The Ugric-Turkic Infinity War

Once upon a time, somewhere in the Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy a very big battle occurred. It was so big that it became a famous battle, called the ‘Ugric-Turkic battle’. The aim of the battle was to decide whether the Hungarian language belonged to the Ugric or the Turkic language family. On the Ugric front line Jozsef Budenz, a German linguist, on the Turkic front line Armin Vambery, a Hungarian linguist were the commanders.

Background:

It had been taken for granted that there was an Eastern homeland of Hungarians somewhere in the Ural mountains called Yugria. This belief was based on a simple similarity between the toponym Yugria and the ethnonym hungarus. In addition, a population was found in the area which called themselves Mansi. A connection between Mansi and magyar was immediately established and considered as strong evidence for the Finno-Ugric or Uralic theory.

Weapons:

In this battle commander Budenz tried out a new weapon called Comparative Method, however as it was new, it wasn’t worked out well yet. In this way, Budenz didn’t apply it correctly or he didn’t apply it at all.

On the Turkic front line commander Vambery and his soldiers tried to defend the thesis that Hungarians were of Turkic origin, however their weapons were outdated. Vambery’s method of Turkish-Tatar word comparison to Hungarian was severely criticised by Budenz.

Arguments: 

So, the Turkic front fought for the Turkic origin of Hungarians while the Ugric front using ‘scientific-looking weapons’ insisted that the Turkish elements were only loan-words in Hungarian.

Results:

At the time of the battle, many Hungarian rejected the possibility of a relationship with poor people with a ‘fish fat smell’ and fought for the ‘glorious Turkish origin’. The battle got a sentimental taste from the Turkic front and for that reason it was easy to win them from the Ugric front. It’s fine that ratio wins over sentiment in a scientific battle, however in this case there was no ratio as we shall see.

It was widely believed that the existence of the Finno-Ugric family was proven beyond doubt first. Otto Donner’s works gave rise to the Uralic family noticing relationship between the Samoyed languages and the Finno-Ugric family. In this way, the Uralic theory has arisen.

 

It is still believed that the languages of the Yugria area (Vogul or Mansi, Ostyak) and Hungarian form the conventional Ugric node even if it is generally recognized that Hungarian is radically different from the Ugric languages. It is radically different in phonology, morphology, lexicon and syntax. Hungarian is different in every aspect of the language! Cannot the winner Ugric front see it? Of course, they can! But where is it written that the truth must be the winner? The winner is the more politically correct one, the convenient one, not the true one.

 

The battle is over but the war goes on…

The truth is that Budenz has not claimed there is no genetic relationship between Hungarian and Turkic. He imagined a big picture: a Ural-Altaic language family. He simply argued that Hungarian was more closely related to the Ugric node, instead of to the Altaic languages. However, this view lost its validity in the modern theory and now usually the Uralic languages are usually considered unrelated to the Altaic languages. As one consequence, words of Turkic origin in Hungarian now are classified as loan-words instead of cognates.

Budenz argued that most of the correspondences proposed by Vambery are wrong, but not all of them.  But how did he make his judgement? Unfortunately, no criteria has found how Budenz decided if a correspondence was a cognate or loan-word.  Moreover, many words in the Budenz corpus for which he tried to find Finnic or Ugric parallels, are wrong according to UEW, the Uralic Etymological Dictionary. In addition, Budenz didn’t specify the sound-rules which he worked with to establish the Hungarian/Ugric correspondences. He often cheated a little bit to win the battle: he stretched the meanings of some words and gave a set of parallels without any reasonable explanation in order to get the desired correspondence.  On the contrary, the Hungarian-Turkic parallels have basically the same meaning and similar sound-shape. Actually, the Budenz corpus turned out to be of very poor quality. 81% of his correspondences are not considered valid any more in the modern literature.

This is how the Finno-Ugric and Uralic theory was established. It was founded on a very weak basis, but it is still alive and it is still believed that it was well-founded.  Isn’t it time to demolish it and build a new one on a strong basis?

 

 

No Uralic Family? No Hungarian-Finnish relationship?

“The truth should not be proclaimed but searched for”.

We are taught that there is a Uralic language family. We are taught that Hungarian and Finnish are genetically related languages. This is false!

But why is false information taught to us? We can learn the reasons why textbooks teach this falsity as well-established facts from Professor Angela Marcantonio’s book: The Uralic language family. Facts, myths and statistics. There is a historical explanation: it’s the Darwinian model’s effects on linguistics in the 19^th century. But there is more! Did you know that the Uralic-Hungarian genetic relationship theory was promoted by the Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy? The author wants to draw attention to the term ‘theory’. As it is a theory, it’s not veritable nor falsifiable, it implies that it’s not based on ‘scientific evidence’. She tells us why linguists believe in the validity of the theory. They simply assume that the Uralic paradigm was established scientifically and nobody questioned it ever again.

She criticizes the method as well. The Uralic language family is established by means of the Comparative Method, however there are many problems with its application. First of all, comparing random words, it ‘fails to distinguish whether the corpus is the result of a true linguistic connection or chance resemblances.’ Second, the reconstructions of the Proto-Uralic node contain more sound-rules than regular etymologies. Third, it’s impossible to distinguish inherited elements from borrowings because borrowed elements assimilate to the sound system of the language in a short time, if not the very time of the borrowing. It means, that it’s impossible to claim whether a linguistic connection is a result of common ancestor, borrowings or chance resemblances.

Well, if the linguistics don’t help us to collect evidence for the Uralic theory, let’s search for evidence from other fields! She examines the historical sources and proves, archeological findings and genetic evidence, but at the end she draws the conclusion: neither linguistic, nor historical, archeological or genetic evidence exists. The whole Uralic language family and the Uralic-Hungarian relatedness are just theory without any evidence.

The final conclusion is that ‘the correlation among the Uralic languages and between the Uralic languages and their neighbours are better described in terms of intersecting isoglosses. These languages form a dialectal continuum.’ The author sees a connection among the so-called Altaic and Uralic languages. Hungarian has a particular importance as it has an extremely poor correlation with Ugric and Finnic languages. If it’s really needed to classify this language, it would be better to categorize it as an ‘Inner Asian’ language as the historical sources testify to this view.

To sum up, the biggest matter is the lack of scientific evidence which if not available means any theory remain only a theory.

It’s not only extremely good and comprehensive book about the foundation of the Uralic theory, but you can also acquire more and other very useful knowledge about linguistics and the issues in the field.

 

Lars Johanson: Isomorphic process review

Isomorphic process

Grammaticalization and copying of grammatical elements

 

What is grammaticalization? When and how does it occur? What are the special terms that we need to know to understand this field better?  

Lars Johanson’s paper on grammaticalization and copying deals with the main principles of that field. The paper gives several examples of code-copying and grammaticalization. He argues that grammaticalization cannot be shared by codes as a result of code-copying.

First, he starts with a description of isomorphism which means, ‘two or more languages share specific ways creating grammatical markers’. These ways would be language contact, inheritance or universal principles of grammatical change. The process of grammaticalization is based on the speaker’s subjective assessment of equivalence, not necessarily a typological equivalence. He explains specific terms of code-copying like Selective Copying and Global Copying, however he focuses on Selective Copying in the present paper because it is more relevant for the topic of grammaticalization. When does Selective Grammatical Copying occur? It usually occurs when the users of the Basic Code reach an advanced level of the Model Code (so, the other language from which the copying occurs).

What elements are more copiable than others? Johanson claims that more specific elements are easier to copy than elements with general meanings. What elements are the Target of Copying mostly? These are lexical elements of the Basic Code which are more likely to match the items of the Model Code which is reanalyzed. For example the word ‘two’ can become a dual marker in the other language.

What happens after copying? There is life then too. Copied elements continue developing their grammatical functions as an internal development in the Basic Code. It is also possible that the output of the process may be inherited in the related languages but without inheriting the process. However, it is possible to see the result of these inheritance which is very helpful to establish relatedness between two languages.

There is another very interesting fact about similar elements. It can happen that disconnected languages pass through the same phases. Sometimes genealogically related languages after a long period of disconnection can undergo similar or the same processes of grammaticalization. It’s a riddle!

Doesn’t it look like languages are inheriting genetic information in their very DNA?

 

Let me know what you think and leave me a comment! Don’t forget to subscribe to my channel to get updated about my new videos!

The language instinct

Each link in the chain of language transmission is a human brain. That brain is equipped with a universal grammar and is always on the lookout for examples in ambient speech of various kinds of rules.

What is language? Is it innate? Is it an instinct? Do we have an innate grammar or do we learn from the society? How do you think a Martian would see the approximately 6000 languages in the world? As separate languages or as one single language?

Other interesting questions are found in the amazing book of Steven Pinker, a psycholinguist in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Language is an instinct as we can assume from the title of the book: The language instinct. Language is an evolutionary adaptation that is partly ``hard-wired'' into the brain and partly learned. Language is innate and we have a common universal grammar.

Pinker explains the findings of Chomsky to non-experts too with his easy, witty and story-telling language. However, he doesn’t agree with Chomsky in every matter. For example, the author doesn’t see any problems with a selective explanation for the evolution of language. According to him we should date the origins of language more than 30,000 years ago. However, the difference between human and non-human languages will be the grammar. Chimps or other non-human primates are unable to produce or use grammar.

He deals with language acquisition of children. They must have an innate knowledge about language. They are able to acquire such a complex structure like language. Babies can distinguish phonemes under the age of six months that adults cannot.

He gives several pieces of evidence for his thesis throughout the book: the growth of creoles from pidgins, the existence of sign languages, the distribution of language ability, and studies of brain-damaged speakers.

He constructs a bridge between the Chomskyan innate theory and the social interaction approach. 

It’s a very good and comprehensive introduction to general linguistics.

 

 

 

 

Language change: progress or decay? review

‘Is language change a symptom of progress or decay?’

Language change is inevitable. Often we encounter sayings like language change is harmful, language change leads the language to extinction. Does language die or does a new one arise by the process of change?

Jean Aitchison the Rupert Murdoch Professor of Language and Communication at the University of Oxford, discusses these big questions in her book: Language change: Progress or decay?

In the first chapters, she focuses on the question of inevitability of language change, the methods of historical linguistics, and the study of language variation. Why do languages change? There are some factors like social factors of prestige, gender, and race. Language changes counter social pressure too, but can be a result of a fashion, social prestige, foreign influence and phonetic and syntactic naturalness. Interestingly, she says that there are inherent reasons for language change as well. She deals with the types of language change like syntactic and semantic changes. And once change occurs, it may cause a chain-reaction.

The initial question arises in the last chapters again. Do languages become extinct or do they change into other languages? To answer this question she discusses the status of pidgin and creole languages where we can observe how languages are born; assimilation ad code-switching which can be considered as symptoms of language death. However, she claims that languages neither progress nor decay. Language change is none of these.

Her book consists of seventeen chapters, so it’s not a short read, but very comprehensive and readable, so non-experts can understand it easily.

Do you have other books or articles to recommend? Leave me a comment.

 

The Role of Codeswitching, Loan Translation and Interference review

Ad Backus: The Role of Codeswitching, Loan Translation and Interference in the Emergence of an Immigrant Variety of Turkish

Ad Backus, an Associate Professor in the Department of Language and Culture at Tilburg University has written an interesting article, entitled: The Role of Codeswitching, Loan Translation and Interference in the Emergence of an Immigrant Variety of Turkish.  He discusses the ‘big question’: How to distinguish code-switching from borrowings? As one can assume from the title, the author focuses on the Turkish immigrant community in Netherlands, but he provides a wider insight into the topic in general too.

The author has interesting approaches to the field of contact linguistics. In the literature, diachronic (issues of historical linguistics) and synchronic dimensions (theoretical linguistics) are separated, however, Backus proposes to handle them together because to understand certain linguistic phenomenon, it is inevitable to understand the close relationship between these two dimensions. Because ‘Synchronic behavior determines diachronic development’, he deals with the distinction of lexicon and syntax. Of course, this distinction already exists, but they ‘miss some important generalization’. Due to the wrong approach to the distinction, linguists fail to theorize what codeswitching and contact-induced structural change have in common. He argues that code-switching studies are not able to study language change issues which problem causes the failure of distinguishing between code-switching and borrowings. The main problem with the division is that how we can decide if a certain element is only a code-switching or a borrowing, so in this way embedded this element into the language of the immigrants. In order to make this distinction, he describes what exactly code-switching is. He distinguishes insertion and alternation which is very similar to the intrasentential and intersentential division. Lexical borrowing is considered the diachronic counterpart of synchronic codeswitching. Words can appear as codeswitches, but most likely they are loanwords, although often it’s very hard to decide which. The frequency of use could provide some clue to solving the codeswitching –borrowing difficulty. After this discussion, he deals with loan translations, also known as ‘calques’, which also have this synchronic diachronic duality. These are words or phrases which are more or less literally translated from a language into another one. He discusses the third type of contact phenomenon which is structural interference. ‘While lexical phenomena tend to be interpreted with a synchronic bias, structural phenomena are more often seen in a diachronic light.’ That’s why the focus is on the change of the two grammatical systems and their synchronic interference.

The author illustrates these difficult issues with a lot of examples, so he makes the article very comprehensable.

Let me know what you think and leave me a comment. Don’t forget to subscribe to my channel to get updated about my new videos!

 

Toward a Typological Classification of Linguistic Borrowing review

Juan Gomez: Toward a Typological Classification of Linguistic Borrowing (Illustrated with Anglicism in Romance languages)

It’s a short but very well-composed article about linguistic borrowings. The author starts with the main problem in the field: General Linguistics still lacks of valid classification system of linguistics borrowings. He examines the previous attends by other scholars through analyzing the reasons for their failure. He uses four categories for general classification based on the most important scholars in the field. The first group is cultural borrowing versus intimate borrowing. The second is based on the hierarchical relationship between varieties of speech like national languages versus dialects. The third is a distinction between loanword, loan translation/calque and loanblends/ hybrids. The fourth is a classification according to the sub-system of the receiving language. He says that a typology of borrowing according to the linguistic level affected would be the most efficient proposal for classification.

He distinguishes formal borrowings, morphological borrowings, semantic borrowings, lexical borrowings, syntactic borrowings, phraseological borrowings and pragmatic borrowings. Formal borrowings are phonological and orthographic borrowings because they only affect the form, not the meaning. They are rare and usually occur through speaker’s error. Morphological borrowings usually are more common when a mass of loanwords enter a language. Semantic borrowings happen when a unity of meaning is transferred to a word which shows formal or semantic analogy. Lexical borrowings are the most common type of borrowings. He divides into three sub-categories: importation which means the direct, classical transfer of a lexeme, both with its form and its meaning. Loanblends or hybrids which are hybrids of importation and substitution. For example, footballer in Spanish becomes futbolista. The last sub-category is substitution or loan-translation. Syntactic borrowings are sometimes difficult to distinguish from morphological borrowings. Syntactic borrowings take into account grammatical relations. Phraseological borrowings can be considered as a sub-group of loan-translations because they are only possible as ‘morphemic substitution’. Pragmatic borrowings or pragmatic interference as the author proposes, mainly occur in bilingual situations.

I recommend it to everyone who is interested in linguistics borrowings, both to experts and amateurs. Don’t forget to subscribe to my channel to get updated about my new videos! 

Can threatened languages be saved? review

The problem is that if a population undergoes language shift, their language will become extinct. Is it possible to prevent language shift and maintain a language?

Joshua Fishman in his book, Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, collected the most impressive works to revisit the main problems in the field of language shift. He discusses attempts at maintains a language for which he had proposed a model that could help to predict whether the effort for maintaining would work or not. He argues the importance of reversing language shift because otherwise this process would diminish cultural and language diversity.  A language of a community is important to express their identity. In addition, all languages fulfill different functions which others cannot fulfill.

Sometimes, the approach of Reversing Language Shift is accused of being anti-modern as it protects the language of isolated communities but he claims that this process is not aimed at isolating them, but at empowering weaker communities. After the introduction, he presents 17 case studies from around the world. He had already dealt with 12 cases in his previous work. In the present book, he introduces the so-called Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale to evaluate how the given languages are disrupted. In the case studies, he analyzes the domains of language usage and describes the factors of the Disruption Scale. He claims that language shift is likely to occur when one generation doesn’t transmit their mother tongue to the next generation. The case studies are presented with an overview about the sociolinguistic situation of the language of the given community. He proposes cultural and also political strategies for the reversal and protection of endangered languages.

At the end, he answers to the initial question: Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? He says that in moving carefully it is possible to prevent language shift and protect languages from extinction.

Do you think he is right or is language extinction a natural process? Should languages be saved?

Leave me a comment. Don’t forget to subscribe to my channel to get updated about my new videos!

Chaudenson: Creolization of Language and Culture review

If someone wants to know how languages arise, he or she must study creolization. Creole languages are the output of pidgins, native languages with more complex structure but they hide very important knowledge about the birth of languages. 

Robert Chaudenson, Director of the Institut d’Etudes Créoles et Francophones, Aix-en-Provence, and Professor of Linguistics at the Université d’Aix-Marseille examines the phenomenon of creolization mainly in case of French Creoles of the Indian Ocean and the Caribbean. However, he provides a general overview of the field as well.

His analysis of the factors that play a significant role in the process of creolization, gives an important contribution to the study. In the first parts of the book, he deals with the current debates on the development of creoles and theories of linguistic creolization. This is the more technical part. However, in the following chapters, he doesn’t focus on the linguistic factors only. He shows that in studying creolization one must take sociohistorical factors into account. He describes different aspects of the creole cultures, like folklore, medicine and magic, cuisine and music, but in his opinion, language has to be the center of the study, ‘because language plays a fundamental role both in social evolution and in the development of most other cultural systems’. He overlooks other non-verbal communication systems like gestures too. He demonstrates that non-verbal communication elements can be similar in some languages which facts can be considered as an early contribution to creole non-verbal language in some cases.  He doesn’t agree with the mainstream theories about creole genesis, but he proposes alternative views. ‘The theory that views linguistic creolization as simply a ‘mix’ of coexistent linguistic systems is not consistent with the most common linguistic reality. The constant outcome of the contact of two languages in the same community is much more the domination of one by the other than a harmonious mix. This is even more so in the colonial societies where creoles developed.’ He introduces new important terms for the study. ‘Transcommunality is the ability of a system to transcend ethnic or other social boundaries and to be adopted by the society at large. A communal system is thus the opposite: one that tends to remain specific to a group in which it was initiated. Language is a highly transcommunal system. The very genesis of creoles is characterized by a generalization of usage of the dominant language by multilingual groups of immigrants.’

The book is comprehensible thanks also to its translations which are made by four scholars from the fields discussed in the book.

Let me know what you think and leave me a comment. Don’t forget to subscribe to my channel to get updated about my new videos!

 

Hickey: Language change review

If you are interested in topics like language change, but you don’t know where to begin, I am going to introduce a good textbook about this topic. It’s Raymond Hickey’s Language Change. In this work you can learn about the nature of language change, why change happens, the methods that deals with change, language typology, language contact and language variations.

All languages change and they change regularly. However, the branch of linguistics, the historical linguistics which deals with language change, posed only the ‘how’ question and not the ‘why’. Languages can change by internal and external motivation. Change can be gradual or global. He says that it is possible to find models for unchanging languages as well. The speakers try to stop the change consciously. Even though, the process can be leaded consciously, it is impossible to predict language change. The author describes the techniques of historical linguistics like comparative method, internal reconstruction, consistency of orthography, rhyme material and reverse spelling.

He touches topics like relative chronology, which is the method of dating certain changes. He divides two main types of analogy: proportional analogy and analogical levelling. Lexicalization and grammaticalization are unavoidable terms in the field of language change. Lexicalization is when certain words are transparent in their composition or in the derivational process. For example, the English asleep derives from Old English ‘on sleep’. Grammaticalization is a process when certain words enter new grammatical categories. Any word class can be subject to grammaticalization. This process is unidirectional, although there are debates in this regard.

He gives instances of language change like phonological changes, morphological change, semantic change and shifts in syntax and lexicon.

He dedicates a chapter for typology which is a classification of languages according to their grammatical type and not their historical backgrounds. The two main types are: analytic and synthetic. Analytical languages show few inflections and they have fixed word order while synthetic languages have complex morphology.

In the next chapters, he focuses on language contact like language shift, dialects and areal linguistics and language variations like pidgins and creoles.

It’s a nice overview of language change in general.

Do you know good books or articles in this topic? Leave me a comment.

Please, don’t forget to subscribe to my channel to get updated about my new videos!

The dynamic of code-copying in language encounters review

Can we predict how a language will change? Lars Johanson gathers forces that produce linguistic movement or change in non-monolingual speech communities. What things can be attractive in a given contact situation? What are the most copiable function units?  What is code-copying?

It is a normal developmental process which occurs for example in second language acquisition, non-monolingual speech productions, including the genesis and development of pidgin and creole, etc. Largely depends on the environment. Code-copying is a kind of code interaction. The main “motivation for code interaction is to say something the way it comes most naturally or it most easily expressed”. The Code-Copying Model, developed by Lars Johanson, has been used to describe and explain effects of language contact in various settings. “Code-copying contributes actively to language change.’

The code copied from is the model code, and the copying code is the basic code. The basic can be called primary code in other words. Johanson distinguishes between copying in imposition (L1 > L2) and in adoption (L2 > L1),

The author distinguishes between global and selective copying. Global copying means the whole form and function of the unit is copied. Selective copying concerns structural properties.  This produces loan words, loan syntax, loan semantics, etc. The model views different degrees of copying: an item has material, semantic, combinational and frequential properties that can be copied entirely (corresponds to lexical borrowing) or partially (corresponds to ‘loan morphosyntax’, ‘loan semantics’, etc.).

He deals with the dominant relations within the dynamics in language encounters. Dominant relations produce different kinds of linguistic dynamics. For example, borrowing or calquing, substratum influence and code shift from language A to language B.

Lars Johanson’s model is a very precisely detailed contribution to contact linguistics in general.

Let me know what you think and leave me a comment!

Comrie: Languages and genes - review

How do languages relate to genes? Does cultural transmission of language match the biological transmission? Well, Bernard Comrie in Languages and Genes, makes a clear distinction between languages and genes. Languages are transmitted culturally unlike genes which are transmitted biologically.

In his paper, he makes suggestions for reconstructing human pre-history with reference to archeology, anthropology, genetics and especially linguistics. 

Analogies were made between languages and genes by modelling tree structures. Language families were drawn designing family trees as an analogy with genetic trees. These family tree models form the basis of the comparative-historical linguistics. However, according to the author, there are a couple of problems with the method. First of all, the method is a gross oversimplification. To establish a branch of a language family, the model indicates innovations and not inherited features. Second, in some cases it is very hard, if not impossible, to distinguish vertical transmission from horizontal transmission, in other words, to distinguish inherited elements from borrowings. Think of mixed languages like creoles. 

He summarizes the main concepts of comparative linguistics and draws attention to its problems. He deals with the reasons why languages may share properties in common. There are four main reasons: language universals, inherited properties, borrowings and chance resemblances. However, the well-known linguistic methods fail to distinguish these four categories in several cases.

As far as the borrowability is concerned, there are some elements of the language which are more likely borrowables than others such as the basic vocabulary against cultural vocabulary. It was widely believed among linguists that grammatical structure was hardly borrowable, however when language shift happens, the grammar is also transmitted, so similarities in grammatical structure is not enough to form genetic relationship. To establish a genealogical relatedness between two languages, linguists use a certain criteria: the inflectional morphology of the compared languages should be related. However, what happens if the inflectional morphology is not available? Vietnamese does not have inflectional morphology. How to classify this language then?

In his opinion, one of the major problems is that linguists believe if a method is applicable once, it will be applicable for ever. He argues the reliability of the regularity of sound laws (which approach is the foundation of historical linguistics), and he reveals the problems of glottochronology (which is a method of dating the replacement of certain words).

As you can see, there are many problems with comparative-historical linguistics. Comrie’s paper is a good summary of the most important issues in this field.

 

Alinei: Paleolithic Continuity Theory of Language Evolution

Darwinism, traditional linguistics and the new Paleolithic Continuity Theory of Language Evolution

‘Language is a social artifact with an interface with nature, which is governed by the law of conservation and changes only exceptionally.’ Language change is not organic as traditional linguists claim. The change is an exception, not the rule and only occurs by external influence.

Mario Alinei starts his article, Darwinism, traditional linguistics and the new Paleolithic Continuity Theory of Language Evolution with a description of the history of linguistics regarding to the nature of language. He says that Darwinism had very little influence on the linguists of the 19^th century instead an influence by catastrophism can be seen on linguistics. Catastrophic ideas had arisen like gigantic language replacements or extinctions. Peoples like Indo-Europeans, Finn-Ugric or Altaic were seen as unknown invaders coming from nowhere. When linguists started to apply the Darwinian principle of gradual and constant evolution of nature following specific laws, they assumed that language was a living organism, consequently language changed organically. But it’s a misconception. The author doesn’t say that languages don’t change, he says that they change like other social artifacts such as clothes, money, laws, etc. ‘Language changes in two distinct ways: lexically and grammatically. Lexical change is culture dependent, grammatical change is history-dependent.’ ‘The only law inherent to language is conservation.’

And what if the changes only are made by society and that’s why language change has to be classified as a branch of sociology, but the very nature of language origin has to be searched among biological explanations?

‘The present is the key to the past.’ Linguists ‘consider the present as irrelevant for the study of the prehistoric past.’ However, there are finds which support that areal distribution corresponds to the history of certain language families. For example, the Uralic continuity from the Paleolithic is already an accepted theory.

He gathers evidence of the continuity from five different sciences that language has a pre-human origin which implies an evolution of language: General linguistics, Paleoanthropology, Cognitive Science, Genetics and Archeology. After the description of the continuity theory he draws the main lines of the Paleolithic Continuity Theory’s reconstruction for Indo-European language family.

Alinei’s theory seems to rewrite the history of the Indo-European populations as he sees them not as an invading people, but aboriginals. So, it means, we cannot ever be sure about our knowledge. What is correct today, may turn out to be wrong tomorrow. Let me know, what you think! 

Alinei: The Etruscans were Turks

I have just finished reading Professor of Linguistics, Mario Alinei’s book entitled Gli Etruschi erano Turchi (The Etruscans were Turkish). As we can assume from the title, the author claims an affinity between the Etruscans and Turkic peoples. I know little about Etruscans, but being a Turkolog the title drew my attention. The Etruscan origin of Turks (or vice verse) is not a mainstream theory since according to the common knowledge, Turks arrived in Anatolia only in the 11^th century as an invading population, but Alinei claims that Turks had lived in Anatolia very much earlier. According to his hypothesis, the Anatolian Turks (who came from Troy) arrived and founded the Etruscan Empire. Sincerely, at first sight, it seemed to me more a fantastic idea rather than a reality, but my curiosity did not let me just discard the book. Actually, I also had got some insight after some research in the field that Turkic peoples must have lived in Anatolia even earlier than the common knowledge teaches us.  

Well, let me make some comments about the book!

He starts with the discovery of genetic affinity between Turkic people and Etruscans which he confirms by linguistic and cultural evidence. I reasoned in this way: if there is a genetic affinity, it really means something! Of course, language affinity is not necessarily equal to genetic affinity but he collects the evidence of the affinity between these two peoples from other fields as well which strengths the possibility of the linguistic affinity.

In general, he uses a clear, understandable language (which is rare), an interdisciplinary approach (also rare) taking support from genetics, linguistics, archaeological finds and history. In my judgment, it should be a fundamental approach for all scholars as without knowing the ‘background story’ it is impossible to have a clear picture of a special field.

I focused especially on the linguistics part because the rest is outside my competence and it would be difficult to make fair comment. He gives a wordlist of 58 words with their etymology from Turkic languages.

Although there are very few texts which can be given relatively deeper analysis, and so making a comparison with other languages more difficult, the author gives a considerable solution to the origin of linguistic elements.

As far the linguistic evidence is concerned, some of it clearly can have a connection with Turkic while others seem to me to need more explanation. I know he had given Hungarian etymologies too in his other writings for some words listed in this book. From his point of view, the Hungarian or Turkic origins do not exclude each other, as he believes in the existence of the big Ural-Altaic language family.

Actually, more than the linguistic evidence, the genetic and cultural evidence has convinced me.

 I think, after so many traces in different fields the linguistic evidence also has to be searched somewhere in Anatolia, more specifically, among Turkic languages.  To my mind, some deeper analysis is definitely needed, but looking at the big picture, he has discovered something very interesting!

I recommend this book to everyone who is interested in the origins of peoples and languages in general, but it can satisfy the desire for knowledge by linguists in special fields like Etruscology or Turkology as well. 

Evidence that most Indo-European Lexical reconstructions are artefacts

What if the Indo-European language family does not exist? Do we have clear, well-founded linguistic evidence? Would you ever think that the ‘Indo-European evidence’ is deniable?   

Angela Marcantonio, professor in the University of Rome, Sapienza questions the foundation of this language family in her work entitled Evidence that most Indo-European Lexical reconstructions are artefacts of the linguistic method of analysis.

‘I shall argue that the great majority of the conventionally stated I-E sound laws lack statistical significance and that, as a consequence, most of the conventionally established correspondences (within a chosen corpus) are, in fact, not correspondences, but similarities, most probably ‘chance resemblances’.’ The Author does not claim that Indo-European languages are not related (as some criticisms drew such a conclusion), she only claims in this article that the method of analysis is wrong. However, clearly we cannot even be sure what the Indo-European languages are if the method of analysis is wrong.

Why is it wrong? Because according to her, the Indo-European theory is based on an assumption, specifically called the circular issue. It means that the conclusion depends on the original assumption. The languages to compare are often chosen by subjective assessments. The whole problem starts with the wrong method: the so-called comparative method. She would not throw it out completely. She says that method would be useful after a language family has been already established, and not to establish it.

She adds a very interesting statement:  ‘there are linguistic areas for which we ‘know’ that the languages are related, but whose relatedness cannot be demonstrated by using the logic of the comparative method’. I wholly agree with her about the methodical issue. Why do not we even assume the possibility that there are methods which can work for certain languages or language families while we may apply different methods for other languages or language families?

It is an extremely interesting article about the Indo-European linguistic evidence and the method of analysis! 

Doerfer: Genetic relationship of languages review

Have you ever wondered how the relationship of two languages can be proved? How can linguists claim whether two languages are related and what kind of relationship they have? Have they genetic affinity or are the similarities between them only borrowings? Gerhard Doerfer collected the main conditions of establishing linguistic relationships in his article The conditions for proving the genetic relationship of languages.

“Science is not a study of things which exist but of those which can be proved to exist.”

Have you ever wondered how the relationship of two languages can be proved? How can linguists claim whether two languages are related and what kind of relationship they have? Have they genetic affinity or are the similarities between them only borrowings? Gerhard Doerfer collected the main conditions of establishing linguistic relationships in his article The conditions for proving the genetic relationship of languages.

Would not you think that similarities would be the key for genetic relationship? Probably, one would think at first glance that similarities in structure really means something. However, we can learn that similarity proves nothing!

Let’s look at how to prove genetic relationship then! The principles are quite logical: we need to find words to compare in a significant amount (400 comparable roots) which satisfy qualitative conditions as well. What are the qualitative conditions? That ‘famous’ sound laws have to be established although he also admits that words do not always satisfy conditions of sound laws. The work of the linguist is very hard! We have a fundamental condition which cannot always be satisfied! 

Furthermore, he has a very interesting approach: understanding the difference between norm and rule! It means that the sound laws are the norm of development while deviations can be registered as a rule. In addition, very often overlapping of several sound laws occur!  

Another problem to deal with is the coincidences. It can happen that two words originally have nothing to do with each other. The idea is that two words are comparable if their roots are comparable, so they have similar meanings and phonetic characteristics. What else is needed for the recipe of proving genetic relationship?

It is known to prove genetic relationship it is necessary to find basic words like parts of body terms or numerals, etc. However, essential basic words can also be loaned frequently. The author tries to solve this problem by distinguishing other categories. Anyhow, he poses a question after defining the conditions. Do basic words exist?

The answer is right there in his article: basic words do not exist, but basic categories exist.

This work is very informative and contains contributions for the bases of linguistic comparison. Even if you are not an expert in the topic, it may give you several interesting insights. I would absolutely recommend it to have an idea what the mainstream approach is in linguistics for proving linguistic relationship.

 

Symbolic Species review

‘We know how to use a word to mean something and to refer to something. We know how to coin new words and to assign new meanings to them. We know how to create codes and artificial languages. Yet we do not know how we know how to do this, nor what we are doing when we do.’

What is language? Why don’t animals have a language? Why aren't there any simple languages? And why are even simple languages almost impossible for other species to learn? What is the difference between language and nonlanguage communication?

I have read this very interesting book called Symbolic Species. The co-evolution of language and the brain written by Terrence W. Deacon, an American Neuroanthropologist. He answers these questions!

He is not a linguist (sometimes he gets criticism for this reason), but his ideas and explanations are clear and very logical. He deals with the language from a new point of view. He explains how the language and the brain co-evolved. He gives a definition for language that I have never heard or thought:

‘They might better be compared to viruses. Viruses are not quite alive, and yet are intimately a part of the web of living processes. Viruses are on the liminal border between the living and nonliving because they lack organs in any normal sense, including any vestige of metabolic or reproductive systems.’

If you are interested in topics like the origin of language, definition of language, language and mind, etc. this book is worth reading!