the meaning of "genetic relationship"

[benji wald]

There is a point about "genetic relationship" that I think is worth
considering, because I think both sides on various controversies about it
tend to ignore it.  To begin with, we can take Ruhlen Merritt's fallacious
argument that reconstruction presupposes genetic relationship, which he
takes to mean that genetic relationship has already been "established"
before comparative reconstruction can begin.  For him it is established on
the basis of the kinds of Greenbergian mass comparisons which have figured
(or been attempted to figure) most recently in this list in the discussion
of the relationship between Dravidian and the African families -- and,
admittedly, in Greenberg's division of African languages into four genetic
families, now generally accepted -- but not without further testing and
refinement.  Against the mass comparison method, other historical linguists
have inevitably argued about the confounding effects of borrowing and
chance resemblances.  My thought, as follows, is that when we talk about
genetic relationships among LANGUAGES, rather than parts of the lexicon,
morphology etc etc, both sides obscure something.
 
Thus, first, against Merritt's argument.  He's absolutely wrong.  Mass
comparison gives the basis for a genetic HYPOTHESIS.  Comparative
reconstruction TESTS that hypothesis.  Without it nothing has been proven,
not genetic relationship, borrowing or chance resemblance.
 
Next, to the extent that a comparative reconstruction is successful it does
NOT demonstrate that the "languages" involved are genetically related, but
only that those PARTS of the languages which are reconstructed are
genetically related.  Of course, it provides confidence that other parts of
those languages are also genetically related, but, again, that is only
DEMONSTRATED when reliable comparative reconstruction is performed on those
other parts.  Otherwise, it remains only a possibility.  Creoles and mized
languages show that genetic relationship of some parts of a set of
languages do not always presuppose that other parts of the same languages
are necessarily GENETICALLY related.  And indeed, it is well-known that all
languages borrow as well as genetically inherit.
 
Thus, speaking about genetic relationship among "languages" as "wholes" is
loose talk.  The internal structure of trees intending to show branching
genetic relationships are always a problem because different parts of a set
of languages are not always related in the same way.  Innovations begin in
different areas and have different spreads according to the time of contact
and subsequent events.  This is well-known from dialect geography, but adds
confusion to arguments about genetic relationship.  Sometimes, it does
little harm, but when we are in the mass comparison stage, it can result in
much futile argument.
 
Having said this, I admit that the poor quality of Winter's data and
arguments have been worth pointing out.  But I see no reason to postpone my
thoughts until more competent proposals flare up.
--  Benji