Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-r8tb2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-01T16:33:19.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Segmental phonology in Ancient India?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

John J. Lowe
John J. Lowe*
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
*
[john.lowe@orinst.ox.ac.uk]
Get access

Abstract

The postulation of segmental units as real components of phonological competence is controversial, despite their widespread acceptance. One aspect of the controversy concerns the similarities between the units of segmental phonology and those of alphabetic writing: the historically and culturally contingent fact that Western society uses alphabetic writing may explain the primacy of segments in modern phonology. The ancient Indian tradition of phonological analysis has been claimed to exemplify a nonsegmental approach, reflecting their lack of influence from alphabetic writing. I show that the ancient Indian phonological tradition was fundamentally segmental, despite lacking any alphabetic influence. In ancient India, segmental units were identified as the basic units of analysis on the basis of purely linguistic considerations.

Keywords

phonologysegmentsphonemesIndian linguisticswriting

Information

Type
Research Report
Information
Language , Volume 96 , Issue 2 , June 2020 , pp. e97 - e113
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allen, W. Sidney. 1953. Phonetics in ancient India. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1992. Segmentalism in linguistics: The alphabetic basis of phonological theory. In Downing et al., 71–82.Google Scholar
Cardona, George. 1976. Pāṇini: A survey of research. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783110800104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardona, George. 2013. Developments of nasals in early Indo-Aryan: Anunāsika and anusvāra. Tokyo University Linguistic Papers 33. 3–81.Google Scholar
Coningham, Robin A. E., Allchin, F. Raymond, Batt, Catherine M.; and Lucy, Denise. 1996. Passage to India? Anuradhapura and the early use of the Brahmi script. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 6(1). 73–97. DOI: 10.1017/S0959774300001608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, Peter T. 1992. The syllabic origin of writing and the segmental origin of the alphabet. In Downing et al., 83–110.Google Scholar
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1960 [1916]. Course in general linguistics. Trans. by Baskin, Wade. London: Peter Owen. [Originally published as Cours de linguistique générale, ed. by Bally, Charles and Sechehaye, Albert, with the assistance of Albert Riedlinger. Paris: Payot, 1916.].Google Scholar
Deshpande, Madhav M. 1995. Ancient Indian phonetics. Concise history of the language sciences: From the Sumerians to the cognitivists, ed. by Asher, R. E. and Koerner, E. F. K., 72–77. Oxford: Pergamon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deshpande, Madhav M. 1997. Śaunakīyā Caturādhyāyikā: A prātiśākhya of the Saunakīya Atharvaveda, with commentaries Caturādhyāyībhāṣya, Bhārgava-Bhāskara-Vṛtti and Pañcasandhi. Cambridge, MA: Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Deshpande, Madhav M. 2000. Indian theories on phonetics. History of the language sciences: An international handbook on the evolution of the study of language from the beginnings to the present, vol. 1, ed. by Auroux, Sylvain, Koerner, E. F. K., Niederehe, Hans-Josef, and Versteegh, Kees, 137–46. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Downing, Pamela, Lima, Susan D.; and Noonan, Michael (eds.) 1992. The linguistics of literacy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emeneau, Murray B. 1946. The nasal phonemes of Sanskrit. Language 22(2). 86–93. DOI: 10.2307/410341.10.2307/410341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faber, Alice. 1992. Phonemic segmentation as epiphenomenon: Evidence from the history of alphabetic writing. In Downing et al., 111–34.Google Scholar
Falk, Harry. 1993. Schrift im alten Indien: Ein Forschungsbericht mit Anmerkungen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Falk, Harry. 2018. The creation and spread of scripts in ancient India. Literacy in ancient everyday life, ed. by Kolb, Anne, 43–66. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110594065-004.10.1515/9783110594065-004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farmer, Steve, Sproat, Richard; and Witzel, Michael. 2004. The collapse of the Indusscript thesis: The myth of a literate Harappan civilization. Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 11(2). 19–57. DOI: 10.11588/ejvs.2004.2.620.Google Scholar
Firth, John R. 1936. Alphabets and phonology in India and Burma. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 8(2–3). 517–46. DOI: 10.1017/S0041977X0014114X.10.1017/S0041977X0014114XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firth, JoHN R. 1946. The English school of phonetics. Transactions of the Philological Society 45(1). 92–132. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-968X.1946.tb00224.x.10.1111/j.1467-968X.1946.tb00224.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firth, John R. 1948. Sounds and prosodies. Transactions of the Philological Society 47(1). 127–52. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-968X.1948.tb00556.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Carol A., Shankweiler, Donald; and Studdert-Kennedy, Michael. 2016. ‘Perception of the speech code’ revisited: Speech is alphabetic after all. Psychological Review 123(2). 125–50. DOI: 10.1037/rev0000013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galantucci, Bruno, Fowler, Carol A.; and Turvey, M. T.. 2006. The motor theory of speech perception reviewed. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 13(3). 361–77. DOI: 10.3758/BF03193857.Google ScholarPubMed
Günther, Hartmut. 1986. Was the alphabet discovered or invented? On the alleged common processes in speech and writing. New trends in graphemics and orthography, ed. by Augst, Gerhard, 248–61. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1981. The origin and early development of Chinese phonological theory. Towards a history of phonetics, ed. by Henderson, Eugenie J. A. and Asher, R. E., 123–40. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Daniel. 1950. The phoneme: Its nature and uses. Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons.Google Scholar
Liberman, Alvin M., Cooper, Franklin S., Shankweiler, Donald P.; and Studdert-Kennedy, Michael. 1967. Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review 74. 431–61. DOI: 10.1037/h0020279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lüdtke, H. 1969. Die Alphabetschrift und das Problem der Lautsegmentierung. Phonetica 20. 147–76. DOI: 10.1159/000259279.10.1159/000259279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahulkar, D. D. 1981. The Prātiśākhya tradition and modern linguistics. Baroda: Department of Linguistics, M.S. University of Baroda.Google Scholar
Massaro, Dominic W. 1972. Preperceptual images, processing time, and perceptual units in auditory perception. Psychological Review 79. 124–45. DOI: 10.1037/h0032264.10.1037/h0032264CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Massaro, Dominic W., and Chen, Trevor H.. 2008. The motor theory of speech perception revisited. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 15(2). 453–57. DOI: 10.3758/PBR.15.2.453.10.3758/PBR.15.2.453CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Massaro, Dominic W., and Oden, Gregg C.. 1980. Speech perception: A framework for research and theory. Speech and language: Advances in basic research and practice, vol. 3, ed. by Lass, N. J., 129–65. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Müller, Max. 1869. Rig-Veda-Pratisakhya: Das älteste Lehrbuch der vedischen Phonetik. Sanskrittext mit Übersetzung und Anmerkungen. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus.Google Scholar
Nieto-Castanon, Alfonso, Guenther, Frank H., Perkell, Joseph S.; and Curtin, Hugh D.. 2005. A modeling investigation of articulatory variability and acoustic stability during American English /r/ production. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 117. 3196–3212. DOI: 10.1121/1.1893271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oden, Gregg C., and Massaro, Dominic W.. 1978. Integration of featural information in speech perception. Psychological Review 85. 172–91. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.85.3.172.10.1037/0033-295X.85.3.172CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olivelle, Patrick. 1998. The early Upaniṣads: Annotated text and translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195124354.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Port, Robert F. 2006. The graphical basis of phones and phonemes. Second language speech learning: The role of language experience in speech production and perception, ed. by Munro, Murray J. and Bohn, Ocke-Schwen, 349–65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Port, Robert F. 2007. How are words stored in memory? Beyond phones and phonemes. New Ideas in Psychology 25. 143–70. DOI: 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.02.001.10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Port, Robert F. 2010a. Language as a social institution: Why phonemes and words do not live in the brain. Ecological Psychology 22(4). 304–26. DOI: 10.1080/10407413.2010.517122.10.1080/10407413.2010.517122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Port, Robert F. 2010b. Rich memory and distributed phonology. Language Sciences 32(1). 43–55. DOI: 10.1016/j.langsci.2009.06.001.10.1016/j.langsci.2009.06.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Port, Robert F., and Leary, Adam P.. 2005. Against formal phonology. Language 81(4). 927–64. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2005.0195.10.1353/lan.2005.0195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Premathilake, R., Anupama, K., Rajan, K., Prasad, S., Orukaimani, G.; and Yathees Kumar, v. P.. 2017. Implications of phytolith records from an Early Historic megalithic burial site at Porunthal in Southern India. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 11. 491–506. DOI: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.12.025.Google Scholar
Rajan, K., and Yatheeskumar, V. P.. 2013. New evidences on scientific dates for Brāhmī script as revealed from Porunthal and Kodumanal excavations. Prāgdhārā 21–22. 280–95.Google Scholar
Renou, Louis, and Filliozat, Jean. 1953. L'Inde fondamentale: Études d'indianisme réunies et présentées par Charles Malamoud. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.Google Scholar
Robins, R. H. 1967. A short history of linguistics. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Salomon, Richard. 1990. New evidence for a Gāndhārī origin of the arapacana syllabary. Journal of the American Oriental Society 110(2). 255–73. DOI: 10.2307/604529.10.2307/604529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salomon, Richard. 1995. On the origin of the early Indian scripts. Journal of the American Oriental Society 115(2). 271–79. DOI: 10.2307/604670.10.2307/604670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salomon, Richard. 1998. Indian epigraphy: A guide to the study of inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the other Indo-Aryan languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharf, Peter M. 2013. Linguistics in India. The Oxford handbook of the history of linguistics, ed. by Allan, Keith, 227–57. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scharf, Peter M., and Hyman, Malcolm D.. 2011. Linguistic issues in encoding Sanskrit. Providence, RI: The Sanskrit Library.Google Scholar
Sharma, V. Venkatarama. 1930. Taittirīya Prātiśākhya with Māhiṣeya's Bhāṣya. Madras: University of Madras.Google Scholar
Sharma, V. Venkatarama. 1934. Vājasaneyi Prātiśākhya of Kātyāyana with the commentaries of Uvaṭa and Anantabhaṭṭa. Madras: University of Madras.Google Scholar
Shastri, Mangal Deva. 1931. The Rgveda-Pratisakhya with the commentary of Uvaṭa, vol. 2. Allahabad: Indian Press.Google Scholar
Shastri, Mangal Deva. 1937. The Rgveda-Pratisakhya with the commentary of Uvaṭa, vol. 3. Lahore: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Shastri, Mangal Deva. 1959. The Rgveda-Pratisakhya with the commentary of Uvaṭa, vol. 1. Varanasi: V. S. Mandira.Google Scholar
Shastri, Surya Kanta. 1933. Ṛktantram: A prātiśākhya of the Sāmaveda. Lahore: Mehar Chand Lachhman Das.Google Scholar
Shastri, Surya Kanta. 1939. Atharva Prātiśākhya. Lahore: Mehar Chand Lachhman Das.Google Scholar
Twaddell, W. Freeman. 1935. On defining the phoneme. (Language monograph 16.) Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America. DOI: 10.2307/522070.Google Scholar
Van Nooten, Barend A. 1973. The structure of a Sanskrit phonetic treatise. Acta et commentationes Universitatis Tartuensis: Oriental Studies II(2).408–36.Google Scholar
von Hinüber, Oskar. 1989. Der Beginn der Schrift und frühe Schriftlichkeit in Indien. Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur.Google Scholar
Whitney, William Dwight. 1862. The Atharva-veda Prâtiçâkhya, or, Çâunakîyâ caturâdhyâyikâ: Text, translation and notes. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society.Google Scholar
Whitney, William Dwight. 1871. The Tâittirîya-Prâtiçâkhya: With its commentary, the Tribhâshyaratna. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society.Google Scholar
Ziegler, Johannes C., and Goswami, Usha. 2005. Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin 131(1). 3–29. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.3.10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed