Classification I Comparative Method

Language Change Old English (c. 1000) Faeder ure thu the eart on heofonum, si thin nama gehalgod Contemporary English Our Father, who is in heaven, may your name be kept holy

Question 1 How do we know that the contemporary English and the old English, which look totally different from each other, are actually related? Why are they so different?

Filling the Gap Middle English (c. 1400) Oure fadir that art in heuenes halowid be thi name Early Modern English (c.1600) Our father which are in heaven, hallowed be thy Name

Community Breaks Up A B C D Any new changes in a particular group will not be spread over to the others. Dialects

As Time Goes By A B C D Language Family More changes in different groups. Languages

Dialect Chain Languages spoken in two adjoining regions are mutually intelligible, but the mutual intelligibility does not extend to the next region. A B C D

Question 2 What does it mean to say that two languages are “related”? If two languages show some similarities, can we say that they are related?

Proto-language Proto-language A B C D Daughter languages

Proto-Polynesian Proto-Polynesian Tongan Samoan Maori

Question 3 What is a subgroup? If two languages show some similarities, can we say that they belong to the same subgroup?

Subgroup B C D E F G H I A

Reconstruction Principle 1: The existence of systematic similarities too great to be explained by chance, e.g., a set of regular sound correspondences in the vocabulary.

Sound Correspondence Māori Tahitian Hawaiian Meaning ingoa i'oa inoa name mata mata maka eye matangi mata'i makani wind mate mate make dead ngutu ‘utu nuku mouth tangata ta'ata kanaka person tangi ta'i kani weep

Sound Correspondence Māori Tahitian Hawaiian i i i o o o a a a e e e u u u m m m ng ' n t t k

Cognates Corresponding words in related languages are called cognates. ingoa - i'oa - inoa Each of these cognates is a reflex of the proto-form from which it is descended. *ingoa

Two Kinds of Similarity Shared retention A feature F of the Proto language remains unchanged in both languages. Shared innovation A feature F of the Proto language has changed into F’ in both languages (i.e., the two languages underwent the same change.

Shared Innovations Principle 2: Within a family, subgroups will show shared innovations from the proto-language.

Question 4 Shared retention cannot be used as evidence of a subgroup. Why?

Shared Innovations A B C D E F G H I The changes that took place between the breakup of A and the later breakup of B will be reflected in E, F, and G, but not in H or I.

Question 5 What can we learn about the history of the speakers by studying a linguistic family?

Diversity Principle 3: Greater diversity of daughter languages implies a longer period of separation.

Shared Innovations Principle 4: The larger the number of shared innovations in a subgroup, the longer the period of separate development before breakup of the proto-language.

Shared Innovations A B C D E B and C share a few common innovations, forming a weak subgroup, while D and E share a great many, forming a strong subgroup.

Homeland? Principle 5: The homeland of a language family was some part of the territory over which its daughter languages are now spoken.

Hierarchy Principle 6: Assuming that the earliest migrations from the homeland were nearby areas, and that later migrations populated successively more distant areas, the highest order divisions in the family will be represented in the area near the homeland.

Lexicostatistics Swadesh List First used in early 1950s. A list of 200 meanings intended to be, as nearly as possible, universally known and culture independent e.g., ‘and’, ‘big’, ‘drink’, ‘head’, ‘mother’, ‘skin’, ‘throw’

Cognate percentage in core vocabulary Level of subgrouping Cognate percentage in core vocabulary Dialects of a language 81-100% Languages of a family 36-81% 55-80% Families of a stock 12-36% 28-54% Stocks of a microphylum 4-12% 13-27% Microphyla of a mesophylum 1-4% 5-12%

Assumptions Some parts of the vocabulary of a language are much less subject to change than other parts. This ‘core’ vocabulary is the same for all languages. The actual rate of vocabulary replacement in the core vocabulary is the same for all languages at any period of time. Tested on 13 languages, an average vocabulary retention of 80.5% every thousand years.

Glottochronology Based on the lexicostatistic data and the following formula, the time-depth of a language can be calculated. t = logC 2logr where C is the percentage of cognates and r is the retention rate (.805)

Cognate percentage in core vocabulary Time-depth of a Language Cognate percentage in core vocabulary Years of separation 66% 1000 (250) 44% 2000 (350) 28% 3000 (400) 18% 4000 (500) (Pawley 1996)

Question 5 How reliable is lexicostatistics? What kind of problems does it have?

How Reliable? Borrowing: e.g., Tongan words in East Uvea (85%) Name avoidance: e.g., Tahitian (White 1967) poo ‘night’ is replaced by ru’i, mare ‘cough’ by hota during the reign of Pomare I