Having read papers from Ritsuko Kikusawa and Robert Blust, you have a better understanding of what historical linguistics might be able to tell us about culture history in the Pacific. While linguistic reconstruction is a very important part of how scholars understand Pacific migrations, comparing the linguistic results along side those of other sciences is what gives us the most complete picture of the Pacific Past.
Biology gives a particularly compelling picture of how the Pacific was settled. We’ll watch Made in Taiwan: Oscar and Nathan’s Excellent Adventure where two young Kiwis follow their DNA back across the ocean to Taiwan, but non-human DNA also presents interesting evidence. We talked about the dispersal of the chicken and the sweet potato briefly, but the genetic material of other plants—and even vermin—helps us to understand how and where people moved.
Applying biological methods to interpreting linguistic evidence may also allow us to develop a better understanding of how the population movements match up with the historical timelines from archaeology and carbon dating. In particular, scientists like Russell Gray at the University of Auckland have developed models that look at the number of shared retentions (versus the number of shared innovations that normally interest linguists) to determine the time depth of the break-up of communities of speakers—in other words, migrations. The basis of his work on the Austronesian family is the Basic Austronesian Vocabulary Database that Professor Gray, Professor Blust and others have collaborated on.
What are your questions about what historical linguistics tells us about the 'pre-history' of the Pacific Islands?
7 comments:
The Kikusawa reading contains additional examples to the construction of a language family tree. A good point is made by the author, “… a language cannot exist without its speakers.” With the use of any language, it’s context will change where ever it exists. Today, many people have begun to use names as verbs; an example of change.
For me, I find reading the sound charts a bit difficult; let alone I’m not sure I’m pronouncing these words correctly in my head.
I find it interesting how linguists use their knowledge to trace the migration of people over time and be able to make estimates in historical changes in their environments. The section of Culture loss in the Blurst reading shows us that even though language moves the progress in technology doesn’t. I find this somewhat confusing, aren’t ideas/technology usually transferred through “word of mouth?”
After reading the article entitled Austronesian Culture History: The Window of Language, I was able to grasp the concept of the relationship between culture history and linguistics. Robert Blust tries to explain to the readers that the combination of “scientific archaeology” and the study of linguistics can determine a culture’s history. Blust makes reference to key points of evidence that indicate the assumption that the “Austronesian homeland was most likely on or near the island of Taiwan.” (Blust 1995, 30) I question the fact that there is no real proof of this theory, at least none that has been addressed in this piece of writing. The other article that I read was entitled Comparative linguistics: A bridge that connects us to languages and people of the past, and this piece was extremely interesting. The breakdown of how to reconstruct the parent language is exceptionally detailed. Ritsuko Kikusawa makes the statement that “it is the basic nature of language to keep changing.” (Kikusawa 2001, 87) I find this statement to be simple yet particularly influential to the study of comparative linguistics because without change there would be nothing to compare. So my question is can you determine the history of a people based entirely on the comparative method? In the future will linguist be able to use technology and new discoveries to determine and rebuild the true parent language of the Polynesian language?
I found all the diagrams in the “Comparative linguistics” handout to be very interesting. I especially enjoyed how they illustrated “Island A” and “Island B” and the fact that since they are so far away, and even more far from “Island C” that the words and language they use might be different. From my own experience, I have found that what they mentioned is true. I am from the island of Kauai, but have lived on Oahu since my freshman year in high school. My whole life I’ve had two different groups of friends, one group purely Kauai-grown kids, and the second a broad range from all the islands. I noticed that the ways people speak are different; depending on what island they live on. I noticed that people not living on Oahu seemed to speak more pidgin and improper grammar, and even invented their own words to describe situations or people they might encounter. I can see how my real life experience relates to the reading, which taught me that when people are confined to a certain area, they speak in the same way using the same pidgin, which may result in new words because of the existence of natural barriers.
The Oceanic languages are members of the Austronesian language family, a language family which we can all agree on until the advent of European exploration and settlement of the 'New World', had spread out across a considerably larger proportion of the earth than had any other language family.
The key to understanding the relationships between present-day languages probably lies in gaining a better understanding of the nature of 'proto-languages', the speech traditions from which the contemporary languages have developed. These issues have been more thoroughly addressed in the recent literature on the putative higher-level groupings of languages from the western part of Oceania.
Although the details of 'subgrouping' are still sometimes contestable, a clearer picture of the range of situations which can lead to the differentiation of languages is emerging prevalent today.
I thought the Kikusawa article very helpful in further explaining the workings of newly forming languages and dialect chains.
As for the Blust article, I found the question of cultural loss from migration interesting for the fact that this can be applied on a societal as well as individual basis.
In migrating to a new locale, I would think some cultural loss would be expected as well as a cultural gain. Some traditions may become lost because they are impractical or environmental means don't allow for certain activities. In this same manner new traditions may arise.
This is possible even on a personal level. I lived on the mainland for more than half my life, but I have been living in Hawaii for 5+ years now. In moving here I have adopted a lot of different activities, foods, and ways of being into my own personal culture that simply do not exist on the mainland. I would even consider myself to have learned a 3rd language here. With new environment comes new cultural practices and traditions.
i read the two articles and they were pretty good. i would have questions, but i dont. haha, only because i have a good understanding of what the two authors are explaining. if i didn't know what they were talking about, then i would have questions
When I read Robert Blust's introduction to Austronesian Culture History, I was reminded of my training as a biologist. As a Senior Biology major I have been taught that "the only reliable guide to the prehistoric past is 'scientific archaelogy'". I feel most comfortable talking about genes, DNA, and proteins. It is logical to look for evidence to not only trace the DNA of people, but also their plants and animals often used.
So this idea of making a "genetic tree" of how languages are related makes some sense to me (phylogentic trees of how organisms are genetically related are commonly made), but yet this language tree seems somewhat abstract. I understand as Kikusawa explains that "Reconstruction is possible because of the basic nature of language i.e. languages keep changing". I see that language, is such a fluid and dynamic form, that is difficult to scientifically analyze and quantify, even in light of historical influences.
My questions of languages relating to prehistory seek to understand the biological techniques used to make connections among linguistic families; I want to understand their methogologies. How is it that these items were carbon dated? There is a lot of individual variation in the human genome. How is it that they can be certain that a single person can represent the biological evidence of an entire culture of individuals? I'm trying to broaden my perspectives of understanding, but I might need to find some more evidence.
Post a Comment