S chrryer - Proto-Human Language 53 A Proto-Human Language: Fact or Fiction? established will also be discussed with consideration of Proto-Human, and the The question of where and when idea that "all the languages spoken on anatomically modem humans emerged has earth (roughly 5,000...) are descendant of a long been a controversial issue in single ancestral language" (Ruhlen 1994b). anthropology. Evidence from many This paper will describe comparative different disciplines has been increasingly linguistics, and the many controversies useful in attempting to pinpoint the which are present in this type of study as origins of Homo sapiens in time and well as give examples of linguistic families place. As it is suggested that anatomical which have been compiled. It will also modems were the first humans to have look at genetic evidence, and the ability of the cognitive capacity for modem this to support the linguistic data. linguistic capabilities (Lieberman 1984), it Examples for and against the ability for may be plausible to use linguistic evidence comparative linguistics to compile a in analyzing this biological evolution. proto-language that encompasses all This is because one of the main tenets of human languages will also be discussed in historical linguistics is that "languages an attempt to determine how far these spread as people move" (Barbujani and studies are viable into the past. Pilastro 1993). In fact, Dolukhanov writes in his examination of the archaeological record that: Comparative linguistics, sometimes The advent of language in the called historical linguistics, is often used in Upper Paleolithic was a powerful attempts to link languages that have factor that through the similar cognates, phonology, and intensification of information grammatical structures together. These transfer both in time (from one languages which are grouped together are generation to the next) and space called language families, and are said to be (between neighbouring groups) linked genetically. The languages which drastically accelerated social and are related are then combined into proto- cultural evolution. (1993). languages, or languages which are "reconstructed out of the evidence that is The purpose of this paper is to determine acquired by the careful comparison of the whether or not linguistics can truly be daughter languages [or lower level used to uncover the origins of anatomical languages]" (Haas 1978). These proto- modem humans, or if there is a time limit languages are only estimations of original at which linguistic comparisons can no languages, however, because it is longer be made. This timeframe within impossible to know exactly which which linguistic comparisons can be characteristics from each daughter S chrryer - Proto-Human Language 54 language were present in the original Another problem in the field of language. Proto-languages of spoken or comparative linguistics is the basic recorded languages are fairly accurate assumption that comparisons "account for although estimations which move further similarities which cannot be attributed to away from the actual data are more chance"(Hock and Joseph 1996), and are distorted, and are therefore less therefore the result of a common demonstrable. This is one of the major ancestor. The controversy stems from a problems with comparative linguistics of belief that the cognates which deep-timeframes, and is an essential fact comparative linguists use are not a to remember when attempting to compile product of related languages,but are due an original languagewhich may have been to the processes of diffusion, borrowing, ancestral to all languages on earth and onomatopoeia. These aspects do although advocates of this theory such as occur, but are relativelyeasy to identify as Greenberg and Ruhlen do not seem to chance rather than the result of genetic realize this. Another problem with relations while lexical similarities which historical linguistics is the lack of an are systematic and recurring are more absolute chronology. likely to be due to relations as are the Colin Renfrew writes that, "there presence of idiosyncrasies in languages seems nothing, however, in the pattern of (Hock and Joseph 1996). Borrowing is linguistic change which would allow for the use of words from one language into the establishment of any kind of absolute another, and "will generally be found in chronology" (1990). He suggests that language families that are geographically linguists take it for granted that languages adjacent...(though prehistoric adjacency change at a constant rate, and that might be hard to judge)"(Nettle 1999). It theories based on this premise such as stands to reason then that languages that glottochronology are erroneous in nature. are geographically far apart will have less Glottochronology was a formula originally of a chance of having similarwords unless developed by Morris Swadesh in the they truly are related. Borrowing also 1960's as a means to "predict the history tends to be limited to certain parts of of the derivation from a common vocabulary which are often technical in ancestor of a group of interrelated nature. In contrast similar words which languages reduced to sample wordlists" are part of any basic vocabulary are likely (Guy 1980). It has fallen under universal to be the result of genetic relationships criticism, however, partially as a result of (Hock and Joseph 1996). Onomatopoeic "too much theorizing and little expressions or sounds of nature also tend experimenting" (Guy 1980). This still to be remarkably similar in languages leaves comparative linguistics without a which are not related as are "nursery model for chronology although there have words" or words "which adults assign to been many attempts to find one. There is the early babbling of infants" (Hock and also the question of w~ languageswould Joseph 1996). diverge at a constant rate when there are The higher the number of numerous reasons why they would not languages which can be compared results such as geographical location and in the probability of fewer chance isolation, population densities, and the similarities. However, using comparisons state of relations within the speech of too many languages can also be community. problematic as is seen in the criticisms of Joseph Greenberg's methods of mass 5 chrryer - Proto-Human Language 55 comparisons to create exceptionally large has not only reached the furthest proto-languages from families of geographical regions from which it came, languages which are combined into lower but also because it "shows greater internal level proto-languages. The mass differentiation" (Greenberg, Turner, and comparison or multi-lateral comparison Zegura 1986). The second migration is method establishes genetic affinities of the arrival of people who speak Na-Dene, languages through comparison of a large and who populated mostly the North number of languages on a fairly limited West coast of North America, and are basis (Hock and Joseph 1996). This is therefore geographically less peripheral related to one last criticism of comparative than the third language group of Eskimo- linguistics which is that much of the work Aleut. The arrival of the Na-Dene has been completed by one highly language group appears to be dedicated individual, and for work to be approximately 5, 000 years B.P. (Krauss more widely accepted it is necessary for 1973). The third migration which is movement beyond "the great scholar" probably the most recent around 4,000 B. (NettIe 1999). This is partially due to the P. is the one which coincides with the biases which individual researchers may linguistic family of Eskimo-Aleut, and bring to their comparisons. People with whose populations live in the different knowledge may come up with Northernmost part of North America. different results even when using the same The languages and genes of this linguistic methodology (NettIe 1999). group have been shown to have relationships with Asian populations. EXAMPLES OF PROTO- Amerind is the most controversial LANGUAGE of the groupings, and this is partially due to the fact that it contains the highest Greenberg has used his multilateral amount of language families. As well it is comparison method in the midst of much thought to be of the greatest antiquity. criticism to suggest that the Americas are There is also the controversy over the fact compiled of three different linguistic that Greenberg uses oral languages which groups each of which coincides with a have not all been extensively researched to separate migration into the New World. complete his comparison. Arguments Since traditional linguists suggest that against his method include the idea of comparisons of languages cannot be made Pan-Americanism which is the belief that realistically past 7,000 years they eliminate there is a similarity of words in North the possibility of genetic affmity between American languages simply due to American languages and populations with similarities between Native cultures. As Asian languages and populations as this well, the general belief which most predates the arrival of people into the linguists hold is that there is simply too New World. Greenberg's comparisons much to be compared, and that negate this notion, and support the Greenberg can not thoroughly compare relationship between the two groups of all of the languages which are classified as people. The first migration which he Amerind. Critics often point out errors in suggests took place approximately 11,000- transcription and other minor details to 12,000 years ago, and coincides with the suggest that Amerind is a poor quality proto-language of Amerind. Amerind is comparison although few have the believed to be the oldest language evidence which would suggest the whole migration into North America because it work was not credible. In fact Greenberg Schrryer- Proto-Human lAnguage 56 summanzes his article In Difense if may be the way to eliminate these doubts Amerind by quoting Lamb who writes, from the minds of many scholars "The volume calls for careful study and especiallywhen these other sources might for follow-up research.