Sarich and historical linguistics

[Dorothy Disterheft]

In a message dated 9/27/2000 6:36:24 AM, larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk writes:

<<... I want also to talk about the seemingly immense influence of the=20
long-rangers among our colleagues, who often appear to believe that the=20
long-rangers speak for historical linguistics. =20
...I've become particularly interested in the writings of the eminent=20
molecular anthropologist Vincent Sarich, one of the founders of the=20
out-of-Africa hypothesis of human origins. Unlike most other non-linguists,=20
Sarich has stepped into historical linguistics in a big way -- and he doesn'=
t=20
like us historical linguists very much.>>

I hope Larry and everyone else will understand my posting this to the list.=20=
=20
I think it's important to just add a few observations about Sarich that may=20
put his remarks in context.

First of all, it should be remembered that Vincent Sarich has for a long tim=
e=20
taken an advocacy position (and called himself an advocate) regarding certai=
n=20
aspects of human genetics.  He has been for example prominently involved in=20
the dialogue on race and IQ.  And it should also be noted that the article=20
Prof Trask cites (http://pubpages.unh.edu/~jel/sarich.html), entitled "RACE=20
and LANGUAGE in PREHISTORY", is clearly a piece of "advocacy," which=20
obviously treats historical linguistics only as it relates to and serves to=20
advance Sarich's goals with regard to a somewhat larger argument.

Sarich's position on Greenberg and longrangers is pretty much dictated by th=
e=20
Out-of-Africa hypothesis and various other positions Sarich takes regarding=20
genetics and human culture. =20

What clear from the piece is that Sarich is trying to backdate language far=20
enough to make its diversity correlate with current human genetic diversity.=
 =20
Sarich advocates the view that modern human diversity, human intelligence an=
d=20
cultures were born full-blown at some point after the Out-of-Africa event=20
some 100,000 years ago -- with relatively little convergence since.  In the=20
piece, his argument with scientists claiming that language is a recent=20
development is expressly motivated by his position that languages matches up=
=20
with racial genetics.  Sarich is not really a lumper in the strict sense.

And given all the above some caution might be called for in using Sarich as=20
representative of an academic non-linguist's views of historical linguistics=
.=20
 I suspect that if it better served his larger purposes, he would be citing=20
Lehmann and Trask.

This isn't the first time of course that historical linguistics has been=20
called upon to support wider conclusions about human history.  Sarich is=20
fairly unique however in viewing certain elements of it as supporting=20
conclusions that reach back some 30,000 years.

It should be said that there are serious scientists who are not comfortable=20
with Sarich's understanding of the evidence of paleo-culture, much less of=20
his understanding of paleo-language.  (And that's not to say that the geneti=
c=20
implications of Out-of-Africa hasn't been challenged either.)

Some of us think Sarich may be seriously underestimating paleo-humans and ho=
w=20
long it took to develop something as sophisticated as human biology, human=20
culture and human language.  On another web page, for example, one can find=20
an article by the formidable paleobiologist Henry Gee about the Sch=F6ningen=
=20
spears. (http://quartz.ucdavis.edu/~GEL115/spears.html)  To some, the=20
sophistication and possibly accumulative design of these 400,000 year old hu=
n
ting javelins suggests that they could not have been developed or redevelope=
d=20
in a single generation.  And accumulating and transmitting complex knowledge=
=20
from one generation to the next suggests some form of transmission, perhaps=20
some form of language.

Finally, I'd point out also that maybe it is the traditional assumption of=20
strict vertical descent in languages that makes any part of historical=20
linguistics attractive to Vincent Sarich and his "anti-convergenist"=20
monogenetic polemics.  Those of us who think that there may be a relatively=20
high degree of convergence in linguistic history don't find commonalities=20
between languages extremely precise in illuminating prehistory or necessaril=
y=20
indicative of some common noble biological ancestor.  After all, the most=20
basic function of language is communication and that should move us all to=20
try to speak the same language, not different ones.

And, of course, it's refreshing for us "convergenists" to see that the=20
primacy of vertical descent has recently taken a good drubbing in biology. =20
(See, e.g., Stephen Jay Gould's "Linnaeus's Luck" in Natural History,=20
September 2000).  And some of us expect the same to eventually happen on a=20
different level to "Out-of-Africa".

In the meantime, it might be suggested that Vincent M. Sarich's views are no=
t=20
at all the best reflection of how informed non-linguists understand=20
historical linguistics.

Steve Long