations of all other scholars’ (Ibid: 33).
Central variety
Northern variety
Present Great
Andamanese
Great Andamanese
Southern variety
Aka-Khora
Aka-Jeru
Aka-Cari
Aka-Bo
Aka-Kede
Aka-Jowoi
Aka-Pucikwar
Aka-Kol
Aka-Bale
Aka-Bea
Figure 9.3: Great Andamanese and its regional varieties
Dynamics_of_language_chap9.indd 137 2018/06/06 12:04

138
The dynamics of language
geneticists’ ndings that the speakers of these languages belong to two separate
haplogroups, M31 and M32, respectively (Thangaraj et al. 2005). Their research
indicates that Andamanese are the descendants of early Palaeolithic colonisers of
South-east Asia and are the survivors of the rst migration from Africa that took
place 70 000 years ago.
3. The languages of the Andaman Islands
The two language groups that I am going to discuss here are Angan, which includes
Onge as well as Jarawa and Present Great Andamanese belonging to the Great
Andamanese language family that once had 10 languages in its fold. I will briey
summarise the phonological features of the Angan languages and then go on to
discuss in detail the characteristic features of the Present Great Andamanese language.
3.1 The sound system
3.1.1 Angan languages
Jarawa and Onge share their systemic inventory of seven vowels. Jarawa vowels are
tabulated as follows (Kumar 2012).
Table 9.1: Vowels of Jarawa
Front Central Back
High i u
High-mid ᵼ
Mid eəo
Low a
As far as the consonants are concerned, Jarawa and Onge differ from each other in the
inventory as well as in the types of consonants. While Jarawa has 28 consonants at
the phonemic level, Onge has only 19. While Jarawa offers a contrast at the level of
voicing as well as of aspiration, Onge is marked by the absence of any aspirated
obstruents. Moreover, it seems to have lost /p/, the unaspirated voiceless bilabial
obstruent (Abbi 2006). Thus, the Jarawa consonant inventory contains voiceless
plosives /p, t, ʈ , č, k/ and voiced plosives are /b, d, ɖ , ǰ, g/. For aspirated voiceless
plosives, only four places of articulation are used: dental, retroex, palatal, and velar
/tʰ, ʈʰ, čʰ, kʰ/. In contrast Onge has voiceless plosives / t, ʈ , č, k/ and voiced plosives /
b, d, ɖ , ǰ, g/ and no aspirates. Retroex sounds are commonly attested in the Angan
languages. Languages of this family are marked by the presence of a labialised
voiceless velar obstruent /kw/. Jarawa offers the variation /kʰw/ and another labialised
pharyngeal fricative /hʷ/. Nasals offer four series /m, n, ɲ, ŋ/ in both Onge and Jarawa.
Bilabial /w/ and palatal /j/ are the only two semivowels that exist in Angan languages.
Diphthongs occur at all tongue positions and at three heights. Thus, Onge and Jarawa
share their sound system to a large extent and any difference that exists today is due
to an individual process of change in each language, such as the loss of /p/ in Onge.
Dynamics_of_language_chap9.indd 138 2018/06/06 12:04

Chapter 9 – A sixth language family of India 139
3.1.2 Great Andamanese
Unfortunately, while Jarawa and Onge are thriving languages being passed on to the
younger generation, the Great Andamanese language family is endangered, as its
lone surviving language PGA is on the brink of extinction. The speech of the last few
speakers capable of using the language is marked by enormous variation, a
characteristic feature of a dying language. The variation is due to the mixed nature of
the language (Manoharan 1986; 1989; Abbi 2011) as well as because the language is
not in use by all the speakers on a daily basis (Abbi et al. 2007). The published
material on this family is very scanty, mainly available in the writings of British
anthropologists who were deputed to the Andaman Islands when the penal colony
was established in 1868. They brought with them Hindi and Bengali ‘ofcialise’
registers. More detailed research was undertaken in post-independence India by, for
example, Manoharan (1980; 1983; 1989), Basu (1952; 1955) and Zide and Pandya
(1989). However, intensive research on the present form of PGA (Abbi 2006; 2011;
2013) gives us a better assessment of the linguistic picture. Comparing the results of
Abbi (2013) with the late 19th-century works of Man (1923) and Portman (1887), the
following conclusions can be made about the sound system of the language family in
general, and PGA in particular.
PGA has a seven-vowel system distributed in the front and the back part of the
tongue, as shown in Table 9.2. The language has no central vowel, a rather striking
feature as compared to other languages of the Andaman Islands.
Table 9.2: Vowels of Great Andamanese (Abbi 2013)
Front Central Back
Close i u
Half close e o
Half open ɛ ɔ
Open ɑ
A variety of combinatory possibilities of vowel clusters in all positions is a rather
striking feature of the language family. A three-vowel cluster at the end of a word
such as [mɑiɑ] ‘sir’ or [e-boio] ‘ripen’ is not uncommon. Other languages of the
Andaman Islands, namely Onge and Jarawa do not show such a pattern (Abbi 2006).
As far as consonants are concerned, there are 13 oral stops, most occurring in
contrasting pairs. The language has ample examples of voiced and voiceless dental
and retroex stops. Only the voiceless sounds are aspirated. Thus, /t/ : /th /: /ʈ / : /ʈh/:
/d/: /ɖ/, /p/, /b/, /c/7 , /ɟ/, /k/, /kʰ/ exist; though /g/ is noticeably absent in PGA. A
voiceless bilabial fricative /ɸ/, a voiced bilabial fricative /β/ which occur only in the
speech of one person (hence in parenthesis in Table 9.4), and a labialised /lw/ are
unique features (occurs in one male speech) of this language family. However, due to
7 Its variant /ch/ exists in some varieties as in the speech of Khora and Bo. For details on variation refer to Abbi
(2013: 47).
Dynamics_of_language_chap9.indd 139 2018/06/06 12:04

140
The dynamics of language
contact with Hindi and other Indo-Aryan languages these sounds are being replaced
by /ph/, /b/ and /l/ respectively across speakers. Some of the examples for /lw/ in all
positions from Jeru, one of the North Great Andamanese languages, are: /lwec/
‘arrow’/, /bi:lwu/ ‘ship’, and /bolw/ ‘rope’. This labialised lateral is a unique feature of
one of the terminal speakers and cannot be considered a characteristic feature of the
PGA language family in the absence of substantial evidence from other speakers.
Four distinct nasals /m, n, ɲ, ɲ / exist in all positions. Two liquids /l, r/ and two
sibilants /s, ʃ/ are commonly found in all Great Andamanese languages. Retroex [ɽ]
was observed in Khora in all positions. Thus, /ɛr=ɽulu/ ‘eye’, /ɛɽlɑ/ ‘alone’
and /bɔɽtɽ}/ ‘storm’ in the speech of the last speaker of Khora was attested.
Languages of this family are rich in consonant clusters existing both initially and
medially in a word. The medial consonant clusters offer a large variety unparalleled
by other languages of the Andaman Islands.
A word can be as long as seven syllables in PGA. The names of body parts, birds,
sh, insects, reptiles and other jungle creatures provide most of the complex words
with long syllable structures, e.g. araɖomototlɔcoŋ ‘skin of scrotum’.
4. Comparative grammatical systems
A consolidated comparative table of the sound system of the three languages gives us
some indication of the distinctness of the two groups—the Angan (comprising Onge
and Jarawa) and Great Andamanese. PGA differs from Jarawa and Onge in eleven
features, however not the identical ones. Although both PGA and Angan share the
inventory of the vowels, i.e., seven, it is in the realm of nature of vowels and
diphthongs that Great Andamanese is distinguished most from other languages.
Consider tables 9.3 and 9.4.
A small inventory of body parts in three languages reveals the absence of any
cognate relationship between the Angan and Great Andamanese language families in
the basic vocabulary (see Table 9.5). For details on body parts on Great Andamanese
readers may consult Abbi (2011). The prexes in the Angan languages before the
body part represents ‘inalienable human possessor’, while the proclitics (symbolised
by the = sign) attached in the beginning of the words represent body division classes
discussed in detail later in the paper.
In addition to the distinct phonological systems and non-cognate relationship in
basic vocabulary such as body parts, there are several other features that set Great
Andamanese as a family apart both typologically and historically. These are:
1. A complex verb system of Great Andamanese.
2. Distinct morphology, with heavy use of proclitics in Great Andamanese.
3. Distinct and unique genitive constructions, i.e. alienable possession is dependent
marked, while inalienable possession is head marked in Great Andamanese, but
not in Angan languages.
4. Non-sharing of cognates with the Angan family in kinship terms and other terms
used for ora and fauna as well as the basic word list for Indian languages
(Abbi 2001).
5. Presence of pervasive body division markers in Great Andamanese.
Dynamics_of_language_chap9.indd 140 2018/06/06 12:04

Chapter 9 – A sixth language family of India 141
Table 9.4: Comparative sounds in three languages of the Andaman Islands
Sounds PGA Jarawa Onge
i - + +
ᵼ- + +
ə- + +
g - + +
h - + +
ɭ- + +
ch- + +
kw - - +
β + - -
Φ (+ ) + -
lw + - -
Table 9.3: Comparative Sound Features in three languages of the Andaman Islands (based
on Abbi 2006 and Kumar 2012)
No. The Sound System PGA Jarawa Onge
1Aspiration Yes Yes No
2Retroex Yes Yes Yes
3Bilabial fricative Yes Yes No
4Four-way nasal contrast Yes Yes Yes
5Labialised velar No Yes Yes
6Labialised aspirated velar No Yes No
7Labialised pharyngeal No Yes No
8Labialised lateral Yes No No
9Retroex lateral No Yes Ye s
10 Number of vowels 777
11 Vowel length Yes Yes No
12 Back mid lax vowel Yes No Yes
13 Front mid lax vowel Yes No No
14 Central mid vowel No Yes Yes
15 Central mid high unrounded vowel No Yes Yes
16 Central low vowel No Yes Yes
17 Majority of words end in open syllables No Yes Yes
For reasons of time I must refer the reader to the grammar of the Great Andamanese
language (Abbi 2013). I will, instead, highlight the use of proclitics in Great
Andamanese and show how the language family is unique in such a way that the body
division markers that appear as proclitics pervade the entire grammatical system of
the language, a fact not shared by any other known language of the world so far. In
Dynamics_of_language_chap9.indd 141 2018/06/06 12:04

142
The dynamics of language
this respect, this is not only a distinct language family of India, but also a unique one.
It has some raras, as described by Wohlgemuth and Cysouw (2010).
5. More on Present Great Andamanese (PGA)
PGA is agglutinative in terms of its treatment of morpheme boundaries, but
polysynthetic in word morphology. See page 143, δfro examples 1–9 for sentence
structure. A large number of morphemes, afxes, phonological words, clitics, and
incorporated elements can constitute a single word (1). The incorporation of reexives
(6) and nouns (7) is seen in verb complexes. These verb complexes may constitute a
verb phrase. Thus, verbs are much more versatile and elaborate than nouns.
PGA is a prototypical ‘double-marking’ language where the head or possessed
noun is obligatorily marked in inalienable possession, but it is the possessor, the
dependent noun, which is marked in alienable possession (sentence 5). While the
genitive phrase precedes the head noun (as is typical of verb-nal languages), other
modiers follow the modied elements (9). Moreover, animacy determines the
phonetic shape of the base form of the class marker. If the possessor noun is non-
animate, the class marker is prexed by a dental consonant t- otherwise with all
animate possessors, both human and non-human, class markers begin with a vowel.
Thus, possessive class markers ara=, ot=, etc., which are indicators of animate
possessors, will be rendered as tara=, tot= respectively, if the possessors are
inanimate beings. Thus, live animals and their body parts will be marked by a class
marker without the initial /t-/ as is the case with human body parts. However, when
the part is cut and separated from the body the associated marker will be prexed
with /t-/. Thus, not ra εr=co ‘pig’s head’ but ra tεr=co ‘pig’s head’ [cut off]. Part-to-
component relationships follow the same principle as the two parts are inherent and
inalienable but non-animate (8).
In addition, case markings are sufxed to the nouns. The verb complex includes a
large amount of information in multi-morphemic strings that include object clitics,
incorporated nominals in causative constructions, reexive and reciprocal prexes, as
well as sufxes expressing tense, aspect, and mood. Overt external NPs are present in
addition to the verb complex. However, these are optional and often dropped in
discourse. PGA is a verb-nal language. Refer to examples 1–9 given later in this paper.
The grammar of the language represents important cognitive aspects of the
community. The conceptualisation by Great Andamanese is anthropocentric. They
Table 9.5: Comparative lexicon in body part terms in three languages of the Andaman Islands
No Gloss PGA Onge Jarawa
1‘forehead’ er=be:ŋ ᵼne-ɟale ən- ečʰemug
2‘eye’ er=ulu ᵼne-bo ən-epo
3‘ear’ er=boa ᵼne-ikhəwə ən- ikʰwa
4‘elbow’ bala-tara-ɖole ᵼne-ithoha ən-itoge
5‘thumb’ oŋ=kenap ᵼne-obothaən-oboʈage
6‘thigh’ o=buco ᵼne-ibe ən-ibo
7‘knee’ o=curok ᵼne-ola ən-olage
Dynamics_of_language_chap9.indd 142 2018/06/06 12:04

Chapter 9 – A sixth language family of India 143
use human categorisation to describe and understand non-human concepts. The
human body provides the most important model for expressing concepts, not only of
spatial orientation but also of relational nouns, attributive categories, and inherently
related objects of actions and events, which are conceptually dependent upon each
other. The conceptual dependency is represented by the appropriate clitic that attaches
to various grammatical categories. Thus, a marker for organs inside the body is
attached to the verb ‘think’ as in e-biŋe as thinking is an internal activity. The same
marker can be used for a person who is internally beautiful (English ‘nice’) as in
e=buŋoi but it is ɛr=buŋoi for an externally beautiful person because ɛr= is reserved
for external parts of the body, or a=mu ‘dumb’ because marker a= is reserved for
mouth and mouth-related activities implying an inalienable relationship between the
person and the modier. Although many languages use human body part terms to
represent different aspects of grammar (Majid 2010), what I am going to present here
is unparalleled and possibly unique.
Many verbs are individuated by the body division class marker proclitics, in
which the body part semantics shift into event-type semantic categories of various
kinds. These proclitics combine with verbal roots of any valence. Although most of
the verbs in the language are obligatorily preceded by these body-division class
proclitics, few verbs in the language appear as free forms. Thus, PGA offers both
bound and free forms of verbs. The seven body division class markers are
grammaticalised to a large extent, but the original semantics of each of the body-
division terms is still discernible in a few markers. For instance, class 1 a= refers to
‘mouth’ and is attached to verbs such as ‘abuse’, a mouth-related activity. Class 7 o=,
on the other hand, refers to ‘lower part of the body’ or ‘rounded organs’ and is attached
to resultative verbs such as ‘make a nest’ or ‘ask’. The following table represents the
seven body division class markers.
Table 9.6: Seven basic zones in the partonomy of the body in PGA
Classes Partonomy of human body body division markers
1 mouth and its semantic extension a=
2 major external body parts ɛr=
3 extreme ends of the body like toes and ngernails oŋ=
4 bodily products and part-whole relationship ut=
5 organs inside the body e=
6 parts designating round shape/sexual organs ara=
7parts for legs and related terms o= ~ ɔ=
Dynamics_of_language_chap9.indd 143 2018/06/06 12:04

144
The dynamics of language
As noted earlier, all bound forms are obligatorily preceded by one of the seven body
division class markers or object clitics (see sentences 2 and 3). In addition, verbs may
optionally be preceded by a valency-indicating morpheme, such as the causative or
applicative (sentence 4), or by a reexive morpheme indicating self-directed action
(sentence 6). If the verbal root morpheme ends in an open syllable, a formative afxal
consonant -b- or -k- or -l- is inxed between the verb root and the following mood or
tense marker (as in sentence1). This can be illustrated in the schema below. Aspect
markers are added directly to the verb root without the formative afx. Hence, verb
morphology is complex but transparent. It may be schematised as follows:
Schema 1: (
procliTi c
) (
valency
) (
reflexiv e
) verb root ([
formaTive affix
])
(
mood/aspe cT
) [
Tense
]
Here are a few sentences from PGA to exemplify the verb complex and pervasive
body division class markers (symbolised as
cl
) . One can see that body class markers
are attached to both transitive and intransitive verbs.
1. a=joe a=toŋnu taracɔr-e eole-inci-k-o
cl
1=Joe
cl
1=Tong-
pl
spring-
abs
see-go-
fa-psT
‘Joe and Tong went to see the spring.’
2. a=Ilphe er=nolom
cl
7=Ilphe
cl
2=write-
npsT
‘Ilphe writes.’
3. ʈh=a=mai k-a=ʈhi-t=bɔl-o
1
sg
=
cl
1.
poss
=father
obj-cl
1=search-
obj
=went off-
psT
‘(They) went off to search my father.’
4. u khider-e ta-ut=phay-om
3
sg
coconut-
abs
appl-cl
4=dry-
npsT
‘He is drying a coconut (jointly with other people).’
5. nu iʃo ɟulu
nu gen
dress
‘Nu’s dress.’
6. ʈha (E)m-eʈh-om
1
sg
refl
-recline-
npsT
‘I am reclining.’
7. ʈh=ut=ɖiu-birate-k-ɔm
1sg=cl 4
=sun set-
fa- npsT
‘It will take me the whole day (to nish the job).’
Dynamics_of_language_chap9.indd 144 2018/06/06 12:04

Chapter 9 – A sixth language family of India 145
8. fɛc ta=phoŋ
vessel
cl1=
cavity
‘The mouth of the vessel.’
9. ɟulu tɛr=ɖiʈh-(bi) kHuro be
dress
cl2
=hole-
abs
big
cop
̒There is a big hole in the dress.’
Interestingly, these verbal clitics are intertwined with the manner of action and thus,
each of the seven clitics represents the distinct manner of an action when attached to
verbs. Consider verbs related to ‘to cut’.
ara=pho [
class
6] ‘cut down’, ‘fell’ (tree)
ɛr=pho [
class
2] ‘hit with a stick’ (from front)
ut=pho [
class
4] ‘cut from the source’ (betel nut or coconut)
Nouns in general are poor in afxation compared to verbs. Cross referencing proclitics
occur on verbs as well as on temporal adverbs.
As said earlier, the striking feature of the language is the heavy occurrence of
proclitics. Most of the free personal pronouns exist in reduced form as simple
proclitics and when they occur with other clitics, such as body-class proclitics, they
offer the possibility of clitic sequencing. Over the years, these proclitics have fused
with nouns and verbs and are no longer segmental or transparent in meaning in many
words. This may be a result of grammaticalisation or of the development from
concrete lexemes to abstract grammatical concepts that normally takes place during
language change, but more signicantly also during language evolution (Givón 2002;
Heine & Kuteva 2007). The following table is exemplary.
Body division class markers occur with nouns, modiers, and both action and
state verbs, and express the relationship between (a) an action and its object, (b)
between an action and its result, (c) between an action and its manner, or (d) between
an object and its state. This relationship between the two grammatical categories
symbolised by class markers represents the concept of inherency that is perceived by
the speakers of the language. The dependency feature of various grammatical
categories on the preceding body division class marker may be understood as the
‘inherency factor’. The notion of inherency further represents a conceptual
dependency between the object and its possessor such as ‘house’ or ‘ornaments’ as
each of these words are inalienably possessed. It is proposed here that various kinds
of inherent, non-transferable, inter-dependent relations between two elements are
represented by body class markers that function as proclitics to the dependent
grammatical categories. The Great Andamanese conceptualise their world through
these interdependencies and hence the grammar of the language encodes this
important phenomenon in every class form expressing referential, attributive and
predicative meaning. The author has observed that these features are at risk of getting
completely lost due to current contact with Hindi.
Dynamics_of_language_chap9.indd 145 2018/06/06 12:04

146
The dynamics of language
Table 9.7: Partonomy of human body and grammaticalisation process in PGA
Classes Partonomy
of human
body
Body
division
markers
Verbs Adjectives Adverbs
1 mouth and
its semantic
extension
a= mouth-related
activity, origin,
e.g. a=ɟire
‘abuse’,
a=kopho
‘sprout’
mouth-related
attributive
quality of a
person, e.g.
a=mu ‘mute’,
a=tutlup
‘greedy’
deictic
meaning of
front or back,
anteriority of
an action, e.g.
a=karap
‘behind’,
a=kaulu ‘prior
to’
2 major
external
body parts
ɛr= activity in
which the
front part of
the body is
involved. e.g.
er=luk ‘weigh’
attribute of
size, external
beauty, e.g.
er=buŋoi
‘beautiful’
deictic
meaning of
adjacency,
uncontrollable
actions/
emotions, e.g.
er=betto:ʃo
‘adjacent to/
near X’,
er=achil
‘surprised’
3extreme
ends of the
body like toe
and
ngernails
oŋ= hand-related
activity, action
to do with
extremities of
body, e.g.
oŋ=cho ‘stitch’,
oŋ=tuɟuro
‘trembling of
hands’
attributes
related to
limbs, e.g.
oŋ=karacay
‘lame’,
‘handicapped’,
oŋ=toplo
‘alone’
Indicating
manner,
oŋ=kocil ‘fast’,
‘hurriedly’
4 bodily
products and
part-whole
relationship
ut= directional,
away from the
ego,
experiential,
e.g. ut=cone
‘leave’,
ut=ʈheʈhe-bom
‘be hungry’
attributive
quality of an X
after a part is
taken out of it,
e.g. ut=lile
‘decay’,
ut=lɔkho
‘bare’
emerging out
of something,
deictic
meaning of
‘towards X’,
e.g. ot=le,
‘seaward’
ot=bo
‘backwards’
5organs
inside the
body
e=, ɛ= internalised
action, when
the effect of
an action can
be seen on
the object, or
experienced,
e.g. e=lɛco
‘suck’,
ɛ=rino ‘tear’
inherent
attribute of X,
e.g. e=sare
‘salty’,
ɛ=bɛn ‘soft’
deictic
meaning of ‘in
the middle of
X’ te=khil,
e=kotra ‘inside’
Dynamics_of_language_chap9.indd 146 2018/06/06 12:04

Chapter 9 – A sixth language family of India 147
6. Possibility of having traces of archaic structures
Languages evolve and grow in layers and at a single point of time, one can witness
different layers of grammatical and lexical items superimposed on each other, like the
layers of different civilisations of different times uncovered by an archaeologist in a
single excavation. Linguists can reconstruct proto-forms and identify various stages
of development by careful historical and comparative methods.
However, we are also aware of the fact that historical linguistics cannot help us
reconstruct forms beyond 10 000 years. Linguists have tried other methods to
establish grammatical processes and earlier forms of a language or languages. Recent
research on language evolution (Hurford & Dediu 2009; Hurford 2011a; 2011b,
among others) and evolution of grammar (Heine & Kuteva 2007), along with research
on the typology of the world’s languages (Haspelmath et al. 2005) lead us to present
the following arguments in favour of Great Andamanese retaining one of the archaic
structures of human language.
The structures discussed above, viz. body division classes and their pervading
character, must have developed in stages, each superimposing itself on the previous
one. To begin with we must come to terms with the fact that the culture of a community
has a big role in shaping the language. This is in tune with the co-evolutionary
approach adopted by Evans and Levinson in ‘understanding language within the
context of the interactions between culture and human biology’ (2010: 2742).
The body division class markers could have originated as a culture-specic trait
of the Andamanese languages. The phenomenon of body-division classes and their
grammaticalised markers attached to every form-class appears to be a feature of
Great Andamanese grammar that has been retained for a long time.8 As structural
properties of language change very slowly, these structures have stayed the same
through each of the descendant branches of the Great Andamanese language family,
perhaps in the order of thousands of years. The basis for the antiquity of these
8 Man (1875–1879) also notes the pervasive character of these markers in the Great Andamanese languages of
the 19th century.
6parts
designating
round shape
ara= action that
involves side
or middle
portion of the
body, e.g.
ara=ɖelo ‘be
pregnant’
attribute of
size, ‘time’ and
belly-related,
e.g.
ara=pheʈkhetɔ
‘big bellied’,
ara=kaʈa ‘stout/
dwarf’
deixis of
immediate
vertical or
horizontal
space, e.g.
ara=balo
‘behind X’,
tara=tal ‘right
under X’
7parts for leg
and related
terms
o= ~ɔ action which
results in
roundish
object or in a
denite result,
e.g. o=cɔrno
‘make nest’,
o=beo ‘sting’
external
attribute of an
X, shape or
structure, e.g.
o=baloŋ
‘round’,
o=phelala
‘slippery’
temporal deixis
relating to ‘sun
rise’ or
directional
deixis, o=ʈɔ:
‘day break’,
o=kara ‘sunset’
Dynamics_of_language_chap9.indd 147 2018/06/06 12:04

148
The dynamics of language
structures and their gradual grammaticalisation could be established by the following
observations.
It is not surprising that the world-view of an early society could be expressed
through the human body. The primary and primordial reference point was the
body and its divisions. Each division of the body encapsulated zones or parts (see
Table 9.7). Thus Class 6 encompasses the side of the body and its extended meaning,
i.e. periphery. Secondly, the extension of the body division classier system to the
rest of the word classes shows the movement from concrete to abstract. This was
possibly the second or third stage of grammaticalisation of these classes. The body-
division classes also demonstrate spatial dimensions, such as ‘top-bottom’ (Classes 2
and 7), ‘sides/edge inside’ (Classes 6 and 5); ‘surface-emission’ (Classes 1 and 4) and
‘extremities’ (Class 3). This stage must have followed much later as it is highly
grammaticalised and abstract. It is generally seen that in the process of
grammaticalisation lexical units are desemanticised and decategorialised and turn
intoinvariable adverbial categories indicating various spatial dimensions quite late in
stage (Heine & Kuteva 2007: 64).9
Each of the body divisions had extended meaning when employed with words
belonging to various grammatical classes. In this respect, these classiers were
grammaticalised over a period as part of the evolution of the language. An intermediate
stage must have arisen, when it would prove difcult to segregate these forms from
the main root lexemes. During language evolution, some of the class markers became
lexicalised. For instance, in words such as iulo ‘loose’, ieke ‘roast’, i:ople ‘light’,
ese:kke ‘change’, eruclo ‘half’, erlela ‘intoxicated’, amɛ ‘earth’, ale ‘lightning’,
odaŋe ‘skull’ and okobɔe ‘answer’. It is not possible to segregate the proclitics from
the root morphemes as they are embedded in the lexemes in such a way that the
former are an indivisible part of the lexeme.
Although there is no documentary evidence for either conrming or refuting this
hypothesis, facts such as the antiquity of the tribe, its isolation from the rest of the
world for thousands of years (Kashyap et al: 2004), and the ways of thinking that lead
to the anthropic system underlying the Great Andamanese grammar suggest this
possibility.
7. Extra-linguistic evidence for a sixth language family
Let us consider other pieces of evidence, outside the purview of language and
linguistics that support the grouping of Great Andamanese as a separate language
family. Research on population genetics, anthropology, culture studies and
archaeology have been used.
1. Studies have shown that the Jarawas and the Onges have distinct physiological
and genetic signatures from the Great Andamanese, like a low blood pressure
prole, low body temperature, low pulse rate and very low frequency to absence
of the B gene in the ABO blood group (Kashyap et al. 2004: 3). Kashyap and his
9 Heine and Kuteva (2007: 289) discuss grammatical evolution in various layers operating in the network of
pathways of grammaticalisation. According to them, in the six-layers system, temporal and spatial
displacement categories appear quite late, in the fth layer.
Dynamics_of_language_chap9.indd 148 2018/06/06 12:04

Chapter 9 – A sixth language family of India 149
team (2003) explored the origins and afnities of the Andaman Islanders, and
their relationship to the similar ethnic groups of India, Southeast Asia and Africa.
They conclude that:
(a) the Negrito populations of Andaman Islands have remained in isolation for
a longer period, than the descendants of the founder populations of Africa,
(b) the admixture of the Great Andamanese with the settlers and people from
mainland India is more recent,
(c) the Jarawas and the Great Andamanese form a distinct separate branch
which could be due to the much earlier separation of the ancestral population
of these tribal groups,
(d) The Andaman tribes maintained a separate genetic identity among the world
populations. (Abbi 2009: 810).
Thangaraj et al. (2003: 86–93) initially proposed that ‘Andamanese have closer
afnities to Asian than to African populations and suggest that they are the descendants
of the early Palaeolithic colonisers of Southeast Asia’. However, their later research
in 2005 (308: 996) on mtDNA indicated that the two ancient maternal lineages, M31
and M32 in the Onge and the Great Andamanese, have evolved in the Andaman
Islands independently from other South and Southeast Asian populations. These two
haplotypes are not found among the Indian populations.
2. Evidence from archaeological studies of Andamanese kitchen middens, indicates
that Andamanese used a Toalian stone technology found all over the Indonesian
archipelago, which indicates that Negritos were more widespread than has been
thought (Cooper 1993).
3. It has also been established culturally that the Great Andamanese differ from
Jarawa and Onge in their design and construction of huts, weapons, boats and
canoes, ornaments and customs. The Onge-Jarawas differ from the rest of the
tribes of the Andaman Islands by an absence of the practice of tattooing (Portman
1899, reprinted 1990: 22; Temple 1903, reprinted 1994: 13).
All these studies indicate that the communities speaking Great Andamanese languages
and Angan languages were genetically, historically and culturally distinct. The
possibility of different communities speaking the same language due to contact is
also ruled out (Abbi & Kumar 2011).
To summarise the discussion, the languages of the Great Andamanese appear to
be different and distinct from the Angan languages, i.e. Jarawa and Onge as well as
from other language families of mainland India. All kinds of evidence indicates that
Great Andamanese constitutes a sixth language family of India.
Conclusion
To conclude, the structures discussed here, viz. body division classes and their
pervasive character are culture-specic traits and developed in stages in a co-
evolutionary product. This is a co-evolutionary journey of language development.
Such structures are not attested in any language of the world so far; however,
they were present in other Great Andamanese languages, e.g. Aka Bea (Man 1923),
Dynamics_of_language_chap9.indd 149 2018/06/06 12:04

150
The dynamics of language
Aka Kede (Portman 1887), Khora, and Bo,10 all of which have become extinct.
Despite several other internal innovations, PGA still retains these structures. This
proves that the Great Andamanese languages not only shared this trait with all other
languages of the same family, but that it was an inherent feature of the grammar of
the entire language family.
Considering the sociohistorical aspects of the Great Andamanese, some
speculation may be permitted here. Since it is believed that the Great Andamanese
tribes are remnants of the rst migration out of Africa from 70 000 years before
present, and have lived in isolation (Kashyap et al. 2003) all along without any
contact till the late 19th century, the body division markers appearing on every
grammatical category of content words appear to be very archaic in nature. The
system is indicative of the early times when human beings conceptualised their world
through their body and its divisions. Early human beings were capable of distinguishing
what is inherent and what is non-inherent or external to the entity/event which serves
as its host. The concept of inherent possession or inalienability was not seen
physically, but as an integral and inextricable part of its host.
The evolution of the Great Andamanese language and its structure is compelled
by consciousness of the human body. The perspective that human beings are central
governs the structure of the modules of the grammar. This could be the best ever
evidence of the structure and evolution of the ‘possible human language’ that has
become the central concern of linguistic theorising ever since Chomsky.
Abbreviations used
1 = 1st person; 2 = 2nd person; 3 = 3rd person; ABS = absolutive; APPL applicative
CL =class; FA = formative afx; GEN genitive, NPST = non past; OBJ = object clitic;
POSS possessive, PL = plural; POSS = possessive; PST = past; SG = singular;
Bibliography
Abbi, A. 2001. A Manual of Linguistic Fieldwork and Structures of Indian Languages. Munich:
Lincom Europa.
Abbi, A. 2003. Vanishing voices of the languages of the Andaman Islands. Paper presented at the
Max Planck Institute, Leipzig, 13 June 2003. [Published online in 2004 at http://www.andaman.
org/BOOK/originals/Abbi/art-abbi.htm].
Abbi, A. 2006. Endangered Languages of the Andaman Islands. Munich: Lincom.
Abbi, A. 2009. Is Great Andamanese genealogically and typologically distinct from Onge and
Jarawa? Language Sciences, 31: 791–812.
Abbi, A. 2011. A Dictionary of the Great Andamanese Language. English-Great Andamanese-
Hindi With Sound Files. Delhi: Ratna Sagar.
Abbi, A. 2013 A Grammar of the Great Andamanese Language. An Ethnolinguistic Study.
Netherlands: Brill.
Abbi, A. & P. Kumar. 2011. In search of language contact between Jarawa and Aka-Bea: The
languages of South Andaman, Acta Orientalia, 72: 1–40.
10 I was fortunate to study both Khora and Bo from the last speakers Boro Sr. and Boa Sr. respectively, whom
I met during my eld study in the Andaman Islands. Both the languages also had the occurrence of pervasive
body division markers as proclitics.
Dynamics_of_language_chap9.indd 150 2018/06/06 12:04

Chapter 9 – A sixth language family of India 151
Abbi, A., B. Som & A. Das. 2007. Where have all the speakers gone? A sociolinguistic study of the
Great Andamanese, Indian Linguistics, 68(3–4): 735–788.
Basu, D.N. 1952. A linguistic introduction to Andamanese, Bulletin of the Department of
Anthropology, ASI, 1(2): 55–70.
Basu, D.N. 1955. A general note on the Andamanese languages, Indian Linguistics, 16: 213–225.
Blevins, J. 2007. A long lost sister of Proto-Austronesian? Proto-Ongan, mother of Jarawa and
Onge of the Andaman Islands, Oceanic Linguistics, 46: 155–198.
Blust, R. 2014. Some recent proposals concerning the classication of the Austronesian languages,
Oceanic Linguistics, 53(2): December: 300–391
Cavalli-Sforza, L. 2001. Genes, Peoples and Languages. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Cooper, Z. 1993. The origins of the Andaman Islanders: Local myth and archaeological evidence,
Antiquity, 67: 394–399.
Edmondson, J.A. & D.B. Solnit. 1997. Introduction. In J.A. Edmondson & D.B. Solnit (eds).
Comparative Kadai: The Tai Branch. Arlington, TX. University of Texas, pp. 1–27.
Evans, N. & S.C. Levinson. 2010. Time for a sea-change in linguistics: Response to comments on
‘The Myth of Language Universals’, Lingua, 120: 2733–2758.
Givón, T. 2002. Bio-linguistics: The Santa Barbara Lectures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Greenberg, J.H. 1971. The Indo-Pacic hypothesis. In T.A. Sebeok (ed.). Current Trends in
Linguistics, Vol. 8: Linguistics in Oceania. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 808–871. (Reprinted in
Greenberg, J.H. 2005. Genetic Linguistics, pp. 193–275.)
Grierson, G.A. 1904. Linguistic Survey of India. Vol. II. Calcutta Ofce of the Superintendent
Government Printing, India, pp. 59–61.
Haspelmath, M., M.S. Dryer, D. Gil & B. Comrie (eds). 2005. The World Atlas of Language
Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heine, B. & T. Kuteva. 2007. The Genesis of Grammar: A Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hock, H.H. 2016. Daic or Tai languages of South Asia. In H.H. Hock & E. Bashir (eds). The
Languages and Linguistics of South Asia. A Comprehensive Guide. Berlin/Boston. Walter de
Gruyter.
Hurford, J.R. 2011a. Linguistics from an evolutionary point of view. In R. Kempson, T. Fernando
& N. Asher (eds). Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 14: Philosophy of Linguistics.
Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 473–498.
Hurford, J.R. 2011b. The Origins of Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hurford, J.R. & D. Dediu. 2009. Diversity in languages, genes, and the language faculty. In
R. Botha & C. Knight (eds). The Cradle of Language: Studies in the Evolution of Language.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 163–184.
Kashyap, V.K., T. Sitalaximi, B.N. Sarkar & T. Trivedi. 2003. Molecular relatedness of the
aboriginal groups of Andaman and Nicobar Islands with similar ethnic populations, International
Journal of Human Genetics, 3: 5–11.
Kumar, P. 2012. Grammar of Jarawa: A typological study. PhD dissertation, Jawaharlal Nehru
University.
Majid, A. 2010. Words for parts of the body. In B.C. Malt & P. Wolff (eds). Words and the Mind.
New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 58–71.
Man, E.H. 1875–1879. Andaman vocabulary. Part I. (English-Andamanese); Part II (Andamanese-
English). Manuscript. London: Royal Anthropological Institute.
Man, E.H. 1923. A Dictionary of the South Andaman (Âkà-Bêa) Language. Mazgaon: British India.
Man, E.H. & R.C. Temple. 1875–1878. A grammar of the Bojingyida or South Andaman language.
Manuscript. London: Royal Anthrolopological Institute.
Manoharan, S. 1980. Language of the present Great Andamanese, Journal of the Indian
Anthropological Society, 15: 43–55.
Manoharan, S. 1983. Subgrouping Andamanese groups of languages, International Journal of
Dravidian Linguistics, 12 (1): 82–95.
Dynamics_of_language_chap9.indd 151 2018/06/06 12:04

152
The dynamics of language
Manoharan, S. 1986. Linguistic peculiarities of Andamanese family of languages, Indian
Linguistics, 47(1–4): 25–32.
Manoharan, S. 1989. A Descriptive and Comparative Study of the Andamanese Language. Calcutta.
Anthropological Survey of India.
Portman, M.V. 1887. Manual of the Andamanese Languages. London: Allen.
Portman., M.V. 1899 [Reprinted 1990]. A History of our Relations with the Andamanese. Vols I–II.
New Delhi: Asian Educational Service.
Ruhlen, M. 1994. On the Origin of Languages: Studies in Linguistic Typology. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Sharma, B. 2014. A descriptive grammar of Tai Khamti. Unpublished PhD dissertation, JNU, New
Delhi.
Temple, R.C. 1903 (1994 Reprint, New Delhi). A grammar of the Andamanese language. Chapter
IV, Part 1, Vol. 13 of The Census Report of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands 1901. Port Blair:
Superintendent Printing Press.
Thangaraj, K., L. Singh, A.G. Reddy, V.R. Rao, S.C. Sehgal, P.A. Underhill, M. Pierson, I.G. Frame
& E. Hagelberg. 2003. Genetic afnities of the Andaman Islanders. A vanishing human
population, Current Biology, 13: 86–93.
Thangaraj, K., G. Chaubey, T. Kivisild, A.G. Reddy, V. Kumar Singh, A.A. Rasalkar & L. Singh.
2005. Reconstructing the origin of Andaman Islanders, Science, 308: 996.
Weber, G. 2006. The Andamanese. www.andaman.org/BOOK/text.htm
Wohlgemuth, J. & M. Cysouw (eds). 2010. Rethinking Universals: How Rarities Affect Linguistic
Theory. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Zide, N. & V. Pandya. 1989. A bibliographical introduction to Andamanese Linguistics, Journal of
the American Oriental Society, 109(4): 639–651.
Dynamics_of_language_chap9.indd 152 2018/06/06 12:04