The Kharia language ( or ) is a Munda language of the Austroasiatic language family, that is primarily spoken by the Kharia people of eastern India.
History The first systematic description of the Kharia language is Banerjee (1894)'s Kharia grammar, followed by Tea Districts Labour Association (1929) and Floor et al. (1934), which resulted in a Kharia-English Dictionary. An ethnological study on the tribe was published in 1937 by Roy & Roy.Peterson (2011:8)
The first major academic approach to Kharia were taken by linguist Heinz-Jürgen Pinnow in the 1950s and 1960s with studies published in both German and English. Other works include Biligiri (1965)'s full study and lexicon; Mahapatra (1976) on Kharia and Juang verbs, Malhotra (1982) Ph.D. dissertation attempting a comprehensive grammar of Kharia; Abbi (1993; 1997) on language change and contact; Rehberg (2003) on Kharia phonology (in German).Peterson (2011:8-10)
Classification Kharia belongs to the Kharia–Juang branch of the Munda language family. Its closest extant relative is the Juang language, but the relationship between Kharia and Juang is remote.
Kharia is in contact with Sadri (the local lingua franca), Mundari, Kurukh, Hindi, and Odia (in Odisha).
Distribution Kharia speakers are located in the following districts of India.
Jharkhand Simdega district Gumla district Odisha Sundargarh district Jharsuguda district
Phonology +Kharia consonantsLabialDental/AlveolarRetroflexPost-alv./PalatalVelarGlottalNasal()Stop/Affricatevoiceless()aspiratedvoicedbreathyglottalisedFricativevoicelessvoicedApproximantTapunaspirated()aspirated()
[ɽ, ɽʱ] are only marginally phonemic and are normally intervocalic allophones of /ɖ, ɖʱ/. /f/ came from earlier */pʰ/ and can also be pronounced among some speakers as an affricate [p͡f], which was most likely an intermediate stage between the /pʰ > f/ shift. /v/ came from earlier */bʱ/ and can also be pronounced among some speakers as an affricate [b͡v], which was most likely an intermediate stage between the /bʱ > v/ shift. /c, cʰ, ɟ, ɟʱ/ are often realized as affricate sounds [t͡ʃ, t͡ʃʰ, d͡ʒ, d͡ʒʱ], especially in loanwords. [ʔ] is an allophone of /ɡ/ when in coda position.
+Kharia vowelsFrontCentralBackCloseMid()OpenDiphthong
/i, e, o, u/ have lax allophones of [ɪ, ɛ, ɔ, ʊ]. /a/ can have allophones of [ɑ, ä, ə, ʌ].
Gemination only occur in morpheme boundaries of words. Consonant length can be phonemic. E.g. /oton=na/ realized as [ɔtɔnːɑ] (press=INF). /ʔ/, /s/, and /h/ may not be geminated.Peterson (2011:31)
Morphosyntax Parts of speech in Kharia Issues with parts of speech in Kharia In most languages, there are basic rules and distinctions among lexical categories such as nouns and verbs. Nouns, the central nucleus of noun phrases, primarily serve referential functions, whereas verbs function predicatively. In some languages, however, lexical items are not inherently specified for such functions. When a lexeme can flexibly function referentially, predicatively, or attributively without derivation, and fails to be lexically specified morphosyntactically, it is known as precategoriality.Peterson (2011:24, 74) Languages in which the majority of the lexicon or the majority of complex syntactic are precategorial are therefore called precategorial languages. Unlike English, where derivational processes are highly productive (such as the verbalizer -ify), and predication typically requires copulae (i.e., to be) or auxiliary verb constructions, precategorial languages do not rely on these mechanisms, as underived lexemes can directly assume referential, predicative, or attributive functions without category-changing morphology.Peterson (2011:72-73)
There is little if any structural evidence in Kharia to support the existence of a noun–verb–adjective distinction in (Simdega) Kharia.Peterson (2013:132) It seems that the Kharia lemmas' functional distribution is organized by syntactic configuration rather than inherent lexical property. The information carried by the lemma does not determine its inherent syntactical and lexical category.Peterson (2011:82) Virtually all roots, from basic monosyllabic lexemes, derived words, to complex phrases, regardless of potential meanings and functions and discourse choices, can all freely serve as semantic heads in either a predicate or its complements (arguments and modifiers) with compositional results. There are no morphological distinctions between these uses.Peterson (2011:75)
"Generic nouns":Peterson (2013:133)
Wh-interrogatives:Peterson (2011:77-79)
Indefinites:Peterson (2011:79-80)
Quantifiers:Peterson (2011:80-81)
Property modifiers:Peterson (2011:81-82)
Proper names:Peterson (2011:83)
Status and roles:Peterson (2011:83-84)
Deictic "adverbials" and proforms:Peterson (2011:88-90)
"NP" with genitive:Peterson (2011:107)
Genitive attribute in "NP":Peterson (2013:135)
What listed above are quite deviated far away from the generally conceivable concepts of "noun" or "nominal", which are usually known as a lexical or syntactical category prototypically associated with the semantic category of thing, and "verb" or "predicative", which are usually known as a lexical or syntactical category prototypically associated with the semantic category of action. Of course, one from general prescriptivist linguistics could assume that (Simdega) Kharia's case is similar to English's zero-derivation/conversion strategy, which shifts word categories through verbalization and deverbalization without morphological change, and thus asserts that Kharia must have lexical categories in the sense of mainstream Indo-European-based linguistic frameworks as well. However, as examples from the corpus show that even complex NP-like structures like "appearance of aboard people" and proper names like Aghrom can appear as content heads of predicative phrases with compositional semantic results,Peterson (2023:192–193) suggesting that Kharia does not "use nouns as verbs" or "use verbs as nouns", or "there is a hidden verb"/"hidden copula", but its lexicon neither fits into the mainstream pedagogical understanding of lexical classes.Peterson (2011:111)Peterson (2013:146) Rather, the overarching prescriptivist view that all languages share the same underlying structures has never provided a satisfactory and exhaustive structural explanation for Kharia.Peterson (2013:134, 165-166) Furthermore, the next section provides additional evidence for why derivations in Kharia do not create new stable word classes or assign different lexical category to derived forms.Peterson (2011:92)
Derivations Lexical juxtapositions In Kharia, lexical juxtapositions are constructions formed by arranging two (or more) contentive morphemes side by side without morphological bonding, but result in a single semantic unit.Peterson (2011:119) Their meanings are often compositional or loosely associative, e.g., combinations such as "forest + scrubland" meaning 'wilderness' or "field + farm" creating 'farmland', depending on interpretation.Peterson (2011:118) Although collectively showing a subtle semantic outcome, the two contentive morphemes do not constitute a single prosodic and morphological word. Furthermore, the juxtaposed contentive morphemes can be easily separated by a clitic or another word.Peterson (2011:120-121)
Lexical juxtapositions Word-by-word meaning New meaning ompay kirom big.river + river 'rivers' kheti baɽi field + farm 'farms' kinir jhaŋkoy forest + scrubland 'forest, wilderness' goˀjlo[ʔ] aŋkel field + land 'cultivated land' baʔ rumkhuˀb paddy + rice 'grain' paisa ɖhebuwa money (Indo-Aryan) + money (Kharia) 'wealth' usloʔ tirib earth + cloud 'universe' tiʔ kaʈa hand + leg 'body parts' kulam kulamɖay brother + sister 'people' oreˀj koŋtaŋ bull + cow 'cattle'
True compounds Due to bimoraic constraint, Kharia, like most Munda languages, requires phonological words to be at least bisyllabic, with very few exceptions. Thus, virtually all standalone contentive morphemes consist of at least two syllables. True compounds (like the one listed below) in Kharia are actual phonological words with single coherent prosodic profiles. They are typically formed from two concatenated morphemes, one of which is the monosyllabic lexical core of a contentive morpheme. This lexical core is phonologically dependent and cannot occur in free isolation.Peterson (2011:121-122) Kharia compound Compounds Morpheme-by-morpheme meaning New meaning Structurally considered compounds baʔ-loʔ paddy-land (< usloʔ "land") "paddy" jaʔ-loʔ grass-land "meadow" dhuɽi-loʔ dust-land "desert" kunɽu[ʔ]-siŋ child-fowl (< siŋkoy "chicken") "chick" si-loʔ plow-land "plow" paʔ-sor break-stone (< soreŋ "stone") "grinding slab" muʔ-ɖaʔ emerge-water "source, origin(ate)" soʔ-lui tie-hair (< ului "hair") "tie up a girl's hair; girl's hair" ur-boʔ shake-head (< bokoˀb "head") "shake the head" iˀj-thaŋ shit-cow "(cow) dung" Semantically unpredictable compounds diyom-jaŋ lamp-bone "knee bone" (lit. "lamp-shaped bone") goŋɽiŋ-oʔ cook-house "kitchen" kaɖoŋ-moˀɖ fish-eye "name of a tree (whose leaves are shaped like fish eyes)" borol-ɖaʔ live-water "fresh water"
Pseudo-compounds and "noun incorporation" In Kharia, pseudo-compounding (which may be referred to as "incorporation") of semantic bases and adjuncts has been fossilized and mostly limited to certain stems and to lexicalized (non-productive) forms. Polysyllabic contentive words are reduced to their final syllable(s), while no phonological adjustments occur on monosyllabic items. The incorporated compounds may result in idiosyncratic semantics.Peterson (2011:124)
There are two main types of these constructions: historical and pseudo-compounds. Neither of these types is immune to precategoriality as they remain contentive and fully opaque to syntax, although they tend to occur in predicative function.Peterson (2011:127) The internal structure of historical compounds may reveal an earlier stage of Kharia, when the language may still have retained an S-V-O structure and had distinct lexical categories of verbs and nouns inherited from its ancestral Proto-Austroasiatic predecessor.Peterson (2011:125)
The "pseudo-compounds" and semi-productive incorporation contentives (4, 5 and 6) originated from a later stage of the language. Additionally, there are few forms (7) that were derived from incorporation whose "verbal" component no longer exists as a contentive morphemes.Peterson (2011:128)
Historical:
1. guˀj 'wash' + tiʔ 'hand' = guʔthe, guʔʈhe 'wash hand'
2. boŋ 'finish' + sor (< soreŋ ('stone')) = boŋsor 'petrify'
3. muʔ 'emerge, come out' + siŋ (< siŋkom 'star') = muʔsiŋ '(the sun) to rise'
Pseudo-compounds:
4. ajoˀɖ 'dry' + ɖaʔ 'water' = ajoˀɖ ɖaʔ 'dry up'
5. betoˀɖ 'become hungry' + ɖaʔ 'water' = betoˀɖ ɖaʔ 'become thirsty'
Semi-productive incorporation:
6. ulaʔ 'letter' + likha 'write' = ulaʔ likha 'write letter'
Incorporation with lost "verbal" component:
7. kul-ɖaʔ 'get/have a fever' < *kul ? ɖaʔ 'water'
From a historical linguistic perspective, pseudo-compounds were likely derived later, imitative of historic compounds, thereby mimicking their internal syntactic structure. The semi-incorporations were likely created more recently, as evidenced by their OV order and limited usage (accompanied with the reciprocal marker kol).Peterson (2011:129) Still, the pseudo-compounds and semi-incorporations are merely juxtaposed contentive morphemes and do not share the properties of a compound, that is, a single structurally integrated phonological and syntactic unit. A floating clitic can be freely inserted between two components of pseudo-compounds. Such frequent quirks invalidate their phono-morphological status as compounds.Peterson (2011:126)