Aikhenvald, Alexandra and Robert M. W. Dixon, ed. (2001) Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics, Oxford University Press.
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/13/13-307.html
Nicoletta Puddu, Dipartimento di Linguistica, University of Pavia
SYNOPSIS
This book proceeds from an International Workshop on ''The connection between areal diffusion and the genetic model of areal relationship'' held at the Research Centre for Linguistic Typology at the Australian National University in 1998.
As the editors say in the preface, the ''position paper'' was Dixon's ''The rise and Fall of Languages''. In this essay, Dixon proposes his ''punctuated equilibrium'' model, which is summarized in the introduction. He argues that, during periods of equilibrium, cultural and linguistic features are more likely to diffuse. On the other side, when one ethnic group expands, we have a punctuation and, in this case, languages tend to split. Consequently, the family-tree model is supposed to be an appropriate tool only to describe periods of punctuation. However, papers in the volume also deal with other questions, which are summed up in the introduction. They mainly concern the definition of linguistic areas, the types of language contact and the possibility to establish a borrowing hierarchy. The editors also provide an overview of the volume and a list of desiderata for future research.
In his paper ''Archaeology and the Historical Determinants of Punctuation in Language-Family Origins'', Peter Bellwood discusses Dixon's punctuated equilibrium model of language-family origins in comparison with a punctuated-equilibrium model of agricultural dispersal. He supports the hypothesis of an early agricultural stimulus for language family genesis, assuming that language dispersal requires a substantial movement of native speakers. Middle East and China are, in his opinion, the clearest cases of parallel spreading of languages and agriculture. Bellwood also adds some data from Africa and America and, in particular, from Uto-Aztecan. He suggests that ''Indo-European, like Austronesian, Bantu and Uto- Aztecan, has its remote origins in an episode of punctuated population expansion which can be associated with the regional beginnings of a systematic agriculture'' (Bellwood, 42).
Calvert Watkins (''An Indo-European Linguistic Area and its Characteristics: Ancient Anatolia. Areal Diffusion as a Challenge to the Comparative Method?'') discusses Dixon's model in relation to Indo- European, with particular reference to ancient Anatolia. As he points out, Indo- European is usually considered the ''laboratory'' for the traditional comparative method, but actually it is also a very interesting field for areal studies. A case in point is ancient Anatolia, where Indo-European languages like Hittite and Luvian came into contact with non Indo-European languages like Hattic, Old Assyrian and Hurrian. Watkins argues that the languages of Anatolia show common innovations, both in phonology and in morphosyntax. As for phonology, we can find phenomena of convergence in the evolution of the system of stop consonants, in the preservation of Indo-European laryngeals, and in the development of the vowel system. As for morphosyntax, split ergative system, development of enclitic chains of particles and anaphoric pronouns after the first stressed word of the sentence and the use of phrase connectors to link all sentences of a discourse are found only in the Anatolian subgroup within the Indo-European family. However they are present, in varying degrees, both in Hattic and Hurrian. As a matter of fact, these convergent innovations took place between 2200 and 1900/1700 BC. It is indeed a quite short period and that, however, languages still retained their individuality. He also deals with phenomena of language contact between Greek and Anatolian, where there is ''diffusion from one Indo-European group to another, without the ultimate development of a real linguistic area'' (Watkins: 56). At least, he discusses Heath's (1997) model of language change, where, in contrast to Dixon's terminology, the ''equilibrium'' is referred to situation of static monolingualism, while the ''punctuation'' occurs under intense language contact. He concludes that ''Both genetic families and diffusional areas would have their own distribution of rapid abrupt and slow gradual change, and here we might see sequences of punctuation and equilibrium as well'' (Watkins: 63).
R. M. W. Dixon views Australia as a large linguistic area (chapter 4, ''The Australian Linguistic Area''). According to his reconstruction, once Australia was completely populated it was characterized by an equilibrium situation with no major punctuation. He lists recurrent features of Australian languages, and he claims that, within an area, categories, structures and construction types diffuse more than actual forms. He indicates the tendency of Australian languages to assimilate contiguous segments as a case in point. Then, he discusses two parameters of variation as example of cyclic movement within the Australian area: the verbal organization and the development of bound pronouns. Finally, he identifies 37 low-level subgroups, due to minor punctuations in the recent past, and some small ''relic'' linguistic areas. In the appendix he discusses the ''Pama-Nyungan idea'', claiming that ''it cannot be supported as a genetic group. Nor is it a useful typological grouping, in that it relates to just one typological parameter'' (Dixon: 97).
Still on Australia, Alan Dench examines the linguistic situation in the Pilbara Area (''Descent and Diffusion: The Complexity of the Pilbara Situation''). This area is identified as a distinct ecological region with respect to the neighbouring areas. Twenty languages are spoken in the Pilbara area, and there is a close relationship between ecological regions and linguistic subgrouping. The Pilbara people also share cultural features, and this implies that there was a long contact between the people within the area. Moreover, exogamy favours multilingualism, even if there is a strong tradition of linguistic integrity, because languages are deeply related to particular areas. None of the researches carried out so far, with the lexicostatistic method, the typological method, and the comparative method, have proved that Pilbara languages represent a genetic unity. Dench considers various features within this group, like phonological innovations, morphophonemic alternations and case-marking patterns, concluding that ''none of the shared innovations described in this chapter can be considered conclusively to be innovations arising in a single ancestor'' (Dench: 131). Rather, these innovations seem to have diffused through contact. Dench finnally points out how difficult it is, in cases like the Australian one, to identify even low-level subgroups.
Malcolm Ross discusses ''Contact-Induced Change in Oceanic Languages in North-East Melanesia''. After a brief introduction on the Oceanic language family, he studies more in detail the case of Takia (Oceanic) and Waska (Papuan), both spoken on the island of Karkar, in Papua New Guinea. Takia has undergone a process of ''metatypy'', due to his prolonged contact with Waskia, so that its bound morphology and its lexicon are still Oceanic, but its syntax has converged towards Papuan. Metatypy, according to Ross's definition, refers to a change of linguistic type, but it does not imply the borrowing of forms. It occurs where a group's speakers are polilectal and if a group is open and tight-knit. It implies different steps: semantic reorganization, morphosyntactic restructuring, phrasal restructuring and, finally, reordering of word-internal structure. Lexical borrowing and phonological assimilation may accompany metatypy, but not necessarily. Because of metatypy, Takia diverged from its family through language contact and this can be represented in the form of a family tree. Ross then discusses Dixon's punctuated equilibrium, concluding that the family-tree model can also be used during an equilibrium period. He then drafts a typology of contact-induced changes, based on a paradigm of parameters stated in Ross (1991, 1997). In his theoretical framework, metatypy is clearly distinguished from creolization and imperfect shift, so that it can be defined as an individual type of contact-induced change.
Alexandra Y Aikenwald deals with problems of subgrouping within an Amazonian area (''Areal Diffusion, Genetic Inheritance, and Problems of Subgrouping: A North Arawak Case Study''). She sketches the linguistic situation of the Amazon basin, which comprises around fifteen linguistic families. They are highly discontinuous, so that it is always very tricky to distinguish which features are inherited and which are due to areal diffusion. She is concerned with the Arawak family, spoken in six location south of the Amazon and eleven north. She briefly describes Common Arawak grammar and lexicon, then she focuses on North Arawak languages and presents two case studies. Grammatical system of Tariana (North Arawak) spoken in the Vaupés basin, is influenced by East Tucano (Tucano). However, there is no lexical borrowing because of cultural inhibition against lexical loans in this area. On the other side, Resígaro (North Arawak), an endangered language spoken in the north-eastern corner of Peru, shows a large number of borrowings from Bora (Bora-Witoto), which has also strongly influenced its grammar. Bora-Witoto-Resigaro share some features with the languages of Vaupés (Tariana and Tucano). Aikhenvald argues that this can be due to areal diffusion, since in the past they were geographically closer than today. She concludes that there is no evidence to consider all the North Arawak languages as a genetic group, but that there is ''a limited stock of genetically inherited morphemes, overlaid by vast influxes of areally diffused patterns, due to intensive and prolonged contact with neighbouring languages'' (Aikhenvald: 190). Areal diffusion in the North Amazon is then explained through Dixon's model of punctuated equilibrium.
Geoffrey Haig examines contact induced changes in East Anatolia (''Linguistic diffusion in Present-Day East Anatolia: From Top to Bottom''). Languages belonging to four different families (Indo- European, Kartvelian, Semitic and Turkic) are spoken in this area. After the First World War, Turkish has become the only official language, so that minority languages have become more and more subjected to its influence. Haig focuses his attention on the influence of Turkish on Laz (Kartvelian), Kurmanjî Kurdish and Zazaki (both Iranian). These four languages differ considerably in their typological features. However, there are several common structural parallels within them, like the use of complementizer ''ki'', the structure of ''nevertheless''-type clauses, the structure of ''either...or'' constructions, ''neither-nor'' constructions etc. He also discusses some discourse level parallels, such as the use of the enclitic topic-switch marker and expressive reduplications. Haig examines then the exits of Turkish influence on the grammatical domains of the three minority languages mentioned above. He concludes that ''different contact outcomes may be due to differing grades of structural compatability (sic!) between Turkish and the minority languages'' (Haig 210). As a matter of fact, the high degree of structural compatibility between Turkish and Laz has determined a stronger influence of Turkish on Laz than on Kurmanjî Kurdish and Zazaki. Haig argues that, in many cases of language contact, we find ''a clearly discernible drift towards structural isomorphism, a realignment of various constituents to bring them into line with comparable elements in the contact language'' (Haig: 218). He calls this process ''linear alignment'' and distinguishes it from Ross's ''metatypy''. He argues that linear alignment starts at the discourse level and progresses down through clause coordination, subordination and constituent order. He finally discusses east- anatolian data within this perspective.
Chapters from 9 to 12 are dedicated to the South-East Asia.
Randy La Polla discusses ''The role of Migration and Language Contact in the Development of the Sino-Tibetan language family''. His paper clearly shows how contact and migrations have been important in the history of Sino- Tibetan. He gives a detailed account for the history of migrations in China. Massive movements of Sinitic speakers within China have deeply influenced the geography of Chinese varieties, but also the migrations of non-Chinese speakers into China have determined further changes in Sinitic varieties (see, for instance, the Altaicization of Northern Chinese). As for the Tibeto-Burman group, he recalls Matisoff's (1990) distinction between Indosphere and Sinosphere, and traces the lines of migration of the Tibeto-Burman speakers. He describes the complex sociolinguistic situation of this area and the mutual influence between Tibeto-Burman languages and their neighbours. Then, he stresses the importance of considering cultural and cognitive classes alongside to linguistic classes. He gives a series of interesting examples which show how, depending on the intensity of the contact, speakers can simply borrow a form to their way of thinking or can change the way they conceptualise events. He concludes remarking the impossibility of classifying Sino- Tibetan languages only through a tree-model and, consequently, the importance of taking into account language contact.
In his paper ''On Genetic and Areal Linguistics in Mainland South East- Asia (MSEA): Parallel Polyfunctionality of 'acquire''', N. J. Enfield approaches an area which comprises Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Peninsular Malaysia, parts of North east India and of south-western China. After providing a geographical and cultural overview of the area, he gives a brief sketch of the linguistic situation, and of the main typological traits shared by the five linguistic families of the MSEA (Austroasiatic, Tai- Kadai, Hmong Mien, Sinitic and Tibeto- Burman). Then, he focuses on Tai, showing how areal pressure actuated by Sinitic languages has modified both phonological and morphosintactic features. His data are mainly taken from two Tai languages (Lao and Northern Zuang) and three Sinitic languages (Cantonese, Modern Standard Chinese (MSC) and South-Western Mandarin). In the core part of the paper, he studies the case of the verb-like morpheme ACQUIRE, which shows an interesting overlapping of meaning and functions in the languages under consideration. In the two Tai languages ACQUIRE is a main transitive verb meaning 'acquire' and it can be shown that even MSC de and Cantonese dak had originally the same function. However, ACQUIRE can have different functions in the sample languages: it is, in all the languages under consideration, a postverbal modal marker and a manner complement; in the three Tai languages it is a temporal adverbial complement, while it is an extent complement and a potential result complement in the three Sinitic languages; finally, it is a preverbal modal/marker meaning 'get' or 'have to' in all languages but Cantonese. Then, Enfield discusses the data on the basis of historical and typological considerations, taking into account also ACQUIRE in Mon Khmer languages. He concludes that, even if Proto-Tai *tak and Proto- Sinitic *day were genetically related (despite some etymological problems), their functions cannot be inherited, but are more likely to be parallel developments ''possibly encouraged by diffusion'' (Enfield: 280). He firmly states the point that functions may be duplicated without duplication of phonological forms, and this is, in my opinion, the most interesting outcome of this contribution. James A. Matisoff's paper (''Genetic versus Contact Relationship: Prosodic Diffusibility in South-East Asian Languages''), begins with an introduction on principles to be used in establishing genetic relationships and outlines the macro-groupings and the areal features of South-East Asian languages. Then he focuses on tone, which is, ''perhaps the most striking phonological feature of the South-East Asian linguistic area'' (Matisoff: 291). He presents the various tone systems of Tibeto-Burman, discussing more in detail the case of Lahu, Burmese and Tamang Risiangku. He highlights the interaction between the prosodic level and changes in manner of initial consonants. Afterwards, he discusses various hypothesis, both monogenetic and polygenetic, on the origin of tones in Sino-Tibetan and Tibeto Burman, concluding that a definitive position cannot be stated. In the following section, he identifies a ''Sinospheric Tonbund'', showing how Chinese has influenced Tai-Kadai, Hmong Mien and Vietnamese tone-systems by means of massive lexical borrowing. The paper ends with numerous theoretical questions and some desiderata, like ''a world-wide typology of tone-systems'' and more precise explications for rapid diffusion of prosodic features throughout an area.
Hilary Chappell deals with ''Language Contact and Areal Diffusion in Sinitic Languages''. She discusses previous application of the comparative method to Chinese, especially to its historical phonology. She lists, then, the typological features of Sinitic, followed by a brief note on Chinese dialect history and by some considerations on areal features of South-East Asia. She suggests that stratification, hybridization and convergence are the three main outcomes of language contact situations for Sinitic languages. She finally discusses five sets of data in Sinitic (diminutive suffixes, negative existential constructions, complementizers, adversative passives and possession), trying to determinate whether they are: a) the outcome of shared developments in a language family; b) the result of areal diffusion, c) universally favourite exits. She concludes that ''to reconstruct the history of a language family adequately, a model is needed which is significantly more sophisticated than the family tree based on the use of comparative method. It needs to incorporate the diffusion and layering processes as well as other language-contact phenomena such as convergence, metatypy and hybridization'' (Chappell: 354).
Chapter 13 and 14 are devoted to the African continent.
Gerrit J. Dimmendaal (''Areal Diffusion versus Genetic Inheritance: An African Perspective'') provides two case studies of areal diffusion. The first one concerns the influence of Swahili on other coastal Bantu languages and in particular on Khoti .The second one deals with the influence of Tirma and Chai (South-Western Mursic) on Baale, a language belonging to South-East Mursic. In both cases a prestigious neighbour language has rapidly influenced the ''minor'' one, but, according to Dimmendaal ''there is little evidence, both in Baale and in Khoti, for extensive grammatical borrowing'' (Dimmendaal: 365). In the second part of the paper he describes the main features of the Niger-Congo languages (ATR vowel harmony, nasalized vowels, noun classes and serial verbs). He concludes that there is, on the whole, little evidence for morphological borrowing in African languages, while tone and phonological features seem to be prone to areal diffusion.
Bernd Heine and Tania Kuteva give a ''bird's eye view'' on ''Convergence and Divergence in the Development of African Languages''. First of all, they summarize the features which characterize Africa as a convergence area of its own, like click consonants, labiovelar stops etc. Then, they identify some convergence areas in the continent: the North- eastern Africa, The Kalahari basin, a large part of West Africa, the Rift Valley Convergence Area. They stress the fact that we still know very little about areal relationships in Africa. They examine the case of Nile Nubian languages and, more in depth, of Dongolawi-Kenuz as a case of languages which massively underwent to contact-induced change. In the final part of the paper, they introduce the concept of ''grammaticalizing metatypy'', which is defined as one type of metatypy (in Ross's terms that leads to the emergence of new grammatical categories. They argue that people can borrow not simply a morpheme, but an ''event schema'', that is ''a semantic structure that tends to be used cross- linguistically for expressing grammatical functions'' (Heine and Kuteva: 403). In the end, they look at areal diffusion of comparative constructions and reflexive markers as a case of event- schemas diffusion.
The paper by Timothy J. Curnow is meant to be a summary of the papers presented in the volume(''What Language Features Can Be Borrowed?''). Curnow first discusses the meaning of ''borrowing'', which can also include phenomena of retention and loss. He underlines the difficulties in developing ''borrowing categories'' and lists the three main types of hierarchy of borrowability developed by Haugen (1950), Ross (1988) and Thomason and Kaufman (1988) respectively. Then he discusses the main obstacles to the development of constraints on borrowing: ''the social, political and historical context of the languages in contact, borrowing versus substratum influence, emblematicity constraints, the problem of language death, the issue of the reliability of data, and the problem of multiple causation for language change'' (Curnow: 434). Finally, he summarizes which features are more likely to be borrowed under language contact, according to the data provided by the contributors to the volume. He concludes that ''It is possible that a variety of constraints on borrowing in particular contexts can be developed. But the attempt to develop any universal hierarchy of borrowing should perhaps be abandoned'' (Curnow 434).
EVALUATION
This book is highly recommended for all those interested in historical linguistics, linguistic typology, language contact and language change. The old contrast between ''Stammbaum'' and ''Sprachbund'' is here reinterpreted in a modern perspective, which takes into account typological, sociolinguistic and cultural factors. The book covers a really wide geographic area and gives us a variegated picture of issues in language contact and language development worldwide. The question is: is it possible to develop a unique model which accounts for language development? The model discussed here is, as we said, Dixon's punctuated equilibrium. It is adopted by Aikhenvald to explain the complex linguistic situation of Arawak languages and Bellwood provides a interesting parallel model in archaeology. However, it seems that this model is not always adequate to describe language splitting and convergence. As Ross points out, equilibrium and punctuation processes are not mutually exclusive. Watkins, on his part, suggests that the formation of linguistic areas can be relatively rapid and that they can coexist with genetic differentiations.
It is true, as Aikhenvald and Dixon point out, that the ''family-tree model'' is not always adequate to describe language development, but I am not thoroughly convinced that it is an appropriate tool only for periods of ''punctuation''. On the other side, as Ross says, family trees usually say ''half the truth'', as they in general do not provide information on phenomena of language contact. Representing at the same time both areal phenomena and genetic filiation seems to be still an open question. To sum up, this book represents a good opportunity to meditate, on the one side, on models of language evolution and, on the other side, on actual phenomena of language change.
ERRATA
p. 210: ''compatability'' should be ''compatibility'' p. 330: ''lan-guage'' should be ''language''
REFERENCES
Dixon, R. M. W.: 1997, The Rise and Fall of Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haugen, E.: 1950, ''The analysis of linguistic borrowing'', in Language, 26: 210-231.
Heath, J.: 1997, ''Lost wax: abrupt replacement of key morphemes in Australian agreement complexes'', in Diachronica, 14: 197-232.
Matisoff, J.A.: 1990 ''On megalocomparison'', Language 66: 102-20.
Ross, M. D. 1988: Proto Oceanic and the Austronesian languages of Western Melanesia, Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Australian National University.
Ross, M. D.: 1991, ''Refining Guy's sociolinguistic types of language change'', Diachronica 8: 119-129.
Ross, M. D.: 1997 ''Social networks and kinds of speech- community event'', in Archaeology and Language, vol. 1: Theoretical and Methodological Orientations, edited by R. Blench and M. Spriggs, London: Routledge: 209-261.
Thomason, S.G. and Kaufman, T. S.: 1988, Language Contact, Creolization and Genetic Linguistics, Berkeley: University of California Press.
|