Date: 20-May-2009
From: David Erschler <erschlergmail.com>
Subject: Language Classification
E-mail this message to a friend
Discuss this message
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/19/19-2243.html
AUTHORS: Campbell, Lyle; Poser, William J.TITLE: Language ClassificationSUBTITLE: History and MethodPUBLISHER: Cambridge University PressYEAR: 2008
David Erschler, Independent University of Moscow, Russia
INTRODUCTIONThe book under review is decidedly polemical in character. It largely draws onearlier works by Campbell (Campbell 1997, Campbell 2003, Campbell 2004, andothers).
The book can be divided into three somewhat overlapping parts. The first one(chapters 2-6 and 8) deals with the history of language classification. Thesecond part (chapters 7, 9, and 12) discusses currently used methods of provinggenetic relationship and provides assessment of some proposed genetic groupings.The third part (chapters 10 and 11) addresses issues not immediately related tolanguage classification per se, namely, certain theories of language spread anddiversification. Chapters 1 and 13 are an introduction and a conclusion.
The book has an almost 11-page appendix listing some hypothesized distantgenetic relationships followed by a 92-page bibliography and a detailed index.
CRITICAL SYNOPSISAfter Chapter 1, an introduction setting the aims and the goals of the book,there follow Chapters 2 and 3, ''The Beginning of comparative linguistics'' and'''Asiatic Jones, Oriental Jones': Sir William Jones' role in the raise ofcomparative linguistics''. C&P review the early work in comparative linguisticsand quite convincingly show that, despite the widely held belief, neither wasSir William Jones the first to propose the existence of Indo-European, nor werehis views on this matter completely correct (for instance, he did not recognizemodern Indo-Aryan languages as Indo-European, due to their typologicaldifferences from Sanskrit.) His methods, insofar as he used systematic methods,were also not particularly clearly formulated in his writings. On the contrary,the methods of some of Jones' contemporaries and predecessors were actually moreprecise. In particular, C&P stress the role of Johannis Sajnovics, an 18thcentury Hungarian scholar, who worked on comparison of Saami (Lapp) andHungarian, in explicit formulation of criteria used for establishing geneticrelationships.
Chapter 4 ''Consolidation of comparative linguistics'' starts with a number ofencyclopedic entries on the work of some late 18th-19th century comparativelinguists (Kraus, Gyarmathi, Hervas y Panduro, Adelung, Vater, Schlegel, Rask,Grimm, Humboldt, Bopp, Schleicher). The section on Neogrammarians deals withrefuting Greenberg's (2005:158) dictum that ''as to how one actually classifieslanguages, both Neogrammarians and their opponents say almost nothing.'' Thehistorical excursus ends in the early 20th century by presenting themethodological views of Meillet.
Chapter 5 ''How some languages were shown to belong to Indo-European'' describeshow Hittite and Venetic were recognized as Indo-European (by Hrozny and Beeler,respectively), and how Armenian was determined by Huebschmann to constitute aseparate branch of this family. Much of the chapter is devoted to refutingGreenberg's statements about the methods used in this research. The chapterconcludes with a family tree of Indo-European on pP. 84-85 [identical to the onegiven in (Campbell 2004:190-191)].
Here I must admit that the choice of terminal nodes in this tree strikes me assomewhat arbitrary: on the one hand, some very close idioms, like Persian andTajiki, are shown as separate leaves, on the other hand, whole branches (Dardicand Nuristani) are altogether omitted. The latter may be for lack of space, butnevertheless one could wish for some consistency here.
The lengthy chapter 6, ''Comparative linguistics of other language families andregions'' describes the history of classification of several language families ofthe Old and New World and stresses that in most of these cases, vocabulary,sound correspondences, and morphological evidence were simultaneously taken intoaccount. The Eurasian language families discussed include Finno-Ugric andUralic, Semitic, Austronesian, Dravidian, and Sino-Tibetan. A rather detailedtree of Uralic is presented on p. 89.
However, the level of detail in the Uralic tree is, again, somewhat uneven: onthe one hand, Lude and Olonetsian are listed as separate languages, while on theother hand, the division of Mari (Cheremis) into Western and Eastern, as well asthe rather widely divergent dialects of Mansi (Vogul) and Khanty (Ostyak) arenot shown.
C&P proceed to the discussion of several American Indian language families(Eskimo-Aleut, Algonquian, Athabaskan, Uto-Aztecan, and Mayan). Discussing theclassification of African languages, C&P quote numerous sources casting doubt onthe validity of Greenberg's classification of African languages into four phyla:Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan, Khoisan, and Afroasiatic. The next section of thechapter deals with the classification of Australian languages. The authorsdescribe existing approaches to the problem, and express their conviction thatthe comparative method should be applicable to Australian languages as well. Onthe basis of the material presented, the authors conclude that in theestablishing of all non-contested linguistic relationships, more or less uniformcriteria were used.
In Chapter 7 ''How to show languages are related: the method'', the authorsdiscuss what are valid and invalid procedures for proving linguisticrelationship. The chapter is rather similar in its structure (and largely incontent) to chapter 7 of (Campbell 1997). Examples illustrating discussedmethods are drawn from actual research.
Chapter 8 ''The philosophical-psychological-typological-evolutionary approach tolanguage relationships'' is the last of the chapters dealing with the history ofthe discipline. It briefly reviews the 17th-19th century language theories thatrelated the typological profile of a language with the level of culture or raceof the speakers. They conclude that such approaches have virtually disappearedfrom linguistics since the work of Sapir (1921), Bloomfield (1933), and Pedersen(1962 [1931]).
Chapter 9 ''Assessment of proposed distant genetic relationships'' discussesseveral proposed groupings, beginning with Altaic, with or without Korean and/orJapanese, and (apparently long defunct) Ural-Altaic.
Conspicuously absent are any mentions of the fact that there existreconstructions of both noun and verb morphology at least on the Micro-Altaiclevel (that is, for Turkic, Mongolian and Tungussic), (Georg et al. 1998:84).The authors quote many works of opponents of the Altaic hypothesis, somepublished as early as in the 1930s, but, as the arguments of the proponents ofthe conjecture naturally become more refined in the course of time, I am notsure that ''the general recognition of the shakiness of the Altaic hypothesis'',p. 242, is convincingly demonstrated here.
C&P proceed to discuss various brands of Nostratic. They indicate the lack ofagreement among the proponents of the Nostratic theory as to which languagefamilies should be included in this macro-group, as well as the numerousproblems with cognate sets proposed by (Illich-Svitych 1971-1984) and (Kaiser &Shevoroshkin 1988). When discussing Illich-Svitych's etymologies (p. 246-250),C&P indicate that out of 378 Nostratic forms proposed by him, 26 are labeled byhimself ''descriptive'' (onomatopoetic, affective, sound-symbolic etc), 57 arelabeled dubious, 57 are very short (not longer than biphonemic), 55 aresemantically non-equivalent, and some are probably results of borrowing (noexact number is given in this case). However, they do not tell to which extentthese groups of doubtful cognates overlap. The 650 cognate sets of a competingNostratic reconstruction, that of Bomhard (Bomhard & Kerns 1994), are notdiscussed. Their conclusion about Nostratic is: ''[W]e seriously doubt thatfurther research will result in any significant support for this hypothesizedmacro-family.'', p. 264. After that C&P proceed to Greenberg's Eurasiatic andAmerind. Here their assessment of the proposals is also unequivocally negative,one of the numerous arguments being that ''As the arrangement of languages inthese (Greenberg's, DE) reveals, they were ordered to reflect a preconceivedclassification, and multilateral comparison was not used to arrive at thatarrangement'', p. 267. They present an amusing demonstration that Greenberg'smethods allow one to show that Japanese belongs to Amerind. Then P&C discussSapir's Na-Dene hypothesis, external connections of Dravidian languages, andthen provide a detailed critique of another Greenberg's proposal, theIndo-Pacific group. The conclusion is ''[W]e declare that the broaderIndo-Pacific hypothesis itself is a closed case that should now be abandoned,'',p. 296.
Chapter 10 ''Beyond the comparative method?'' deals with two approaches totreating the development of languages at great time depths, when the commonfeatures usually treated by historical linguistics disappear. These approachesare Nichols' theory (or rather research program) of diversity and stability(see, for instance, Nichols 2003) and Dixon's concept of 'punctuatedequilibrium' (Dixon 1997). C&P's assessment of both approaches is quitenegative: ''[I]t is valuable to take stock in order to eliminate sirens such asthese in which appear to promise much, but which divert efforts from moreproductive lines of investigation.'', p. 329.
It is not always clear to me that what the authors criticize is the state of theart of the corresponding theories.
Chapter 11 ''Why and how do languages diversify and spread?'' is devoted to acritique of several theories advanced so far to answer the question in the titleof the chapter. Those include in particular the ecological risk hypothesis of(Nettle 1999), the farming/language dispersal model of Renfrew, and variousworks linking the complexity of languages with societal factors.
Chapter 12 ''What can we learn about the earliest human language by comparinglanguages known today?'' describes attempts at reconstructing the 'Proto-World'language and argues that extremely little that is definite can be said orhypothesized about such a language.
Chapter 13 ''Conclusions: anticipating the future'' in particular gives a list ofsome once contested genetic relationships, which by now have become universallyaccepted. Notably, out of the 14 language groupings in the list, 8 are Amerindian.
EVALUATIONC&P provide very interesting and relatively little known data on the earlydevelopment of historical linguistics. A wealth of detailed references allowsreaders to make their own judgments about the issues discussed by the authors.The downside is that the book is very much not self-contained, and it is ratherhard to tell who exactly its target audience is and what the prerequisites forreading it are. On the one hand, the authors reiterate facts that are quitestandard for introductory courses of historical linguistics (e.g., thatsimilarity between the modern word-forms in two languages can be spurious); onthe other hand, they sometimes assume a rather detailed background knowledge(for instance, the discussion of Na-Dene on p. 280-282 seems to presuppose thatthe reader is aware of the Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit family).
Criticizing the use of short (CVC) words in multilateral comparison (p. 171),they quote a passage from Ringe (1999:219) giving probabilities of fortuitouscoincidences between such words. However, these figures require an explanationhow they are calculated. Such explanation is present in the paper, but therelevant part is not quoted, and it is impossible to make sense of them withoutconsulting the original paper.
Given the position of the Indo-European family and Proto-Indo-European as ''the''standard of language classification and linguistic reconstruction, it would havebeen quite instructive to have at least a brief sketch of the modern situationin the field. Also, it is sobering to realize the extent of controversies ragingeven in this well-established field. These controversies are largely glossedover by C&P, for instance, the differences between glottalic and non-glottalicreconstructions are only obliquely mentioned on p. 244 as being an obstacle tothe Nostratic reconstruction.
The book is not free from inaccuracies and inconsistencies. For instance, on p.342, the authors cite South and North Caucasian as the two examples of ''notundemonstrated, disputed proposals' proposals'' (sic, DE. I interpret this as'not' taking scope over 'undemonstrated, disputed') . While it is indeed truefor South Caucasian, for North Caucasian it is quite far from being the case,see for instance Schulze (1997). Thus North Caucasian is deprived of what Iwould suppose is its rightful place in the list of hypothesized distant geneticrelationships at the end of the book.
Having rejected glottochronology on p. 167, C&P nevertheless uselexicostatistical data to argue against Renfrew's views on p. 342.
To support their case against the Altaic theory on p. 236, they quote Greenberg,whose opinions otherwise they usually reject.
Criticizing Greenberg (p. 171) and Illich-Svitych (p. 249) for extensive use ofshort roots in their comparisons, C&P do not mention that a large number ofreconstructed proto-Sino-Tibetan roots (in Matisof 2003, which the authorsapparently accept as definitive, p. 114) are also no longer than triphonemic.(Of course I am not implying that Matisoff's work might be invalid, rather I amsuggesting that use of short roots cannot be taboo.)
p. 359: ''Eastern Armenian and Ossetic has (sic DE) added a series of glottalizedstops (under influence from Caucasian languages) so that now it (sic DE) has aninventory of twenty-nine consonants (...)'' Actually both languages have a numberof phonologically divergent dialects, and while indeed the number of consonantsin each of them is about 30 (precise figures are difficult to calculate becauseof the unclear phonemic status of some of the consonants), I do not understandhow the number 29 was obtained.
There are some inaccuracies in the index too: for instance, the same languagefamily is referred to as East Caucasian on p. 219 and as Nakh-Daghestanian on p.322, but no cross-reference is given. South Caucasian is called by this name onp. 342, and Kartvelian elsewhere, no cross-reference is given in this caseeither. Moreover, contrary to what is indicated in the index, Kartvelian is notmentioned on p. 243no5, p. 246, p. 252, and p. 254, (4 out 10 occurrences in theindex); Allan Bomhard's name does not appear on pp. 203, 246, and 249, (3 out of6 occurrences in the index).
To sum up, the book is extremely interesting and instructive as far as thehistory of the subject is concerned. However, I am less enthusiastic about therest of the book: whatever be the actual validity of theories and specificgenetic groupings criticized by C&P, I am afraid that I cannot always find theirarguments compelling. Nevertheless, due to the wealth of information presentedin the book, it is certainly of great interest for linguists dealing withlanguage classification issues in their work. It will certainly become one ofthe standard references on the subject.
REFERENCESBloomfield, Leonard. 1933. _Language_. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Bomhard, Alan R. and John C. Kerns. 1994. _The Nostratic macrofamily: a study indistant linguistic relationship_. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Campbell, Lyle. 1997. _American Indian languages_. Oxford et al.: OxfordUniversity Press.
Campbell, Lyle. 2003. How to show languages are related: methods for distantgenetic relationship. In Brian Joseph, Richard Janda (eds). _The Handbook ofHistorical Linguistics_. Oxford: Blackwell. 262-282.
Campbell, Lyle. 2004. _Historical linguistics: an introduction_. 2nd edition.Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Dixon, R.M.W. 1997. _The rise and fall of languages_. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Georg, Stefan, Peter A. Michalove, Alexis Manaster Ramer, Paul J. Sidwell. 1998.Telling general linguists about Altaic. _J. Linguistics_. 35, 65-98.
Greenberg, Joseph. 2005. Indo-Europeanist practice and American Indianist theoryin linguistic classification. In _Genetic linguistics: essays on theory andmethod by Joseph H. Greenberg_, ed. William Croft, 153-189. Oxford. OxfordUniversity Press.
Illich-Svitych, Vladislav. 1971,1976, 1984. _Opyt sravnenija nostraticheskixjazykov (semitoxamitskij, kartvel'skij, indoevropejskij, ural'skij,dravidijskij, altajskij_). [An essay of comparison of Nostratic languages(Semito-Chamitic, Kartvelian, Indo-European, Uralic, Dravidian, Altaic).] 3vols. Moscow: Nauka.
Kaiser, Mark and Vitaly Shevoroshkin. 1988. Nostratic. _Annual Review ofAnthropology_. 17.309-30.
Matisoff, James A. 2003. _Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: System and Philosophyof Sino-Tibetan Reconstruction_. Berkeley, California. University of CaliforniaPress.
Nettle, Daniel. 1999. _Linguistic Diversity_. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nichols, Johanna. 2003. Diversity and stability in language. In Brian Joseph,Richard Janda (eds). _The Handbook of Historical Linguistics_. Oxford:Blackwell. 283-310.
Pedersen, Holger. 1962[1931]. _The discovery of language: linguistic science inthe nineteenth century_. Bloomington, Indiana University Press.
Ringe, Donald. 1999. How hard is it to match CVC-roots? _Transactions ofPhilological Society_. 97:2. 213-244.
Sapir, Edward. 1921. _Language: an introduction to the study of speech_. NewYork: Harcourt, Brace.
Schulze, Wolfgang. 1997. Review of Sergej L. Nikolaev & Sergej A. Starostin, ANorth Caucasian Etymological Dictionary. _Diachronica_. 14:1, 149-162.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTSFor helpful criticism of earlier drafts of this review I am indebted to BarbaraH. Partee and Pavel Iosad.
ABOUT THE REVIEWERDavid Erschler has a PhD in Mathematics from Tel Aviv University, Israel. He isa lecturer at the Independent University of Moscow, Russia. His main interestsinclude Ossetic syntax, areal influences on Ossetic grammar, Uralic languages,and syntactic typology.
|