Clicks

[Alexander King]

Any connection between genes and phonological features of a language 
is patently absurd. Boas deconstructed any serious link between 
biology and language in 1911 in his introduction to HAIL. His logic 
holds just as well if we replace his term "biology" with "genotypes". 
Indeed, it is even stronger, considering contemporary understandings 
of the term "biology" are much more expansive than he was using it a 
century ago. More recent investigations of the overlap between 
genetic populations and linguistic communities continues to report 
that even in the case of considerable overlap of these two groups, 
there remains substantial variation within the group. The main 
problem is that the timescales of genetic evololution and linguistic 
change are vastly different.

Other anthropologists working in Southern Africa have attacked the 
"ancient gene" model of understanding San biogenetics. This is 
dangerously close to putting a very vunerable population just one 
short step on the ladder from monkeys and well below whitefolk with 
more "modern" genes. There was some discussion of this at the 
Conference on Hunters and Gatherers (CHAGS9) in Edinburgh in 2002. I 
believe that the "ancient gene" discussion is supposedly based on 
evidence that San populations have genes which seem to have 
experienced much fewer mutations over the millenia. I cannot assess 
that argument, but have heard geneticists attack it based on genetic 
science. In any case, their genes are just as "modern" as any other 
modern human's! This kind of "ancient gene" talk is vulnerable to 
Fabian's critique of the denail of coevalness (a pretty old book 
now). We, and our genes, are here in the same time. It's 2006 in the 
South African bush just as much in NYC.

-Alex

At 9:23 pm -0500 27/3/06, Francis M Hult wrote:
>I will not venture a guess on the reason for clicks.  I would be 
>curious to know the
>reasons for the 'spooking game' hypothesis, though.
>
>As far as DNA markers go, they may be indicators of a genetic 
>population which I suppose
>could map on to a speech community.  Thinking along these lines, one might
>suggest that linguistic features within such a population could 
>develop through natural
>processes of language evolution.  This might be what the author of 
>the article suggests. 
>There are, of course, countless potential problems with this line of thinking.
>
>Francis
>
>----- message from Ronald Kephart <rkephart at unf.edu> -----
>
>>  Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 20:11:43 -0500
>>  To: linganth-list <linganth at cc.rochester.edu>
>>  From: Ronald Kephart <rkephart at unf.edu>
>>  Subject: [Linganth] Clicks
>>  X-URPMX-Version: 4.7.1.128075, Antispam-Engine: 2.1.0.0, 
>>Antispam-Data: 2006.03.27.155108
>>  Precedence: bulk
>>
>>  All,
>>
>>  In the March 2006 issue of National Geographic (yeah, I can hear the
>>  groans), there's an article on the migration of human DNA out of
>>  Africa. And on page 66, there's this:
>>
>>  "The San communicate with clicks to keep from spooking game-- a
>>  feature that is also found in languages spoken by other African
>>  groups who carry ancient DNA markers."
>>
>>  So.... two questions:
>>
>>  (1) Do any serious linguists believe that the San or their ancestors
>>  chose to put clicks in their languages to keep from "spooking game"?
>>
>>  (b) Is the implication warranted that because the San carry "ancient
>>  DNA markers" therefore unusual features of their language, such as
>>  clicks, are therefore also vestiges of the ancient language spoken by
>>  their ancestors?
>>
>>  Ron
>>
>>  PS: I'm not going to write to the National Geographic; I tried that
>>  once, years ago, and was told more or less to "bugger off, we're the
>>  National Geographic and we know everything."
>
>----- End forwarded message -----


-- 
University of Aberdeen  http://www.abdn.ac.uk/anthropology
            Koryaks Net  http://www.koryaks.net

tel:+44(1224)27 2732
fax:+44(1224)27 2552