I have not been able to obtain this work

5 3

systems, but the major difference in her work is in the nature of the systems. She suggests that Telugu phonology should be described in terms of a maximum system and a minimum system. The maximum system comprises the total range of contrasting segmental phonemes found in the educated, standard and formal speech and incorporates borrowed phonemes as well.

She claims that there are some speakers whose speech represents all the

phonemes listed in the maximum inventory. However, the majority of speakers do not have all of them. The minimum system forms a part of the maximum system but not vice versa. The minimum inventory comprises those phonemes which are common to all idiolects. In other w o r d s , the minimum system represents the absolute minimum number of contrasts necessary for a native speaker. The two systems as proposed by Reddy (1981) are as shown^on the following page.

It is worth noting that Reddy is the only scholar to treat ai and au as phonemes. Although Sjoberg takes note of [3*] she does not give it phonemic status. Reddy includes it in her maximum system, but recognises it along with (t^) and (cfz) as a marginal phoneme.

The minimum system proposed by Reddy, which contains ten vowels, including two diphthongs, and seventeen consonants, is as follows:

Vowels

i i: u u:

e e : o o : ai

a a: au

Consonants

p t t k

b d d g

c j s

m n

1 r

w y

System(comprisesfourteenvowels,includingtwodiphthongsand thirty-sixconsonants)

5 5

Reddy's analysis into a maximum system as opposed to a minimum system projects a confusion. Her maximum system consists of fourteen vowels

including two diphthongs. Thirty-six consonants are included in this system, three of which, as noted earlier, have only marginal phonemic function. She disagrees with the setting up of dental affricates /€h/ and /cfe/ as phonemes in contrast with palatal affricates /c/ and /$/, something which is attempted by Krishnamurti and Sarma (1968). She also disagrees with Sjoberg as far as separate phonemic status for [(p] is concerned. Reddy bases the phonemic status of [-tTs] , [d'z] and [y] on a small number of subminimal pairs. At the same time she claims that her evidence for [-j/g] as a separate phoneme is stronger as she is able to show that it occurs in loan words, but contrasts with other affricates in educated speech in minimal pairs like:

[ci:ra] ’saree1 [pacci] 'raw1 [-£gi:ra] 'milk' [pa^i] 'bird'

To my knowledge [^i:ra] is not used for 'milk' ; it is an old Sanskrit form which does not occur in Telugu, and I know of no other minimal pairs

(see 7.3.0 for the status of * In the case of the other set of

examples, I have data to show that [kg] occurs in the case of [pakgi], which is a loan word, as noted by Reddy.

Reddy has not explained any variable which forms the basis for her maximum-minimum system classification. The maximum system is an overall pattern of the Telugu language, as I understand it, including the borrowed phonemes. It is not claimed by her, and of course it is not feasible to do

so, that this system exists in any particular group of speakers. The minimum system, however, is the one which exists, as per her claims, in the speech of all speakers. This appears to be on the lines of the 'common core' suggested by Krishnamurti.

2.1.10

The most recent analysis known to me is that of Mahadeva Sastri (1985) He presents a phonemic system of Telugu as follows:

X X u i

e e o i

c£ Cu a

P ^t

X

^k

ph th ^{ch kh}

b d

j g

bh dh

<ih

j h

m n H,

f s

B

1 I

r

v

y

(eleven vowel phonemes)

(thirty-two consonant phonemes).

He considers the Coastal educated dialect as standard Telugu, and claims that his speech represents the same. The phonemic system presented by him pertains to this dialect. His analysis is identical with that of

Krishnamurti (1957), so does not require further discussion.

2

.

Introduction of Caste as a Parameter

In addition to these contributions, the Telugu Akademi dialect bulletins also need to be taken into account. The dialect bulletins present very good sociolinguistic data, and the field investigators in their regular survey provided an added dimension to the language behaviour. Hitherto the parameters, besides regional variations, have been only those for formal

5 7

versus formal, native versus non-native, educated versus uneducated, standard versus non-standard, literary versus colloquial, but the survey investigators have the dimension of caste added. The claim is that upper caste speakers preserve certain forms (as indicated by 'educated speakers’ of Krishnamurti and 'formal speech' of Sjoberg) whereas all other castes do not maintain them.

2

.

Variables Requiring Consideration

From the foregoing sections it is seen that some of the scholars who worked on Telugu phonology have presented two different phonemic systems for Telugu, each under the plea of one sociolinguistic variable or another, but unfortunately all failed to arrive at a comprehensive solution which takes care of all the relevant variables together: the geographical distribution of dialects, educational status of speakers, stylistic variations, and caste markers. All of us are aware of the fact that language is not a watertight compartment and that it is susceptible to various changes. Language seepage takes place in all the above-mentioned social situations. After a careful and close study of the problem, I propose a solution in terms of prosodic phonology to describe all the styles of the Telugu language.

Scholars in the past have presented phonemic systems for the so-called standard language. What is standard Telttgu? This question has not been answered satisfactorily by anyone as yet. I attempt to answer the same in Chapter Seven of this thesis.

2.2.2

Data used in the Thesis and Choice of Theoretical Approach

The two scholars who present two phonological systems for Telugu

by including a sociolinguistic variable are Krishnamurti and Sjoberg.

Sambasiva Rao, it seems, also tried to do so, but as I am not in a position to get his work, I am not able to consider it here. Because of its very general nature, Reddy's (1981) analysis is not considered further. It is now proposed to analyse the data from four different regional (or geographical) dialect zones and subject them to a thorough checking as against the

variables proposed by Krishnamurti and Sjoberg. The caste feature, which has not previously been taken into account, will be included. For my analysis I make use of data which I collected during fieldwork between 1968 and 1977, and some personal notes; I also make use of the data published by the Telugu Akademi in their dialect bulletins. I was, in fact, myself involved in the dialect survey of the Telugu Akademi and data collected by me is included m at least two of the published bulletins. 5 The data m

general provide a great deal of evidence for features of educated and uneducated speech, but are very meagre with regard to formal and informal speech. In order to fill in gaps in the data, I undertook an informal survey during October 1986 in Andhra Pradesh with a small number of subjects.

The data that I collected can be classified as follows (the figures indicate the number of subjects):

1. Caste

Brahmins - 5 Non-Brahmins - 6 Christians - 3