Book Reviews / Рецензии

George Starostin Russian State University for the Humanities (Moscow); [email protected]

Rainer Vossen (ed.). The Khoesan Languages (Routledge Series). London/New York: Routledge, 2013. xx + 508 pp. ISBN 978-0-7007-1289-2

The last 20 years have seen a veritable explosion of edited by Rainer Vossen, one of the world’s leading new, groundbreaking research in the field of specialists on — particularly the studies, somewhat neglected, as it may have seemed, Khoe family, on which he has published extensively, in the interim between the publication of Dorothea including a comprehensive comparative-historical Bleek’s Bushman Dictionary (1956), which managed to survey with a reconstruction of Proto-Khoe (Vossen summarize most of the data accumulated on Khoisan 1997). It compiles the most up-to-date information on languages up to that point, and the appearance of the the typological, historical, and sociolinguistic charac- first truly detailed and adequately transcribed dic- teristics of the various groups commonly known as tionaries of various San languages in the 1990s (such “Khoisan”, as well as relatively detailed descriptions as Dickens 1994, Traill 1994, etc.). Although, sadly, of individual languages (usually living ones), com- many of the languages that were still spoken in the piled by experts in the field, most of which have en- early or mid-20th century had already become extinct gaged in actual fieldwork on these languages: Bonny or moribund by that time, those that persisted finally Sands (Hadza), Edward Elderkin (Sandawe), Amanda managed to gain proper attention from professionally Miller (Ju), Wilfrid Haacke (Nama), Hessel Visser trained and equipped linguists, and some, like Nuu, (Naro), Rainer Vossen himself (various “minor” Khoe were even rediscovered after being considered com- languages of the Kalahari area), and others. pletely extinct for almost fifty years (Crawhall 2004). Like most volumes in the Routledge series, this one As a result, we have gained access to quite an impres- opens with a general overview of the “Khoisan issue”, sive amount of new grammars, dictionaries, and re- discussed in the introduction by Vossen (who pro- search papers on all sorts of synchronic and dia- vides a general background and briefly sets the chronic issues in the field of Khoisan studies. The only Khoisan languages in an overall African context), and thing missing so far was a handy reference book to tie in two chapters, written respectively by Henry all these publications, old and new, together, and pro- Honken and Tom Güldemann, that provide basic in- vide the average scholar with a general modern per- formation on the genetic / historical connections be- spective both on individual Khoisan languages and tween Khoisan languages and on their general typo- the “Khoisan issue” in general. logical properties. These introductory chapters are Now, finally, after about 20 years in the making (!), then followed by individual language and language as we learn from the “Editor’s Note”, comes “The group descriptions. Khoesan Languages”, a volume in the renowned For some reason, “The Khoesan Languages”, unlike Routledge Language Family Series that promises to most volumes in the Routledge series, instead of de- fill in this annoying gap. (The traditional spelling of voting complete chapters to cohesive descriptions of Khoisan has been amended to Khoesan both in the title languages, prefers to organize its contents based on and throughout the volume, since the transcription sub-areas of linguistic description (“Phonetics and Khoe is a more accurate reflection of the actual pro- phonology”, “Tonology”, “Morphology”, “Syntax”). nunciation by native speakers; in this review, how- This means that, for instance, a complete description ever, I will retain the traditional spelling outside of di- of Hadza is stretched over four different locations rect quotations from the book, since it is not likely that in the volume: Hadza /segmental/ phonetics (pp. 38– the amendment will be quickly adopted for general 42), Hadza tonology (pp. 89–90), Hadza morphology usage, and most people outside the field are quite ac- (pp. 107–124), Hadza syntax (pp. 265–274), and so on. customed to Khoisan anyway). The volume has been As far as I can tell, such an approach may be of certain

Journal of Language Relationship • Вопросы языкового родства • 12 (2014) • Pp. 149—153 Book Reviews / Рецензии limited use for areal typologists, who can get easier stitute important new research that makes the book a access to comparative data on various aspects of valuable acquisition for professional Khoisanologists, Khoisan languages, but offers a logistic disadvantage not just the general reader. for readers interested in particular languages or lan- The volume closes with another “general” section, guage groups as such, and, in doing so, begs the “Language contact and sociolinguistics” (pp. 434–481), question of what is more important: cross-linguistic which appears to be less systemic than the rest and typological ties between various levels of geographi- consists of a series of very brief sketches on various cally adjacent languages, or intra-linguistic ties be- types of contacts between Khoisan and non-Khoisan tween various levels of the same language? It would languages (usually Bantu or Afrikaans). These are seem to me that, at least up until recently, the second quite useful, but it is strange that the important issue option would be the default preference for the average of internal contact between various Khoisan families is reader, but perhaps this is no longer the case. only mentioned en passant (a two-page general note by It would certainly help if the integration of this Tom Güldemann), despite the existence of quite a principle were consistent throughout the book, but, large body of literature on the subject (papers by An- unfortunately, this is not always true. For instance, the thony Traill, Henry Honken, and others, published section “North Khoesan morphology” on p. 141 con- over the past 20–30 years and describing various sists of one line: “The description of the morphology “contact zones”, illustrated by numerous examples of of !Xun is incorporated in the Chapter 7” (i.e. the internal borrowing; for the record, much of this in- chapter on syntax, which, in the case of !Xun, becomes formation is succinctly summarized in Sands 2001). morphosyntax). This decision is understandable, since Special caution must also be exercised in reading the morphology of !Xun is far less complex than that the exciting, but highly speculative chapter on “The of Central Khoisan, for example, but it certainly dis- extinct Khoesan languages of Eastern Africa” (pp. 465– rupts the already questionable structure of the volume. 479), contributed by Christopher Ehret. The main idea Particularly dubious is the decision to separate “To- of the chapter — namely, that certain extinct lan- nology” from “Phonetics and phonology”, since tonal guages of a “Khoisan” nature, i.e. related to modern characteristics in Khoisan languages are not infre- day Hadza, Sandawe, or some of the South African quently tied in with segmental phonetics (e.g. recent Khoisan families, may have left behind traces in the tonogenesis in Namibian Khoekhoe, briefly described shape of occasional lexical borrowings in the local on p. 96), not to mention that knowledge on some tonal Cushitic or Nilo-Saharan languages — seems pretty systems (e.g. Eastern Hoan) is so scarce that an indi- much indisputable, but the specific evidence adduced vidual subsection may consist of a single paragraph. by the author is widely varying in quality, and not all Luckily, the descriptions themselves, even though of the comparisons in Ehret’s original research should dissected and scattered throughout the volume, are be taken at face value. In particular, quite a few of the beyond any general reproach, and provide most of the parallels that involve the South Cushitic click-contain- relevant information on phonetics and grammar that ing language Dahalo seem to be seriously forced from could be of use to general typologists or Africanists a semantic point of view; historically, Dahalo may from a comparative perspective. We should particu- well have gotten its clicks from a “Khoisan-type” lan- larly stress the detailed sketch of Hadza grammar by guage, but that does not imply the necessity of com- Bonny Sands, currently the world’s leading expert on paring Dahalo àà ‘nice smell (of oil)’ with Khoekhoe this extraordinary of , since àwà-p ‘smell of blood’, or Dahalo nákwi ‘deserted most of the previously published information on homestead’ with Sandawe !naxi ‘fallen tree trunk’ Hadza was either highly obsolete or extremely patchy; (admittedly, some of the other examples are more the late Henry Honken’s description of Eastern Hoan convincing, e.g. Dahalo uʼu ‘excrement’ vs. Khoekhoe (Hõã), a language previously known to the linguistic ùù-s id., etc.). The subject raised by Ehret in this community at large only through a series of disjointed chapter is extremely important in many respects, pri- papers dealing with its various aspects; and the re- marily since it promises vital insight into very deep sults of Tom Güldemann’s meticulous attempt to pre- layers of African prehistory; but it may actually take sent the old data on extinct South Khoisan (Tuu) lan- decades of hard work on the historical analysis of guages, such as Xam and Xegwi, in a modern de- Khoisan, Cushitic, and Nilo-Saharan linguistic data to scriptive framework — not an easy feat, considering substantiate some of the author’s suggestions on that that most of the old descriptions suffer from various prehistory. degrees of inadequacy. These sections of the volume The relatively small bibliography (pp. 482–496) are not there simply for reference purpose, but con- covers the basic needs of all individual sections, but

150 Rainer VOSSEN (ed.). The Khoesan Languages does not strive for completeness; this will be of no (language isolate, with a dubious connection to Khoe- great harm to the general reader, but it is somewhat Kwadi); (c) Khoe-Kwadi ( are un- lamentable, since valuable publications on Khoisan doubtedly related; the connection with the extinct An- languages and linguistics are few and far in between golan isolate Kwadi is definitely not accidental and compared to the linguistic literature on the rest of Af- quite likely genetic, but could also be interpreted in rica, and it couldn’t have hurt to make the list more areal terms); (d) Kx’a (a new term suggested in Heine exhaustive — at least by including references to all the & Honken 2010 for the newly demonstrated linguistic old sources that contain original linguistic data (such family that unites the Ju, or North Khoisan, languages as a series of short papers from the late 19th / early 20th with the Hõã isolate); (e) !Ui-Taa (Tuu), or South century on extinct North and South Khoisan lan- Khoisan (the connection between !Ui and Taa, dis- guages) as well as important publications that reflect cussed on p. 19, is also defined as potentially, but not current progress in comparative and historical Khoisan necessarily, genetic). studies, such as Vossen et al. 1988 or Honken 2006. The possibility of some or all of these units being Readers that have relatively little interest in par- genetically related at some level is discussed very ticular details on the phonetic or grammatical struc- briefly; the author seemingly does not rule out this ture of individual Khoisan languages will probably possibility, but states that “…no formal demonstration want to concentrate most of their attention on the first of the genetic unity of Khoesan has been made which three chapters — general introduction (Vossen), notes is convincing and satisfying to all Khoesanists” (p. 23). on genetic relationship (Honken), and overall typo- This “splitter” model does indeed seem to be cur- logical characteristics (Güldemann). In my own case, rently favored by several scholars who have engaged having accumulated some experience while working in comparative Khoisan studies (Sands 1998), but the on the intricate network of connections between the paper fails to clearly indicate that in between the various Khoisan languages, I would deem it useful to clearly opposed Greenbergian view (all Khoisan lan- offer some brief additional comments on Honken’s guages can be shown to be related) and the “splitter” and Güldemann’s chapters in particular, with the goal view (none, or almost none, of the various “Khoisan of complementing the authors’ perspectives where, as groups” can be shown to be related), there are alter- I believe, they may come across as slightly misleading nate, more complex scenarios to linguistic history in or incomplete. the Khoisan zone. The late Henry Honken, whose research, unlike In particular, the author of this review has previ- that of most Khoisanologists, consistently focused on ously suggested the existence of “Peripheral Khoisan”, comparative-historical studies throughout his life, a genetic grouping consisting of Ju-Hõã (= Heine & started out from a “pan-Khoisan” perspective, de- Honken’s “Kx’a”) and !Ui-Taa, illustrated by multiple parting from Joseph Greenberg’s assumption of all series of regular correspondences and supported with “Khoisan” languages being genetically related (Hon- numerous etymologies from various lexical strata, in- ken 1977, 1988), then gradually drifted towards a cluding basic items (Starostin 2008). Although the more cautious and skeptical position (Honken 2006), etymologies were of varied quality and some of the becoming convinced that the chaotic nature of pho- correspondences could possibly reflect later areal links netic correlations between similar morphemes in vari- rather than genetic connections, the assembled evi- ous putative “branches” of the “Khoisan macrofamily” dence clearly spoke in favor of a much tighter connec- was more in line with an areal interpretation than a tion between these families than between any of them genetic one, i.e. that the similarities between various and Khoe-Kwadi, not to mention Sandawe or Hadza. “Khoisan” groups of languages reflected millennia of This relative proximity has also been indirectly sup- linguistic contacts rather than descent from a single ported in a later study that combined etymological re- ancestor. Since this point of view tends to be shared search with automated and manual lexicostatistics by certain other leading Khoisanologists as well, there (Starostin 2013), and although the issue remains far is nothing surprising in the fact that the chapter on from settled, it seems evident that careful application “Genetic relationships” is written in full accordance of the comparative-historical method to a hypothetical with the “cautious” model. unity like “Peripheral Khoisan” holds more promise According to the scheme presented by Honken on than its application to an even more hypothetical p. 23, the “Khoisan unity”, still supported by a small “Khoisan” as a whole. handful of Greenbergians (such as Merritt Ruhlen), In fact, the idea of a “Peripheral Khoisan” as op- should rather be dissected into the following unre- posed to a “Khoe-Kwadi” family brings a whole new lated units: (a) Hadza (language isolate); (b) Sandawe light to the typological evidence and conclusions pre-

151 Book Reviews / Рецензии sented by Güldemann in Chapter 3 (“Typology”). In- larities). The point is well made, but it is also important cluded in the chapter are two extremely useful com- that the somewhat extreme “lumper” attitude of Joseph parative matrices, one of which deals with various Greenberg not be replaced by an equally extreme elements of morphosyntax, while the other compares “splitter” attitude: Honken, for instance, goes as far as the phonetic characteristics of various “Khoisan” lan- to put under doubt even the genetic relationship be- guages. Analysis of the matrices shows that morpho- tween !Ui and Taa (p. 19), simply because it is not easy syntactic parameters split the selected languages in to find shared morphology between the two language two categories: “Sandawe and Khoe-Kwadi on the one groups — despite the fact that basic lexical isoglosses hand vs. Tuu, Hoan, and Ju on the other” (p. 30), between Proto-!Ui and Proto-Taa number in the dozens whereas the phonetic matrix does not show any such (Starostin 2013), while morphological isoglosses be- splitting — at best, it singles out Hadza and Sandawe tween these languages are predictably harder to find as slightly more distinct from the “South African since, first of all, as Honken himself points out, most of Khoisan” type. the languages lack reliable grammatical descriptions Although Güldemann’s conclusion is that “…the and, second, since all !Ui-Taa languages, apart from distribution of some linguistic characteristics across some complex patterns of forming nominal plurals, Khoesan shows areal patterns not following genea- tend to have very little paradigmatic morphology at all. logical lines”, the results of the conducted typological Consequently, I believe that the reader should un- survey in general seem to be highly compatible with derstand that “Khoisan-internal” diversity, while un- the following historical scenario: deniably greater than could be surmised from browsing (a) disintegration of an original “Proto-Peripheral through the fifteen pages of the Khoisan section in Khoisan” (or “Non-Khoe”, which is Güldemann’s de- (Greenberg 1966), is still significantly smaller than signation for the typological unity of Ju-Hõã and !Ui- could be expected from a linguistic area that had thou- Taa), with the daughter languages retaining not only a sands (if not tens of thousands!) of years at its disposi- significant number of the protolanguage’s morphemic tion to multiply and diverge. Regardless of whether we stock, but many of its basic morphosyntactic charac- reduce that diversity to three families and two isolates, teristics as well; or to two “super-families” and one isolate (Hadza), this (b) disintegration of an original “Proto-Khoe-Kwadi”, lack of diversity remains a historical paradox, unex- or perhaps even “Proto-Sandawe-Khoe-Kwadi”, where- plainable properly even by linguistic assimilation upon upon the “Khoe-Kwadi” branch underwent some ty- the arrival of Bantu and then European speakers, that pological assimilation in the sphere of phonetics to its should be subject to further investigation. “Peripheral” areal surroundings, but has retained One can only hope that, perhaps, the long-awaited many of its original structural characteristics. arrival of the volume under review — most likely des- Under such a scenario, two main lines of research tined to become the default reference book on Khoisan could be undertaken — one that would strive to in- languages for quite a long time — will help aspiring crease and fortify the already assembled genetic evi- scholars stimulate some additional interest in resolving dence for “Peripheral Khoisan”, and another one that this paradox, as well as draw additional (and much re- would concentrate upon an exhaustive, well-annotat- quired) attention to the necessity of properly docu- ed inventarisation of isomorphisms between “Periph- menting the relatively few Khoisan languages that are eral” and “Central” Khoisan that should be explained still spoken today. by a prolonged history of language contact (even though the possibility remains that some of these iso- References morphisms could be indicative of an even deeper re- lationship — which requires setting up a complex Bleek, Dorothea F. Bleek. 1956. A Bushman Dictionary. American system of criteria to separate “certified” arealisms Oriental Series, vol. 41. New Haven, Connecticut. from items that could be explained ambiguously). Crawhall, Nigel. 2004. !Ui- shift in Gordonia and A common goal of Honken’s and Güldemann’s Postmasburg Districts, South Africa. PhD thesis submitted to chapters could be defined as trying to convince the the Faculty of Humanities, University of Cape Town. reader that, apart from the obvious argument that all Dickens, Patrick J. 1994. English-Ju’hoan, Ju’hoan-English diction- these languages share sub-systems of click phonemes, ary. Quellen zur Khoisan-Forschung/Research in Khoisan studies, Bd 8. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. there is really no “Khoisan” (“Khoesan”) as such — Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. The . Bloomington, i.e., that the internal diversity of “Khoisan” languages Indiana University; Mouton & Co., The Hague. largely exceeds their commonly shared elements (ty- Honken, Henry 1977. Submerged features and proto-Khoisan. pological features as well as morphemic / lexical simi- Khoisan linguistic studies 3. Ed. by Anthony Traill. Communi-

152 Rainer VOSSEN (ed.). The Khoesan Languages

cations from the African Studies Institute, no 6. Johannes- Аспекты компаративистики 3 (Orientalia et Classica: Тру- burg: University of the Witwatersrand, pp. 145–169. ды Института восточных культур и античности, vol. XIX). Honken, Henry. 1988. Phonetic correspondences among Khoisan Мoscow: RSUH Publishers, pp. 337–470. . In: New perspectives on the study of Khoisan. Ed. by Starostin, George. 2013. Jazyki Afriki. Opyt postrojenija leksikosta- Rainer Vossen. Quellen zur Khoisan-Forschung/Research in tisticheskoj klassifikacii. Tom 1: Metodologija. Kojsanskije jazyki Khoisan studies, Bd 7. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag, pp. 47–65. [Languages of Africa: an attempt at a lexicostatistical classification. Honken, Henry. 2006. Fused loans in Khoesan. Pula, 20/1, Vol. 1: Methodology. Khoisan Languages]. Moscow: Jazyki sla- pp. 75–85. vyanskoj kul’tury. Heine, Bernd & Henry Honken. 2010. The Kxʼa Family: A New Traill, Anthony. 1994. A !Xóõ dictionary. Quellen zur Khoisan- Khoisan Genealogy. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 79, Forschung/Research in Khoisan studies, Bd 9. Köln: Rüdiger pp. 5–36. Köppe Verlag. Sands, Bonny. 1998. Eastern and Southern African Khoisan. Evalu- Vossen, Rainer. 1997. Die Khoe-Sprachen: Ein Beitrag zur Erfor- ating Claims in Distant Linguistic Relationships. Ed. by Rainer schung der Sprachgeschichte Afrikas. Köln, Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. Vossen. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. Vossen, Rainer, Sabine Neumann, Christina Patriarchi, Margit Sands, Bonny. 2001. Borrowing & Diffusion as a source of lexical Rottland, Rainer Spörl, Beate Vagt. 1988. Khoe Linguistic similarities in Khoesan. Cornell working papers in linguistics, Relationships Reconsidered: The Data. In: New perspectives on 18, pp. 200–224. the study of Khoisan. Ed. by Rainer Vossen. Quellen zur Starostin, George. 2008. From Modern Khoisan Languages to Khoisan-Forschung / Research in Khoisan studies, Bd 7. Köln: Proto-Khoisan: the Value of Intermediate Reconstructions. In: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag, pp. 67–108.

153