linguistlist.org>
Editor for this issue: Martin Jacobsen <martylinguistlist.org>
fs.tufs.ac.jp>> One of my concerns is that comparative linguistics appears to be > taught less and less in certain countries, esp. the United States, > where numerous leading comparativists have died or retired and their > positions have been abolished or dedicated to theoretical or other > noncomparative linguists. It is especially language families other > than IE that seem to be suffering, but the same applies to the fate > of IE studies at at least one of the (if not the) best placethere > once was for IE linguistics in the U.S. I strongly share Manaster's concern for the current state of historical linguistic studies in the U.S. and elsewhere, and for the lack of attention paid to non-IE families. But having read several of his postings here and on other lists, I feel that his apparent obsession with GENETIC classification is both bizarre and anachronistic. The goal of historical linguistics is to answer two questions: What can langauge change tell us about language and what can langauge data tell us about historical movements and contacts among different populations. The classic genetic tree model of the nineteenth century reflects only ONE type of historical situation-- that where a population speaking a more or less homogeneous language splits into two or more groups which then separate to the point that they completely and permanently lose contact with each other. But based on more modern research on sociolinguistic variation, dialectology, creoles and pidgins, and language contact, we have to conclude that the situation envisaged by the classic genetic model is by no means the most common or typical situation. That is why many historical linguists feel that rather than try to force the data into an inadequate model-- that is to force all langauges into bigger and bigger langauge families-- it might be more worthwile to try to develop relationship models which deal realistically with contact and variation. As a specialist in Semitic (and one of the few Semiticists to have published on Afroasiatic issues) , I let me first comment on the following: > For example, there is now > apparently almost a consensus among Semitic scholars who are > not linguists but who of course do a lot of language work > that reconstruction of protolanguages is fiction, and worse > there are now textbooks of Semitic "linguistics" and other > sources which question or deny the validity of the relation- > ship between Semitic and the other Afro-Asiatic languages > (Egyptian, Berber, Cushitic, and Chadic). This is at best a gross exaggeration. Semitics is an admittedly unusual field within historical linguistics. Although Semitic was the first language family recognized (pre-dating Jones's discovery of IE, by about 900 years), Neo-grammarian principles were never fully embraced by Semitists.Hence one does see, particularly in the older literature, or particularly in the Italian school, references to "Common Semitic" rather than "Proto-semitic," indicating some sort of agnosticism about the notion of proto-languages. But I don't think this is a consensus view by any means. The consensus among linguistically oriented Semitists, certainly among those working in or trained in North America is in favor of the hypothesis of proto-Semitic and proto-Afroasiatic. But there is something of a division between philologically-oriented and linguistically-oriented Semitists. Ideally this is a cooperative and necessary division of labor. But sometimes it may become an unproductive rivalry. Certainly we linguistics recognize that we depend upon the philogists, but some philogists perhaps don't realize the value of theoretical explicitness and methodological rigor in comparative work. There are however two sides to this problem. Yes, Semitists have been slow to adapt the rigorous methods of IE research. But, on the other hand, the standard models of language relationship and language change are much too IE-centric. Some aspects of these models-- including models of subclassification and models of morphological change-- really don't work well for Semitic. So while Semiticists do have a responsibility to try to apply these models, general historical linguists do have a responsibility to take into account data from Semitic which doesn't fit these models and to try to modify the models accordingly. > Likewise, many > general linguists and others "know" from sources such as > Johanna Nichols' book from a few years ago that the Altaic > theory has been conclusively refuted and is now dead, but > almost no one outside the circle of scholars who actually > work on these languages knows that there are actually > many more proponents of Altaic now than there were in > the 1960's, when the great Altaic debate raged, or that > one of the two or three leading opponents of Altaic, > Janhunen, has just recently announced what appears to > be an endorsement of the relationship between Mongolic > and Tungusic, which is a part of the Altaic theory. I assume that Manaster is referring here to the book "linguistic diversity in space, and time," in which case he is seriously misrepresenting what Nichols says about Altaic. As I read her, Nichols nowhere says that the hypothesis of an Altaic family has been refuted. Rather she says that many scholars are now considering the possiblitiy that the similarities among so-called Altaic languages may be due to something other than a classic genetic relationship-- i.e. they may be due to shared typological properties or to areal contact. If this what she means, she is perfectly right. I can attest to this, although I am no specialist, because I have had the privilege over the last year to participate in a series of workshops on "Altaic" languages organized at our university under the chairmanship of the Turkologist Lars Johanson, involving specialists in Turkic, Tungusic, Mongolian, as well as languages or families in contact with "Altaic" languages such as Uralic, Slavic, and Semitic (the last represented by me). The stated position of the chairman was that the "Altaic" family remains an open question. And none of the members seemed particulary interested in arguing for or against the genetic grouping. Rather, what everyone was interested in, and the official theme of the panel was "Contact induced changes in peripheral 'Altaic' languages." In short language contact and typological universals are interesting areas of research right now, and until we know more about these things arguing for or against an Altaic family is utterly pointless. Finally it seems to me that Manaster has falsely presented himself as a representative of the historical linguistics community-- first addressing issues which are of legitmate interest to most members of that community-- then launching into an obscure attack on members of that community who don't share his interests or opinions. Historical linguists must indeed try to interact with specialists in other sub-fields of linguistics. But I don't see how we can do it if we commit ourselves monomaniacally to an outdated pseudo-Darwinian model of language relationships, and ignore the work of sociolinguists, dialectologists, pidgin/creole specialists, typologists, and theorists of all stripes interested in language universals. - +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Robert R. Ratcliffe Senior Lecturer, Arabic and Linguistics, Dept. of Linguistics and Information Science Tokyo University of Foreign Studies Nishigahara 4-51-21, Kita-ku Tokyo 114 JapanMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
worldnet.att.net>Dear LINGUIST: I could not agree more wholeheartedly with Manaster-Ramer on these remarks. The a priora assumptions of many linguists are interfering with their practice of real science! Pat Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Message 3: Historical-comparative work
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 11:07:06 -0500
From: Henry M. Hoenigswald <henryh
Subject: Historical-comparative work
This is a comment on Manaster's message. Historical-comparative linguistics has been a superbly practiced, internally consistent, testable, progressing (e.g. Indoeuropean, Algonquian, Uralian.. ) but chronically misstated endeavor: see Anna M. Davies, La linguistica dell'ottocento (now also in English), not to mention Saussure's complaint a century ago to the effect that he had to spend time and pain telling his colleagues "what it is they do". Comparative-historical linguists have been their own worst enemies for a long time. Proposing superfamilies on impressionistic grounds is no substitute for constructing them on better grounds. Henry M. Hoenigswald 908 Westdale Avenue Swarthmore PA 19081-1804 USA Telephone: (610) 543-8086 e-mail: <henryhMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue