Contributions by Steve Long

[Larry Trask]

On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 ECOLING at aol.com wrote:

Well, Steve Long will doubtless be bemused to find himself the subject
of discussion on this list.  But Lloyd Anderson has made it so, and,
since Lloyd has quoted me repeatedly in his posting, I guess I might
respond to a few of his points -- especially since I think that Steve
and Lloyd are both gravely wrong on certain fundamental points.

I think both have fallen badly into the reification fallacy.  The
reification fallacy lies in inventing a name, and then concluding that,
since we have a name, there must exist something "out there" for the
name to refer to.

In the linguistic case, the fallacy lies in assuming that names like
`English', `German' and `Italian' must designate actual entities in the
real world, because the names exist.

Both go further in assuming, quite explicitly, that the question of
whether two varieties X and Y are "the same language" or "different
languages" is, in general, a meaningful question, and moreover a simple
one with a straightforward answer.

But this is wrong, all wrong.

Names like `English', `German' and `Italian' designate real-world
entities only to the extent that enough people want this to be so -- for
whatever reasons.  Those reasons are just as likely to be historical,
cultural and political as they are linguistic.

Are Bulgarian and Macedonian the same language or not?  The Bulgarians
say "yes", largely because they'd like to annex Macedonia.  The
Macedonians say "no", largely because they don't want to be annexed.

Is Serbo-Croatian a single language, or are Serbian, Bosnian and
Croatian three different languages?  Well, until a few years ago,
practically everybody, including the locals, was happy to agree there
was only the one language.  But, since the breakup of Yugoslavia, things
have changed: the locals are now insisting heatedly that there are three
different languages.  No linguistic change led to this change of view:
only political events did.  But now the linguistic changes are
following, as the three groups scramble to distance their own speech
from that of the others.

Is Scots a variety of English or a separate language?  Well, a number of
Scots have argued that it is a separate language, and, if it had not
been for the Act of Union in 1707, we might all recognie Scots as a
distinct language today.  But, because of that Act, we don't.  There are
no linguistic considerations here: just political ones.

> Point 1.

> Family Tree representations can be much improved.

Sure, but this is not news.  We linguists have realized since family
trees were invented that they represent considerably less than the whole
truth.  The literature is full of proposals for improving our trees.
But it's hard.  Linguistic reality is so complex that highly realistic
trees become imossible to interpret in a useful way.

> Point 2.

> Parent and daugher languages can indeed in theory co-exist,
> exactly as Steve Long said.

No, they can't, as I'll try to show below.

> I use here the definition of distinctness of "languages" preferred by
> most linguists, including the experts on this list, that is, fuzzily,
> "forms of speech which are mutually unintelligible".

Sorry, but I don't think this is the definition of `languages' used by
most linguists.  If anything, it's closer to the man-in-the-street's
perception.  Linguists are aware that mutual intelligibility or the lack
of it is only one of many factors which may help to determine whether
varieties are best regarded as two languages or as a single language.
I could cite examples for hours -- Chinese, Italian, Dyirbal -- but I'll
leave that now.

> Using that definition, Steve was right.
> The fact that there is no sharp line is of no concern here,
> because we can work with clear cases not the fuzzy boundary.

No, I don't think we can.  I don't think there exist any clear cases
which are relevant to this discussion.  All interesting cases are fuzzy.

> Since this definition has been advocated by participants on this list
> in other contexts,

Perhaps, but not by me.

[Pete Grey]

>> Imagine a situation where a group of spakers of a language go and settle
>> elsewhere, where substrate and other factors make their language change
>> swiftly, while those who stayed at home enjoy a very much slower rate of
>> change.    After some years, and political upheaval, we can see a situation
>> where the settlers are deemed to be speaking a different language from that
>> which they brought with them years before.

>> I suspect that [one contributor] is saying that the stay-at-homes are also
>> speaking a different language, by definition;  while some others are saying
>> that if the changes are few enough, it should be defined as the parent
>> language.   And of course, both sides are right - which is why there is so
>> little understanding on both sides.   The debate is ultimately based simply
>> on our definition of what a single language is.

But we have no such definition, nor do I believe that one is possible.

> If we now apply the definition to a situation of one mother M and
> two dialects A and B, where one dialect A has changed so little in
> say 100 years that we have no excuse for saying M and A are
> different languages, by our standard definition of different vs.
> same language, we must by that definition say they are the same
> language (and NOT merely for political reasons, one of a zillion red
> herrings in this discussion),

Right.  So a language can co-exist with its own descendant?
I don't think so, and I think this conclusion can be destroyed by what
Llyod elsewhere calls "simple logic".

Is the English of 1999 "the same language" as the English of 1998?
I take it that Lloyd and Steve would at once answer "yes".
So: is the English of 1998 "the same language" as the English of 1997?
If you answered "yes" the first time, you must answer "yes" now.
But you can see where this leading.  If the answer is "yes", then, by
transitivity, the English of 1999 is "the same language" as the English
of King Alfred the Great 1000 years ago.  Are you happy with this?  The
two varieties are not at all mutually comprehensible, since the changes
in 1000 years have been dramatic.

You can go further.  Is modern English "the same language" as
Proto-Germanic?  As PIE?  If not, then at what stage do we have a cutoff
point between one language and the next, and why?

> but the other dialect has changed enormously, so that we are FAR
> PAST the point of having to say M and B are distinct languages,
> there is virtually no comprehension at all between them, then in
> such a situation

Somebody (Pete?) posted a nice example from North America, in which
language L has split into two varieties A and B, such that A is only
modestly changed from L while B is vastly different.  Does this mean
that Steve is right?

I don't think so.  Variety A is not identical to its ancestor L -- it
can't be.  Of course it's more similar to L than B is, but so what?

Suppose A had died out, and B were the only surviving descendant of L.
Is B "the same language" as L?  If not, then when was the cutoff point?
At what point did B stop being L?  How can such a question possibly be
answered?

Take a real case in this vein.  Is modern Greek "the same language" as
ancient Greek?  If not, where's the cutoff point?  And why do we call
both of them `Greek'?  But, if you think they are the same language,
then what's your response to the observation that Pericles and an
Athenian taxi-driver couldn't understand each other at all?

> Steve Long is correct that a parent M=A
>      (A is the "same language" as the parent M)
> can co-exist with a daughter B
>      (a "different language" from A / M).

I think I've just disposed of this claim.

In sum, I firmly believe that the question `Are related varieties A and
B the same language or different languages?' is one devoid of
linguistic content.  And all discussions predicated upon the belief that
this is a linguistically meaningful question with a linguistically
meaningful answer are badly misguided.

Larry Trask
COGS
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QH
UK

larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk