Commentary on Crowley, Ch. 8-13 Subgrouping, Wave Theory, Language Contact, Areal Linguistics

Subgrouping Shane’s presentation raised a number of practical questions such as: Which dialect is the most conservative and which is the most innovating? According to Shane’s lexico-statistical analysis, Matu-Daro retains the most cognates, Kanowit the least. (I have suggested that he re-do his percentages based on just the first 200 words of our list, to avoid the problem of artificial gaps in the Kanowit data.)

Innovations imply out-migration What does Shane’s classification imply with respect to the movement of the Melanau people? Did they start in Kanowit and migrate to the coast? Or did they come in from the coast and migrate to Kanowit? According to two articles by Blust (1991) and Ross (1991), conservative dialects typically represent stay-at-homes, whereas innovating dialects imply populations on the move.

Why should this be? Ross (1991) offers a sociological explanation relating to the “correction behavior” of migrating vs. sedentary adults. The innovators are the children acquiring the language.

Correction behavior of adults To the extent that the children are corrected, innovation is curtailed; to the extent they are not corrected, innovations develop rapidly. According to Ross (1991), migrating populations are less concerned about the niceties of pronunciation and grammar than are sedentary populations.

Preliminary Method of Subgrouping Lexicostatistical analysis is useful as a preliminary tool in subgrouping. Remember our results obtained after only an hour or so of such analysis and reported in Homework #1. Based on the first 200 words of our list, we discovered that the pair [Matu-Daro, Belawai] shared the highest number of cognates; next were [M-D, Dalat]; and last were [Dalat, Kanowit].

Advanced Method of Subgrouping Lexicostatistical methods seek to establish subgroups by counting words/cognates. The Comparative Method achieves the same goal by counting shared innovations (rules, including sound changes,and morphological (analogical) changes). Where the results differ, you can have an argument about which method represents “the truth”. For 99 out of 100 linguists, the answer is clear: the Comparative Method is the only reliable approach.

Although I agree with the 99%, I do not share the attitude of some library-bound linguists that lexicostatistical analysis has no value. Therefore, I find it interesting when the results of the two methods converge, and I am also interested in knowing why in case the results differ.

So what about Melanau? Null hypothesis: all four dialects are sisters. Last resort: The null hypothes is maintained until the evidence forces a better one. Disinterestedness: A scientist shouldn't be invested in the outcome. Hypotheses are not “good” or “bad” but only supportable or unsupportable based on the evidence.

So what about Melanau? To look for a subgrouping hypothesis, we need to count not just cognates, but also (and especially) rules. Any two rules shared by any two dialects is POTENTIALLY a shared innovation. (Remember this term.) In the Comparative Method, a subgroup is defined over the number and quality of shared innovations. For example, one group of German dialects share the First Consonant Shift (Grimm’s Law), e.g. PIE *p>f) and the High German Second Consonant Shift, e.g. PGmc *p>pf).

Great Vowel Shift = 10 or more sound changes English dialects show evidence of the GVS. A language closely related to English that failed to undergo the Great Vowel Shift is barred from membership in the same lower order subgroup. Such a language is Frisian. Of course, English and Frisian do belong in a higher-order subgroup that also includes Dutch.

No end in sight Subgrouping goes on and on. PIE has three primary “branches” representing first-order subgroups: Anatolian, Hellenic, and Indo- Iranian. Each of these has three or more branches; and each of these has more and more branches, all the way down to hundreds of individual languages.

PAn and PMP Proto-Austronesian has nine primary branches, all representing languages currently spoken on the island of Taiwan. One of the nine, Proto-East Formosan, is the mother of Proto-Malayo-Polynesian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austronesian_languages#Structure

Tree theory vs. Wave theory, p. 249 An interesting conumdrum exists at the heart of the field of Historical and Comparative Linguistics. There exist two perfectly valid theories of the way “languages change and people move”. One is called the “tree theory” and/or “theory of divergence,” and it has served as the basis of this course. It’s not unlike the decision to teach articulatory phonetics. There exists another approach (acoustic phonetics), but it would be confusing to teach both at the same time.

Early European Migrations

http://books. google. com/books http://books.google.com/books?id=yfZZX1qjpvkC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=proto-indo-european+wave+theory&source=bl&ots=dNLHiyRafF&sig=5N7qAR_g3yaX2XxZrKepYCK2wO4&hl=en&ei=TBC1Sb6RBOHAtgeWtszqDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA73,M1

Branches imply a tree; waves imply a pond (or a flat map) Tree theory assumes that people move and languages change without looking back. Here today, gone tomorrow. It follows that languages will keep “branching” as they lose contact with their ancestral roots. Tree theory works best over ever larger tracts of time. PIE and PAn go back 6,000 years. That’s plenty of time for languages to diverge in tree- like fashion. But dialectologists have long known it’s not like that “on the ground”. Changes actually begin in one location and “spread” to the next location, like ripples on a pond.

Wave theory Moreover, speech communities are not monads; they interact with other communities. It’s the same with rules (changes). Often many changes (rules) will spread from one language to another within an area. Crowley mentions the spread of uvular [ʁ] in Europe (p. 260) and the Rhenish Fan (p. 247) as examples. Accordingly, linguistics has developed a sub-field called areal linguistics.

ISOGLOSS A principal tool of Wave Theory is the isogloss. The term is derived from the Greek and means “same word”. An isogloss is a line—often in the form of a closed circle like a ripple on a pond—showing the spread of a new word or a sound change over a linguistic area. A “bundle” of isoglosses defines a dialect area.

“Isoglosses” vs. “shared innovations” One term is tree-theoretical, the other is wave-theoretical. Both are used to define dialect groupings. Both are statistics-bound in the sense that dialect groupings depend on convergence of significant numbers of valid comparisons. For example, in wave theory dialect boundaries are defined in terms of “bundles” of isoglosses.

Wave-like change across languages A famous example concerns retroflection in the languages of India. There are at least 14 major language groups in India; nearly all of them have retroflex alveolar stops. For most of these languages, retroflection is “irregular”—i.e. does not follow from the respective protolanguages. Probably it was borrowed in ancient times, probably from Sanskrit, and spread across the map.

Wave-like changes Another example is the change *q > h/__# in Malay and scores of other languages in Southeast Asia. This word-final –h corresponding to PMP *q is irregular in many of the languages, although it is regular in Malay and Javanese. Malay and Javanese were the prestige languages and power centers during the reign of the Sriwijaya Empire (7th-13th century). It is necessary to assume that the RULE was borrowed by scores of languages, which accounts for the unexpected appearance of word-final –h in languages scattered all over the map.

Rejang irregular -h In Rejang, there are three dialects in contact with Malay, and two dialects insulated geographically from such contact. Two of those in contact with Malay have developed word-final –h reflecting PMP *-q; the other three reflect PMP final *-q as glottal stop. The irregularity arises when one considers the structure of Proto-Rejang. The Proto- Rejang reflex was clearly glottal stop (simplicity, Uniformitarianism, etc.). So how did two dialects develop –h? There is no evidence of *Ɂ > h except word-finally in the two dialects in contact with Malay. And in one of the dialects—Rawas—this –h is the only allophone (Rawas lacks word-initial and intervocalic /h/).

Wave theory to the rescue A convenient conclusion is that Rawas and Kebanagung dialects borrowed -h from Malay as a consequence of intermarriage with Malay speakers. Bilingualism and the prestige of the loaner language are two material causes of most borrowing, which in turn has an effect on the children. (Always the children are the primary agents of change.)

What to do about a conundrum? Given that we have two theories—tree theory and wave theory—which one is correct?

Duh! They are both correct! One works best over long stretches of time and among languages that have lost contact with one another. The other works best “on the ground” over short stretches of time, and among languages (and dialects) in constant contact with one another.

When are both relevant? Theoretically, both are always relevant all the time. But it’s confusing to mix them indiscriminately. In practical terms, when problems arise within a tree-theoretical analysis, a solution can sometimes be found by adopting a wave- theory approach. This is especially true when dealing with closely-related dialects, such as Melanau—and especially Matu and Daro (which are taken to be a single dialect); and Matu-Daro and Belawai. The closer the dialects are geographically, the more likely they are to borrow not just words, but rules.

Areal Linguistics, p. 261 Moreover, rules may be borrowed across a wide area from a language, such as Malay, which is (or was once) held in high regard. Such was likely the case with the Rejang final -h in two of five dialects, and which upset the neat tree-theoretical applecart. Wave theory came to the rescue to explain the odd -h. Just as borrowed words can be set aside when establishing proto-languages within tree-theoretical assumptions, so borrowed rules can and must be set aside, i.e. dealt with separately.

Substrate theory, p. 270 A linguistic substrate refers to indigenous languages that may have become extinct as the result of contact with, and colonialization by, a superior culture. Substrate languages often leave traces in the form of vocabulary items and even rules. For example, the NYC bowery ‘dis’ and dat’ may be remnants from a Dutch substrate (NYC < New Amsterdam). Psycholinguistic test: Name five American rivers.

Again, we set aside substrate influences. Why? Because reconstruction is tree-theoretical; borrowing patterns have their place in wave-theory approaches. A proto-language belongs to the theory of divergence. Remember the second part: “Barriers reduce the density of intercommunication.” By contrast, when “people move” next door to a robust community speaking a different language, both languages may change in part because of the contact. Comparative reconstruction breaks down. Wave theory rules here.

Does tree-theory apply to Melanau? Clearly the answer is yes. The dialects are far enough apart linguistically (and geographically) to warrant applying the Comparative Method.

Can our four dialects be sub-grouped? That remains to be seen. It’s no loss if they can’t be; we just want the facts. Two tree-theoretical possibilities remain on the table. All four dialects are sisters: W+X+Y+Z (null hypothesis) Two or three can be subgrouped: W + XYZ or WX+YZ.

Back to the question of possible shared innovations Take the rule *-k > -Ɂ in Dalat and Kanowit. Is this a shared innovation? Remember I said: Any two rules shared by any two dialects is POTENTIALLY a shared innovation. Just looking at *-k > -Ɂ in isolation, it is impossible to tell whether it is a shared innovation.

Candidates for shared innovation status; problems and solutions Part of the problem with*-k > -Ɂ is that it is a common (natural) change that might have occurred independently in each dialect. Moreover, the same change has affected Malay. What is needed is more evidence that the two dialects in question indeed form a subgroup.

Shared innovation is a technical term. In order to count as a shared innovation, a rule must be established to have arisen within a common subgroup. No single rule can have such status—with one possible exception (see below). What is needed is a goodly number of identical rules converging on a set of dialects.

Strong and weak evidence Some candidates for shared innovations have more weight than others as evidence for subgrouping. Shared uncommon rules (such as Dalat *a>i) have more weight than shared common ones (such as *-k>Ɂ). Weirdness has its uses in Historical Phonology.

More research needed! The way to strengthen a weak subgrouping argument is to find support in the form of other candidates. Are there any other candidates? I wish I knew! That’s what we have graduate students for!

Once Over Lightly The last slide lists a set of topics I found interesting when reading the last five chapters of Crowley. Please refer to the Study Guide for a couple of possible test questions designed to help focus your reading.

Once Over Lightly Neogrammarian Hypothesis, p. 226 Cultural Reconstruction, Chapter 13 Blust’s attempt to reconstruct “iron” for PMP, p. 316 Age-area Hypothesis, p. 305 “Paleo-linguistics”, p. 308

Commentary on Ch. 8-12 LING 485/585 Winter 2009