birnbaum - typological, genetic, & areal linguistics (review article)

8/13/2019 Birnbaum - Typological, Genetic, & Areal Linguistics (Review Article)

1/25

J

1J

REVIEW ARTICLE

TYPOLOGICAL, GENETIC, AND AREAL LINGUISTICSAn Assessment of the State of the Art in the 197 s

Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics Volume 11: Dia-chronic Areal and Typological Linguistics. Associate Editors: Henry M.Hoenigswald and Robert E .Longacre. Assistants to the Editor: AlexandraRamsay Di Luglio and Lucia Hadd Zoercher. Mouton, The Hague Paris,1973. XI 604 pp.This eleventh volume in the ambitiously conceived set designed to summarizethe state of the art from the vantage point of the late 60s and early 70streats the principles, methods, and some applications of language classification. t is thus among the theoretically most important volumes of the wholeseries, in breadth, depth, and generality comparable only to volume threewhich dealt with the theoretical foundations of linguistics. However, if indeed language classification is meant to be the overall theme (cf. R E.Longacre s different view on p. 287, discussed below), the particular title ofthis volume is slightly inaccurate. The term diachronic is obviously usedhere as synonymous with historical - in itself a somewhat imprecise usage,as diachrony, in addition to tracing history, may also endeavor to forecastfuture language developments cf. Birnbaum, 1968). Strictly speaking, diachronic covers both more and less than genetic , the term which wouldhere more appropriately have indicated one of the three chief criteria forlanguage classification. By not only referring to past linguistic evolution butconceivably implying prediction as well, diachronic overextends the methodological range of existing language classifications (as only historical comparative evidence is involved in genetic classification); by the same token,diachronic is lacking in some connotations of the term genetic , the latter,to be sure, primarily implying an evaluation and interpretation of historical(including reconstructed prehistorical) data, yet not excluding altogetherrecourse also to synchronic comparative evidence found in - historicallyestablished - related languages. Typological, Genetic, and Areal Linguistics (preferably in this hierarchical order; cf. Birnbaum, 1975) wouldthus have been a more appropriate subtitle for a volume discussing andexemplifying various approaches to language classification.

The contents of this volume are arranged in three sections. An introductory chapter, written by R. H. Robins, traces The History of LanguageClassification . The methodological part two, prefaced by some Introduc-

Foundations of Language 13 (1975) 267-291. ll rights reserved.


2/25

268 REVIEW ARTICLEtory Remarks', by H. M. Hoenigswald, contains eight studies on relevantprinciples and techniques; one of them, P. Kiparsky's paper On Comparative Linguistics: The Case of Grassmann's Law', would have been moreappropriately included among the case studies appearing in part three ofthe volume. In the other seven essays of part two, 'The Comparative Method', is discussed by Hoenigswald and 'Internal Reconstruction', once moreby J. Kurylowicz (cf. esp. id 1964); D. Sankoff surveys 'MathematicalDevelopments in Lexicostatistic Theory', while 'Areal Linguistics', is thesubject of 'Some General Considerations', offered by W. Winter; J. H.Greenberg contributes an overview and interpretation of 'The TypologicalMethod' , W. Labov discusses 'The Social Setting of Linguistic Change', andI J. Gelb presents some problems pertinent to 'Written Records and Decipherment'. Finally, part three illustrates the preceding methodologicaldiscussion with a number of specific case studies even though no preciseone-to-one matching between the individual essays of the two sections couldbe achieved, as explained in the Editor's Introduction. This third part ofthe volume, opening with a few 'Introductory Remarks' by R. E. Longacre,is made up of the following essays: 'Otomanguean Isoglosses', by C. R.Rensch, 'Internal Reconstruction and Finno-Ugric (Finnish)', by R. Anttila, 'The Romance Data of the Pilot Studies for Glottochronology', by J.A. Rea, 'Japanese Dialects', by S Hattori, 'Deep-Surface Canonical Disparities in Relation to Analysis and Change: An Australian Example', byK. Hale, 'Areal Linguistics and Middle America', by T. Kaufman, 'Diachronic Typology of Philippine Vowel Systems', by L A. Reid, 'SomeAspects of Decreolization in Creole French', by A Valdman, 'Linear B',by J. Chadwick, and 'Altaic Linguistic Reconstruction and Culture', by J.R. Krueger. As usual, for the reader's convenience, the substantive portionof the volume is preceded and followed by some technical information andreferences: the Editor's Introduction, a Master List of Abbreviations, Biographical Notes on the contributors, as well as Indexes of Names and ofLanguages and Writing Systems. This reviewer will offer some remarks aboutthe contributions of parts one and two, but will, for obvious reasons, haveto refrain from commenting on several of the specialized case studies whosedata-determined merits and possible shortcomings he is in no position tojudge; as regards those case studies, the problematics of which are at leastgenerally familiar to me, only a few brief remarks will be made.

In his historical sketch, R. H. Robins also surveys some general theoretical aspects of setting up language taxonomies. Thus he points out thatwhile the three modes of classification are theoretically distinct, in facttheir resultant classes overlap in membership , just as (barring overseasmigrations or penetration by speakers of a different language) historically


3/25

REVIEW ARTICLE 269related languages will continue to be areally contiguous, while simultaneouslythey are likely to exhibit, at least for some time, shared typological features.In addition, as structural characteristics tend to spread over whole regionsforming so-called prachbunde (Trubeckoj's term), areal and typologicalclasses are themselves likely to overlap independently of inheritance. CitingJakobson's terse formulation, the genetic method operates with kinship,the areal with affinity, and the typological with isomorphism. However,as Robins rightly points out, unless it also is typological, a mere arealgrouping of languages would be without linguistic significance. In fact, ina recent attempt to establish a hierarchy of language classifications, withparticular attention directed at deep-seated ('covert') semantic properties andcategories, I have argued for the primacy of typological classification overboth genetic and areal language grouping, the latter ranking lowest, beinglinguistically irrelevant if not coinciding with genetic and/or typologicalclassification (Birnbaum 1975; cf. also id 1970 48, 61-2, 71-91). My ownview of the supremacy of typology over genealogy was based primarily onthe assumption of the fundamental stability or, rather, time-resistant continuity of the most basic semantic categories underlying a given languagegroup in contradistinction to the often radical structural reshaping at thesurface levels of grammar and phonology as exemplified by the evolutionfrom classical Latin to the modern Romance languages (a reshaping largelyimplying a change from synthetic to analytic language type). Robins is right,though, when remarking that this change in typological (surface) structurewould be less, if at all, noticeable if one were to compare the modernRomance languages not with classical literary Latin but rather with theirmore immediate ancestor, colloquial Late ('Vulgar') Latin. He seems convinced, however, that Trubeckoj was on the wrong track when he suggesteda quasi-typological definition of Indo-European. While in my view such

an identification of a genetic with a typological class is indeed questionableat the surface levels of linguistic structure (the only ones, it should be noted,considered by Trubeckoj) - cf., e.g., the typological disparity between twoIndo-European languages such as Sanskrit and modern English- it certainlymakes far better sense at the underlying levels of semantic (and prelinear,deep-syntactic) structure which is much less susceptible to radical change;cf. Birnbaum 1970 40-8; 1975. Robins, quoting relevant scholarship, findsin the Bantu languages (in the narrow sense) perhaps the best example ofnear-coincidence of areal contiguity, typological similarity, and geneticrelationship.

Surveying the European tradition of language classification, the authornotes the binary language division of the ancient Greeks into Greek (witha sophisticated dialectal subgrouping) vs. barbarian, with no interest in


4/25

270 REVIEW RTICLEfurther classifying the latter. Briefly touching on the Romans naive beliefthat Latin was essentially derived f r o ~ W e s t e r n Greek, Robins then moveson to the Christian tradition which also had to take into account thetypologically quite different sacred language Hebrew - and, later, Arabic.He dwells on the typological division (into guttural , palatal , and dental ,proposed by Isidore of Seville) of the assumed 72 tongues resulting fromthe statically viewed post-Babel dispersion. While the traditional numberof 72 remained relatively stable up to the 19th century, individual languagesunknown to the Bible were included at the expense of others. Only graduallydid the discovery of new, mostly non-European languages and the development of a clear historical perspective on linguistic relationship have animpact on language classification. Already Dante was conscious, we are told,of the historical relationship between Latin and its vernacular offspring;and diachrony and linguistic change, caused by internal as well as externalfactors, were clearly conceived by the men of the Renaissance who had akeen interest in etymology. While monogenesis continued to be the prevailingview of most scholars concerned with the origin of language, ThomasJefferson kept an open mind as to the ultimate provenience of the speechof the many Amerindian tribes. Still, classifications remained basicallygenealogical (in the Biblical tradition) and any observations pertinent tostructural kinship between languages were interpreted as a continuing markof their common origin. Monogenetic Biblical tradition prescribed thatHebrew be held the primal language of mankind. t must therefore havebeen felt as a shocking novelty when Webb, in the 17th century, arguedthat Chinese, being monosyllabic and of the simplest possible structure, beaccorded that status. A few decades later, Leibniz, while not explicitly rejecting monogenesis, refused to assign a particular role to Hebrew whichhe classified together with other languages in his binary system (of SemitoHamitic vs. Japhetic).

An increasing awareness of the great number and diversity of the languages of the world and of the radical changes undergone by members ofone and the same language family over a period of time cf. Latin vs.modern Romance) gave rise, in the 17th-18th centuries, to a genuine interestin typology which was to coincide with attempts at classification andsystematization of natural phenomena cf. esp. Linnaeus botanical taxonomy). The fact of considerable overlapping of genetic and typologicalclassification, at first presumed axiomatic, was superseded by the application of other criteria for structural grouping of languages, e.g., into analogical vs. transpositive (by the French encyclopedists), which was modified in the early 19th century by the distinction of inflecting vs. non-inflectinglanguages (F. v. Schlegel) and subsequently by the tripartite system of


5/25

REVIEW ARTICLE 271isolating, agglutinating, and inflecting languages as refined by A W. v.Schlegel and, in particular, W. v. Humboldt. Robins further goes on todemonstrate the development ofhistorical comparative grammar cultivatedin the second half of the 19th century especially by the neogrammarianswith reference to Indo-European - as a natural outgrowth of the morewide-ranging, universal interest in linguistic typology as conceived by F. v.Schlegel, and comments on the first appearance and definitions of thecompeting basic notions Indo-European , Indogermanisch, and the shortlived Indo-Hittite . Mentioning the culmination ofiE comparative linguisticsin Meillet s view of genealogical as the only legitimate language classification, the author briefly recapitulates the role played by Sanskrit in geneticlinguistics, first fully recognized by Jones (despite his remarkable failure toidentify Hindi as descendant from Sanskrit), but anticipated, it seems,precisely one hundred years earlier (in 1686) by a now almost forgottenSwedish scholar, Jager. Darwin s ideas influenced linguistic evolutionarytypology as expounded by Steinthal and, more consistently, Schleicher (thefather of the Stammbaum theory), a trend successfully opposed only at thebeginning of this century by Finck cf. also Schmidt s Wellentheorie andin a more definitive fashion by Sapir who decisively broke with all evaluativetypology.

After a glance at the particular problematics of earlier Amerindianlinguistics, characterized by an increasing realization of the structural diversity of the indigenous languages of the Americas and their comparabilitywith languages of other areas of the world, Robins turns to languageclassification as conceived and elaborated in this century, beginning withthe structural approach of de Saussure which also influenced historicalstudies (Jakobson, Hoenigswald), and to the distinction of Sprachfamilienvs. Sprachenkreise (the latter roughly corresponding to wider Kulturkreiseintroduced by Schmidt. Discussing in some detail the wide-ranging conceptof typology set forth by Sapir, the author then assesses recent relevantdevelopments associated with names such as Trubeckoj, Hjelmslev, Hockett,Weinreich, and Stankiewicz, on the one hand, and Voegelin, Saporta, andin particular Greenberg, Bazell, and Ullmann, on the other. After anotherexemplification of some of the problems at hand with data from Amerindianand sub-Saharic African languages (and the methods used by more recentstudents of these fields), Robins returns once more to the more preciseassessments of typological classification by Greenberg (esp. his quantification procedures), Bazell, and, more recently, Uspenskij (suggesting abstractstandard language models - or etalons - for measuring typological divergence), with some improvements for the latter (introducing typologicaldeep structure) as proposed by the present writer (however, Robins seems


6/25

272 REVIEW ARTICLE

to be familiar only with my first brief hints of 1968, not with my fuller treatment, esp. in Birnbaum 1970, 9-70). The author follows up recent developments of the Meillet-Vendryes tradition in genetic language classificationwhere Meillet's notion that at no time during the years between colloquialLatin and modern French was there any generation aware of speaking anybut the language of the previous generation would warrant reexaminationin the light of both Labov's recent thinking on synchronic dynamics (orongoing change) and Andersen's and his followers' theorizing on 'abductivechange'. Mentioning the yes/no formula under which such classificationoperates - as opposed to the inherently indeterminate and potentiallyquantifiable evidence of typological classification, so that, for example,English would have remained Germanic even in the event of a still more farreaching Latinization/Romanization than that which actually occurred -Robins touches on the problem of reconstructing protolanguages and thetechniques for recovering genealogical relationships of great time-depth(pointing to monogenesis rather than polygenesis) by means of quantifyingprobabilistic evidence such as the, to be sure, highly controversial oneprovided by lexicostatistics and glottochronology. In this context, also thenew theories of a possible distant genetic relationship linking together the'nostratic' language families of the Old World, in recent years discussedespecially by Soviet linguists (Illic-Svityc, Dybo, Dolgopol'skij, and others;cf also Birnbaum 1975) would, incidentally, have deserved mention.

Finally, once more taking up Trubeckoj's attempt at a typological characterization of IE (in terms of six obligatory criteria), Robins mentions Benveniste's criticism (quoting as a counterexample Takelma, an Amerindianlanguage in Oregon which exhibits the same six phonological and grammatical features); the author then turns to Trubeckoj's kind of areal Sprach-bund) classification and to some of its applications (e.g., by Sandfeld to theBalkans and Emeneau to the Indian subcontinent) as well as some of itstheoretical ramifications (Jakobson, Weinreich). This approach to areallinguistics is subsequently confronted with that of the - predominantlyItalian - neolinguists (Bartoli, Bonfante) whose antimechanistic predecessors (Croce, Vossler; Schuchardt) are also identified. Robins' survey endswith a brief evaluation of Allen's suggestions for lexical (as well as grammatical) comparison of languages, subsequently elaborated to a full-fledged'system-reduction quantification method' (Levenston Ellis), and with anote on the recently renewed interest in typology, its potentials and limations.

Generally speaking, this comprehensive historical essay is a most knowledgeable and enlightening survey of an extremely complex field; it is wellstructured, some unavoidable detours and returns to one and the same


7/25

REVIEW ARTICLE 273problem notwithstanding. That it ultimately raises more questions than itpossibly can answer is understandable in view of the very nature of the vastsubject matter discussed.

The eassays of part two, each addressing itself to one particular methodor set of techniques, are on the average considerably shorther than theintroductory historical survey of the whole field of language classification;only Greenberg's and Labov's important papers exceed the length of theopening chapter.

To this reviewer, both of H. Hoenigswald's contributions were somewhatdisappointing reading. While his 'Introductory Remarks' do nothing butset the stage for the following essays, and do so in a rather chatty and unsystematic manner, his own brief discussion of 'The Comparative Method'offers little by way of new insight or genuine assessment of that method asit has been refined and redefined over the last 150 years or so. Certainly interms of theorizing about linguistic change and the specifics of the processesinvolved as well as evaluating the units and classes correlated for the purpose of establishing and interpreting genetic relationship and reconstructingancestral protolanguages, Hoenigswald's remarks do not essentially gobeyond his own more impressive book-length treatment of 1960 and thesupplementary papers of 1965 and 1966 referred to by the author. Undoubtedly, even a textbook assessment of the potentials and constraints ofthe comparative method as presented, for example, in Anttila 1972: esp.229-56, is more enlightening and original. At most, Hoenigswald's contribution to this volume can be characterized as a set of generally well-chosenexemplifications of the usefulness of the comparative method when appliedto a variety of language families and subgroups, mostly but not exclusivelyIE; his brief concluding remarks on the relationship of the comparativemethod to the tentative findings of glottochronology (and the possiblemutual benefits the two methods could derive from each other) are toovague and noncommittal to allow any significant conclusions.J. Kurylowicz's paper on 'Internal Reconstruction', a topic with whichhe has been concerned, in theory and application, over the five decades ofhis active groundbreaking scholarship and which, incidentally, also was thesubject of his principal report delivered at the first plenary session of the9th International Congress of Linguists (Cambridge, Mass., 1962; cf.Kurylowicz 1964 , in my view, does not quite come up to expected theoreti-cal standards, particularly if one remembers that it was precisely the Polishlinguist who early in publications of 1927 and 1935 achieved one of thegreatest and lasting feats of internal reconstruction: the positing of a set of i'laryngeals' (of some phonetic quality or other, denoted by him as:)) in thePIE phonological system on the basis of the (essentially) synchronic data of


8/25

274 REVIEW RTICLEone single ancient IE language, (cuneiform) Hittite, thus confirming andamplifying on a purely hypothetical assumption first advanced by de Saussure (viz., his positing, for PIE, the existence of two 'coefficients sonantiques').This is not to say, however, that Kurylowicz's more recent paper does notcontain a wealth of interesting data, observations, and insightful explanations which not only go beyond his 1962 congress paper, but in some instances are more than a mere extract and condensation of his vast researchreported elsewhere in several fundamental monographs. In the paper included in this volume, Kurylowicz illustrates his notion of internal reconstruction with both phonological and morphological- inflectional as wellas derivational - data, and while on a few points his conclusions do not,perhaps, necessarily seem absolutely cogent (or, at any rate, allow for somealternative interpretation), it is not with his illustrative material and itsoverall assessment that this reviewer would wish to take issue. What ratherbothers me, as incidentally was already the case with Kurylowicz's earlierpaper on the same subject (cf. my contribution to the discussion after his1962 congress paper, op cit 31-2; see also Birnbaum 1970 92-9, discussingboth Kurylowicz's vague definition and T. Milewsk,i's broader applicationas well as some other interpretations of the method of nternal reconstruction),is the all too vague and imprecise definition of internal reconstruction assuch (i.e., as a particular method or set of techniques) in contrast to linguisticreconstruction achievedby the comparative method or some other procedures,e.g., glottochronology. In his 1962 congress paper Kurylowicz had at leastemphasized that internal reconstruction is based on synchronic analysis,but he failed to point out that, as a rule, such synchronic data is drawn fromone language only (where such a language can either be currently spoken,represent some earlier evolutionary phase of a recorded language, or evenitself have been recovered only on the basis of comparative evidence); cf.,however, his answer to Hamp in the ensuing discussion, op cit 36. In hismore recent contribution, his definition of the term 'internal reconstruction'is even more vague and general. According to him, it simply refers to newmethods and aspects of reconstruction applied to the material of traditionalcomparative [emphasis added, H. B.] grammar. We are then told that it isin particular the methods of functional (or classical) structuralism that havecontributed most to this rapid development of general linguistics, and itbecomes subsequently clear that it is primarily typological considerationsand the search for (and ascertainment of) language universals that add thispowerful new dimension to internal reconstruction as well. In other words,this is not really a definition of internal (as opposed to comparative) reconstruction, but rather a - well-founded, to be sure - assessment of somenew fundamental theoretical insight and their fruitful effect on linguistic


9/25

REVIEW ARTICLE 275reconstruction in general. But nowhere in Kurylowicz s treatment can one Iind a clear formulation of the very prerequisites of this particular methodology: the projection of the synchronically available data of one language .into some prehistoric past, yielding relative rather than absolute chronol- \ogies. On this essential point of definition, a discussion like that byAnttila (1972, esp. 213-28, 264-73), though limited to the application of thismethod to morphophonemics only, is much more compelling and clari-

D. Sankoff s highly technical paper on Mathematical Developments inLexicostatistic Theory , suffers, in this reviewer s opinion, from its beingbased on a fundamental misconception: the belief of M. Swadesh and hisfollowers and modifiers in the essentially uniform rate of linguistic change,particularly at the morphemic and word-semantic levels, using the - quitemistaken, I would contend - analogy of vocabulary turnover to radioactivedecay (gauged by means of carbon-14, a scientific method, it should be noted,which has turned out to be much less precise and reliable than originallyassumed); for some further criticism of lexicostatistics cf. also, e.g., Fodor1965. All sociolinguistic observation seems to refute the underlyingassumption of this approach and to suggest instead that the rate of replacement, especially of morphemic-semantic units, is by no means constant,not even approximately or in such instances where large time intervals areconcerned, and that it fluctuates considerably owing to the ever-presentextra-linguistic factors of language change. The lack or scantiness of relevantsociological and ethnological data for prehistoric periods do not rendersubstantial variations in the rate of vocabulary replacement at such timesless probable, only less (or not at all) ascertainable. The merits of the purelymathematical reasoning in Sankoff s essay, though beyond the grasp of thisreviewer, seems impressive and sophisticated.

As was mentioned above, P. Kiparsky s remarks On Comparative Linguistics , reassessing Grassmann s Law ( =GL eliminating the first of twoaspirations in consecutive syllables in Sanskrit and Greek) in terms of asomewhat modified generative phonology is above all, a case study employing this method. However, the Introduction provides a lucid statement of themain tenets of the method when applied to historical and especially prehistoricdata, dismissing among other things, the frequent misconception that constructing a generative grammar is in itself tantamount to internal reconstruction. Although the ultimate goal of comparative linguistics, and reconstruction in particular, is conceived here holistically and, following thefundamental view held by generativists, language change is consideredequivalent to grammar change, the basic difference between internal andcomparative reconstruction is clearly spelled out even though it is not con-


10/25

276 REVIEW ARTICLEceived as a distinction in method but rather as one in availability of data(from one vs. several languages) on which to operate. In separate sectionsgiving a synchronic description of GLand analyzing its prehistory in Sanskrit and Greek, Kiparsky then considers various possibilities of rule reordering (involving, in addition to GL, the 'cluster rule' which eliminatesaspiration immediately before obstruents) and, for Greek at least, comesup with the interesting observation that the etymological distinction between the root type ge h and ghedh is lost ... exactly where it had no morphophonemic support from the cluster rule. The not all-too-surprising suggestion that GL was a rule shared by the Greek-Indo-Iranian dialect (ofiE)before it split up seems but a consequence of this observation.

W. Winter's well-written paper on 'Areal Linguistics' offers the readerprecisely that which its subtitle suggests, 'Some General Considerations' inthe form of a tentative essay rather than a systematic summary, let aloneany coherent theory applicable to the field. Surveying primarily the basicprerequisites and the various mechanisms for linguistic transfer along thedimensions of time and space as well as some abstract (or metaphoric)models for the operation of such transfer (the family-tree and wave theorymodels, among others), Winter discusses in an informed and generallypersuasive manner a wide range of relevant phenomena and processes, including such controversial a problem as the shifting degree of permeabilityto outside influence by various components of linguistic structure. While,rightly I would think, he considers 'paradigmatic morphology' the mostresistant portion of language, and the lexicon, together with stylistics, themost susceptible one, the author finds that syntax should be particularlyamenable to change where a variety of synonymous expressions is found ina language anyhow (i.e., in major constructions), but on the other hand berelatively stable where certain configurations have no intralanguage competitors. This is true, it would seem to me, only where surface syntax is concerned, but deep-seated (that is to say, semantically-based) syntactic properties are, by and large, remarkably constant, as I have tried to show elsewhere cf. e.g., Birnbaum 1970, 42 ff., 60 f.). Much of Winter's compellingreasoning and well-chosen exemplification falls squarely within the sphereof linguistic (or, more narrowly, dialect) geography. This is true, for instance, when he discusses the significance of isogloss bundles (citing the IEcentrumfs t m line, being an isolated one, as of little overall consequence)or substratum phenomena (with a reference to Georgiev's attempt to ascertain a non-Greek IE component of the Greek lexicon). And while,according to him, the notion of areal grouping, of Sprachbund, is not asuperior substitute for that of a 'genetically related' language 'family',nowhere does he propose that language grouping based merely on areal


11/25

REVIEW ARTICLE 277contiguity (but not also characterized by a substantial set of shared typological and/or genetically motivated features) would constitute a sufficientcriterion for an independent - third - classificatory principle.

J. Greenberg's essay on 'The Typological Method' consists essentially oftwo major parts, one discussing 'The Logic of Typology' and the other onesurveying, in several sections, the evolution of typological research up to thepresent (ca. 1970; 'The History of Typology', 'Typology and LinguisticTheory', 'Typology and Diachrony'). An introductory note, opening withMarouzeau's well-known definition that that typological study oflanguagesis that which defines their characteristics in abstraction from history,outlines the organization of the presentation to follow.

Discussing the definitional framework of typology, the author begins bypointing out that 'typology' (with its derivatives) is a relatively recent coinagecompared to the term 'type' itself. Thus, for example, Peirce in his wellknown type-token distinction found no need for a separate term 'typology'.The latter, introduced toward the end of the last century, was first used inlinguistics only in the 1920s while earlier forms of language typologies wereusually referred to merely as classification, with morphological classificationbeing the predominant one. Greenberg then goes on to discuss the potentialobjects of linguistic typology, that is, in addition to languages as wholes,individual linguistic phenomena or properties and components (e.g., syntacticconstructions, treated by Bloomfield, among others), quantitative aspectsof the word (counting phonemes, syllables, frequency, etc., studied, e.g., byMenzerath and Meyer-Eppler), or processes of change (e.g., regular vs.sporadic, conditioned vs. nonconditioned sound change). Greenberg furtherdiscusses the fundamental difference between classification (yielding discrete,exclusive classes) and typology (defining 'scaled' or mixed, often multidimensional types, representing a clustering of characteristics rather than anabsolute and pure set of non-overlapping features). Sapir's arrangement oflanguages on a comparative and relational scale, Greenberg's own provisionof a metric in the quantification of morphological typology, and Menzerath'squantitative typology are mentioned as examples of this relative or approximative assignment of languages and linguistic phenomena and/orprocesses in typological linguistics. Tracing back this fundamental differencebetween (absolute) classification and (relative) typology to the dichotomybetween natural and cultural sciences as it emerged, in particular, in Germany toward the end of the last and at the beginning of this century (cf.,e.g., Dilthey's concept of eisteswissenschaften or Weber's then new sociology), Greenberg asserts that in the light oflogical typological research of thekind conducted by Hempel and Oppenheim the very phrase 'typologicalclassification', as used in linguistics, would seem to imply a contradiction


12/25

278 REVIEW ARTICLEin terms. In part, these at first sight contradictory specifics of linguistictypology are explained by the fact that language is made up o or, at anyrate, perceived as being made up of discrete rather than continuous units;cf. the invention of the alphabet bearing witness to the naturalness of thisapproach. And, according to Greenberg, the dialectical opposition between genetic and typological linguistics, both involving classificational aims,but one being by nature historical, the other ahistorical, also distinguishestypology in linguistics from that in other fields. The author then goes on toconceive of linguistic typology in a set-theoretical functional framework,with the matching of ordered pairs as the primary technique, exemplifyinghis reasoning with concrete examples of specific language types (such asisolating, agglutinative, inflective). He further points out that from a logicalpoint of view type ordinarily connotes a plurality of characteristics, whiletype defined by a one-dimensional typology were better labeled quasi-types .Discussing explicitness and validity in typology, Greenberg distinguishesbetween three recurrent methodologies in this field of linguistic inquiry:(1) intuitive (2) empirical, and (3) analytical (or heuristic). Operationally theintuitive approach represented by much of 19th century morphologicaltypologizing - is essentially negative, i.e., a group of languages is describednot for the purpose of deriving any new hypotheses or testing old ones. Socalled factor analysis, such as the semantic differential developed by Osgoodand his associates, can serve as an example of the empirical approach,amounting to a multidimensional quantitative typology. Also Trubeckojinductive typology of vowel systems classifying such sound correlations aslinear, triangular, and quadrangular can serve as an example of the empiricalapproach. The third, analytical (or heuristic) method operates by settingup an a priori scheme exhausting all logical possibilities before being appliedto the empirical data. As Greenberg notes, there exist in fact no pure applications of the analytic approach as there is always a background of someprior observations, but much of the current typological work of TG grammarians seems to fall into this category. t should be added that alsoUspenskij s typological framework, operating with an abstract etalon orstandard language, shares important features with this approach.

From the premises and methodologies of typological research Greenbergthen turns to its goals and purposes. Here the author considers three maindirections, viz., toward (a) generalization (b) classification, and s) individualization. Greenberg finds an early example of the third, individualizingapproach in Mathesius characterology of individual languages. Also theHumboldtian tradition and its echoes in Sapir s and Wharf s approach,seeking to capture the overall genius of a language (as but one expression ofastill deeper unity manifested in the culture or national characterof the speak-


13/25

REVIEW ARTICLE 279ers of that language), belong essentially to this individualizing facet oflanguage typology. The opposite approach of generalization is closelyassociated with the renewed search for language universals, especially thoseimplicational in form. Contrary to the individualizing approach, it dealswith the limitations of language per se (i.e., vis-a-vis other semiotic-communicative systems) rather than with the specifics of individual languagesand language groups. Whenever Indo-European linguistics - on rare occasions, to be sure - displayed an interest in problems of typology (as, e.g.,expressed by Finck), its approach was individualizing, attempting to ascertain the psychological-national- characteristics of, say, Germanic (withinIndo-European) or German (within Germanic). Referring to observationsmade by de Ia Grasserie and Sapir that, to use the latter's wording, languagesfalling into the same class have a way of paralleling each other in manydetails or structural features not envisaged by the scheme of classification,Greenberg then goes on to further qualify the generalizing vs. the individualizing approach in typology, the former in tune with the natural sciences,the latter with history and cultural scholarship cf. the NaturwissenschaftGeisteswissenschaft dichotomy alluded to above; see now further also I tkonen1974 with its emphasis on hermeneutics). In between these two extreme approaches Greenberg sees the typologically classificational approach, represented, for example, by Trubeckoj, as it prevailed in 20th century researchup to the recent explicit linkage between typology and the study of universals.The latter was clearly prefigured, by the way, also in Hjelmslev's work,especially in his posthumous book on 'Language', something Greenberg,surprisingly, it would seem, fails to even take note of. Another name increasingly deserving mention in this context is that of the typologist-universalist H. Seiler, nowhere mentioned by Greenberg. The remainder ofthe first part of Greenberg's contribution then discusses the largely stillunresolved problem of choice of criteria for typological classifications,emphasizes once again the distinction between (discrete) 'class' and (mixed,transitional, and only rarely pure or ideal) 'type' and its repercussions for theuse of the term 'typical', pointing out, among other things, that even Classical Chinese can be considered merely the closest discernable approximation of an 'ideal' language-type (truly 'ideal types' always being abstractconstructs only, such as Uspenskij's 'etalon languages' not mentioned byGreenberg). In closing, he points once more to the 'mixed', 'transitional',and 'non-pure' types as used in sociology, psychology, and in the kind oflinguistics advocated by Skalicka (who operates with mixed morphologicaltypes).

In the following sections on the history of typology, Greenberg first discusses the various attempts at morphological typology characteristic of the


14/25

280 REVIEW RTICLE19th century and the first quarter of this century. Among the few earlysuggestions made for a phonological typology, the one by de Ia Grasserie(1890) deserves mention. Otherwise, the classical form of morphologicaltypology was the threefold division into isolating, agglutinative, and inflective languages, firmly introduced by A. W v Schlegel and replacing theearlier twofold division into languages with affixes and those with inflection,devised by his brother F. v Schlegel. Focusing on the structure of the word,this typology was individualizing in its aim and intuitive in its methodology.In a sense, the concern with word structure was in line with Humboldt semphasis on inner and outer form, as still echoed, for example, by theneo-Humboldtian Lewy Yet, the notion of the olksgeist could also leadto some more general schemes of language classification such as that ofWundt. A. W v Schlegel s classificatory trichotomy was further refined bysuch distinctions as that between organic vs mechanic organization oflanguage and within the inflectional type between synthetic and analytic.Humboldt, well acquainted with some of the particular types of the Amerindian languages, added a fourth, the incorporating, type to the previoustriad, a type subsequently eliminated by the Indo-Europeanist Schleicher.Instead, the latter, relatively free of any value judgments so characteristic ofprevious relevant research, now stressed the positivist ( Darwinist ) aspect oflanguage evolution, claiming, for example, that Finno-Ugric, though lesswell attested, is in no way inferior to Indo-European. The ensuing era ofthe Neogrammarian School (centered in Leipzig and preoccupied almostexclusively with Indo-European) had little interest for any overall languagetypology, which therefore fell into disrepute, ultimately culminating in theclaim to the exclusive legitimacy of genetic linguistic classification made byMeillet and, in a similar vein, Pedersen. A contributing factor (outside theIE domain) was that von der Gabelentz was able to present evidence thateven Chinese, representing the most primitive, isolating type, was historicallysecondary, showing traces of both agglutination and inflection. Even theantipositivist opponents of the neogrammarians around the turn of thecentury (Schuchardt eta/. showed little interest in language typology whichinstead was cultivated by a few Humboldtians (such as Steinthal and Finck)and gained momentum only with the advent of a strong neo-Humboldtianwave, personified by scholars such as Lewy, Hartmann, Weisgerber, and,in America, Sapir and Wharf; cf the famed Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

t was only with structuralism of the Geneva and, in particular, PragueSchools that language typology once again became fashionable. This revivalwent hand in hand with the upswing ofneo-Humboldtianism in the Germanspeaking world and with the tradition of anthropological linguistics inAmerica. Fundamental here was the conception of language as a synchronic


15/25

REVIEW RTICLE 281structure. But while the neo-Humboldtians and the American anthropological linguists favored an individualizing approach (emphasizing languagediversity), the members of the Prague School, with the possible exceptionof Mathesius' 'characterological' (i.e., essentially individualizing) approach,were more inclined toward a generalizing conception of language typology,linking it with the study of universals. Among forerunners adhering to thisapproach, Greenberg once more mentions de la Grasserie, but Brenda (ofthe Copenhagen School) and Frei (of the Geneva School) also belong to thisgeneral trend. In this connection, in particular, it is hard to understand howGreenberg could avoid mentioning Hjelmslev's deep concern with typologyand its immediate repercussions for the study of language universals. Withinthe most important branch of European structuralism, the Prague School,Greenberg quotes relevant statements by Trnka, Mathesius, Jakobson,Skalicka, and others. Thus, already in 1929 Trnka pointed out that "thesynchronic method ... can compare with each other any systems of expression (and) go not only from form to meaning but also from meaning (function) to form ... " Mathesius' 'characterology' allowed for both individualization and generalization, language types now being conceived as hierarchical wholes. However Skalicka later explicitly pointed out the connection between types and implicational universals (previously emphasizedalso by Jakobson) and defined 'type' as a "collection of grammatical characteristics." Further, Tubeckoj's vowel systems are once more cited as anexample of setting up relational properties ultimately leading to the establishment of universal frameworks for comparison such as the one employed byJakobson for defining his universal distinctive features. But the PragueSchool kind of typology and universals would also resort to frequency dataand statistics, and Greenberg cites work by Mathesius and Knimsky alongthese lines. He then returns once more to the American scene of 'anthropological structuralism' with its emphasis on an individualizing approach andthe introduction of the notion of 'pattern' (by Sapir) and what could belabeled cultural relativism, especially in the work ofWhorf (cf his typologicalcontrast of Hopi and S[tandard] A[verage] E[uropean], represented byEnglish). In passing, the author mentions Voegelin's part-language typology,especially in phonology (say, within the subset of stops). Greenberg's ownpioneering quantification of morphological typology is dealt with onlybriefly, mentioning its generalizing approach and disregard for semanticdata (i.e., for Sapir's overall question as to how certain concepts were expressed). As an example of the persisting interest in the individualizingapproach to typology in American anthropological linguistics, Greenbergquotes the work of Hymes. While noting that the general trend in typologicallinguistics currently is mostly oriented toward the generalizing approach


16/25

282 REVIEW RTICLE(linking typology with universals), Greenberg's brief mention of recentrelevant achievements in the Soviet Union, and especially as regards thework of Uspenskij (influenced by Hjelmslev ), is at least in the opinionof this reviewer, clearly inadequate; cf. more recently also Kacnel'son1972.The next section purporting to discuss 'Typology and Linguistic Theory'is in fact a brief account of the role played by typological studies in TG grammar as well as some contemporary competing linguistic schools (the latter,however, in fact no more than mentioned). Whereas the neogrammarianapproach to language was basically anti-typological and classic structuralism(in its several variants) took a positive view of typology, TG grammar hasso far, to a large extent, been indifferent to typology on the assumption thatall deep structure is universal (or, put differently, that universals are foundonly in deep structure). In this conception, typology is therefore alwayspossible but essentially pointless. My own suggestions for conceiving ofdeep structure as multilayered, with a number of typological strata (to befurther specified in terms of their particular properties) placed betweenlanguage-specific 'shallow' deep structure (or 'infrastructure') and trulyuniversal deep (or 'profound') structure have obviously gone unnoticed byGreenberg or were not considered worth mentioning cf. esp. Birnbaum,1970, 9-70, 'Deep Structure and Typological Linguistics'; see further alsomy paper presented at the 1972 11th International Congress of Linguists inBologna, 'How Deep is Deep Structure?,' and its revised version 'Toward aStratified View of Deep Structure' to appear in the volume Linguistics at theCrossroads . Yet Greenberg mentions certain preliminary approaches totypology also in TG grammar (which, by the way, he treats with remarkablesympathy and respect considering his own generally realistic stance): Bach'sattempt at typologizing various kinds of transformations, Fillmore's suggestions regarding a typology of constraints applicable to the universalbase, or certain proposed word order typologies (Greenberg, McCawley,Ross). Greenberg's own programmatic argument (given on p. 179) to theeffect that "the construct of the 'type' is, as it were, interposed between theindividual language in all its uniqueness and the unconditional or invariantfeatures to be found in all languages" with all its consequences is, of course,closely paralleled by my own reasoning referred to above. In general, theuse of rules and deep structures (rather than directly observable properties),the degree of explicitness and definitional precision, the sets of constraints,the hierarchies of marked and unmarked members, and statistic frequencymeasurements - all these factors, cited by Greenberg, would seem to suggestthe possibility for future fruitful typological studies also in the frameworkof standard or modified TG grammar.


17/25

REVIEW RTICLE 283In the final section of his lengthy essay, Greenberg turns to the problem of

the relationship between typology and diachrony and that between typological and genetic linguistics (and the corresponding classifications). My ownview is that while, of course, like Greenberg, I cannot subscribe to the neogrammarian (including Meillet s and Pedersen s) opinion that only a geneticclassification of languages can be considered valid and legitimate, neither doI share the belief (adhered to by many structuralists and, it seems, with somequalifications also by Greenberg) that typological and genetic languageclassifications represent two altogether separate, incompatible taxonomicprinciples. As I have tried to show elsewhere (Birnbaum, 1975), geneticclassification, though based on its own specific - genealogical-historical -criteria, ultimately can be conceived of as one particular kind of typologicalclassification since language families, too, can be classified in terms of synchronic structural characteristics which provide for their coherence. Theproblem here is primarily the diachronic dimension: obviously, to take anexample, modern English may typologically be closer to some other non-IEcontemporary language than to Proto-IE (or even to some ancient IElanguage such as Sanskrit or Classical Greek). But this fact alone does notinvalidate the assumption that modern English still displays certain characteristics found only in some other IE languages, and, moreover, the deepseated semantic categories and configurations of contemporary Englishwill turn out not even to have changed as radically as their surface manifestations (implying, in this case, an almost complete switch from synthetic toanalytic language structure) would seem to suggest; for some reasoningalong similar lines, see also Lakoff, 1968, using Latin, English, and Spanishdata. Since no serious attempt has yet been made to establish a finite numberof discrete linguistic types (given all the complexities, approximations, andmultidimensional aspects so eloquently discussed by Greenberg) and sinceit is therefore only realistic to assume the existence of a great number ofmore or less overlapping and even coinciding coexistent language types,even Benveniste s objection against Trubeckoj s tentative establishment ofan IE linguistic type (namely that, except for their totally different respectivelexicons, i t would fully coincide with the wholly unrelated language Takelma)cannot really be considered a cogent argument.

After briefly discussing the important notion of parallel processes ofchange (called drift by Sapir) and referring to Jakobson s appeal (of 1958)to utilize the insights of typology for genetic linguistics, Greenberg thenproceeds to sketch a typological approach also to processes of languagechange, distinguishing between four methods: 1) dynamicization of typologies 2) dynamicization of subtypologies, as well as 3) the intragenetic,and 4) intergenetic methods. To illustrate the first method, Greenberg refers


18/25

284 REVIEW RTICLE

to the well-known fact (previously discussed by Jakobson, Ferguson, myself,and others) that the existence of nasal vowels in a language always presupposes the existence of oral vowels, but not vice versa (thus proving thediachronic priority of languages with oral vowels only). At least to thisreviewer it is not quite clear in what respect the second method differs inprinciple from the first one, especially since no unambiguous examples areadduced. The third, intragenetic method, is exemplified by the fact - takenfrom Slavic, or rather Russian - that of the three endings of the genitiveplural, zerof-ovf-ej the latter two, being phonetically marked, tend to spreadin this semantically marked case form, while the phonetically unmarkedending z ro is retained in the unmarked category of the nominative singular(and partly the accusative singular), an observation of a semiotically motivated distribution earlier analyzed in more subtle terms by Jakobson. Finally,the last, intergenetic typological contrasting is illustrated with comparable(but genetically unrelated) processes such as the loss of a laryngeal withconcomitant lengthening of a preceding vowel in Indo-European and Coptic,a method used in recent years with much success and insight, for example,by Kurylowicz (in his comparative-contrastive study of ablaut and relatedphenomena in IE and Semitic). In closing this survey ofGreenberg s thoroughtypological study, it should be stated that while his treatment of the logicof typology and the history of typology from its beginnings up to and including its potential applications to TG grammar is most intriguing andenlightening (a few omissions and arguable points notwithstanding), hisdiscussion of typology and diachrony has left at least this reviewer with asomewhat less favorable impression.

Considering the overall theme of the volume under review, languageclassification (and some of its ramifications), it is not immediately clear whythe next essay, W Labov s The Social Setting of Linguistic Change , wasincluded here. This is not to say, however, that Labov s paper does not makefor fascinating reading. Quite to the contrary, this is a succinct expositionof his - relatively new - brand of dynamic linguistics (originally conceivedin collaboration with the late U. Weinreich) which so far has been appliedprimarily to the gradual change of phonological systems. Though designedto contribute to a better understanding of historical - or, rather, diachronic -processes, Labov s study of sound change as determined, in large measure,by its social setting focusses, to begin with, on the synchronic dynamics orongoing change in a given speech community, thus rejecting the validity ofstudying sound change as manifested in one particular idiolect or in theframework of some abstract model based on the assumption of some ideal ofcompetence (as opposed to actual performance, in the Chomskyan sense).


19/25

REVIEW ARTICLE 285Clearly, this new trend of studying sound change must be seen primarily as areaction to the abstract approach to sound change (and diachrony in general)advocated by some historically oriented generativists (such asP Kiparsky orKing). Labov and his associates suggest that they approach their data without any preconceived notions, purely on an empirical basis. The socialvariables, in TG grammar almost entirely neglected (or abstracted from,for the sake of the argument , as it were, or for the purpose of defining anddescribing competence rather than performance, to be exact), are considered of primary significance here. In this respect, in particular, Labov ofcourse continues not only the tradition of his immediate teacher and colleague, U. Weinreich, but also that of earlier schools emphasizing the socialfactor, both in American anthropologically oriented (socio)linguistics and,for example, the French brand of linguistics (Meillet, Vendryes eta/. . In thefirst section of his essay, Labov gives full credit to these and many otherpredecessors in the linguistic view oflanguage as a social fact . The followingsections, discussing three substantive questions on linguistic change ( Doesthe social and stylistic variation of language play an important role in linguistic change? Can high-level, abstract rules of phonology and grammarbe affected by social factors? Is there any adaptive function to linguisticdiversification? ) and further elaborating on them under separate headings( The Study of Sound Change in Progress: the Uniformitarian Principle ,The Embedding of Linguistic Change in its Social Context , with severalfurther special problems discussed and amply illustrated in this section,The Evaluation Problem: Subjective Reactions to Linguistic Change , TheActuation Problem , The Question of Social Variation in the Life Historyof a Linguistic Change , Doubts on the Degree of Abstraction , and, finally,Is There an Adaptive Function to Linguistic Diversity? ) all address important and, in fact, crucial problems concerning the mechanisms and thedetermining factors in linguistic - primarily phonological - change, generallytaking an unorthodox, realistic view ofwhat actually goes on when linguistichabits gradually change in a particular speech community (the authorremaining well aware that even the concept of a speech community , is ofcourse, but a relative notion). Labov clearly argues for always starting outfrom the observable data, which itself shapes any theoretical and generalizingconclusions, rather than setting out from a particular abstract theoreticalframework lor model) into which the facts oflinguistic reality must sometimesforcefully be fitted to support any aprioristic theory. t should be noted,though, that rather than subsuming the final findings of an altogether newand fully worked out approach to linguistic change, Labov s paper has, to alarge extent, the character of a progress report on relevant ongoing research.


20/25

286 REVIEW ARTICLEFor a somewhat more detailed account, further elaborating on many pointsonly briefly touched upon in this essay as well as adding new facts and observations, see Labov eta/ 1972.

While the inclusion of Labov's condensed progress report, interesting andimportant as it is, may seem somewhat questionable in view of the generalthematics of this volume, it is readily clear why the editors would want toinclude a paper on various writing systems and their- only partly achieveddecipherment among the contributions to a volume on language classification.I J. Gelb's essay, 'Written Records and Decipherment', certainly makes forenlightening reading, especially for those less familiar with this particularfield. To be sure, Gelb essentially limits himself to dealing with 'the writtenremains from ancient times which have been discovered in the long stretchof land extending from Gibraltar to the Yellow Sea', and even his discussionand exemplification of the four ancient civilizations concerned, the NearEast, India, China, and the Mediterranean area of classic, Greco-Romanantiquity, is rather heavily focused on Southwest Asia and NortheastAfrica, the field of his own specialization. Only very occasionally and ratherinconsistently are later periods and other areas (e.g., the old Maya records,the 'Easter Island writing', or the Proto-Indic linguistic remains from theIndus Valley) brought into the discussion by way of illustrating parallel, orat any rate comparable, problems of decipherment.Granted the complexity of definitions, problems, and procedures to becovered within the limits of a short paper, Gelb's insistence on a highly structured taxonomy of terms and concepts sometimes rather hampers the reader'sability to orient himself, especially as the dividing line between contrastingand/or competing notions is often very thin indeed. Thus, Gelb himself at theoutset rightly dispenses with any futile (in this context) attempt to distinguishbetween 'written records' and 'literature', by excluding the usage of the latteraltogether from his discussion. But when it comes to the discussion of theterms used for the study of written records -epigraphy and paleographysome objections could legitimately be raised against his way of accountingfor a somewhat imprecise terminology. And while he discusses the merits ofterminologically distinguishing between the 'decipherment' of writing systemsas opposed to the 'recovery' (or 'interpretation') of formerly unknown or asyet unidentified languages, he himself uses these (and some similar) termsalmost indiscriminately. Finally, while the author is, of course, quite awareof the difference between the broader term 'graph' and the narrower 'grapheme' also in their strictly linguistic sense (cf., e.g., 275 , he nonetheless doesnot hesitate to state that the study of full writing is called 'graphemics'(see 260 where, however, other suggested terms also are cited). And, stillfrom the point of view of linguistics, it is hard to see how he can relegate the


21/25

REVIEW ARTICLE 287study of various 'graphs' (or, to be precise, allographs) such as the two signsfor Greek (lower case) sigma to the domain labeled by him 'para-writing'or 'paragraphy' (260, but cf. also 275). Though striving for a concise andexact style, Gelb's wording occasionally is less than fortunate; cf., forexample, when he speaks 260) about our alphabetic writing, which is supposed to consist of graphemes for single phonemes of the language only toimmediately have to give some examples to contradict this 'supposition'.But why, to begin with, assume that there necessarily 'is supposed' to be anideal one-to-one relationship between the phonemes of a language and thegraphemes of which its writing system consists?

In the chart of ancient writings and languages (266-7), Hittite hieroglyphicshould perhaps have been marked by a plus in parentheses as only thehieroglyphic Hittite texts from the first millennium B. C. can be consideredfully deciphered, while those from the second millennium in part still remainunreadable cf. Dunaevskaja 1968, 8). In the discussion of various types ofwriting systems (259-60), it is maybe somewhat confusing to find the term'ideography', without any further comment, as one of the synonyms for'sub-writing' or 'semasiography', i.e., the use of visual marks without theintermediary of linguistic elements, since the conventionalized 'ideogram'for which Gelb uses 'logogram' is the term otherwise frequently denoting oneof the chief components of one of the types of 'full writing', namely the logosyllabic systems. The author's self-imposed limitations in time and spacehave also prompted him to suggest some generalizations that he might haveotherwise avoided. Thus, had he also taken into account recent finds frommedieval Eastern Europe, he could have listed birch bark (on which numerousinscriptions have been found during excavations in Novgorod) as one of theconceivable writing materials (255), and the statement that all organicmatter is perishable in wet climates (256), while generally true of course,might perhaps have been somehow qualified in view of the fact that theNovgorod birch bark letters were preserved as a result of the particulardegree of humidity of the earth layers in which they were found. Of datathat Gelb could not yet treat in his survey, but on which it would have beenparticularly interesting to learn his opinion, are the supposedly inscribed - inlarge part artistically shaped- objects, mostly from Central and East Balkansites, that M. Gimbutas and her team have excavated, and for which sheassumes, on not too solid grounds, it would seem to me, a pre-IE 'LinearOld European script' (see Gimbutas 1974, 85-8). Somewhat surprisinglyone finds Linear A tentatively listed in the section on 'Decipherment ofunknown writings used for known languages' 269, cf. also 257). While it istrue, of course, that Minoan Linear A still remains undeciphered, it isnonetheless evident that this writing system is closely related to that of


22/25

288 REVIEW ARTICLELinear B (cf., e.g., Packard 1974, 21). On the other hand, hypotheses stillvary widely as to the identity of the language hiding behind this script(Akkadian or Ugaritic-type Semitic, Anatolian, esp. Luvian and or Hittite,or Greek-type IE, and others; cf. Packard 1974, 26-8). The application ofstatistics to decipherment by making lists of the first and last signs of a givensign group (word) is, by the same token, also one of the most importantgraphotactic devices discussed but as such not made patently clear byGelb (275-6). A somewhat fuller discussion of the particular unresolvedproblems relevant to one of the most puzzling languages still resisting correctinterpretation, Etruscan, would have been welcome.

The above, partly critical comments on some details of this most instructive essay - informative when it comes to explaining the basic methods andtechniques used in decipherment - are not meant to detract from the overallmerits and the generally very lucid and cogent reasoning of this succinct andwell-organized presentation.

In his Introductory Remarks , to part three of this volume, the unifyingtheme of which he, incidentally, considers diachronic linguistics or crosslanguage study rather than language classification, R. E. Longacre brieflysurveys what seems to him the erratic swinging of the pendulum in Americanand British linguistics between the two extremes of a one-sided preoccupationwith either language universals or distinctive particulars. Thus, he quotes andcomments on linguists such Nida, Bloomfield, Firth, and Allen, all more orless outspoken antiuniversalists , and contrasts them with TG grammarians(represented by a quotation from Postal) whose interest, as s well known,has been particularly focused on the universal aspects of language. In theongoing dissolution of supposedly largely universal deep structure intogeneral semantic structure, the author sees a signal of a possible return to akind of linguistics again primarily concerned with the study of particulars,but pleads, for his part, for striking a reasonable balance between the twoextremes in future research. He then goes on to briefly list some specific(if more or less self-evident) advantages of applied case studies over merelytheoretical essays on methodology and sees some parallelism between therelationship of inquiry into universals vs. particulars, on the one hand, andmethodological theory vs. concrete application, on the other. Bloomfield sclassic Algonquian sketch is cited as an example of the theoretical andmethodological usefulness of a case study of a non-IE language also for suchan established field as that of Indo-European studies. Longacre concludeshis opening remarks by summarily stating the particular significance ofeach of the following case studies.Considerations of space, in addition to lack of expertise in several of thefields covered in the case studies that follow, alluded to earlier, preclude a


23/25

REVIEW ARTICLE 289detailed discussion of the remainder of this volume. Therefore, we will haveto limit ourselves to a few particular comments concerning just a few of thespecific case studies, all of which - and this should be stressed - make forinteresting reading.R. Anttila's highly selective (in terms of illustrative data) study on 'InternalReconstruction and Finno-Ugric (Finnish)', while written in the author'susual casual, personal style, is full of new and intriguing observations, suggestions, and insights. In addition, it is another demonstration of his tremendous erudition. Considering the thrust of internal reconstruction primarilyinductive, this paper also suggests a vindication and partial reinterpretationof the role and significance of analogy as a methodological tool in historicallinguistics and takes issue with much of the kind of diachronic researchpracticed in recent years by the 'historical' branch of TG grammarians.Still, for a fuller account of Anttila's relevant views, the reader is well advisedto consult his recent textbook on historical and comparative linguistics(Anttila 1972) as well as his forthcoming study on analogy (for a preliminaryversion, see Anttila 1974).

Somewhat surprisingly, perhaps, J. A Rea's essay 'The Romance Data ofthe Pilot Studies for Glottochronology' is, if anything, a succinct critique ofthe method and results of glottochronology (lexicostatistics) leading to thein my view- fully justified question: If ... the mathematics are inadequate;if ... the results of the method do not correspond to known facts; if, now,the Romance wordlists and scorings that formed the basis of the method arein fact full of ndeterminacies, inconsistencies and errors, what then remains?

J. Chadwick's paper 'Linear B', telling, once more, the story of one of themost exciting feats of decipherment of all time, the successful identificationof the Linear B script as Early ('Mycenaean') Greek by the late M. Ventris,prematurely killed in a car accident, does not really contribute anythingsubstantially new, at least when compared to earlier, more detailed accountsprimarily by Ventris' collaborator himself cf. esp. Chadwick 1959). Mightit be that this paper was (written for and) included in this volume to counterbalance, rather than, as a case study, match, Gelb's methodological essaywhere Ventris' achievement is, if anything, somewhat played down cf. 275)?

J. R. Krueger's concluding paper on 'Altaic Linguistic Reconstructionand Culture', is at least as much a brief histoir de a qu stion as a contribution of any new, original ideas to the intricate and, to a large extent, unresolved problems of comparative Altaic linguistics. Unclear are not onlythe possible, in some instances at best distant relationships with such languagegroups as Uralic and Indo-European, on the one hand, and Korean-Japanese,on the other, but very much open remains even the fundamental questionas to whether the three main components of what traditionally is referred


24/25

290 REVIEW ARTICLEto as Altaic, viz., Turkic, Mongolian, and Manchu-Tungus, are actuallygenetically related or only have strongly influenced each other as a result ofsymbiosis and mutual exchanges (reflected in various sub-, ad-, and superstratum phenomena), thus developing a set of shared typological charateristics, especially in syntax, macromorphology (i.e., order of and mechanisms for combining morphemes), and lexicology. All this, and the relevantopposing viewpoints where the author holds a right-of-the-center view,that is to say, is cautiously inclined to accept a common origin for all Altaiclanguages, granted many conformities and similarities are secondary anddue to borrowing rather than to inheritance - are duly sketched by Kruegerwho, in closing, even attempts to at least outline the (to be sure, very limited)possibilities of reconstructing Altaic culture through linguistic evidence,again primarily reporting on work by others (D. Sinor, in particular). Ofreferences to theoretical work relevant to the techniques of establishing(or refuting) distant relationship, one misses, among others, Fokos-Fuchs1962 (utilizing primarily criteria of syntax, so relevant here, for Ural-Altaic)and several studies by Collinder (esp. 1964 and 1965 .

It goes without saying that a volume as content-packed and diversified(in approach as well as subject matter) as the one reviewed here cannot butraise a number of questions and prompt some critical remarks, a few ofwhichwere voiced above. In closing, it should therefore be stressed, once more,that the overall impact of the many contributions assembled in this six-hundred-plus pages volume is definitely a positive one. Whether the contents are in the field or fields of his own specialization or outside it, andwhether he is convinced or unconvinced by some of the arguments advancedby the various authors, who represent a broad spectrum of schools ofthought and interests, the open-minded reader can only profit from familiarizing himself with the wide range of intriguing facts and views presentedin this book.UCL HENRIK BIRNBAUM

BIBLIOGRAPHYAnttilla, R.: 1972, n Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics New York,Macmillan.Anttila, R.: 1974, Analogy University of Helsinki, Department of Linguistics, DressRehearsals, no. 1.Birnbaum, H.: 1968, On Reconstruction and Prediction: two Correlates of Diachrony

n Genetic and Typological Linguistics , FoiLing 2, 1-17.Birnbaum, H.: 1970, Problems of Typological and Genetic Linguistics Viewed in a Gen-erative Framework The Hague, Mouton.Birnbaum, H.: 1975, Typology, Genealogy, and Linguistic Universals , Linguistics (to


25/25

REVIEW ARTICLE 291appear; German variant: Genetische, typologische und universale Linguistik: einigeOberlegungen tiber ihr hierarchisches Verhiiltnis , FoiLing 7 3/4 [1973], forthcoming).Chadwick, J.: 1959, The Decipherment of Linear B Cambridge, University Press.Collinder, B.: 1964, Sprachverwandtschaft und Wahrscheinlichkeit Uppsala, AlmqvistWiksell.Collinder, B : 1965, Hat das Uralische Verwandte? Eine sprachvergleichende UntersuchungUppsala, Almqvist Wiksell.Dunaevskaja, I M.: 1969, Jazyk xettskix ieroglifov Moscow, Nauka .Fodor, I.: 1965, The Rate of Linguistic Change: Limits of he Application of MathematicalMethods in Linguistics The Hague, Mouton.Fokos-Fuchs, D. R.: 1962, Rolle der Syntax in der Frage nach Sprachverwandtschaft mitbesonderer Rucksicht auf das Problem der ural-altaischen Sprachverwandtschaft Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz.Gimbutas, M.: 1974, The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe 7000-3500 BC: MythsLegends and Cult Images Berkeley Los Angeles, UCPress.Itkonen, E.: 1974, Linguistics and Metascience Kokemiiki, Soc. philos. et phaenomenol.Finlandiae.Kacnel son, S.D.: 1972, Tipologijajazyka i retevoe myslenie Leningrad, Nauka.Kurylowicz, J.: 1964, On the Methods of Internal Reconstruction , with discussion, inH. G. Lunt (ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists Cambridge, Mass., August 27-31, 1962, The Hague, Mouton, 9-36.Labov, W., Yaeger, M., and Steiner, R.: 1972, A Quantitative Study of Sound Change inProgress 2 vols., Philadelphia, U.S. Regional Survey (NSF Report).Lakoff, R. T.: 1968, Abstract Syntax and Latin Complementation Cambridge, Mass.,London, MIT Press.Packard, D. W.: 1974, Minoan Linear A Berkeley Los Angeles, UCPress.

birnbaum - typological, genetic, & areal linguistics (review article)

Documents