10. How do linguists decide that languages are related?
Description
This article is from the sci.lang FAQ, by Michael Covington (mcovingt@ai.uga.edu) and Mark Rosenfelder (markrose@zompist.com) with numerous contributions by others.
10. How do linguists decide that languages are related?
[--markrose]
When linguists say that languages are related, they're not just remarking
on their surface similarity; they're making a technical statement or claim
about their history-- namely, that they can be regularly derived from a
common parent language.
Proto-languages are reconstructed using the comparative method. The
first stage is to inspect and compare large amounts of vocabulary from the
languages in question. Where possible we compare entire _paradigms_ (sets
of related forms, such as the those of the present active indicative in
Latin), rather than individual words.
The inspection should yield a set of regular sound correspondences between
the languages. By regular, we mean that the same correspondences are
consistently observed in identical phonetic environments. Finally, _sound
changes_ are formulated: language-specific rules which specify how the
original common form changed in order to produce those observed in each
descendent language.
Applying the comparative method to the Romance languages, we might find
'I sense' Sard /sento/ French /sa~/ Italian /sento/ Spanish /sjEnto/ 'sleep' /sonnu/ /som/ /sonno/ /suEn^o/ 'hundred' /kentu/ /sa~/ /tSento/ /sjEnto/ 'five' /kimbe/ /sE~k/ /tSinkwe/ /sinko/ 'I run' /kurro/ /kur/ /korro/ /korro/ 'story' /kontu/ /ko~t@/ /(rak)konto/ /kuEnto/
and hundreds of similar examples. We see some correspondences--
(1) Sard /s/ French /s/ Italian /s/ Spanish /s/ (2) /k/ /s/ /tS/ /s/ (3) /k/ /k/ /k/ /k/
but they seem to conflict: does Sard /k/ correspond to Spanish /s/ or /k/?
Does French /s/ correspond to Italian /s/ or /tS/?
In fact we will find that the correspondences are regular, once we observe
that (2) is seen before a front vowel (i or e), while (3) is seen in other
environments. Alternations within paradigms, such as It. /diko/ 'I say'
vs. /ditSe/ 'says', will help us make and confirm such generalizations.
We may interpret these now-regular correspondences as indicating that an
initial /s/ in the proto-language has been retained in all four languages,
and likewise initial /k/ in Sard; but that /k/ changed to /s/ or /tS/ in
the other languages in the environment of a front vowel.
Actually, this process is iterative. For instance, at first glance we
might think that German _haben_ and Latin _habere_ 'have' are obvious
cognates. However, after noting the regular correspondence of German h to
Latin c, we are forced to change our minds, and look to _capere_ 'seize'
as a better cognate for _haben_.
Thus, similarity of words is only a clue, and perhaps a misleading one.
Linguists conclude languages are related, and thus derive from a common
ancestor, only if they find *regular* sound correspondences between them.
To complicate things, derivations may be obscured by irregular changes,
such as dissimilation, borrowing, or analogical change. For instance,
the normal development of Middle English _kyn_ is 'kine', but this word
has been largely replaced by 'cows', formed from 'cow' (ME _cou_) on the
analogy of word-pairs like stone : stones. Analogy often serves to reduce
irregularities in a language (here, an unusual plural).
_Borrowing_ refers to taking words from other languages, as English has
taken 'search' and 'garage' from French, 'paternal' from Latin, 'anger' from
Old Norse, and 'tomato' from Nahuatl. How do we know that English doesn't
derive from French or Nahuatl? The latter case is easy to eliminate:
regular sound correspondences can't be set up between English and Nahuatl.
But English has borrowed so heavily from French that regular correspondences
do occur. Here, however, we find that the French borrowings are thickest in
government, legal, and military domains; while the basic vocabulary (which
languages borrow less frequently) is more akin to German. Paradigmatic
correspondences like sing/sang/sung vs. singen/sang/gesungen also help show
that the Germanic words are inherited, the French ones borrowed.
If you want more, Theodora Bynon's HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS (1977) is
very good, and not long; R.L. Trask's HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS (1996)
is very readable and covers more recent studies.
Anthony Fox's LINGUISTIC RECONSTRUCTION: AN INTRODUCTION
TO THEORY AND METHOD (1995) concentrates on the reconstruction process
itself, and assumes some knowledge of linguistics. On Indo-European,
try Beekes, COMPARATIVE INDO-EUROPEAN LINGUISTICS: AN INTRODUCTION (1995).
Continue to:
My Books
