Bijdragen Tot De Taal-, Land- En Volkenkunde 113 (1957), No: 1, Leiden, 70-91
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
H. Cowan Prospects of a ,,Papuan comparative linguistics In: Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 113 (1957), no: 1, Leiden, 70-91 This PDF-file was downloaded from http://www.kitlv-journals.nl Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:52AM via free access PROSPECTS OF A "PAPUAN" COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS n earlier occasions 1 I have expressed the opinion that better O knowledge and more intensive comparison of "Papuan" (non- Austronesian) languages might, as in the case of Amerindian, ultimately lead to a reduction of the complex pattern presented by their extreme diversity, notably in vocabulary. This opinion was based on the fact that there are certain grammatical and syntactical features which are found recurring time and again in languages that are geographically very far apart and are otherwise different both grammatically and lexically. I mean such features as the use of the incorporated prondun object, the use of postpositions instead of prepositions, the word-order in the sentence in general, etc. In the lexical field it was found that "sometimes one or two isolated words are found running nearly unchanged through many languages over wide areas, that by their nature can hardly be regarded as loan- words, e.g. the words for "water" and for "wood" in the Hollandia area (see my "De Austronesisch-Papoease taalgrens in de onderafdeling Hollandia" in Tijdschrift Nieuw-Guinea, Vol. 13, 1952, no. 4, p. 138). But this is exceptional and the great majority of words disagree".2 The last point raises the question of minimum evidence to prove genetic relationships, a question that has enjoyed some considerable attention lately in Amerindian comparative linguistics, notably by Morris Swadesh.3 It carinot be doubted that a "Papuan" comparative linguistics must include, if not for the time being largely rely upon, the comparison of vocabularies. Quite apart from the question whether comparison of grammatical structures alone will ever be sufficient to prove genetic 1 "Talenweelde en Taalproblemen in Nieuw-Guinea" (Schakels, uitgave Rijks- voorlichtingsdienst, no. 73, Febr. 19S4, pp. 3-4; "Ethnolinguistics and Papuan Etymology" (Oceania, Vol. XXV, 1954, p. 54); "Variability in New Guinea Languages" (.Oceania, Vol. XXV, 1955, pp. 214-5). 2 Oceania, XXV, p. 215, footnote. 3 M. Swadesh. "Perspectives and problems of Amerindian comparative linguistics" (Linguistics Today, being the equivalent of Word, Vol. X, no. 2-3, pp. 186 sqq.). Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:52AM via free access PROSPECTS OF A "PAPUAN" COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS. 71 relationship, there is the simple fact that for many languages only vocabularies and no grammars are as yet available. Also, apparent disagreement of grammatical structures does not disprove genetic relationship as is shown by (spoken) French with its largely prefixal conjugation and partly periphrastic tenses, when compared with its parent, Latin, that possessed a suffixal conjugation and exclusively suffixal tenses, or with its sister, Spanish, that has preserved the suffixal conjugation. In a case like (spoken) French — which may be significant for the situation in the Papuan field although this knowledge is not very helpful since diachronic data are lacking here unlike for French — the burden of evidence in synchronic comparative linguistics lies on the comparison of words. Morris Swadesh's methods of testing and proving linguistic relation- ships are almost entirely concerned with the comparison of words and would also supply a basis for the comparison of languages that have diverged widely. Being of a mathematical nature, based on the proba- bility calculus, their potential reliability is theoretically as great as the probability calculus permits, provided that certain disturbing linguistic and human factors are satisfactorily eliminated. These factors: sound- imitation, borrowing and too great eagerness on the part of the com- parativist, Swadesh seeks to eliminate by such means as excluding words like "blow", "breathe", "suck", "laugh"; by only using non- cultural words; and by limiting the comparisons to exact semantic equivalences. In this mahner Swadesh has worked out a 97 word relationship test list that has for Amerindian "never been found to contain more than two historical borrowings, even in languages which have been under strong and constant Spanish influence for four centuries. In most cases there is not even one borrowing among the 97 items".4 For relationships thus established Swadesh has also developed a method of measuring the time period during which the cognate languages have been diverging. It is based on what appears to be to Swadesh the sufficiently well established fact "that the every-day non-cultural voca- bulary tends to be replaced at an approximately constant rate".5 To * M. Swadesh, o.c, pp. 193-4. 6 M. Swadesh, "Archeological and linguistic chronology of Indo-European groups" (Amerian Anthropologist, Vol. LV, no. 3, 19S3, p. 349). Cf. also by the same author "Lexico-statistic dating of prehistorie ethnic contacts" (Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 96, 1952, p. 452-463). Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:52AM via free access 72 H. K. J. COWAN. this end a lexico-statistic list of 200 items was used and a divergente (time-depth) scale worked out.6 Although Swadesh's methods are undoubtedly helpful under favou- rable conditions, they have not been altogether well received by European linguists. They certainly call for caution when applied to situations substantially different from those for which they were first developed. Unfavourable situations occur when the languages to be compared have diverged very widely and are insufficiently known as to their phonological conditions. A very disturbing complication may arise when a language has a strong foreign admixture (substratum, superstratum or adstratum). The student of the Indo-Pacific regions will certainly be confronted with numerous difficulties of either kind. If languages have diverged very widely it may be so difficult to determine the word agreements between them that "proof" cannot be obtained even when, without our knowing it for want of knowledge of the rules governing the phonetic changes, the agreements really are there. Thus it would be impossible to recognize an agreement between e.g. Persian dil and English heart if IE linguistics had not previously worked out the rules of phonetic change in these languages. It is obvious that this point affects the reliability of the percentages of agreements found which form the basis both for proving relationship and measuring its degree.7 In the case of a strong foreign admixture in a language this may affect even the non-cultural vocabulary to such an extent that it may 6 See for the former Swadesh, Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 96, p. 456, and M. Swadesh, "Amerindan non-cultural vocabularies", 19S4 — mimeograph publication); for the latter see Ling.Today, p. 206. 7 According to Swadesh's divergence scale the general characteristic of relationship on the dialect (language) leved is mutual intelligibility of local farms; the cognate percentage for his level is 81-100. It is clear, however, that agreements of the type of Persian dil: English heart will never mean mutual intelligibility even if they numbered more than 81 %. Thus it could be maintained that of Swadesh's 97 word test list only 17 English words do not have a straight agreement with Dutch, viz. bark, belly, big, black, cloud, die, meat, road, root, skin, smoke, snake, stab, tail, tree, walk and wing; at least if we compare Eng. leaf with the more or, less "stilish" but perfectly good Du. loof instead of everyday Du. blad, Eng. many with Du. menig instead of Du. •veel which are both normal, and Eng. heavy with Du. hevig instead of swaar (Eng. thou is almost obsolete in English and quite lost in Dutch). This would mean that there are more than 83 % agreements between English and Dutch, but everybody knows that there is no mutual intelligibility between the two. Between Dutch and German the percentage would be even greater without, however, producing any more mutual intelligibility. Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:52AM via free access PROSPECTS OF A "PAPUAN" COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS. 73 seem possible tó draw conclusions concerning genetic relationships that can only be shown to be wrong if comparison of the indigenous part of the vocabulary with true genetic relatives is possible. If for some reason or other this possibility does not exist, it is obvious that false conclusions are easily made without our knowing them to be false. Thus even in Malay, whose traceable foreign admixture is mostly due to cultural borrówing from Sanskrit, Arabic, Portuguese, Dutch and English, at least 7 words of the non-cultural 97 word list are Sanskrit loanwords or (the last one) comparable to Skr. words, viz. semua, "all"; mega, "cloud" (but also awan); kepala, "head";. nama, "name"; kata or bicara, "say"; biji, "seed" (Skr. wijd); and dua, "two". If by some chance no other Austronesian languages had survived or if we did not know them, and if we did not take into account other aspects, such as grammatical structure, Swadesh's theory would justify us to assume a genetic relationship between Malay and Sanskrit which would, according to his divergence scale, be on the "microphylum" level. *** A much more complicated case is presented by the Achehnese language of North Sumatra and its close relative the Cham language of Indo-China. An analysis of the vocabulary of Achehnese shows that a considerable number of words belonging to the test list agree with the Mon-Khmer languages. of Birma and Indo-China, while a much larger number of words agree with Austronesian, particularly Malay, Now no MK languages are spoken in Sumatra and Achehnese has for centuries undergone and is still undergoing strong Malay influences through general education and because Malay is, with Arabic, the medium of Islamic religious teaching.