Warning: This post is a rough draft and as such is not complete, mostly due to time constraints. It's purpose is to give the class something to discuss and comment on so we can all get our points while I scramble to look for the sources that have cunningly slipped out of my notes for other classes and find appropriate links that would help. Yes, I'm currently at Hawaiian 202 with a possibility of finishing it as a minor or a bachelor in the future.
In “Comparative Linguistics: A Bridge that connects us to languages and people of the past” by Ritsuko Kikusawa, we are presented with a summary of the techniques and goals of comparative linguistics, which is to ultimately learn more about human beings by analyzing languages and seeing if a language belongs in a certain language family or not. This is primarily achieved by comparing word definitions, spellings and sounds of words to produce tables that can be used to analyze whether or not a language might be related. When languages are determined to be related, further comparisons are done in order to recreate a hypothetical language that links the two diverged or daughter languages, and to repeat the cycle to see if other languages may be linked to this “proto”-language. The field of study is augmented by archaeology, which provides physical clues of migrations and traveling patterns that provide evidence in support of or against family groupings.
However, a problem poses for comparative linguistics – how much of the research done has been affected by earlier arrivals? In order for a spelling and writing system to be developed for groups that have not developed one, early arrivals on the scene are tasked with both the task of translating and developing such a system. The article notes that some sounds are used in place of others for Polynesian languages, such as k/t and w/v. However, sounds were often in between the two choices, with the choice for lettering being done through a vote as opposed to any scientific study. Given that the translations were done in the early 18-19th centuries, have these choices significantly impacted the development of the language before linguists could conduct studies? While the Hawaiian taught in schools teaches the pronunciation of “k”, some teachers that have grown up on Niihau/Kauai prounounce “k” as a melding of “k”, “t” and possibly “d”. Given the remoteness of Niihau and the possibility that the Niihau dialect has remained comparatively unchanged when compared against modern Hawaiian, have earlier travelers created larger gaps than should be there for comparative linguists?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with your statement on "how much of the research done has been affected by earlier arrivals?" One must wonder what effect the early missionary groups had on the study of Pacific Island languages and how that research has affected our view of those languages today. In class, we mentioned how some of the early explorers did not even get off of the boat to observe the languages being spoken. There could be reason to believe that much of the research that was done in the early days of exploration is perhaps faulty or incomplete in many ways. One might also wonder about the influence that exploratory groups had on the written versions of Pacific Island languages. Since most of these languages were not in written forms before the explorers arrived, one would believe that there was probably considerable influence from the Western explorers in the creation of the written versions of many Pacific Island languages. Nonetheless, the early exploration of Pacific Island languages was crucial in establishing further linguistic research of the region.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that we even go by the ideas some early explorers have created about languages they encountered in the Pacific. Like JMW said, we discussed in class how some explorers never got off the boat when observing the language of a new location. As most know, one person cannot possibly be a representation of an entire people. Therefore, basing what you know about the entire language upon what one person does or says is hardly valid. Also, knowing that research back then was occasionally done in this manner, one can't help but wonder what other research methods had they cut corners upon.
ReplyDeleteI didn’t realize that comparative linguistics or linguistics itself and archaeology were fields that could be used together to find migration and traveling patterns. I think that’s interesting but I think an example of this would be more helpful for myself in understanding this concept. I also believe that voting on letters to be used for writing systems based on convenience instead of determining which letters would be best for the language as a whole can affect and change a language in dramatic ways, such as the k/t and w/v issue mentioned in the post. I agree with what bhoo said about one person not being able to represent an entire population in terms of language. One group of people can already have more than one dialect, so further research would need to be done.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would have to say that you make a strong case for the problem that arises when a language is undergoing standardization. Outsiders, or in this instance, missionaries, looking in on a foreign language seek to make the language understandable and more manageable for themselves. Knowingly or not, a language’s unique characteristics and traits can get lost in its standardization. Not only was the “t” sound lost in Hawaiian, but also I have heard speakers of Hawaiian using an “r” sound in place of today’s “l”, which is not to be found in many of the schools teaching Hawaiian today. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't go as far as to say that the research done by earlier arrivals messed up the "true" translations of the Pacific Island languages for comparative linguists. Although, most of us agree that conducting research while sitting on a boat and never really interacting personally with the Pacific Islanders isn't the best way to go about studying a language, the early missionaries did a great thing when they developed a writing and spelling system. If they didn't do it, who else would? But the question is, do the systems truly reflect the differences in languages? I think you bring up a good point when you ask, "have earlier travelers created larger gaps than there should be for comparative linguists?" Perhaps a gap ensued in the languages of Island A and Island B because they allowed there to be a choice of lettering. And perhaps if they had set up a consistent system for all speakers to follow, there wouldn't be a discrepancy in k/t and w/v.
ReplyDeleteEarly travelers to the Pacific did in fact bring back information about the many different languages encountered. Though it may not have been accurate due to the methods of inquiring information on these languages, it was one of the first insights to languages in the Pacific to be shared with Europeans. In my opinion, these explorers changed the history of the pacific languages by contributing to the writing system in the pacific. As what the OP said, the sounds of words were in between two choices that were voted upon rather than a scientific approach. The early explorers did not follow a scientific approach because they did not have one or were not educated or taught to make up their own. So they did their best in trying to learn the language including their own biases and interpretation of what they learned. Today, comparative linguists have trouble retracing the history of some languages probably because of interference from early explorers.
ReplyDeleteAS,
ReplyDeleteYou have a really good point regarding the fact that most if not all of the Austronesian languages have been standardized and therefore changed by early explorers of the Pacific. Like we talked about in class, most of the languages in the Pacific were strictly oral and had no writing system. When early explorers arrived with their own oral and writing systems, it makes sense that they would want to renovate the Pacific language to fit the only mold of language they knew. In creating a written language, we can only hope that the explorers stayed as true as possible to the language when transcribing what they were hearing. However, as we recognized in class, a lot can be lost in translation, for example when early explorers misinterpreted the name for Tahiti as “Otaheite”. Regardless of what we wish was done in the past to preserve the truest forms of the languages of the Pacific, we know that every language is constantly changing. Inputs from a countless number of sources have changed and will continue to change languages all over the world. Whether or not the early explorers kept the languages of the Pacific pure, the languages are what they are today because of the explorers’ influence.
I think explorers, merchants and missionaries did have a great impact on the language in Pacific Island. Yes, but how much impact they have brought to the Pacific Island, positive or negative, We do not know. At that time, when these outsiders arrived on islands, how did they understand the residents there? As JMW mentioned, before the explorers came, language was not recorded in the written form. If outsiders create the written forms, how did they impact the research done today in the linguistic field? I guess, to some extent, it may blend outsiders’ language with languages on the islands. If outsiders have been all the islands in the Pacific, it is no doubt that all languages on islands are possible have similar root and they can be grouped into a language family. As everybody knows, Niihau is still keeping isolated from people, it means they have the purest original language in Hawaii. I think comparing original Hawaiian and current spoken Hawaiian can give linguistic some ideas about the language development.
ReplyDelete