Language Isolates and Linguistic Diversity
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Language Isolates and Linguistic Diversity Jean-Marie Hombert BLS 36 Berkeley, Feb 6-7, 2010 • 1. Isolates : How many? Where? • 2. Their importance • 3. Problem of time barrier in langage classification • 4. Why do we have Isolates? • 5. « Real » language isolates and polygenesis • Language Family : group of languages which have a common ancestor • Language isolate : language without linguistic relatives (single unit family) © http://ehl.santafe.edu/main.html Distribution of Language Families (from Campbell, 1998) Languages Families Americas > 2000 > 150 New Guinea > 750 > 60 Australia 250 > 60 Africa > 2500 > 20 Europe + Asia 37 Europe 3 Families, Isolates and Macro-Families Ruhlen WALS Nichols Campbell Families 17 37 > 250 > 250 Isolates 5 169 Wrong debate? • It could just depend on the time depth considered: –300 «groups» at 2000 BP –50 «groups» at 5000 BP –About 12 « groups » at 15000 BP 1. Localisation of language isolates Distribution of Isolates • Few Isolates in Africa • Many Isolates in (South) America • …and New Guinea 2. Importance of language isolates • Clearer image of classification of the world’s languages • Better understanding of langage dispersals • Adequate representation of linguistic diversity in sampling for typological studies • Priority list for study of endangered languages Isolates and African language classification • Afroasiatic • Laal • Niger-Congo • Shabo • Mande • Ongota • Nilo-Saharan • Dompo • Songhay • Mpre • Kadu • Bangi-Me • Coman • Cen Tuum • Ju • Hadza • Khoe-Kwadi • Tuu 3. The 10.000 to 100.000 years gap • Comparative method cannot detect linguistic relationships older than 8 or 10.000 years • Languages have been spoken for approximatively 100.000 years • Most historical linguists are pessimistic … • 20% of change in basic vocabulary/1000 years • Percentages of cognates between 2 languages – After 1.000 years : 64% – After 2.000 years : 41% – After 10.000 years : 1% A barrier at 10.000 BP… • Linguistic factors: – speed of lexical replacement • Non linguistic factors: – Demographic (Agriculture : Renfrew, Bellwood, Diamond) – Climatic • Thomason and Kaufman (1988) Language contact, creolization and genetic linguistics • Nichols (1992) Linguistic diversity in time and space • Dixon (1997) The rise and fall of languages • Nettle (1999) Linguistic diversity • McMahon and McMahon (2005) Language classification by numbers • Campbell and Poser (2008) Language classification: History and methods • Gray, Atkinson, Pagel • Holman, Wichmann New classfication methods • Use of phylogenetic algorithms in linguistic classification (IE, Austronesian, Bantu) • Application to language isolates (the case of Shabo) Shabo Beyond the comparative method • Nichols: evaluation of origin and diffusion of linguistic traits in geographical areas – accretion/residual zones (high structural diversity) – spread zones (low structural diversity)) Stable structural features (Nichols) • Head/dependent marking • Typological alignment (nominative-accusative, ergative, active) • Morphological complexity • Verb position • Inclusive/exclusive • Alienable/inalienable • Noun classes • Numeral classifiers • Number neutralization • Non-finite verbs • Voice Punctuated equilibrium (Dixon) • Dixon criticizes the family tree approach (importance of borrowings) • Equilibrium = extensive contact-induced diffusion • Punctuation = diversification into language families Stability of lexical items • Variable rate of change • Use of basic vocabulary • Fast changing rate erases deep historical links • Variable rate of change in basic vocabulary (Pagel) Resistant lexical items • IE : 87 languages, Swadesh 200 wordlist • One to 46 cognates/meaning (ratio rate 100) • Slow changing items : five, I, one, two, who • Frequency play a major role : frequently used words evolve at slower rates Rank Item Category Rank Item Category 1 FIVE Number 22 TO DIE Verb 1 I Pronoun 22 EYE Noun 1 THREE Number 22 HAND Noun 1 TWO Number 22 SUN Noun 1 WHO Pronoun 22 WATER Adj. 6 FOUR Number 27 FATHER Pronoun 6 ONE Number 28 DAY (NOT NIGHT) Noun 6 WE Pronoun 28 TO LIVE Verb 9 HOW Adv. 28 MOTHER Pronoun 10 NAME Noun 28 SALT Noun 10 TONGUE Noun 28 WHEN Adv. 12 NEW Adj. 33 FISH Noun 12 WHAT Adv. 33 HE Pronoun 14 EAR Noun 33 TO SIT Verb 14 NIGHT Noun 33 SMOKE Noun 14 THOU Pronoun 33 SNOW Noun 17 TO GIVE Verb 38 TO DRINK Verb 17 NOT Adv. 38 FOOT Noun 17 STAR Noun 38 IN Prep. 17 TOOTH (FRONT) Noun 38 LONG Adj. 17 WHERE Adv. 38 LOUSE Noun 43 BONE Noun Holman et al Holman et al Item Item (2008) (2008) 1. louse 21. skin 22. night 2. two 23. leaf 3. water 24. Rain 4. ear 25. kill 5. die 26. blood 6. I 27. horn 7. liver 28. person 8. eye 29. knee 30. one 9. hand 31. nose 10. hear 32. full 11. tree 33. come 12. fish 34. star 13. name 35. mountain 14. stone 36. fire 37. we 15. tooth 38. drink 16. breasts 39. see 17. you 40. bark 18. path 41. new 19. bone 42. dog 20. tongue 43. sun Loanword Typology Project Stability and borrowability • No good correlation between stability and borrowing. Why? – Borrowabilty more connected to geographical zones? – Database on borrowing too small to be representative? 3. Why do we have (or not have) language isolates? • Migrations • Role of agriculture Farming dispersal hypothesis • Agriculture and dispersal (IE, Austronesian, Bantu) • No agriculture, no dispersal (N Australian languages) • Agriculture, no dispersal ( Papuan languages) • No agriculture, dispersal (Eskimo-aleut, Athabaskan, Algonquian) Importance of agriculture • Drastic increase in population densities : ratio of 1 to 100 between HG and Agriculturalists 10 km2 to feed 1 HG 1 km2 to feed 10 A But - Different types of agriculture (NG) - Delay between start of agriculture and demographic effect (2000 years in Bantu area) - Transition from HG to A can be extremely long Diachronic ecology of languages • Where and when? • How many people? • How many languages? • Paleodemography Biraben Deevey Birdsell Hassan 4. Dynamics of language replacement • Population size – Access to food ressources • Place/time = environmental factors Access to mixed environments (water/land, forest/savanna) • « Technological » developments (hunting techniques, agriculture, animal domestication) • Language prestige/language resistance Environmental conditions New and old isolates • South America fairly recent migrations, no « invading » languages • New Guinea older migrations, no « invading » languages After Mellars 2006 Genetic mutations vs. Linguistic « mutations » • Study of human genome shows that early mutations of populations took place only in Africa • Linguistic mutations (changes) do not allow to retrace the history from the « beginning » Early traces of language use From biological and cultural data • Burials: intentional burials? offerings? • Sea- crossing : planning, raft construction • Homo sapiens in Australia at 60.000 BP Sea levels (from Bard & al., 1990) Topographic base: TerrainBase (Row & hastings, 1999) - 30m - 50m - 80m Possible migration paths 5. « Real » language isolates • Between 1% and 2% of the world’s languages are isolates • If a language family has 2 or 3 languages, is it « less interesting » than a single language family? • If we were able to detect very old linguistic affiliations, would we still have language isolates? • If the answer is positive, then we have polygenesis of Human language Polygenesis of key innovations • Several locations for the development of agriculture: – Middle-East, Papua New Guinea, Mexico, Andes, China (Huang He river) • Independent developments of several writing systems – Sumerian, Chinese and Egyptian ideograms → Polygenesis is assumed for some of the major steps in human evolution, why not for language ? An archaeological scenario supporting polygenesis? • If one considers that Homo sapiens populations in the Middle East did not have a modern language before 45,000 BP, and some other groups had one in southeastern Asia earlier, polygenesis of language would have occured . Results (1): small densities Monogenesis vs Polygenesis, d = 1e-4 100 90 Mono Pt/Pc = 0 Mono Pt/Pc = 1 80 Mono Pt/Pc = 5 70 Mono Pt/Pc = 10 Mono Pt/Pc = 50 60 Mono Pt/Pc = 100 Mono Pt/Pc = 500 50 Mono Pt/Pc = 1,000 40 Mono Pt/Pc = 10,000 Poly Pt/Pc = 0 Percentage 30 Poly Pt/Pc = 1 Poly Pt/Pc = 5 20 Poly Pt/Pc = 10 10 Poly Pt/Pc = 50 Poly Pt/Pc = 100 0 Poly Pt/Pc = 500 Poly Pt/Pc = 1,000 0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00 Poly Pt/Pc = 10,000 Pc x N x T Results (2): increasing density Monogenesis vs Polygenesis, d = 10e-2 100 Mono Pt/Pc = 0 Mono Pt/Pc = 1 90 Mono Pt/Pc = 5 80 Mono Pt/Pc = 10 70 Mono Pt/Pc = 50 Mono Pt/Pc = 100 60 Mono Pt/Pc = 500 50 Mono Pt/Pc = 1,000 40 Mono Pt/Pc = 10,000 Poly Pt/Pc = 0 Percentage 30 Poly Pt/Pc = 1 20 Poly Pt/Pc = 5 10 Poly Pt/Pc = 10 Poly Pt/Pc = 50 0 Poly Pt/Pc = 100 0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00 Poly Pt/Pc = 500 Poly Pt/Pc = 1,000 Pc x N x T Poly Pt/Pc = 10,000 Language universals or adequate cognitive potential • Stable linguistic features • Specific areal features (clicks) Mosaic construction • Anatomically Modern Man • Culturally Modern Man • Linguistically Modern Man ( Comment le Langage serait venu à l’Homme , JM Hombert et G. Lenclud, Fayard, to appear) • Thank you….