Time
Depth in Historical Linguistics, edited by COLIN RENFREW, APRIL McMAHON
& LARRY TRASK
The McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research. 2000. 681 pages, 2 volume set ISBN 1-902937-06-6. Vol 1 ISBN
1-902937-13-9. Vol 2 ISBN 1-902937-14-7 (£50.00/ $90.00)
Time depth represents one of the most challenging
problems in historical linguistics. It is increasingly necessary to
make comparisons with archaeological and genetic data to construct a
broad historical interpretation of the past. However, unlike archaeology
and genetics there is no commonly agreed method of dating either absolutely
or relatively. To achieve any systematic comparison with these other
types of data, historical linguistics has to achieve a consensus view
of linguistic time depth. The McDonald Institute symposium and the subsequent
two volume set of papers focuses on establishing some common ground
between the competing techniques used to determine the sequence of a
languages evolution.
Many of the papers in these volumes show a revival
of interest in the much criticised techniques of glottochronology and
lexicostatistics. Both sides of the debate were well represented. The
proponents reformulated the more traditional approaches to produce a
more sophisticated form of these methods. The greater quantification
of linguistics may prove a fruitful example of the increase in sophistication
being applied to time depth. The advocates of these methods, such as,
Baxter, Pagel and Peiros, gave clear examples of why the methods were
useful and how they could achieve the desired goal. The more sceptical
researchers, for example, Blust, Dolgopolsky and Matisoff, subjected
the techniques both new and old to critical examination.
There are also well reasoned critiques of all the
methods used to determine time depth, for example, Campbell, Trask and
Comrie. In the first of these papers, Campbell outlines the background
of the main techniques and then gives a cogent analysis of the advantages
and draw backs of each method. Comrie outlines the problems associated
with rate at which languages may change. The proposal here is that language
change may be accepted more readily in small communities than in large
and therefore that social structure may be more important than previously
credited. Trask examines the pitfalls associated with relative chronologies.
He points out that linguistic events may not be a once and for all event
but may form part of continuous processes that may mislead us. Linguistic
reality may be far more complicated than anticipated with competing
forms appearing in a language. This then means that loss and assimilation
may occur simultaneously. Furthermore, sounds may revert through random
forces to earlier forms again making relative time depth less easy to
determine.
Despite the concentration on glottochronology and
lexicostatistics in these volumes there were many other methods discussed
including, phonetic comparisons, linguistic palaeontology, and morphosyntactic
comparison. Good examples are drawn on to illustrate the various techniques
such as Dolgopolsky’s in palaeontology, using numeric systems
and combining this with cultural evidence determining the social conditions
necessary for such developments, Gamkrelidze and Wiik use similar methods.
Heggarty and Matras look at phonetics and grammar respectively to construct
possible time depths for language evolution. Nichols uses a variety
of linguistic features to argue for estimates of time depth using the
linguistic diversity of the Americas. Her view is however, hotly contested
by other contributors. The most reasoned arguments against her stance
are proposed by Nettle, who points out that Nichols seems to have chosen
the least plausible assumptions as the basis for her models.
Although the no consensus was reached on any of the
issues discussed in these papers, a few general basic assumptions were
agreed by most of the participants. These included the general premise
that two populations speaking the same language would if separated for
some reason, will from that point begin to diverge in linguistic features.
These may include changes in grammar and phonation, and words may be
lost or change meaning. All of these and many more features will mean
that gradually the two groups will be come over time more linguistically
different from each other. Researchers were also in agreement that a
common tool-kit of methods was needed for linguistic comparison and
classification. This was an encouraging view point of the volumes that
rather than reject outright methods that were partially successful in
favour of the elusive goal of a single all encompassing method researchers
were prepared to refine existing methods and to import methods found
to be successful in other related disciplines.
The volumes of papers are not an easy read. They present
complex ideas and discussions to members of the same discipline and
therefore do not always use language that would be immediately accessible
to the non-specialist. However the volumes are of great benefit in bringing
together the main views and theories current in historical linguistics.
These volumes would be extremely useful for those trying to understand
the arguments surrounding time depth in historical linguistics, particularly
those such as archaeologists and geneticists seeking integration between
their own discipline and the history of early language.
Margaret Clegg
University College London
Review Submitted: February 2004
The views expressed in this review are not
necessarily those of the Society or the Reviews Editor.
|