4. How to Show Languages are Related.pdf

4. How to Show Languages are Related: Methods for Distant Genetic …e Handbook of Historical Linguistics : Blackwell Reference Online

12/11/2007 03:30 PM

4. How to Show Languages are Related: Methods for Distant Genetic

Relationship

LYLE CAMPBELL

Subject

Linguistics » Historical Linguistics

Key-Topics

language

DOI:

10.1111/b.9781405127479.2004.00006.x

Judging from media attention, the “hottest” current topic in linguistics (shared perhaps with endangered

languages) is distant genetic relationship. Proposed remote language families such as Amerind, Nostratic,

and Proto-World have been featured in Atlantic Monthly, Nature, Science, Scientific American, U.S. News ,

and television documentaries, and yet these same proposals have been roundly rejected by the majority of

practicing historical linguistics. This has led to charges that these spurnings “are clumsy and dishonest

attempts to discredit deep reconstructions,” “stem from ignorance,” and “very few [antagonist linguists] have

ever bothered to examine the evidence first-hand … To really screw up classification you almost have to

have a Ph.D. in historical linguistics” (Shevoroshkin 1989a: 7, 1989b: 4; Ruhlen 1994: viii). In spite of such

sharp differences of opinion, all agree that a successful demonstration of linguistic kinship depends on

adequate methods – the disagreement is on what these are – and hence methodology assumes the central

role in considerations of possible remote relationships. This being the case, the purpose of this chapter is to

survey the various methodological principles, criteria, and rules of thumb relevant to distant genetic

relationship and thus hopefully to provide guidelines for both initiating and testing proposals of distant

linguistic kinship.

In practice the successful methods for establishing distant genetic relationship (henceforth DGR) have not

been different from those used to validate any family relationship, near or not. The comparative method has

always been the basic tool for establishing genetic relationships. The fact that the methods have not been

different may be a principal factor making DGR research so perplexing. The result is a continuum from

established and non-controversial families (e.g., Indo-European, Uto-Aztecan, Bantu), through more distant

but solidly supported relationships (e.g., Uralic, Siouan-Catawban), to plausible but inconclusive proposals

(e.g., Indo-Uralic, Afro-Asiatic, Aztec-Tanoan), to questionable but not implausible ones (e.g., Altaic,

Austro-Tai, Maya-Chipayan), to virtually impossible proposals (e.g., Basque-NaDene, Quechua-Turkic,

Miwok-Uralic). It is difficult to segment this continuum so that plausible proposals based on legitimate

procedures and reasonable supporting evidence fall sharply on one side of a line and are distinguished from

clearly unlikely hypotheses clustering on the other side.

We can distinguish two outlooks, or stages in research on potential DGRs, each with its own practices. The

quality of the evidence presented typically varies with the proposer's intent. Where the intention is to call

attention to a possible but as yet untested connection, one often casts a wide net in order to haul in as much

potential evidence as possible. When the intention is to test a proposal that is already on the table, those

forms admitted initially as possible evidence are submitted to more careful scrutiny. Unfortunately, the more

laissez-faire setting-up type hypotheses are not always distinguished from the more cautious hypothesis-

testing type. Both orientations are valid. Nevertheless, long-range proposals which have not been evaluated

carefully cannot move to the more established end of the continuum. Methodology is worthy of concern if we

cannot easily distinguish fringe proposals from more plausible ones. For this reason, careful evaluation of

http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9781405127479_chunk_g97814051274796

Page 1 of 14

4. How to Show Languages are Related: Methods for Distant Genetic …e Handbook of Historical Linguistics : Blackwell Reference Online

12/11/2007 03:30 PM

cannot easily distinguish fringe proposals from more plausible ones. For this reason, careful evaluation of

the evidence is called for. Some methods are more successful than others, but even successful ones can be

applied inappropriately. As is well known, excessive zeal for long-range relationships can lead to

methodological excesses: “The difficulty of the task of trying to make every language fit into a genetic

classification has led certain eminent linguists to deprive the principle of such classification of its precision

and its rigor or to apply it in an imprecise manner” (Meillet 1948[1914]: 78). 1 Therefore, I turn to an

appraisal of methodological considerations involved in procedures for investigating potential DGRs.

1 Lexical Comparison

Throughout history, word comparisons have been employed as evidence of family relationship, but “given a

small collection of likely-looking cognates, how can one definitely determine whether they are really the

residue of common origin and not the workings of pure chance or some other factor? This is a crucial

problem of long-range comparative linguistics” (Swadesh 1954: 312). The results of lexical comparisons

were seldom convincing without additional support from other criteria, for example, sound correspondences

and compelling morphological agreements (see below). Use of lexical material alone (or as the primary

source of evidence) often led to incorrect proposals and hence has proven controversial. The role of basic

vocabulary and lexically based approaches requires discussion.

1.1 Basic vocabulary

Most scholars have insisted on basic vocabulary ( Kernwortschatz, vocabulaire de base, charakteristische

Wörter , “non-cultural” vocabulary, understood intuitively to contain terms for body parts, close kin,

frequently encountered aspects of the natural world, and low numbers) as an important source of supporting

evidence. It is assumed that since, in general, basic vocabulary is resistant to borrowing, similarities found in

comparisons involving basic vocabulary are unlikely to be due to diffusion and hence stand a better chance

of being due to inheritance from a common ancestor. Of course, basic vocabulary can also be borrowed (see

examples below), though infrequently, so that its role as a safeguard against borrowing is not foolproof.

1.2 Glottochronology

Glottochronology, which depends on basic, relatively culture-free vocabulary, has been rejected by most

linguists, since all its basic assumptions have been challenged (cf. Campbell 1977: 63–5). Therefore, it

warrants little discussion here; suffice it to say that it does not find or test relationships, but rather it

assumes that the languages compared are related and proceeds to attach a date based on the number of

core-vocabulary words that are similar between the languages compared. This, then, is no method for

determining whether languages are related or not.

A question about lexical evidence in long-range relationships has to do with the loss or replacement of

vocabulary over time. It is commonly believed that “comparable lexemes must inevitably diminish to near the

vanishing point the deeper one goes in comparing remotely related languages” (Bengtson 1989: 30), and

this does not depend on glottochronology's assumption of a constant rate of basic vocabulary loss through

time and across languages. In principle, related languages long separated may undergo so much vocabulary

replacement that insufficient shared original vocabulary will remain for an ancient shared kinship to be

detected. This constitutes a serious problem for those who believe in deep relationships supported solely by

lexical evidence.

1.3 Multilateral (or mass) comparison

The best known of current approaches which rely on inspectional resemblances among compared lexical

items is Greenberg's multilateral (or mass) comparison. It is based on lexical look-alikes determined by

visual inspection, “looking at … many languages across a few words” rather than “at a few languages across

many words” (Greenberg 1987: 23), where the lexical similarity shared “across many languages” alone is

taken as evidence of genetic relationship. As has been repeatedly pointed out, this is but a starting-point.

The inspectional resemblances must still be investigated to determine whether they are due to inheritance

from a common ancestor or to borrowing, accident, onomatopoeia, sound symbolism, nursery formations,

and the like, discussed here. Since multilateral comparison does not take this necessary next step, the

results frequently have proven erroneous or at best highly controversial.

Actually, Greenberg's conception of multilateral (or mass) comparison has undergone telling mutations.

Greenberg (1957) was rather mainstream, advocating standard criteria, for example, “semantic plausibility,

http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9781405127479_chunk_g97814051274796

Page 2 of 14

4. How to Show Languages are Related: Methods for Distant Genetic …e Handbook of Historical Linguistics : Blackwell Reference Online

12/11/2007 03:30 PM

Greenberg (1957) was rather mainstream, advocating standard criteria, for example, “semantic plausibility,

breadth of distribution in the various subgroups of the family, length [of compared forms], participation in

irregular alternations, and the occurrence of sound correspondences” (Greenberg 1957: 45). Still, his

emphasis was on vocabulary (Greenberg 1957: 42). His 1957 notion of mass comparison was seen as only

supplementary to the standard comparative method; in 1987 he sees it as superior to and replacing the

standard procedures (Greenberg 1987). The 1957 version concentrated on a language (or group of related

languages taken as a unity) whose relationship was yet to be determined, comparing this with languages

whose family relationships were already known:

Instead of comparing a few or even just two languages chosen at random and for linguistically

extraneous reasons, we proceed systematically by first comparing closely related languages to

form groups with recurrent significant resemblances and then compare these groups with other

similarly constituted groups. Thus it is far easier to see that the Germanic languages are

related to the Indo-Aryan languages than that English is related to Hindustani. In effect, we

have gained historic depth by comparing each group as a group, considering only those forms

as possessing likelihood of being original which are distributed in more than one branch of the

group and considering only those etymologies as favoring the hypothesis of relationship in

which tentative reconstruction brings the forms closer together. Having noted the relationship

of the Germanic and Indo-Aryan languages, we bring in other groups of languages, e.g.

Slavonic and Italic. In this process we determine with ever increasing definiteness the basic

lexical and grammatical morphemes in regard to both phonetic form and meaning. On the

other hand, we also see more easily that the Semitic languages and Basque do not belong to

this aggregation of languages. Confronted by some isolated language without near

congeners, we compare it with this general Indo-European rather than at random with

single languages .

(Greenberg 1957: 40–1; my emphasis)

Greenberg's multilateral comparison of 1987 is not of the gradual build-up sort that it was in Greenberg

1957, where the method was based on the comparison of an as yet unclassified language with a number of

languages previously demonstrated to be related. An array of cognate forms in languages known to be

related might reveal similarities with a form compared from some language whose genetic affiliation we are

attempting to determine, where comparison with but a single language from the related group may not.

Given the possibilities of lexical replacement, the language may or may not have retained the cognate form

which may still be seen in some of its sisters which did not replace it. However, this is equivalent, in

essence, to the recommendation that we reconstruct lower-level, accessible families – where proto-forms

can be reconstructed on the basis of the cognate sets, although for some sets some individual languages

have lost or replaced the cognate word – before we proceed to higher-level, more inclusive families. A

validly reconstructed proto-form is like the “multilateral comparison” of the various cognates from across

the family upon which the reconstruction of that form is based. For attempts to establish more remote

genetic affiliations, comparison with either the reconstructed proto-form or the language-wide cognate set

upon which the reconstruction would be based are roughly equivalent. Greenberg (1987) abandons this, now

comparing “a few words” in “many languages” of uncertain genetic affiliation.

In short, no technique which relies solely on inspectional similarities has proven adequate for supporting

relationships:

It is widely believed that, when accompanied by lists of the corresponding sounds, a moderate

number of lexical similarities is sufficient to demonstrate a linguistic relationship … However,

… the criteria which have usually been considered necessary for a good etymology are very

strict, even though there may seem to be a high a priori probability of relationship when

similar words in languages known to be related are compared. In the case of lexical

comparisons it is necessary to account for the whole word in the descendant languages, not

just an arbitrarily segmented “root,” and the reconstructed ancestral form must be a complete

word … The greater the number of descendant languages attesting a form, and the greater the

number of comparable phonemes in it, the more likely it is that the etymology is a sound one

and the resemblances not merely the result of chance. A lexical similarity between only two

languages is generally considered insufficiently supported, unless the match is very exact both

http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9781405127479_chunk_g97814051274796

Page 3 of 14

4. How to Show Languages are Related: Methods for Distant Genetic …e Handbook of Historical Linguistics : Blackwell Reference Online

12/11/2007 03:30 PM

languages is generally considered insufficiently supported, unless the match is very exact both

phonologically and semantically, and it is rare that a match of only one or two phonemes is

persuasive. If the meanings of the forms compared differ, then there must be an explicit

hypothesis about how the meaning has changed in the various cases. Now, if these strict

criteria have been found necessary for etymologies within known linguistic families, it is

obvious that much stricter criteria must be applied to word-comparisons between languages

whose relationship is in question.

(Goddard 1975: 254–5)

2 Sound Correspondences

It is important to emphasize the value and utility of sound correspondences in the investigation of linguistic

relationships. Some hold recurring regular sound correspondences necessary for the demonstration of

linguistic affinity, and most at least consider them strong evidence of genetic affinity. While they are a staple

of traditional approaches to determining language families, it is important to discuss how their use can be

perverted.

First, it is important to keep in mind that it is correspondences which are crucial, not mere similarities, and

that such correspondences do not necessarily involve very similar sounds. It is surprising how the matched

sounds in proposals of remote relationship are typically so similar, often identical, while among the

daughter languages of well-established, non-controversial, older language families such identities are not as

frequent. While some sounds may stay relatively unchanged, many undergo changes which leave phonetically

non-identical correspondences. One wonders why correspondences that are not so similar are not more

common in such proposals. The sound changes that lead to such non-identical correspondences often

change cognate words so much that their cognacy is not apparent. These true but non-obvious cognates are

missed by methods such as multilateral comparison which seek inspec-tional resemblances. For example,

Hindi cakkā (cf. Sanskrit cakra -) and sĩg (cf. Sanskrit s̀ ñga -) are true cognates of English wheel and horn ,

respectively (cf. Proto-Indo-European (PIE) * k w ek w lo - ‘wheel’ and * ḱer / ḱr - ‘horn’ : Hock 1993a), but such

forms would be missed by lexical-inspection approaches. A method which scans only for phonetic

resemblances (as multilateral comparison does) misses such well-known true cognates as French

cinq/Russian p y at y /Armenian hing / English five (all easily derived by straightforward changes from original

Indo-European (IE) * penk w e ‘five’), French boeuf / English cow (from PIE * g w ou -), French /nu/ (spelled nous )

‘we, us’ /English us (from PIE * nes-; French through Latin nōs , English from Germanic * uns [IE zero-grade *

s ]) (Meillet 1948 [1914]: 92–3); none of these common cognates is visually similar.

There are a number of ways in which sound correspondences can be misapplied. They usually indicate a

historical connection, though sometimes it is not easy to determine whether this is due to inheritance from a

common ancestor or to borrowing. Regularly corresponding sounds may also be found in loans. For

example, it is known from Grimm's law that real French-English cognates should exhibit the correspondence

p : f , as in père/father, pied / foot, pour / for . However, French and English appear to exhibit also the

correspondence p : p in cases where English has borrowed from French or Latin, as in paternel/paternal,

piédestal / pedestal, per / per . Since English has many such loans, examples illustrating this bogus p : p

sound correspondence abound. “The presence of recurrent sound correspondences is not in itself sufficient

to exclude borrowing as an explanation. Where loans are numerous, they often show such correspondences”

(Greenberg 1957: 40). In comparing languages not yet known to be related, we must use caution in

interpreting sound correspondences to avoid the problems of undetected loans. Generally, sound

correspondences found in basic vocabulary warrant the confidence that the correspondences are not found

only in loans, though even here one must be careful, since basic vocabulary also can be borrowed, though

more rarely. For example, Finnish ä iti “mother” and tytär “daughter” are borrowed from Indo-European

languages; if these loans were not recognized, one would suspect a sound correspondence of t : d involving

the medial consonant of äiti (cf. Germanic * aidī ) and the initial consonant of tytär (cf. Germanic * dohtēr ) on

the basis of these fundamental vocabulary items (supported also by many other loans). 2

In addition to borrowings, there are other ways by which proposals which purport to rely on sound

correspondences come up with phony correspondences. Some apparent but non-genuine correspondences

come from accidentally similar lexical items among languages, for example, Proto-Je * niw ‘new’ / English

new; Kaqchikel dialects mes ‘mess, disorder, garbage’ /English mess; Jaqaru aska ‘ask’ /English ask; Lake

http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9781405127479_chunk_g97814051274796

Page 4 of 14

4. How to Show Languages are Related: Methods for Distant Genetic …e Handbook of Historical Linguistics : Blackwell Reference Online

12/11/2007 03:30 PM

new; Kaqchikel dialects mes ‘mess, disorder, garbage’ /English mess; Jaqaru aska ‘ask’ /English ask; Lake

Miwok hóllu ‘hollow’ /English hollow , Seri ki?/French qui (/ki/) ‘who?’; Yana t'inii - ‘smalL'/English tiny,

teeny , not to mention those of handbook fame Persian bad /English bad , and Malay mata ‘eye’ /Modern

Greek mati ‘eye,’ to mention but a few examples. Other cases of unreal sound correspondences turn up if

one permits promiscuous semantic latitude in proposed cognates, such that phonetically similar but

semantically disparate forms are equated (Ringe 1992). Gilii (1780–4, quoted from 1965: 132–3) showed

this long ago with several examples of the sort poeta ‘drunk’ in Maipure, ‘poet’ in Italian; putta Otomaco

‘head,’ Italian ‘prostitute.’ The phonetic correspondences in such cases are due to accident, since it is always

possible to find phonetically similar words among languages if their meaning is ignored. When one sanctions

semantic liberty among compared forms, one easily comes up with the sort of spurious correspondences

seen in the initial p : p and medial t : t of Gilii's Amazonian-Italian ‘drunk-poet’ and ‘head-prostitute’

forms. Additional non-inherited phonetic similarities crop up when onomatopoetic, sound-symbolic, and

nursery forms are compared. A set of proposed cognates involving a combination of loans, chance enhanced

by semantic latitude, onomatopoeia, and such factors may exhibit seemingly real but false sound

correspondences. For this reason, some proposed remote relationships whose propounders profess

allegiance to regular sound correspondences nevertheless fail to be convincing. (See Ringe 1992, and below.)

Most find sound correspondences strong evidence, but many neither insist on them solely nor trust them

fully, though most do insist on the comparative method (see Watkins 1990). While the comparative method

is often associated with sound change, and hence with regularly recurring sound correspondences, this is

not essential. For example, Meillet (1925, quoted from 1967:13–4) introduced the comparative method, not

with examples of phonological correspondences, but with reference to comparative mythology. Thus, many

have relied also on grammatical comparisons of the appropriate sort.

3 Grammatical Evidence

Scholars throughout linguistic history have held morphological evidence important for establishing language

families. Meillet, like many others, favored “shared aberrancy” as morphological proof (Meillet 1925, quoted

from 1967: 36), illustrated, for example, by suppletion in the verb ‘to be’ in branches of Indo-European:

3sg . 3pl . 1sg .

Latin est sunt Sum

Sanskrit ásti sánti Asmi

Greek esti eisi eimi

Gothic ist sind Am

Meillet favored “particular processes,” “singular facts,” “local morphological peculiarities,” “anomalous forms,”

and “arbitrary” associations (i.e., “shared aberrancy”):

The more singular the facts are by which the agreement between two languages is

established, the greater is the conclusive force of the agreement. Anomalous forms are thus

those which are most suited to establish a “common language.”

(Meillet 1925, quoted from 1967: 41; my emphasis)

What conclusively establish the continuity between one “common language” and a later

language are the particular processes of expression of morphology .

(Meillet 1925, quoted from 1967: 39; my emphasis)

Meillet' s use of grammatical evidence is considered standard practice. 3 Sapir's “submerged features” are

interpreted as being similar:

http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=532/tocnode?id=g9781405127479_chunk_g97814051274796

Page 5 of 14

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: