M01hjbr 10Ngujb
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CONTENTS Page Feature 1 Linguistic Methodology and Distant Linguistic Comparison M01HJBR Allan R. Bomhard 4 Toward a Defmitive Classification of the World's Languages 10NGUJB Harold C. Fleming 30 Pama-Nyungan II and Tasmanian NJEWSLJETTJER OF Geoff O'Grady and Susan Fitzgerald tHJE ASSOCIAtiON 36 C. C. Uhlenbeck and Dene-Caucasian W. Wi/fried Schuhmacher FOR tHJE StuDY OF 37 Book Review: Language in the Americas (1987) LANGUAGJE IN Reviewed by Stefan Liedtke PREHIStORY 39 In the Public Media: - Late Dates in East Polynesia (Science News) - A Geneticist Maps Ancient Migrations (New York Times) 40 Brief Communication: Seeking the Traces ofthe Indo-European Homeland. Vac/av Blaiek 41 Software: Gamma UniVerse/or Windows 42 Letters to the Editor 43 Editorial 43 ASLIP Business 44 Books for Review AIM &SCOPE The Association for the Study of Language in Prehistory (ASLIP) is a nonprofit organization, incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Its purpose is to encourage and support the study of language in prehistory in all fields and by all means, including research on the early evolution of human language, supporting conferences, setting up a databank, and publishing a newsletter and/or journal to report these activities. Annual dues for ASLIP membership and subscription to Mother Tongue are US $15.00 in all countries except those with currency problems. In those countries, annual dues are zero ($0.00). European distribution: All members living in Europe (up to the borders of Asia), and not having currency problems, will pay their annual dues to, and receive Mother Tongue from: Prof. Dr. Ekkehard Wolff Universitlit Hamburg Seminar ftir Afrikanische Sprachen und Kulturen Issue 20, September 1993 Rothenbaumchaussee 67/69 20148 Hamburg Federal Republic of Germany MOTHER TONGUE Issue 20, September 1993 OFFICERS OF ASLIP (Address appropriate correspondence to each.) President: Harold C. Fleming Telephone: (412) 683-5558 5240 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, P A 15217 U.S.A. Vice President: Allan R. Bombard Telephone: (617) 227-4923 73 Phillips Street Boston, MA 02114 U.S.A. Secretary: Anne W. Beaman P.O. Box 583 Brookline, MA 02146 U.S.A. BOARD OF DIRECTORS M. Lionel Bender Sherwin Feinhandler Mark Kaiser Southern Illinois University Social Systems Analysts Illinois State University Cambridge, MA Ron Christensen Frederick Gamst Daniel McCall Entropy Limited University ofMassachusetts Boston, MA Lincoln, MA COUNCIL OF FELLOWS Raimo Anttila Joseph H. Greenberg Karl-Heinrich Menges UCLA (USA) Stanford University (USA) University of Vienna (Austria) Luca Luigi Cavalli-Sforza Carleton T. Hodge Colin Renfrew Stanford University (USA) Indiana University (USA) Cambridge University (UK) Igor M. Diakonoff Dell Hymes Vitaly Shevoroshkin St. Petersburg (Russia) University of Virginia (USA) University ofMichigan (USA) Aaron Dolgopolsky Sydney Lamb Sergei Starostin University ofHaifa (Israel) Rice University (USA) Academy a/Sciences ofRussia (Russia) Ben Ohiomamhe Elugbe Winfred P. Lehmann University ofIbadan (Nigeria) University of Texas (USA) © 1993 by the Association for the Study of Language in Prehistory ~-~----------=--------- MOTHER TONGUE Issue 20, September 1993 LINGUISTIC METHODOLOGY AND significance in actual practice, when such an agreement is still designated as the only valid DISTANT LINGUISTIC COMPARISON proof. No one doubted, after the first communication about Tocharian ... , that the ALLAN R. BOMBARD language was Indo-European, though at that Boston, Massachusetts time virtually no similarities in inflection had been pointed out. Such similarities have Distant (or long-range) Linguistic Comparison seeks since been shown, but even where they are to investigate the possibility that certain languages or language almost obliterated, proof of kinship could be families, not previously thought to be genetically related, at adduced from the vocabulary and sound least not "closely" related, might indeed be part of still larger laws. Hardly any one will assert that it groupings, which may be called "macrofamilies". would be impossible to recognize the At the present time, there is a handful of scholars in relationship between, say, English and various countries devoting serious study to long-range Italian, even without the help of other related comparison. Furthermore, two organizations, namely, the languages or of older forms of these two Language Origins Society and the Association for the Study of languages themselves, although agreements Language in Prehistory, have been founded for the specific between the inflectional systems are purpose of furthering the cause of investigating distant practically nonexistent. linguistic relationship. Some of the work being done is of very From the modern point of view it high quality, adhering quite strictly to the methodological must be said that proof for relationship be principles established by the founders of Indo-European tween languages is adduced by a systematic comparative linguistics, while other work is quite speculative comparison of languages in their entirety, and less methodologically rigorous. Moreover, there are two vocabulary as well as grammar. The reason main approaches being utilized: using terminology coined by why earlier scholars felt they should Hal Fleming, the first approach may be called "taxonomy first", disregard the vocabulary was that they knew which seeks first and foremost to classify languages into valid of no method of systematic comparison in groupings, that is, into language families and/or macrofamilies, this field. while the second approach may be called "reconstruction first", which, as the name implies, emphasizes reconstruction. The In 1957, Joseph Greenberg laid out a set of principles first approach is reminiscent of the beginnings of Indo for establishing genetic relationship among languages, and European comparative linguistics, where relationship was first these bear repeating. Greenberg notes that the simplest way to established by the early pioneers such as Rasmus Rask, Franz establish genetic relationship is by identifying a large number Bopp, and Jacob Grimm, and it was only much later, beginning of similar morphs (or allomorphs) -especially irregularities with August Schleicher, that actual reconstruction took place, - in similar environments in the languages being considered. though the need for reconstruction had been recognized as Another significant indicator of probable genetic relationship early as 1837 by Theodor Benfey. The two approaches are is the presence of similar rules of combinability. actually not mutually exclusive, but, rather, properly used, they Unfortunately, and this is significant, historical processes over can inform and further one another. I, personally, would give the passage of time bring about the gradual transformation and the edge to "taxonomy first". After all, one cannot successfully eventual elimination of such similarities. The longer the period reconstruct until one has first established which languages of separation, the lesser the chances will be that similarities of might have a reasonable chance of being genetically related, morphological forms and rules of combinability will be found. that is to say that one must know which languages to compare. Fortunately, there are other factors that can be helpful in The early founders of Indo-European Comparative determining possible genetic relationship. One significant Linguistics placed great importance on the comparison of factor is the semantic resemblance of lexical forms. Here it is grammatical forms, and this bias continues to the present day important to be able to establish recurrent sound-meaning in Indo-European Studies and has even been carried over into correspondences for a reasonably large sample of lexical the study of other language families. However, this material. Lexical forms with identical or similar meanings overemphasis on the comparison of grammatical forms is far have the greatest value. Next in value come forms that, though too restrictive and was the reason that the Celtic languages, divergent in meaning, can convincingly be derived, through which have developed many unique features, were not widely-attested semantic shifts, from earlier forms with identi immediately recognized as Indo-European. As noted over cal or similar meaning. The chances that lexical resemblances sixty years ago by Holger Pedersen (1931:245): indicate genetic relationship increase dramatically when addi tional languages are brought into the comparison and when That agreement in the inflectional these new languages also exhibit a very large number of recur system is an especially clear and striking rent sound-meaning correspondences with the other languages. proof of kinship, no one denies. But it is Greenberg considers the comparison of basic vocabulary from only an anachronism in theory, which has no a large number of languages from a specific, wide geographic 1 MOTHER TONGUE Issue 20, September 1993 area to be the quickest and most reliable way to determine Furthermore, claims that these methodologies break possible genetic relationship. To be meaningful, however, down when one tries to apply them beyond a certain time limit, comparison must strive to eliminate chance resemblances and say, 5,000 to 10,000 years ago, can be shown, without a to separate borrowings from native elements. This is often shadow of doubt, to be false. One can cite, for example, the easier said than done; however, Greenberg lays out two main case of the aboriginal