Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:35:46.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Glotto chronologic theory: Valid or not in Chinese languages?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Stanley R. Munro
Stanley R. Munro*
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

While reading the literature on glottochronology, I felt that there might be a special case which Swadesh, Lees, et al. had not accounted for: one which would not follow the same rate of divergence for basic vocabulary as they had generally predicted. This is the case in which languages diverge from a common proto language, but which nevertheless retain a common writing system—particularly a writing system which has no direct relationship to the phonemic system of the language. It could be hypothesized that due to the cohesive bond that might occur in languages with such a common writing system, the languages ought to diverge at a much slower rate than 80.5% retention per 1000 years as in the case of Lees’ findings (Lees 1953: 118-9), or 86% retention per 1000 years as in the case of Swadesh’s revised 100 word list (Swadesh 1955: 133-7). Subconsciously, my feelings about the Chinese “dialects” influenced me, particularly since I had already pre-judged the case and had assumed that the dialects diverged at a rate slower than Lees and Swadesh had predicted.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 23 , Issue 1-2 , Spring/Fall 1978 , pp. 55 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bergsland, Knut 1958 Is Lexico-statistic Dating Valid? Procedings of the Thirty-Second International Congress of Americanists. (Copenhagen, 1956), 654–75.Google Scholar
Chao, Yuen Ren 1971 Mandarin Primer. Cambridge: Harvard [1948].Google Scholar
Chen, Matthew Y. 1976 From Middle Chinese to Modern Peking. JCL 4. 113–277.Google Scholar
Collins, Henry B., Eggan, Fred, Ekholm, Gordon F., Haury, Emil W., Uimby, George O. 1954 Comments on ‘Time Depths of American Linguistic Groupings’. A A 56.364–77.Google Scholar
Dong, T. H. 1954 Zhong-guó Yŭ-yin (History of Chinese Phonology). Taipei: Zhong-huá Wén-huà Chu-băn Shì-yè Wěi-yuán-huì.Google Scholar
Driver, Harold, Dyen, Isidore, Gudschinsky, Sarah, Hattori, Shiro 1960 Comments on ‘Lexicostatistics So Far’. CAnth 1.34–41.Google Scholar
Fairbanks, Gordon 1955 A Note on Glottochronology. IJAL 21.116–20.Google Scholar
Forrest, R. A. D. 1965 The Chinese Language. London: Faber [1948].Google Scholar
Gleason, Henry 1955 Language Classification. An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Gudschinsky, Sarah 1955 Lexico-statistical Skewing from Dialect Borrowing. IJAL 21.138–49.Google Scholar
Gudschinsky, Sarah 1956 The ABC’s of Lexicostatistics. Word 12.175–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hashimoto, M. 1965 Phonology of Ancient Chinese. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Hirsch, David 1954 Glottochronology and Eskimo and Eskimo-Aleut Pre-history. AA 56.825–38.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles 1953 Linguistic Time Depth and Its Anthropological Uses. IJAL 19.146–52.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles 1958 Glottochronology. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, Dell 1960 Lexicostatistics So Far. CAnth 1.3–44.Google Scholar
Karlgren, Bernhard 1915-26 Etudes sur la Phonologie Chinoise. Leyde: E. J. Brill; Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt; Gotembourg: Elanders Boktryckeri.Google Scholar
Karlgren, Bernhard 1923 Analytic Dictionary of Chinese and Sino-Japanese. Paris: P. Geuthner.Google Scholar
Karlgren, Bernhard 1926 Philology and Ancient China. Oslo: H. Aschehoug; Cambridge: Harvard.Google Scholar
Karlgren, Bernhard 1949 The Chinese Language. New York: Ronald.Google Scholar
Kroeber, A. L. 1955 Linguistic Time Depth Results So Far and Their Meaning. IJAL 21.91–104.Google Scholar
Latourette, Kenneth Scott 1961 The Chinese: Their History and Culture. New York: Macmillan [1951].Google Scholar
Lees, Robert 1953 The Basis of Glottochronology. Lg. 29.113–27.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1962 Study of Loss in Language—Lexicostatistics. Historical Linguistics, An Introduction. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Mathews, R. H. 1971 Mathews’ Chinese-English Dictionary. Cambridge: Harvard [Shanghai, Presbyterian Mission Press, 1931].Google Scholar
Peking University 1962 Hán Yu Fang-yin Zi-huì (A Pronouncing Dictionary of Han Dialects). Peking: Wén-zì Găi-gé Chu-băn Shè.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, E. 1962-3 The Consonantal System of Old Chinese. Asia Major 9.59–144, 206–65.Google Scholar
Samarrai, Allauddin Ismail 1959 Rate of Morphemic Decay in Arabic. IJAL 25.68–70.Google Scholar
Satterthwaite, ARNOLD C. 1960 Rate of Morphemic Decay in Meccan Arabic. IJAL 26.256–60.Google Scholar
Swadesh, Morris 1952 Lexico-Statistic Dating of Prehistoric Ethnic Contacts. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 96.453–63.Google Scholar
Swadesh, Morris 1953 A Retort to Hockett’s ‘Linguistic Time Perspective and Its Anthropological Uses’. IJAL 19.152–3.Google Scholar
Swadesh, Morris 1954 Time Depths of American Linguistic Groupings. A A 56.361–77.Google Scholar
Swadesh, Morris 1955 Towards Greater Accuracy in Lexicostatistic Dating. IJAL 21.121–37.Google Scholar
Swadesh, Morris 1959 Linguistics as an Instrument of Prehistory. SJA 15.20–35.Google Scholar
Taylor, Douglas, & Rouse, Irving 1955 Linguistic and Archaeological Time Depth in the West Indies. IJAL 21.105–15.Google Scholar
Wang, L. 1958 Hàn-yŭ (A Tentative History of the Chinese Language). Vol. 1. Peking: Kè-xué Chu-băn Shè.Google Scholar
Zhao, Y. T. 1957 Dĕng-yùn Yuán-liú (The Origin and Evolution of Chinese Phonology). Shanghai Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Zipf, George 1965 Psycho-Biology of Language. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar