the meaning of "genetic relationship"

[Isidore Dyen]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, bwald wrote:
 
> A few points in response to Dyen's last comments.
>
> He begins with:
> >The assumption that languages are unitary is a matter of definition.
>
> I offered the notion "descend from a SINGLE *system*.  But D did not pick
> up on this.  Later in his message he writes:
>
My point was very simple. The term 'language' is used under a variety of
definitions. I meant to indicate that as I was using the term a language
was a chain of pairs of mutually intelligible dialects and thus ended when
the chain ran out. This makes the term language strictly defined. What I
mean by mutual intelligibility for these purposes is being able
communicate with each other in their native dialect. This definition
produces a first (or native) language dialectology in which a language is
unitary. The term dialect is difficult; the term itself is used in such a
variety of ways, that in effect the definition a language given above
really appeals to the intuition in the matter of dialects. However it is
assumed that no two individuals whose speech-types are in the same
language are the same. Of course the term dialect is also applied to
collections of speech-types
that share a particular feature or some collection of features. [Here
'feature' is used for some relevant speech phenomenon, not in the
meaning it has in phonology.] In any case I believe it doesn't matter much
which definition of duialect you use.
 
 
 
> >If languages as hololects are assumed to be wholes, it follows that any
> >part of a language has descended from a hololect which was its earlier
> >stage. It is assumed that hololects do not mix. Under this assumption each
> >observed hololect is the endpoint of an infinite (i.e.
> >uninterrupted) sequence of stages originating in the first hololect (i.e.
> >the first nad only language) in the world.
>
> This does not seem to be a matter of definition, but a claim of
> "monogenetic" descent of all the world's languages.  We once discussed this
> on the list, with inevitable disagreement among discussants.  I don't see
> the logical connection between the assumption that languages don't mix (a
> false assumption in any case, in my understanding of what D is claiming)
> and that they all descend from "Proto-World".
 
Let us be clear. An assumption as I use it can not be false or arguable.
If you don't want to use that assumption, stick in one of your own or
disregard it in your approach to language history. But if languages
are permitted to mix, that is, if a language boundary between two
languages is permitted to dissolve, then the kind of inferences that we make
regarding the past hstory of a language must take the possibility of
mixing into account. The consequence is that the hypothesis of a
protolanguage becomes unavailable unless the possibility of mixture can be
ruled out. That is the function of the assumption. In a first language
dialectology applied through time, once a language has been
formed, its being disjoint cannot be destroyed. If you are willing to give
that up, I would say you are giving the power of the comparative method.
 
> > It does not matter to me whether you find this
> >interesting or not, ....Again it does not matter whether you consider this
> >interesting.
> >Such assertions of interest are personal and not subject to proof in any
> >sense and are thus irrelevant.
>
> This is a misunderstanding of my use of "uninteresting" in the context of
> the discussion.  I did not mean "boring", which would indeed be subjective,
> and even disrepectful.  I meant "uninsightful", "does not lead to further
> discoveries about the nature of linguistic change and what it implies to
> help provide an optimally clear, useful and further enlightening concept of
> genetic relationship".  I hope that clears up the misunderstanding.  I
> generally use the word "uninteresting" sparingly, to avoid such
> misunderstanding.
 
I suggest you don't use it at all. It is judgmental. You can disagree with
another's propositions or decline to use his assumptions. I have not
characterized your views in any way though I am aware of them from others
and have considered them. Since you have expressed them, I have tried to
show why I say what I do. I am not seeking to appear insightful or to say
insightful things. I am rather interested in presenting a consistent set
of propositions that I find useful in the comparative study of languages
If you don't find them useful...
 
 > > >The fact that from a practical point of view the
> >meaning of 'mutual intelligibility' is not refined enough to permit us to
> >determine in every single case whether it is present or absent is a matter
> >of a lack of scholarly interest, but its direct relation to the primary
> >function of language recommends it as a criterion for classifying
> >languages.
>
> Mutual intelligibility is, in fact, a very interesting and complex topic.
> The assumption that intelligibility between "pairs" of dialects is "mutual"
> is one of its interesting features -- and is questionable to begin with.
> Mutual exposure between neighbouring dialects can be assymetrical for
> social reasons, limiting intelligibility in one direction more than the
> other.  What is left when the variable of exposure is factored out, e.g.,
> on first hearing a neighbouring dialect, is another part of the whole
> story.  That involves to what extent knowledge of one dialect allows
> "prediction" of possible (intelligible/decipherable) features of another
> one, cf. extendability of the notion of "dialect" and "built-in" dynamics
> of possible linguistic change.  The broadest question that can be asked in
> this line of thought is what enables speakers to learn another lect
> (dia-/holo-) once they have learned one (or several if all first and
> simultaneously).
>
> Then, as I was suggesting with my comments about "intelligbility" within a
> single language (or hololect, if you want), it is a matter of degree.  It
> is clear that in the "no mixing" dogma, D wants to shut the door to
> convergence of dialects, which would make them more mutually intelligible,
> but that is at least as problematic as his dogma against mixing of
> languages/hololects.  Clearly convergence does occur, making dialects/lects
> in contact more similar, and it happens through communication.  D seems a
> little tunnel-vision in considering only divergence leading eventually to
> loss of intelligibility and ultimately to separate hololects.  That is only
> part of the story of possible outcomes of linguistic change, as any dialect
> atlas will amply demonstrate (-- more on this below).
>
> >Another assumption is that one hololect can become two by the
> >disappearance of any connecting pair of mutually intelligible dialects.
>
> That is the issue of "missing links", say, the ones that would definitively
> demonstrate that Germanic and Slavic descend from a tree node that excludes
> the other IE languages (whoops, I missed Baltic), or that Mongolian and
> Turkic are related (and closer than Manchu) -- if any of this is true.  It
> is indeed very interesting, but it is not the only possibility for loss of
> mutual intelligibility or emergence of distinct hololects (even excluding
> creoles and mixture for the moment).  But then D did not claim that this is
> the only way hololects develop -- at least not in the passage above.
> However, I'm not sure he allows himself any other way given his
> "definition" of hololects as chains of mutually intelligible pairs of
> dialects.  Is such a definition adequate for examining the facts of the
> real world of linguistic diversity?   A serious question of historical fact
> arises if all "transitional" dialects are seen as results of progressive
> divergence (joined by "links") rather than recognizing the possibility that
> some are convergent, due to "mixture" (or does D claim that only different
> hololects that can't mix, but dialects of the same hololect can?  Anyway,
> whatever he claims can't mix; WHY can't they? That can't be a matter of
> defintion.)
 
What you are getting into here is that given the definition of a language
as above, the inference that a prior stage of a language was (disjoint)
language or rather a dialect of a more extensive language might bre
difficult or impossible, whereas in some instances, the decision to be
made is obvious.
I should add that I find the term 'dogma' a pejorative term. I don't
characterize your statements. There is not reason to characterize mine.
We don't have to agree, and it is immaterial to me whether you agree with
what I say. I have entered into our discussion on the basis that I have
something to say that you might wish to consider. But if you don't
wish to...
 
 ma >
> >Creole hololects originate in situations in which a number of langages are
> >in competition and a pidgin develops for the convenience of all, but is
> >in the first place a second (non-native language) for all and not mutually
> >intelligible with any of the contributing languages.
>
> But mutual intelligibility is a matter of degree.  No doubt English
> speakers understood, say, West African pidgin English in its early stages
> better than Africans unfamiliar with either English or the developing
> pidgin, if only because of (much of) the vocabulary.  D seems to
> acknowledge the point about degree of mutual intelligibility in stating:
 
The view is available that zero mutual intelligibility occurs.
>
> >The point is this: a creole hololect must be mutually
> >unintellibligible at its start with those from which it draws its
> >linguistic matter, for if not, then it is mutually intelligible with at
> >least one and so a dialect of that one.
>
> The logic is fine.  But is the implication that the "creole" is a
> (non-native) "dialect" until it develops unintelligibility?  Or is it a
> claim that a "creole" must start out unintelligible to speakers of its
> base.  That does not seem to be the case for Hawaiian Creole.  It does not
> seem to have been less intelligible to speakers of English than the
> Hawaiian pidgin it developed from, and that was intelligible to a
> functional extent.  Despite the logic, a missing fact is that the pidgin
> and the creole, as is generally the case, were mutually intelligible. Does
> that make the pidgin anhd the creole part of a hololect?  Then are pidgins
> necessarily hololects?  Well, certainly not makeshift pidgins.  They're not
> hololects because they're not "whole" (even as single entities -- if that
> makes sense).  And yet they serve certain interests of communication and
> presuppose, actually provide, a certain degree of "mutual" intelligiblity
> among speakers.  No, this mutual intelligibility issues has to be taken
> more seriously and its implications sorted out.  I still think D uses the
> concept to no avail in circumscribing a "language" or "hololect".  I don't
> see its relevance to linguistic evolution.
 
 
I failed to make the point that I work with assumption of a first language
dialectology. It is therefore possible for the first speaker of a creole
to communicate with speakers of its antecedent pidgin, for whom obviously the
pidgin (by definition) is a scond language.
 
> NB: one might be tempted to assume that only through mutual intelligibility
> can dialects influence each other and changes spread from one dialect to
> another -- and there is no doubt some truth to this.  But only "some",
> since speakers can accomodate to any dialect or hololect (by becoming by
> bilingual) given sufficient exposure, and thus mutual intelligibility is
> not a "given" thing but an acquired thing (apart from what I suggested
> earlier).  Such acquisition often plays a role in change, where it is
> caused by contact between/among different communities, rather than where it
> is simply an individual matter for some traveller or whatever.
>
Without being disrespectful, let me suggest that you have used the term
'assume' above in the sense of 'conclude' or 'infer', not in its ological
sense. I don't object to l/ay terminology; I am not a logician. It is just
that you have called my assumptions 'dogmas', which I object to. It is
however important to try to keep the logical relation between our views in
order. I can not guarantee that I always succeed in this, but I try. As
for the rest of your statements, they refer to only some of the
complexities of the interaction between intercommunicants.
 
 > With regard to bilingualism, D wrote in a different message:
>
> >... there is no test by
> which we attempt to find out whether a bilingual's control of his two
> languages is equal or for example whether the complexity that the brain
> is dealing with is double that for a monolingual or less or, for that
> >matter, more.
>
> In principle there is no difference between the problem involved in "equal
> control of two languages" and the problem of deciding when a monolingual
> speaker has "fully" acquired his(/her) first language.  In both cases,
> there are various practical tests used to evaluate such "control".  Of
> course, we still have much to learn about the problem, and all impressions
> are approximative.  Some, perhaps most, linguists even go so far as to
> claim that languages change because speakers don't fully acquire
> (pre-existing versions of) their first language (I'm not among them).  In
> bilingual communities such issues are even more problematic, because
> bilinguals are generally judged by monolingual standards, and the
> difference between "change" and "lack of complete acquisition" is even more
> contentious.  A lot more is known than is suggested by D's first point
> above, but a lot remains to be explored, and in many cases it is not clear
> if "equal control" is an appropriate question to apply to the relevant
> bilingual phenomena.
 
I believe that you have begun to touch on the very important question that
deals with the time at which an individual can be said on the average to
be in control of his native language. If I suggest at the end of the first
decade of his life, I imagine I might attract some disbelief. For certain
purposes however, it strikes me as being not an unreasonable expectation.