Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Review of Dixon & Aikhenvald

AI-generated Abstract

The review assesses the collection "Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance," highlighting the exploration of inherited versus borrowed linguistic features, particularly in the context of Dixon's punctuated equilibrium model. The text critiques Dixon's assertions regarding Australian languages and discusses the implications for understanding global linguistic diversity. Additionally, a separate volume on universal properties of the language faculty within the principles and parameters paradigm is summarized, noting its contributions to the study of language variation and cross-linguistic differences.

JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS Kiparsky, P. (1998). Partitive case and aspect. In Butt, M. & Geuder, W. (eds.), The projection of arguments: lexical and compositional factors. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 265–307. McCawley, J. (1978). Conversational implicature and the lexicon. In Cole, P. (ed.), Pragmatics (Syntax and Semantics 9). New York: Academic Press. 245–259. Author’s address: The Department of English, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem, Israel. E-mail: mhovav@mscc.huji.ac.il (Received 10 March 2003) J. Linguistics 39 (2003). DOI: 10.1017/S0022226703222295 f 2003 Cambridge University Press Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance : problems in comparative linguistics. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2001. Pp. xvi+453. Reviewed by MIKAEL PARKVALL, Stockholms Universitet Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance is a collection of articles intended first and foremost to investigate the relationship between inherited and borrowed features in languages. Apart from the introduction, the volume contains two papers by the editors, and 12 by other – predominantly Anglo-Saxon – contributors. Most of the material was originally presented at the Research Centre for Linguistic Typology in Melbourne, Australia, which is the home base of the two editors. An explicit additional goal of the volume is to discuss the ‘punctuated equilibrium ’ model promoted by Dixon in his 1997 book The rise and fall of languages. For this reason, a few words about that book may not be amiss. His controversial claim, as I understand it, is that the classical Stammbaum model of genetic relationships between languages is the exception rather than the rule. If the proliferation-through-split process yielding the neat linguistic family trees we are all familiar with works pretty well so far as IndoEuropean languages are concerned, it is considerably less successful when it comes to Australian languages. Instead, Dixon argues, the Pama-Nyungan languages (grouping most of the native languages of Australia) may or may not be related, but whatever the case, the similarities observable today do not constitute proof of a genetic relationship. The claim is that on a continent where no or few truly radical perturbations upset the geolinguistic situation, features diffuse gradually until they are shared by a large number of not necessarily related languages, as any given language is constantly ‘sprachbunding ’ with all of its neighbours. When I originally read The rise and fall, I was less than convinced, and I was somewhat bothered by noting that Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance was intended to build on (and presumably promote) that idea, expecting 652 REVIEWS it to be a lengthy hommage à Dixon. Fortunately, this is not the case, and many of the contributions even make only cursory mention of the punctuated equilibrium model. A more thorough exposition of it, of course, is found in Dixon’s own chapter (and the introduction co-authored with Aikhenvald). For some reason, I am more positive about the idea here than I first was. Yet, even if the model accurately captures the situation in Australia (which most Australianists doubt), it remains to be proven, of course, that it also does so in other parts of the world. I find two of Dixon’s claims most interesting. First, he states, with regard to Australia, that ‘there is absolutely no bunching of isoglosses, which would be needed for high-level subgrouping within a fully articulated family tree ’ (87). This is disputed by virtually all Australianists, although it is difficult for a non-expert to evaluate the data. Secondly (and this should be more easily acceptable to a general linguist, although the actual figures could be questioned), he points out (7) that a single proto-Indo-European has produced just over 100 surviving daughters in 7,000 years. If this family were representative, and if mankind has possessed speech for 100,000 years, we would expect there to be 102*(100, 000/7,000), or in other words about 1028 languages in the world today. Clearly, this is not the case, and hence the case of Indo-European cannot possibly be representative. Whether one is convinced or not, the perspective certainly is interesting. On the other hand, Dixon is aware that the Australian languages on which he builds his case are exceptional in some respects. There is, for instance (if we are to take his word for it), no difference in replacement rate between core and non-core lexemes (83–84), although nouns are replaced more rapidly than verbs (and grammatical morphemes are more stable than lexical ones). Peter Bellwood’s contribution is also interesting, as he is primarily an archaeologist rather than a linguist. Not surprisingly, given the earlier collaborations between him and Colin Renfrew, Bellwood’s line of reasoning is closely aligned to Renfrew ’s. In other words, he takes the spread of agriculture to be a major cause of language spread. Bellwood also cautions (no doubt to Dixon’s liking) that most of humankind’s linguistic history belongs to a period of relatively egalitarian hunter-gatherer communities (30–31), for which reason we should be careful in applying experiences from modern language situations to older times. All in all, Bellwood’s chapter is a good read which whets the appetite. I should point out, though, that as a linguist, I cannot vouch for the quality of his archaeological data (but see Campbell (in press) for a critical assessment of the Renfrew/Bellwood approach). As in many of his earlier papers, Malcolm Ross discusses metatypy, a concept closely related to (and near-synonymous with) ‘calquing ’ or ‘syntactic borrowing ’ or ‘regrammaticisation ’. Frankly, little in this article goes beyond what common sense would suggest, but Ross does provide a useful list of languages he considers metatyped (146). He should also be 653 JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS commended for setting up a typology of the phenomenon. He furthermore makes a few claims on how metatypy proceeds, starting with semantic reorganisation before going on to morphosyntax (146, 149). Ross also points out that the process is normally unilateral, so that Sprachbund phenomena in essence consist of reiterated metatyping over a larger area (153). As a former creolist, I cannot help being puzzled and somewhat troubled by one aspect of Ross’s terminology. On the one hand, he distinguishes (correctly in my view) between ‘imperfect shift’ and ‘ creolization’ (160). Yet, he explicitly says that a creole is derived from an ‘imperfectly learned version ’ of a target language (158). Aikhenvald discusses the Amazonian region, drawing on the same fieldwork which produced her book with Dixon on Amazonian languages (Dixon & Aikhenvald 1999) a couple of years ago. Her main focus here is the impact of Bora-Witoto languages on the unrelated (Arawakan) Tatiana, which has been ‘restructured beyond recognition ’. Borrowed items include several personal pronouns, as well as classifiers. Geoffrey Haig’s contribution deals with a region less often thought of as a convergence area, namely eastern Turkey. He demonstrates several features which have come to be shared among the languages of the region (which include Laz, Kurdish, Zazaki and Turkish), but admits to being uncertain as to whether the area should be treated as a Sprachbund (209). The most spectacular item on display in this chapter is without doubt the Arderen dialect of Laz, which has become almost completely isomorphic with Turkish (216). Unlike many other contributors, Haig also ventures a theoretical claim: convergence proceeds from larger to smaller discourse units, since tighter grammaticalisation restricts the speaker’s freedom (219). The author finds some supporting evidence in studies on code switching, where switches are more frequent between higher level constituents than at lower levels. Such a claim predicts that, for instance, major constituent order would be more easily affected by language contact than would, e.g., the placement of adpositions (219–220). This is most certainly true, but if it were not, Haig admits his hypothesis would be falsified. James Matisoff discusses the problem regarding prestige relationships between languages. In south-east Asia, the direction of influence used to be from Mon to Burmese, and from Khmer to Thai, but in more recent times, both relations have been inverted, and this of course makes it more difficult to establish which parts of a language are original and which have been acquired through contact. Matisoff (302–303) usefully quantifies the interlinguistic influences on the ‘ borrowing scale ’ introduced by Thomason & Kaufman (1988). Most south-east Asian languages are only moderately affected by contact, and would score 1–2 on this scale. Four languages, however, display a higher degree of external influence (3–4). These are Burmese (influenced by Mon), Newari (of Nepal, influenced by its IndoAryan neighbours), Kelatan Chinese (influenced by Malay) and the mutual 654 REVIEWS influence between Thai and Khmer. Matisoff ’s article also includes several discussions which may perhaps not contain much new material, but which are most useful to those who are not specialised in south-east Asian linguistics. He gives a rather extensive list (301) of features making up the south-east Asian Sprachbund (including also pragmatic features, such as greeting formulas) and a list of laryngeal features relevant to tonogenesis (305). He also provides a most interesting discussion of what he calls the ‘compounding/prefixation cycle ’. The basis for this discussion is the observation that there is a correlation in Sino-Tibetan between monosyllabicity and ‘toneproneness ’. This then leads Matisoff to set up the following development cycle (305) : Complex monosyllables (tones less important) p Simple monosyllables (tones very important) p Compounds (tones somewhat less important) p Sesquisyllables (prefixization of first constituent in compounds) (tones somewhat more important) p Complex monosyllables (tones less important) Plain old erosion phenomena would shorten the lexical items under consideration, leaving only suprasegmental features behind. Presumably, then, a decrease in redundancy (despite the growing importance of tonal traits) would lead to circumlocutions which, when lexicalised, may re-enter the erosion phase. The setting up of a model for this development is clearly highly relevant in relation to discussions of concepts such as complexity, expressiveness and redundancy, which are close at least to my heart. The chapter by Gerrit J. Dimmendaal discusses a moderately far-reaching case of language contact, involving the Bantu language Khoti of Mozambique, which has borrowed about 30 % of its basic lexicon from neighbouring Makhuwa. He also treats a case of similar magnitude from the border between Ethiopia and Sudan. Some to my mind interesting comments are made more or less in passing. First, Dimmendaal proposes (371) that vowel harmony is an easy come, easy go feature, which can be introduced and lost quite easily, something that is highly compatible with my own experience. More puzzling, though, is the fact that another Bantu language, Bila, is mentioned (370) as being in the process of acquiring vowel harmony in the verb system alone. Secondly, Dimmendaal suggests (365) that a small group is more exposed to the effects of language contact than a bigger one is (also proposed by Dixon in this volume). This could have been the basis of an interesting discussion, although one gets the impression that the statement is founded on impressionistic data rather empirical evidence. Finally, the author mentions (382) Luo (Nilo-Saharan), which appears to be acquiring noun classes as a result of contact with its Bantu neighbours. This case is something I would have appreciated learning more about, as noun classes are usually thought of as highly genetically stable (demonstrated in e.g. Nichols 1992). 655 JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS The book finishes off with a chapter by Jowan Curnow, which is basically a summary of the other contributions with a certain focus on the problems encountered. Worth citing is his discussion of the borrowability of inflexional morphemes as opposed to derivational ones. The unwillingness of the world’s languages to borrow inflexion has sometimes been seen as a result of derivation being semantically ‘heavier ’ than inflexion (though this hardly applies, the author points out, to some semantically concrete inflexional categories such as number). Curnow instead suggests (416) that the paradigmatic relations are what counts – in other words, derivation is easier to borrow because the derivational morpheme is happy to participate only in a syntagmatic relationship with its head, as opposed to the ‘tout-se-tienting ’ (paraphrasing Saussure) inflexions. Space constraints prevent me from discussing all the chapters in this volume, but for the record, it also includes contributions from the following: Calvert Watkins (Ancient Anatolia), Alan Dench (north-western Australia), Randy LaPolla, Nick Enfield and Hilary Chappell (each with a chapter on south-east Asia) and Bernd Heine & Tania Kuteva (southern and north-east Africa). Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance is certainly a book worth acquiring and reading, but I must admit that it didn ’t rock my world, possibly because I had expectations difficult to live up to. Most of the material is interesting in that it provides data from several diverse areas, but at the end of the day, I experienced few aha-experiences, and didn ’t really burst into incessant eurekas. To some extent the volume displays each author’s own favourite data, leaving the reader somewhat uncertain as to why these particular data were presented, and what to make of them. So far as generalisations are concerned, many of the contributors seem rather content to establish that strict adherence to the family-tree model is untenable, which is not exactly ground-breaking news. I, for one, would have liked to see more of a discussion of the pros and cons of various models. If the traditional Stammbaumtheorie fails to account for the facts, then should we just toss it overboard, or could it profitably be modified by incorporation of features from other models ? Also, it would be most interesting to include more of a discussion on which particular features are sensitive to areal pressure, and why this is so. Why is it that gender systems and umlaut are genetically rather stable, while, for instance, word order is less so ? R EF ERE NCES Campbell, L. (in press). What drives linguistic diversification and language spread? In Renfrew, C. & Bellwood, P. (eds.), Language-farming dispersals. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Dixon, R. (1997). The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dixon, R. & Aikhenvald, A. (eds.) (1999). The Amazonian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nichols, J. (1992). Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 656 REVIEWS Thomason, S. & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Author’s address: Institutionen för lingvistik, Stockholms Universitet, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail: parkvall@ling.su.se (Received 27 January 2003) J. Linguistics 39 (2003). DOI: 10.1017/S0022226703232291 f 2003 Cambridge University Press Artemis Alexiadou (ed.), Theoretical approaches to universals. Amsterdam : John Benjamins, 2002. Pp. xviii+316. Reviewed by ERIC MATHIEU, University College London This book is about the universal properties of the language faculty within the principles and parameters paradigm. Some papers deal with principles and others with parameters. Consisting of nine contributions, the volume covers topics such as the architecture of the grammar, the role of features in determining cross-linguistic variation, primitives of phrase structure, the mechanisms and motivation behind what can and cannot undergo phonological deletion, and differences in the morphological and semantic features of certain lexical items both within a language and across languages. The editor provides a comprehensive introduction, in which a historical view of research on universals is given and current issues in universals are provided. The collection of articles stems from the 1999 Berlin GLOW conference on Universals, organized by the Research Center for General Linguistics (ZAS, Berlin), the Linguistics Department of the University of Potsdam and the Dutch Graduate School in Linguistics (LOT). Two papers were not presented at the conference, but have been included in the volume, namely the articles by Boeckx and Fanselow & Ćavar. The opening contribution is by Maya Arad. In ‘Universal features and language-particular morphemes ’, she attempts to give a precise content to the minimalist claim that language variation is restricted to lexical items. According to her, there are three sources for language variation : the inventory of roots a language has, the features it has selected out of a universal set of features, and the way these features are bundled together. The paper concentrates on feature bundling and argues that the now well-known functional category v (‘ little v ’) proposed by Chomsky (1995) is not a primitive. Instead, languages bundle features in different ways, leading to the situation where there is not one v, but several (or at least two). Her proposal is in line with recent suggestions that functional categories are not primitives, but stand for bundle of features, cf. Marantz (1997), Chomsky (2000). 657