CENSUS OF INDIA SERIES I LANGUAGE\ MONOGRAPH MONOGRAPH NO.3 FOREWORD R.B.CHARI . OFTHE INDIAN ADMINISTRA..,lYE SERVICE REGISTRAR GENERAL AND CENSUS COMMISSIONER, INDIA. - SURVEY OF KONKANI GENERAL SUPERVISION· • ~ AND GUIDANCE IN B.P. MAHApATRA KARNATAKA, GOA NOTE . B, P. MAHAPATRA AND MAHARASHTRA I!(VEST/GATtON AND REPORT LANGUAGE DIVISION J. RAJATHI OFFICE 'OF THE REGISTRAR A. KULSnRESHTHA GENERAL, INDIA FOREWORD Konkani·is spoken in Kerala, Karnataka, Goa and Maha­ rashtra. ' The survey project on Konkani started in 1965. The first survey report on Konkani in KeraUl was published in 1976. This is the second part consisting of reports on Karnataka and Goa by K umari J. Rajathi arid on Maharashtra by Dr. A. Kulshreshtha. The main feature of the survey is the thorough investigation of linguistic and' soCiological factors which bring to the fore the problems of Konkani as a language. , K onkani seems to be in need of unification towards developing a norm. Developing linguistic communication channels ~between various geographical regions has been stressed· This might help Konkani in establishing itself as a, homogeneous language. I take this opportunity of placing on record my appreciation of the efforts put in by Kumari Rajathi and Dr' Kulashreshtha and the' guidance given by Sbri R.C. Nigam and Dr. B.P. Mahapatra. New Delhi R. B. CHAR.I 23rd December, 1977 Registrar General, India. CON TlNTS fORlwORD-'Shri R. B. Chari NOTE ON KONItAJ'lI-Dr. B. P. Mahapatra . i-iv PAlI.T I Introduction to the survey of Konkani 1-47 -Miss. J. Rajathi Pat II Konkani in Karnataka 48-65 -:-Miss. J. Rajathi PAllT III Konkani in Goa . \ 66·-86 -Miss. 1. Rajathi PAllT IV Konkani in Maharashtra 87-181 -Dr. A. Kulshreshtha NOTE ON KONKANI With 1,522,684 speakers, as per 1971 census, Konkani occupies the twenty-second place among the mother-tongues of India, area of its major concentration beihg Karnataka (572,828), Goa (556,223), Maharashtra (272,970) and Kerala (73,24S)~ The main contribution of the reports lies in exposing what actually is.the problem of Konkani. Varieties of Konkani .or its regional differentiations are not as alarming as it was supposed. Had it had a centre to start with, varieties would have been accepted as something natural. It is the lack of this centre which is responsible for focussing one's attention .on the varieties. The reality of the situation is forcibly brought home when investigators are to be sent to remote rural areas, face the actual speakers, collect language data and submit reports which have practical worth in solving the common man's prQblemoflanguage. The linguist is reminded 'at every step· that, his theories are only tools to produce a practical solution. The reliability of his tools is his own problem, it is the applicability which gains paramount importance. The solution that a linguist offers, however reasonable it may be, is going to be accepted if, and only if, the language situation is thoroughly understood by the linguist in terms of feasibility. But feasibility cannot be a criterion for deciding standar­ disation. StandardiSation will have to be done in a productive manner so that once the codification is over, the process of elaboration is automatic. In the case of Konani, codification as w-ell as elaboration is necessary. The main points 01 which standardisation hinges are (i) the universal use of a particular script, (ii) the type cf standardisation, (iii) the structural frame work of the standard variety, (iv) sources of borrowing, (v) linguistic communication between zones. The criteria for standardisation are to be strictly linguistic so that change of extra-linguistic factors does not adversily affect standardi~ation. .. Wben we talk about what Konkani is today 'we are going to delimit our'enquily strictly to the lingUIstic ,facts available to us. This excludes the literary contribLltioliS avai13ble In Konkani. That part will have to corr,e from the ,speakers and tbeir representatives 'Who take up Konkani seriously. / ( ii ) Konkani is written in four different scripts-in. Malayalam script in Kerala, in Kanada script in the southern parts of Karnataka, in Devanagari in the northern 'palt of Karnataka and by the Goan' Hindu" and in Roman script by the Goan Christians. But textbooks fot Goan students are in Deva­ nagari. Spoken Konkani can be broadly divided into Hindu Konkani and Christian "Konkani. Both have regional variations. The main centres of Christian Konkani are Mangalore' \n Soo.th Kanara district and Belgaum of' Karnataka and Mapuca and Margao in Goa. The Hindu variety has wider disll·jbu-tioJ). with centres in Corhin and Kasargod in Kerala, MangalOle, Karwar and Belgaum in Karnataka and Panaji and its suburbs in Goa .. These centres are linguistically relevant in· the sense ~itelary contributions also come out from the speakers settl~d In these places. Of th.ese centres, Mangalore and Goa stand. foremost in volume of literary outpuL The Christians use Konkani more for writing while Hindus . use Konkani more for informal inter-communication. Communication between the various centres is patchy and irregular. All the speakers are bi-and tri-linguals. Mutual intelligibility between regions is not hundred per. cent; geographically contiguous places have. nb cummunication barrier owing to lack of intelligibility., Mutual intelligibility, or the lack of it, to be precise~ is the main problem facing Konkani ~peakers today and it needs' urgent solution. The mutuahntelhglbihty zones are-(i) Cochin belt, (ii) Kasargod and South Kanara, (iii) Nortti Kanara., Belgaum and Goa. The factors affecting mutual intelligibility are lack of continuous communication and .code switching to some other language if comr,nuuic" tion in Konkani is not smooth. In a way this is due to a lack of consciousness on the p(irt of ,he speakers as regards the necessity to communicate. in Konkam. , . Coming to the lingui$tic side of the question, Cnristian Konkani differs from Hindu Konkani on two points. In; ChIistian Konkani, the.second perwn singular is grammatically marked in finite verbs, in !:ill tenses and th¢ usage of Portuguese borrowings is rather profuse. Noticeably in Salcet~ area of Goa, the Christian Korikani of the Brahmin Christians who use Portuguese for comml,mic'lti6n between them~dves abounds in POltugue~'e borrowings. In Mapuca and Salccte areas, there is a three-way contrast of word endings as-vowel ending, consonant ending and vowel; release-;rall three phonemic2111y. contrasting. In Hindu ·Konkani, the second person singular ( iii) bas no such special significance'; and word endings have on1Y a two way contrast-vowel ending and consonant ending. The regional differences found in Konkani in terms of the mutual intelligibility zones can be summarised as follows 1. Retention of final vowels in words as against their loss. 2. Rhonological differences in the case of the' following ph~­ nemes - / t, :>, 0 I and / c, j, ts, dz, Z, ph, f / -zones con­ trasting in terms of occurrence or non-occurrence of particul?r phonemes and the combinations, 3. :Nasalisation playing a significant grammatical role as against the lack of it. 4., Frequency difference in the occurrence of geminated con­ sonants. 5. Canonical form of vocables. 6. Vocabulary differences-two types--use of different native vocables-borrowings from different zonal languages. 7. Use of participial constructions as against relative clause usage. 8. ,Use or non-use of relative particles. The interplay of the above features is different in different zones and overlapping is found in geographically contiguous zones, giving rise to a dialect continuum. ' Language planning f(!)r Konkani will have to take into account the following factors as a preliminary st~p towards standardisation. ! 1. Decision as regards the script~nly one script can be used in place of four-for the-standardised variety. 2. The particular spoken vat iety which is least complex for the other speech groups is to be selected as a frame of reference. , 3. The standard structure of Konkani to be formulated in 'accordance with its most predominant structuf<tl chalac- teristics. ' 4. Borrowing ~rules have to regularised: 5. Innovations or in other words, bulk coinage of words­ SOUlce as well as rules have to be decided. We are not forwarding any concrete suggestion as it needs a thorough fea5"ibility study. Further a dialect dictionary and lexicon are a priori nece,ssities for standardisation. A con­ scientious and responsible participation of at least ten resprr sentatives of the speakers is ntcessary to mal(e the people (iv ) realise what amount of continuous effort goes into the nroject from the government's side. The part to be played by the linguist will have to be spelt out. In Indian conditipns; most of the languages are in need . of standaFdisation so that teaching in the mother-tongue is made feasible. Though details of standardisation differ from lanugage to language, the problems are more or less universal. PiQneering efforts in the sphere of standardisation never go waste as guidelines are formed only on experimentation.· . Finally, I want to express my deep gratitude to Dr. Miss. J. Rajathi, and Sbri Madhu Sudan Ghosh, for the assistance they rendered in the preparation and printing of this report respectively. We also note the assistance given by S/Shri Amitava Ray, F anjit Kumar Chakravorty and Smt. Mira Rani Roy of the Office of the Deputy Registrar General (Languages) in typing the press copy. Language Division, B. P. MAHAPATRA, Calcutta-14, Deputy Registrar General l3rd December, 1982. (Language~). PART I INTRODUCTION TO THE SURVEY OF KONKANI Whether Konkani is an independent language akin to Marathi or it is only a dialectofMarathiisa question as old as records keep track ofit. There have been two streams of opinion-one maintaining that Konkani is Marathi and the other maintaining that Konkani is not Marathi.