Cover not available
Article published In:
Historiographia Linguistica
Vol. 48:1 (2021) ► pp.25–59

Glossing in the Linguistic Survey of India

Some insights into early 20th century glossing practices

| C.N.R.S., Université de Paris
In this article, I explore glossing practices in the period surrounding the publication of the Linguistic Survey of India (LSI), the large-scale survey of languages spoken on the Indian subcontinent at the turn of the 20th century, under the stewardship of George Abraham Grierson (1851–1941).
After a brief discussion of the reasons that the LSI constitutes a useful corpus for studying glossing practices, I provide a detailed examination of the glossing practices used in the text specimens which accompany language descriptions in the LSI. I then contrast these practices with glossing in materials produced both prior to and subsequent to the LSI, in order to place the glossing practices established by Grierson within a historical context, thereby contributing a description of one step in the history of glossing of descriptive linguistic materials.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The LSI: Background and advantages as corpus
    • 2.1Background
    • 2.2Advantages as a corpus
    • 2.3Grierson on methodology
  • 3.Aspects of glossing
  • 4.Glossing practices in the LSI text specimens
    • 4.1Kashmiri
    • 4.2Telugu
    • 4.3Lepcha
    • 4.4Kachari
    • 4.5Singpho
    • 4.6Analysis of glossing practices in the specimens of the LSI
  • 5.Glossing practices in other materials
    • 5.1Glossing of South Asian languages before the LSI
      • 5.1.1B. H. Hodgson
      • 5.1.2Specimen translations
    • 5.2Glossing of South Asian languages after the LSI
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 May 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.00081.lah
References (56)
References
Alberizzi, Valerio. 2014. “An introduction to kunten glossed texts and their study in Japan”. Les dossiers de HEL : [supplément électronique à la revue Histoire Epistémologie Langage] 71. 1–9.Google Scholar
Bailey, T. Grahame. 1921a. Review of: Linguistic Survey of India: The Dardic or Pisachā Languages. By Sir George Grierson, KCIE., D.Litt, Ph.D. 14x10 1/4, xi + 567 pp. Calcutta: Government Press, 1919. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 467–471.Google Scholar
. 1921b. Review of: Linguistic Survey of India: Sindhi and Lahnda. By Sir George Grierson, KCIE, D.Litt, PhD. 14x10 1/4, viii + 584 pp. Calcutta: Government Press, 1919. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 471–475.Google Scholar
Barbe, Katharina. 1996. “The Dichotomy Free and Literal Translation”. Meta 41(3). 328–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, Franz (ed.). 1911. Handbook of American Indian Languages (Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 40). Vol. 11. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Borin, Lars, Shafqat Mumtaz Virk & Anju Saxena. 2018. “Language Technology for Digital Linguistics: Turning the Linguistic Survey of India into a Rich Source of Linguistic Information”. In A. Gelbukh (ed.), Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing. CICLing 2017 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science 10761), 550–563. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bradley, David, Randy LaPolla, Boyd Michailovsky & Graham Thurgood (eds.). 2003. Language variation: Papers on variation and change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in honour of James A. Matisoff (Pacific Linguistics 555). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Campbell, G. 1874. Specimens of Languages of India including the Aboriginal Tribes of Bengal, the Central Provinces, and the Eastern Frontier. Calcutta: Bengal Secretariat Press.Google Scholar
Chelliah, Shobhanna & Willem de Reuse. 2011. Handbook of descriptive linguistic fieldwork. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinato, Franck. 2015. Priscien glosé : l’Ars grammatica de Priscien vue à travers les gloses carolingiennes (Studia Artistarum 41). Turnhout (Belgium): Brepols. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Csoma de Körös, Alexander. 1834. A grammar of the Tibetan language. Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael & Bernhard Wälchli. 2007. “Parallel texts: Using translational equivalents in linguistic typology”. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 60(2). 95–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Driem, George L. van. 2004. Hodgson’s Tibeto-Burman and Tibeto-Burman today. In David Waterhouse (ed.), The Origins of Himalayan Studies: Brian Houghton Hodgson in Nepal and Darjeeling 1820–1858, 227–248. London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon.Google Scholar
Finck, Franz Nikolaus. 1909. Die Haupttypen des Sprachbaus. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.Google Scholar
François, Alexandre. 2019. A proposal for conversational questionnaires. In Aimée Lahaussois & Marine Vuillermet (eds.), Methodological Tools for Linguistic Description and Typology (Language Documentation & Conservation Special Publications 16), 155–196. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
François, Jacques. 2013. Deux pionniers de la formalisation en morphologie linguistique au XIXe siècle : August Schleicher et Hugo Schuchardt. Histoire Epistémologie Langage 35(1). 111–142.Google Scholar
Grierson, G. A. 1903. Linguistic Survey of India Vol. 3.2 Tibeto-Burman Family, Specimens of the Bodo, Naga, and Kachin Groups. Vol. 3.21. Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing, India.Google Scholar
1906. Linguistic Survey of India Vol. 4 Munda and Dravidian Languages. Vol. 41. Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing, India.Google Scholar
1909. Linguistic Survey of India Vol. 3.1 Tibeto-Burman Family, General Introduction, Specimens of the Tibetan Dialects, the Himalayan Dialects, and the North Assam Group. Vol. 3.11. Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing, India.Google Scholar
1919. Linguistic Survey of India Vol. 8.2 Specimens of the Dardic or Pisacha Languages (including Kashmiri). Vol. 8.21. Calcutta: Superintendent Government Printing, India.Google Scholar
1927. Linguistic Survey of India Vol. 1.1 Introductory. Vol. 1.11. Calcutta: Government of India, Central Publication Branch.Google Scholar
Hamans, Camiel. 2017. The Return of the Prodigal Son. Scripta Neophilologica Posnaniensia 171. 103–116.Google Scholar
Hodgson, Brian H. 1857a. Comparative vocabulary of the languages of the broken tribes of Nepal [Vocabulary and grammar of the Vayu tribe]. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 261. 317–522 [372–485].Google Scholar
1857b. Comparative vocabulary of the languages of the broken tribes of Nepal [Vocabulary of the Bahing tribe]. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 261. 317–522 [486–522].Google Scholar
1858. Comparative vocabulary of the languages of the broken tribes of Nepal (contined from vol 26) [Grammar of the Bahing tribe]. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 271. 393–456 [393–442].Google Scholar
Humboldt, Wilhelm von. 1968 [1836]. Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluß auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts. Bonn: Dümmler. [URL]
Hunter, William Wilson. 1896. The Life of Brian Houghton Hodgson, British resident at the court of Nepal, member of the Institute of France; fellow of the Royal society; a vice-president of the Royal Asiatic society, etc. London: John Murray. [URL]
Jones, William & Truman Michelson. 1911. Algonquian (Fox). In Franz Boas (ed.), Handbook of American Indian Languages (Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 40), vol. 11, 735–874. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Kosukegawa, Teiji. 2014. Explaining what kundoku is in the premodern Sinosphere. Les dossiers de HEL : [supplément électronique à la revue Histoire Epistémologie Langage] 71. 1–20.Google Scholar
Koul, Omar N. & Kashi Wali. 2006. Modern Kashmiri Grammar. Springfield: Dunwoody Press.Google Scholar
Lahaussois, Aimée. 2016. The translation tier in Interlinear Glossed Text: Changing practices in the description of endangered languages. In Patricia M. Phillips-Batoma & Florence Xiangyun Zhang (eds.), Translation as Innovation: Bridging the Sciences and the Humanities, 261–278. Victoria, TX: Dalkey Archive Press.Google Scholar
. 2020a. The shapes of verbal paradigms in Kiranti languages. Faits de Langues 50(2). 71–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020b. Descriptive and methodological issues in Kiranti grammar(s). Paris, France: Université de Paris Habilitation à diriger des recherches.Google Scholar
. forthcoming. Glossing practices in 1850–1911 descriptions of languages with complex verbal morphology. In Franck Cinato, Aimée Lahaussois & John Whitman (eds.), Glossing Practice: Comparative Perspectives. Lexington.
Lehmann, Christian. 1982. Directions for interlinear morphemic translations. Folia Linguistica 161. 199–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Interlinear morphemic glossing. In Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan & Stavros Skopeteas (eds.), Morphologie. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung. (Handbücher Der Sprach- Und Kommunikationswissenschaft 17/2), 1834–1857. Berlin & New York: W. de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Majeed, Javed. 2019a. Colonialism and Knowledge in Grierson’s Linguistic Survey of India. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2019b. Nation and Region in Grierson’s Linguistic Survey of India. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2019c. The politics of Grierson’s Linguistic Survey of India. In. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Masica, Colin. 1991. The Indo-Aryan Languages (Cambridge Language Surveys). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James. 1990. On megalocomparison. Language 66(1). 106–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michailovsky, Boyd. 2017. Kiranti languages. In Graham Thurgood & Randy LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan Languages (Routledge Language Family Series 3), 646–679. 2nd edn. Oxford & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Newmark, Peter. 1988. A textbook of translation. Hertforshire: Prentice Hall International.Google Scholar
Ohannessian, Sirarpi & Gilbert Ansre. 1975. Some reflections on the use of sociolinguistic surveys. In Sirarpi Ohannessian, Charles A. Ferguson & Edgar C. Polomé (eds.), Language Surveys in Developing Nations: Papers and Reports on Sociolinguistic Surveys, 51–69. Arlington: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Solleveld, Floris. 2019. Language, People, and Maps: The Ethnolinguistics of George Grierson and Franz Boas. History of Humanities 4(2). 461–471. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teeuwen, Mariken & Irene van Renswoude (eds.). 2017. The Annotated Book in the Early Middle Ages: Practices of Reading and Writing (Utrecht Studies in Medieval Literacy 38). Turnhout (Belgium): Brepols. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Unsigned. 1928. Sir George Grierson and the “Linguistic Survey of India.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 31. 711–718.Google Scholar
Waterhouse, David (ed.). 2004. The Origins of Himalayan Studies: Brian Houghton Hodgson in Nepal and Darjeeling 1820–1858. London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whitman, John. 2011. The ubiquity of the gloss. Scripta 31. 95–121.Google Scholar
. 2014. Présentation du projet Reading Classical texts in the Vernacular. Les dossiers de HEL : [supplément électronique à la revue Histoire Epistémologie Langage] 71. 1–21.Google Scholar
Whitman, John, Miyoung Oh, Jinho Park, Valerio Alberizzi, Masayuki Tsukimoto, Teiji Kosukegawa & Tomokazu Takada. 2010. Toward an International Vocabulary for Research on Vernacular Readings of Chinese Texts. Scripta 21. 61–83.Google Scholar
Wieland, Gernot. 1983. The Latin Glosses on Arator and Prudentius in Cambridge University Library MS Gg. 5.35 (Studies and Texts 61). Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies.Google Scholar
Wolfenden, Stuart. 1929. Outlines of Tibeto-Burman Linguistic Morphology, with special reference to the Prefixes, Infixes and Suffixes of Classical Tibetan and the Languages of the Kachin, Bodo, Naga, Kuki-Chin and Burma Groups. London: Royal Asiatic Society.Google Scholar
. 1933. A specimen of the Sāngpāng Dialect. Acta Orientalia 121. 71–79.Google Scholar
. 1934. A Specimen of the Kûlung Dialect. Acta Orientalia 131. 35–43.Google Scholar
. 1935. A Specimen of the Thūlung Dialect. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 67(4). 629–653. DOI logoGoogle Scholar