H. Steinhauer Austronesian Geographical Prospects In

H. Steinhauer Austronesian Geographical prospects In: Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 142 (1986), no: 2/3, Leiden, 296-313 This PDF-file was downloaded from http://www.kitlv-journals.nl Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:42:55AM via free access HEIN STEINHAUER AUSTRONESIAN GEOGRAPHICAL PROSPECTS While linguistic geography with regard to Western European languages is developing towards ever greater sociolinguistic and geographical detail in its endeavours to map linguistic change in progress and to reveal the linguistic past, large parts of the rest of the world are virtually blank spots. The necessity to improve upon this deplorable state of affairs is underlined by the recent publication of S. A. Wurm and Shiro Hattori (eds.), Language Atlas of the Pacific Area. Part I, New Guinea Area, Oceania, Australia, Pacific Linguistics C-66 (1981); Part II, Japan Area, Philippines and Formosa, Mainland and Insular South-east Asia, Pacific Linguistics C-67, 1983. The area covered by this atlas extends over about one third of the world and comprises some of the linguistically most diversified regions. For few of the languages involved do detailed dialectological surveys exist; for many there are at least preliminary outlines and wordlists available; but of far too many hardly anything is known beyond the name. Language maps only existed for a limited number of areas. This atlas is therefore in many respects a pioneering work. The two parts together cover the whole of the "Greater Pacific" area. Each is divided into sections. Part I consists of one index map, fourteen maps of the New Guinea area (one survey map and three more detailed maps of Irian Jaya, one survey map of Papua-New Guinea and nine maps covering separate parts of it), five maps of Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia, four maps of Australia and Tasmania, and one additional map relating to pidgins and lingue franche in the area covered by this part. Part II includes one general map of language groups in the Greater Pacific area, four maps of the Japan area, one map of Formosa, four maps of the Philippines, three maps of mainland Southeast Asia, eight maps of insular Southeast Asia, and two additional maps, one for the pidgins, Creoles and lingue franche in the area covered by Part II, and one showing the distribution of varieties of Chinese in the Greater Pacific area. Each section has a general introduction, as well as an index to the names of the dialects, languages and language groups covered by the map or maps of that section. On the reverse side of each non-survey map the languages and dialects indicated on that map are listed according to Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:42:55AM via free access Austronesian Geographical Prospects 297 the way in which they are subgrouped; in addition an indication is given of the estimated current number of speakers, and often also of alternative names, as well as of whether the same dialect, language or group extends to an area covered by another map. Furthermore, the sources upon which each map is based are accounted for in an introductory paragraph and bibliography. Thus the atlas supplies the user interested in a specific area with a preliminary bibliography and a means of evalua- ting the information presented. Finally, the language lists are provided with footnotes varying from remarks on alternative names, subgrouping and sociolinguistic position to observations on the history of the dialect, language or language group in question. With one exception (the Japan area, see below), the atlas does not compare structural linguistic items, but aims at a representation of the geographical distribution of dialects, languages and language groups of varying hierarchical status. As such it is subject to the limitations of social geography in general. Not only is a detailed illustration of sociolinguistic stratification precluded by the two-dimensional character of the maps, but this dimensional restriction also necessitates the delinea- tion of unwarrantedly sharp and absolute boundaries. On some of the maps uninhabited areas are distinguished from inhabited ones, but nowhere are the criteria indicated for deciding how densely and evenly populated an area had to be in order to be qualified as inhabited and consequently as "speaking" one or more particular languages. The atlas makes use of a variety of different boundaries, the relative weight of which has been established by reference to rather hetero- geneous criteria. Only for the map of the dialects of Japanese (map 27) have purely qualitative criteria been applied. In the case of the Poly- nesian group it was "bibliographical transparency" which was decisive for the differentiation of languages and dialects: when a communalect appeared with some persistency in the literature it was given language status, even though according to other criteria it appropriately belongs with other such languages to a dialect chain. With regard to the subgrouping of Austronesian languages it is said that the atlas "relies more heavily on historical and comparative linguistic observations" (cf. the blue introductory sheet for Island Melanesia, Micronesia and Poly- nesia), i.e. more heavily than in the case of the other language groups. In respect of the Australian languages it is observed that lexicostatistical methods are less reliable because of the instability of their basic lexicon, so that (in unspecified cases) grammatical differences have been weighed more heavily than lexical ones (cf. the blue introductory sheet for the section on Australian languages). Similar arguments underlie the current classification of Papuan languages (cf. Wurm & McElhanon 1975, pp. 148-149). Yet, in the absence of sufficient reliable analyses of many of the Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:42:55AM via free access 298 Hein Steinhauer languages covered by the atlas, quantitative, lexicostatistical calcula- tions are necessarily the only basis for the classification indicated. In a number of instances the compilers of the atlas must have faced a total lack of data; a subgrouping and classification have nonetheless been given in these cases, apparently on the basis of geographical likelihood. The uncertain status of some of the classifications is reflected also by the indication of possible alternatives (cf., for instance, the subdivision given in the listing on the reverse of map 12 and the radically different subgrouping presented in note 4 to that map: what according to the listing represent a "family" belonging to "stock" A, and two "stock- level" groups from a "superstock" B to which A does not belong, in the note are described as forming a single new stock Q distinct from the rest of A and B). The fact that examples of such indecisiveness are rare seems to be a reflection, not so much of the indisputability of most of the other classifications, as of a lack of data and discussion with respect to the languages in question. The terminology used for the various subgroups of, for instance, Papuan languages (e.g., phylum, stock, group or family, etc.) is explained on more than one occasion in terms of lexicostatistical percent- ages and accompanying typological and grammatical correspondences. The terms for lower-order groups such as the section, sub-section and sub-sub-section (all coming below the subgroup) are not explained at all, however. These latter terms occur in, for instance, maps 19 and 45. In some instances the classification method gives rise to questions. This is the case in, for example, the key to map 6, where the following items are found: Waho Family/ Schultze Sub-Phylum-level Stock vs. Papi Family ^ Leonard J Pondo Family^ Nor-Pondo^ Nor-Pondo Sub-Phylum-level Stock Nor Family ) Stock ) (sic). For the Australian area often higher-level groups are distinguished (sometimes even with a different name) even though they have only one lower-level member. Above, I indicated that the atlas had to largely generalize from sociolinguistic detail. The scales of the maps necessarily entail general- izations of a geographical nature as well. This is the case, for instance, for Mainland Southeast Asia, where the distribution of ethnic groups is conditioned by ecological and topographical factors, so that the distribution of a given language may be linked with certain altitudinal zones, rather than with a particular uninterrupted geographical area. The resul- tant picture, generalized though it may be, of an area full of pockets within pockets is complicated enough, however (cf. map 35). But there are also other "distortions" of present-day reality which have been consciously carried through by the editors of the atlas. The Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:42:55AM via free access Austronesian Geographical Prospects 299 most conspicuous is the decision to disregard immigrant languages which accompanied European expansionism. The only exception concerns the varieties of Chinese in the Pacific area, to which a separate map (map 47) is devoted, though their occurrence here can be regarded as a local, intra-Pacific development, independent of European colonialist activi- ties. Likewise regarded as a local development - and therefore accounted for — is the rise of pidgins and Creoles, including those based on Hindi (in Fiji) and on European languages (cf. maps 24 and 46). The maps covering Australia and New Zealand, however, present a reconstruction of the "pre-contact" linguistic situation in those areas. Additionally the inset of map 37 of the Andaman Islands is a reconstruction, namely of the situation obtaining before the large-scale immigra- tion from mainland India brought about the extinction of most of the aboriginal languages. Map 30 (of Formosa), although it does indicate which aboriginal languages have been sinicized, does not give any information on the spread or the varieties of Chinese spoken there (nor is Taiwan included in the above-mentioned map 47).

Load more