<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Re: [An-lang] Proto-Dialect chains</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<STYLE type=text/css>BLOCKQUOTE {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px
}
DL {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px
}
UL {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px
}
OL {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px
}
LI {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1170" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Thanks to you all -it 's a wonderful feeling that
we once again have AN-LANG going again now.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>All the best to ALL, Paz</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Mes</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">sage ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=apawley@coombs.anu.edu.au
href="mailto:apawley@coombs.anu.edu.au">Andy Pawley</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=an-lang@anu.edu.au
href="mailto:an-lang@anu.edu.au">an-lang@anu.edu.au</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, July 17, 2003 11:42
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [An-lang] Proto-Dialect
chains</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>In response to comments by Isidore Dyen, John Terrell and Piet Lincoln on
the dialect chain issue:</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Yes, Lynch and I were discussing more fundametal comparative issues.
John's query about a convenient nomenclature was not the basic concern.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>My jumping off point was a long-standing interest in using subgrouping
and dialect geography to draw inferences about where earlier stages of a set
of related languages were spoken and about the nature of regional variation
within such earlier stages.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>We start with the well-known fact that regional variation in languages is
(in varying degrees) a problem for defining subgroups and for reconstructing
earlier stages. I had objected to certain instances in which linguists had
applied the term 'subgroup', without qualification, to some cases where the
distribution of innovations was pretty messy.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Let us contrast two hypothetical situations where one might be tempted to
say that within a language family X, languages A-D form a subgroup. Let
us also make the simplifying assumption that we know which features are
innovations of A-D as opposed to retentions from proto X.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>(1) The ideal subgroup. Languages A-D share a large body of innovations
apart from all other languages in family X. All the innovations are
present in all members of A-D. Furthermore, there are no innovations linking
any subset of A-D. Finally, all four languages are geographically far
apart. Such a pattern strongly indicates that A-D stem from an earlier
stage, proto A-D, in which there was relatively little regional variation, and
that each of A-D became geographically separated at about the same time. In
these ideal circumstances, if a cognate set is shared by any two or more
members of A-D it can confidently be attributed to proto A-D. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>(2). A messier situation. Languages P-S are linked only by many
overlapping innovations, such that certain innovations are shared by P-Q,
others by Q-R, others by R-S, and still others by P-R or Q-S. Furthermore, P-S
are geographically contiguous. Here we must conclude that P-S diverged
gradually from an old dialect chain, in which P was next to Q, Q was next to R
and R was next to S, in much the same geographic relations as exists between
the contemporary languages, and that there was a long period during which
innovations spread along the dialect chain. At some stage there may have been
a more homogeneous language ancestral to P-S but we cannot tell this from the
available evidence.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Do we call P-S a subgroup? Put another way, can we speak of P-S as
sharing a proto-language? More specifically, if we are trying to reconstruct
proto PS, what status do we give to those elements that are shared only by a
subset of P-S, say a cognate set found only in M and N? </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Actual cases may resemble types (1) and (2) more or less closely. Malcolm
Ross, has used the name 'innovation-defined subgroups' for sets of languages
that come close to type (1). Sets that show a pattern resembling (2) he calls
'innovation-linked subgroups'.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I have some some reservations about using 'subgroup' for sets of
languages ,linked only by overlapping innovations. Certainly it is the case
that some reconstructions associated with type (2) situations will represent
different dialect regions and different times. I think we should make a point
of describing/labelling such reconstructions in a way that shows their
problematic status.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Isidore Dyen comments:</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite"> I see little point to trying to
specify the type of membership of</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">a protolanguage in its nomenclature. Ths is
better handled in a list<BR>with indications of the interrelation of the
members in a family tree<BR>that allows for multiple simultaneous branchings
that indicate that we<BR>are unable to distinguish the order of the
branchings because the</BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>necessary data are lacking and in many cases will never be
accessible.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>There are certainly recalcitrant cases that fit the description in Dyen's
last sentence. But I think the type (2) situation, of overlapping innovations
that show a clear geographic pattern, is somewhat different. Here we have no
reason to believe that there was an order of branching within P-S. Instead
there was a gradual<I> in situ</I> disintegration of a dialect chain.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Sometimes careful study of the data, combining the methods of dialect
geography with the Comparative Method, enables us to work out the relative
chronology and direction of the spread of particular innovations along a
dialect chain. There are many such cases presented in Paul Geraghty 1983
book<I> The History of the Fijian Languages</I>, which is surely the most
brilliant application of dialect geography to a part of the Austronesian
family.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Andy Pawley </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">The impression I have is that thre are two
different things involved.<BR>The first is the the hypothesis of a
prolanguage and the second is the<BR>membership in terms of languages and
dialects in the subgroup emanating<BR>from that language. The protlanguage
is in any case a dialect chain. No<BR>two speakers of the same language have
identical idiolects (speech-<BR>types). A dialect is a collection of
idiolects that share the same<BR>trait or collection of traits. A language
is a collection of dialects<BR>(or idiolects)held together by a chain of
peirs of mutually<BR>intelligible idiolects. A dialect-chain is a grouping
of dialects that<BR>constitute a language. As a language your 'Ancestral..'
is a<BR>protolanguage with a dialect membership that we can vaguely, if at
all,<BR>see by way of reconstruction, not by imposing a shape to it, except
as<BR>the procedures of reconstruction imply them. The kind of dialect
chain<BR>that constituted the protolanguage is hard to infer from the
data<BR>available without very detailed comparisons along the lines that
you<BR>are engaged in and I hope you will continue to pursus. But as you
can</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">see, I see little point to trying to specify
the ty[pe of membership of</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">a protolanguage in its nomenclature. Ths is
better handled in a list<BR>with indications of the interrelation of the
members in a family tree<BR>that allows for multiple simultaneous branchings
that indicate that we<BR>are unable to distinguish the order of the
branchings because the</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">necessary data are lacking and in many cases
will never be accessible.<BR>I hope you will not take offense with my
dealing with what I think of<BR>as the fubdamentals of comparative work, but
i do believe that your<BR>problem as you presented it was best dealt with
from a review of those<BR>fundamentals. Cordially and with best wishes for
continued discussions.<BR>ID.<BR>Content-type:
multipart/alternative;<BR> boundary="Boundary_(ID_FOsoyfDtB+6wNaT0bY0Rxg)"<BR><BR><BR>--Boundary_(ID_FOsoyfDtB+6wNaT0bY0Rxg)<BR>Content-type:
text/plain<BR><BR>Andrew Pawley and I have been having a little private
e-discussion, but felt<BR>it might be better to come on-list to get a wider
spread of ideas.<BR><BR>The query relates to the nomenclature used for
protolanguages and families<BR>as opposed to proto-dialect chains and
linkages. One might refer to the<BR>Polynesian subgroup, for example, and to
Proto-Polynesian, as implying a<BR>(fairly) homogeneous and uniform single
ancestral language. Forms labelled<BR>PPn *xyz would thus represent forms
which, to the best of our knowledge,<BR>were part of that
protolanguage.<BR><BR>My concern is with dialect-chains. There was probably
a Southern Oceanic<BR>linkage, an dialect-chain ancestral to the languages
of Vanuatu and New<BR>Caledonia. To use the same nomenclature for this
proto-dialect chain - i.e.,<BR>Proto-Southern Oceanic - tends to imply that
it is of the same nature as a<BR>more homogeneous protolanguage, which it is
not.<BR><BR>Nevertheless, it seems to me that it would be useful to have
some fairly<BR>tight and neat way of referring to such ancestors, and not by
some<BR>long-winded expression like "Ancestral Southern Oceanic
dialect-chain" or</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">some such, especially since one can
legitimately also make reconstructions<BR>for such a "language", with the
proviso that they are less secure and were<BR>probably more subject to
internal variation than those made for<BR>protolanguages.<BR><BR>My
suggestion to Andy was to use lower-case p: proto-Southern Oceanic
and<BR>pSOc as opposed tpo Proto-Polynesian and PPn. I felt this would be
a<BR>sufficient indication of difference, and yet at the same time
brief,<BR>succinct, and similar enough to existing conventions.<BR><BR>Does
anyone have any reactions to such a convention, or more importantly
any</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">idea on what others might have
used?<BR><BR>Thanks,<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite">John Lynch<BR> <BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>An-lang mailing
list<BR>An-lang@anu.edu.au<BR>http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/an-lang<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>