Africa vs. Americas, Multilateral Comparison

Dr. John E. McLaughlin mclasutt at brigham.net
Tue Oct 12 14:58:37 UTC 1999


Lloyd's recent response to my thoughts on using Greenberg's multilateral
comparison in Africa and America was quite thoughtful and implies that I'm
not willing to accept ANY use of multilateral comparison in the proper
context.  This isn't the case, but Greenberg's misuse of the results of his
multilateral comparison often clouds the issue and I am guilty of not being
absolutely precise.

Let me summarize, if I may, the similarities and differences between Lloyd's
and my positions vis a vis Multilateral Comparison and Greenberg.

Multilateral Comparison:

Multilateral Comparison is a useful tool in the initial stages of linguistic
investigation of a large area.  It has been used since the beginning of the
historical/comparative method as one tool among many.  It is not a
conclusive proof of anything in and of itself because it ignores factors of
chance, fails to properly identify borrowing, fails to take into account
historical and other nonlinguistic factors, and is dependent on the quality
and quantity of available materials for the languages involved.  It can be
suggestive of potential areas for further research.  Misused, it can give
the appearance of a final proof of genetic relationship that may or may not
actually be there.  Any results must be validated or invalidated with
further research using comparative methodology.  Lloyd and I agree on this.
(I'm going to infer some of this from your posts, Lloyd, so if I'm not
correct about your opinions, I apologize in advance.)

Greenberg's use of multilateral comparison:

1.  Greenberg makes the error of using multilateral comparison to prove
genetic relationship in the Americas instead of merely suggesting further
avenues of research.  His arguments in "Language in the Americas" are clear
that he does not consider his results to be merely suggestive, but
conclusive.  Greenberg, and his principal disciple, Merritt Ruhlen, have
spread this "proof" throughout the nonlinguistic world as accomplished
demonstration.  I think that Lloyd may not completely agree with this, but I
do.

2.  Native American language specialists have generally rejected Greenberg's
claims due to lack of evidence, following well-established practice that
multilateral comparison merely suggests, it does not prove.  However, in our
zeal to undo the false perception of final proof that Greenberg has placed
in the public's mind, we often overdo our criticism of Greenberg's misuse of
multilateral comparison and appear to be condemning the act of multilateral
comparison itself.  Of this I am guilty.  Multilateral comparison is a
preliminary tool, but Greenberg has used it as proof--that's the main issue
among Americanists.  It is this overzealousness on my part to which Lloyd
takes issue.  I'll be more accurate in my wording in the future.

John E. McLaughlin, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
mclasutt at brigham.net

Program Director
Utah State University On-Line Linguistics
http://english.usu.edu/lingnet

English Department
3200 Old Main Hill
Utah State University
Logan, UT  84322-3200

(435) 797-2738 (voice)
(435) 797-3797 (fax)



More information about the Indo-european mailing list