The Origin of Language : Tracing the Evolution of the Mother Tongue

Rating:
Summary: Disappointment.
Review: As an anthropologist teaching introductory courses in a community college, I give several general lectures on linguistics each semester. My own background is in the social aspects of language use, although I've always been fascinated by historical linguistics. I've been long aware of the ongoing debates about the origin of human language and usually mention the controversy about Nostratic ("our language"--the hypothetical original human language) in my classes. I picked this book up to give me a little more background. Unfortunately, I found it a very disappointing read.

My first problem was with Ruhlen's method, or at least with the examples of it that he gives. Many of the chapters present the reader with a series of words in different languages and encourage the reader to work out the historical relationships between them. This "do it yourself" approach is supposed to demonstrate the legitimacy of Ruhlen's reconstruction of linguistic history. An intelligent reader, according to Ruhlen, will come up with the same set of common sense relationships as a linguist. Well, after the first couple of chapters, I found his purported relationships dicier and dicier. I'll leave it to the professional linguists who have reviewed the book to comment on the accuracy or Ruhlen's reconstructions, but frankly, this PhD couldn't follow them.

My major problem with the book, however, has to do with the entire idea of Nostratic as being the sole mother tongue of our species. It's hard to talk about the origin of human language without talking about human origins in general, and I don't think that Ruhlen adequately does this. By using Cavalli-Sforza's genetic data to support his arguments, he allies himself implictly with the Repalcement theory of modern human origins. This theory, sometimes called the "Out of Africa" or "Eve" theory) states that modern homo sapiens originated in Africa around 100,00 years ago, migrated out of Africa and into the rest of the Old World, where they replaced existing populations of Neanderthals and Homo erectus (who may have lasted far longer in Asia than in Europe). The opposing school of thought, the Multiregional Theory, suggests that existing regional groups evolved into modern homo sapiens in parallel, interbreeding with each other and with any newcomers from Africa. The idea of Nostratic fits far better with the Replacement theory than with the Multiregional. The Replacement theory is currently the favored one, but there are still enough questions and new discoveries to keep the debate going. For instance, the question of how much, if any, interbreeding (and communicating) took place between existing populations and the newcomers is the subject of considerable debate.

But Ruhlen leaves this question and other important issues untouched. When precisely did our ancestors begin to communicate via linguistic means? Certainly full-blown language capabilities couldn't have developed until relatively late (some argue that even Neanderthals did not have fully human speech). But, given the success of experiments teaching sign languages to Koko, Kanzi, and other great apes, some minimal linguistic ability was already present before our line split from theirs approx. 5 million years ago. Some kind of vocal linguistic behavior would have developed before full-fledged languages. Most likely this would have appeared independently among different hominid populations as an outgrowth of existing gesture and call systems. The fossil record does hint at an ongoing expansion of the speech area of the brain over several million years. Homo sapiens and its predecessor populations were widespread geographically. To expect them all to develop a single original tongue from which all other languages evolved just makes no sense to me. Even assuming an extreme Replacement model of human origins, it seems unlikely scenario. The idea of multiple independent origins of human languages, some of which survived and ultimately grew into the language families we know today (and possibly some that we don't), makes a lot more sense to me than Ruhlen's One Original Language argument.

Leaving aside the merits (no pun intended) of the author's argument for the moment, my final criticism has to do with his style. His constant complaints about how mainstream historical linguists have "done him (and his mentor Joseph Greenberg) wrong" grow stale very quickly. Ruhlen's comments take on a whiny air and get in the way of his arguments. It's true that some of Greenberg's controversial theories about American Indian languages were eventually proved to be correct, but that doesn't mean that his theories on Nostratic will prove to be equally correct, or that the methods Greeberg and Ruhlen use actually do reveal deep historical connections. Ruhlen has topnotch credentials, and rather than just condemning those scholars who disagree with him, I would have preferred a cooler headed approach.

I wish I could have given this book a better review. As I tell my students, linguistics is a fascinating field. It takes a special kind of detail-oriented person to do linguistic research. But in the end, the conclusions linguists reach often have breathtaking implications. Unfortunately, I just can't buy the arguments in Ruhlen's book.

Rating:
Summary: Take with a grain of salt
Review: As an anthropologist teaching introductory courses in a community college, I give several general lectures on linguistics each semester. My own background is in the social aspects of language use, although I've always been fascinated by historical linguistics. I've been long aware of the ongoing debates about the origin of human language and usually mention the controversy about Nostratic ("our language"--the hypothetical original human language) in my classes. I picked this book up to give me a little more background. Unfortunately, I found it a very disappointing read.

My first problem was with Ruhlen's method, or at least with the examples of it that he gives. Many of the chapters present the reader with a series of words in different languages and encourage the reader to work out the historical relationships between them. This "do it yourself" approach is supposed to demonstrate the legitimacy of Ruhlen's reconstruction of linguistic history. An intelligent reader, according to Ruhlen, will come up with the same set of common sense relationships as a linguist. Well, after the first couple of chapters, I found his purported relationships dicier and dicier. I'll leave it to the professional linguists who have reviewed the book to comment on the accuracy or Ruhlen's reconstructions, but frankly, this PhD couldn't follow them.

My major problem with the book, however, has to do with the entire idea of Nostratic as being the sole mother tongue of our species. It's hard to talk about the origin of human language without talking about human origins in general, and I don't think that Ruhlen adequately does this. By using Cavalli-Sforza's genetic data to support his arguments, he allies himself implictly with the Repalcement theory of modern human origins. This theory, sometimes called the "Out of Africa" or "Eve" theory) states that modern homo sapiens originated in Africa around 100,00 years ago, migrated out of Africa and into the rest of the Old World, where they replaced existing populations of Neanderthals and Homo erectus (who may have lasted far longer in Asia than in Europe). The opposing school of thought, the Multiregional Theory, suggests that existing regional groups evolved into modern homo sapiens in parallel, interbreeding with each other and with any newcomers from Africa. The idea of Nostratic fits far better with the Replacement theory than with the Multiregional. The Replacement theory is currently the favored one, but there are still enough questions and new discoveries to keep the debate going. For instance, the question of how much, if any, interbreeding (and communicating) took place between existing populations and the newcomers is the subject of considerable debate.

But Ruhlen leaves this question and other important issues untouched. When precisely did our ancestors begin to communicate via linguistic means? Certainly full-blown language capabilities couldn't have developed until relatively late (some argue that even Neanderthals did not have fully human speech). But, given the success of experiments teaching sign languages to Koko, Kanzi, and other great apes, some minimal linguistic ability was already present before our line split from theirs approx. 5 million years ago. Some kind of vocal linguistic behavior would have developed before full-fledged languages. Most likely this would have appeared independently among different hominid populations as an outgrowth of existing gesture and call systems. The fossil record does hint at an ongoing expansion of the speech area of the brain over several million years. Homo sapiens and its predecessor populations were widespread geographically. To expect them all to develop a single original tongue from which all other languages evolved just makes no sense to me. Even assuming an extreme Replacement model of human origins, it seems unlikely scenario. The idea of multiple independent origins of human languages, some of which survived and ultimately grew into the language families we know today (and possibly some that we don't), makes a lot more sense to me than Ruhlen's One Original Language argument.

Leaving aside the merits (no pun intended) of the author's argument for the moment, my final criticism has to do with his style. His constant complaints about how mainstream historical linguists have "done him (and his mentor Joseph Greenberg) wrong" grow stale very quickly. Ruhlen's comments take on a whiny air and get in the way of his arguments. It's true that some of Greenberg's controversial theories about American Indian languages were eventually proved to be correct, but that doesn't mean that his theories on Nostratic will prove to be equally correct, or that the methods Greeberg and Ruhlen use actually do reveal deep historical connections. Ruhlen has topnotch credentials, and rather than just condemning those scholars who disagree with him, I would have preferred a cooler headed approach.

I wish I could have given this book a better review. As I tell my students, linguistics is a fascinating field. It takes a special kind of detail-oriented person to do linguistic research. But in the end, the conclusions linguists reach often have breathtaking implications. Unfortunately, I just can't buy the arguments in Ruhlen's book.

Rating:
Summary: An interesting thesis fortified by results from genetics
Review: Comparative linguists can be grouped into two mutually antagonistic camps: the "splitters" who maintain distinction between language families unless rigorous criterion are met and "lumpers" who readily accept the grouping of disparate languages into a single language family on the basis of having somewhat minimal commonality. Ruhlen's controversial work is an engaging account of how "lumpers" have developed a model which distills all extant languages into twelve language families that are direct descendants of a postulated mother tongue.

Roughly two-thirds of the book involves the classification of languages into families and into families of families. The author does this by presenting tables containing selected words in various languages and asking the reader to classify the languages based on similarity. Ruhlen continues on this sort of path until arriving at the final direct descendants of the mother tongue. Throughout this journey Ruhlen guides the reader to the inner workings of language classification. The final third of the book is an attempt at justification of his classification method citing both genetics and archeology as sources of corroborative evidence while also citing sources of disagreement with other linguists.

Ruhlen's work is an insightful introduction to historical linguistics for the lay reader. Unfortunately, the book at times seemed to have less to do with historical linguistics and more with serving as a platform by which to blast opposing schools of thought who believe Ruhlen's judgement as to what constitutes a cognate is more subjective than is desirable. These frequent attacks were a significant detraction from what was otherwise an enjoyable read. Accepting the logic behind Ruhlen's language taxonomy at times required a significant leap of faith and he was unconvincing in dealing with the time depth issues pertaining to linguistic reconstruction. However ethnographic surveys of blood proteins and other genetic data indicate that the movement of peoples from an ancestral homeland in Africa can be reconstructed and this reconstruction corresponds to Ruhlen's linguistic family tree. This remarkable degree of correspondence is compelling evidence that Ruhlen is on the right track.

Rating:
Summary: An interesting thesis fortified by results from genetics
Review: Comparative linguists can be grouped into two mutually antagonistic camps: the "splitters" who maintain distinction between language families unless rigorous criterion are met and "lumpers" who readily accept the grouping of disparate languages into a single language family on the basis of having somewhat minimal commonality. Ruhlen's controversial work is an engaging account of how "lumpers" have developed a model which distills all extant languages into twelve language families that are direct descendants of a postulated mother tongue.

Roughly two-thirds of the book involves the classification of languages into families and into families of families. The author does this by presenting tables containing selected words in various languages and asking the reader to classify the languages based on similarity. Ruhlen continues on this sort of path until arriving at the final direct descendants of the mother tongue. Throughout this journey Ruhlen guides the reader to the inner workings of language classification. The final third of the book is an attempt at justification of his classification method citing both genetics and archeology as sources of corroborative evidence while also citing sources of disagreement with other linguists.

Ruhlen's work is an insightful introduction to historical linguistics for the lay reader. Unfortunately, the book at times seemed to have less to do with historical linguistics and more with serving as a platform by which to blast opposing schools of thought who believe Ruhlen's judgement as to what constitutes a cognate is more subjective than is desirable. These frequent attacks were a significant detraction from what was otherwise an enjoyable read. Accepting the logic behind Ruhlen's language taxonomy at times required a significant leap of faith and he was unconvincing in dealing with the time depth issues pertaining to linguistic reconstruction. However ethnographic surveys of blood proteins and other genetic data indicate that the movement of peoples from an ancestral homeland in Africa can be reconstructed and this reconstruction corresponds to Ruhlen's linguistic family tree. This remarkable degree of correspondence is compelling evidence that Ruhlen is on the right track.

Rating:
Summary: For those looking for deeper meaning
Review: Ever noticed that the word for water in a lot of seemingly unrelated languages is like "aqua"? If you're interested in historical linguistics then this book is for you. The author takes the comparative method to the extreme, comparing and linking protolanguages into families. It's quite fun if you're a fan of linguistics and logic, but casual readers may get bogged down in the technical minutiae. This work is definitely outside the mainstream of historical linguistics (Ruhlen was a student of Joseph Greenberg, who did pioneering but controversial work in the field at Stanford). However, the logic is flawless and the author is the first to admit the limitations of his methods. And the results are remarkable, pushing the envelope of the method and helping to fill in some of the holes in our knowledge of prehistoric migrations. Fans of Cavalli-Sforza will find these implications particularly revealing.

Rating:
Summary: Finally, an understandable book on linguistics
Review: For years, I've been looking for a well written layman's type book on modern linguistics (amazing how dense & jargon-laden linguists are when they write...). This appears to be it. At first I thought his attempt to get the reader to classify words & languages from his examples was kind of gimmicky--then I got into it.

His data fit well with (and he cites) Luigi Cavalli-Sforza's (et al) work on human genetics and the spread of human populations. Turns out it fits pretty well with the language families that Ruhlen proposes (using data from Greenberg & others). Shazzam! & especially with the language families in the Americas, where there's apparently a huge controversy going on. Again, though, both the genetic data and the language groups proposed match up at well beyond chance.

Well worth it.

Rating:
Summary: Enjoyable Read
Review: I am by no means an expert on languages or the history of languages. I picked up this book on a whim awhile back. After reading the reviews on here, I can understand why the author warned the reader that his view is controversial.

Basically Ruhlen gives you a list of about 10-15 words from 10 or so different languages. Basic words like "hand" or "head" or "water," words that would've been around for awhile. He lets the reader group the words accordingly while he would give a few pointers on how words change over time and what one sound would tend to change to. He starts with the Indo-European languages and proceeds to do the same with Native American, African, and Asian languages as well. Eventually we find out that all the languages have come from a single mother tongue. We also find out that his theory coinsides considerably with current genetic theories on the spread of humans. It was very interesting and fun to do, and Ruhlen never talks down to the reader.

That said, there were some problems. He kept referring to "Indo-Europeanists" who, according to him, dismiss his theories in-hand without even looking at them. I find this hard to believe. Sometimes it seemed to me that he all but called them racists. Then again, after reading some of the quotes from those who disagree with his theory, it all seems a bit petty, like someone who disagreed with a person's theory personally attacked that person.

All in all, it is a good book to read to get a different take on the story of language. If you're really interested after this, you probably need to get a book that has the "traditional" viewpoint of linguists.

Rating:
Summary: Enjoyable Read
Review: I am by no means an expert on languages or the history of languages. I picked up this book on a whim awhile back. After reading the reviews on here, I can understand why the author warned the reader that his view is controversial.

Basically Ruhlen gives you a list of about 10-15 words from 10 or so different languages. Basic words like "hand" or "head" or "water," words that would've been around for awhile. He lets the reader group the words accordingly while he would give a few pointers on how words change over time and what one sound would tend to change to. He starts with the Indo-European languages and proceeds to do the same with Native American, African, and Asian languages as well. Eventually we find out that all the languages have come from a single mother tongue. We also find out that his theory coinsides considerably with current genetic theories on the spread of humans. It was very interesting and fun to do, and Ruhlen never talks down to the reader.

That said, there were some problems. He kept referring to "Indo-Europeanists" who, according to him, dismiss his theories in-hand without even looking at them. I find this hard to believe. Sometimes it seemed to me that he all but called them racists. Then again, after reading some of the quotes from those who disagree with his theory, it all seems a bit petty, like someone who disagreed with a person's theory personally attacked that person.

All in all, it is a good book to read to get a different take on the story of language. If you're really interested after this, you probably need to get a book that has the "traditional" viewpoint of linguists.

Rating:
Summary: The Origin of Language by Merritt Ruhlen
Review: I haven't had such a good time and learned so much from a single book in years. I'm one of the laymen Ruhlen is trying to reach, with no background in linguistics since taking a one-semester introductory course more than 40 years ago. That course opened my eyes to the detective work involved in tracing the Indo-European language family, and this book was a good way to catch up. Readers should be sure to pause and work out the tables. (This would be easier and even more informative if Ruhlen had included an appendix explaining phonetic symbols.) Other linguists reject the comparative methods Ruhlen espouses, but he gives fair warning of that.

Rating:
Summary: Do-It-Yourself Comparative Linguistics
Review: I was so inspired by Ruhlen's do-it-yourself tutorial approach to language comparison that I decided to try it myself and "fly solo." Since all we have of Etruscan is a 200-word vocabulary (400 max), I appointed myself an instant expert and tried to find out which of Ruhlen's language families Etruscan relates to the best.

I doubt there's a better way of finding out that in setting up this book's comparative tables, Ruhlen has done an enormous amount of work behind the scenes. I'll conceed this point to his critics. I encountered all sorts of nullities and "misses" and very few hits, whereas Ruhlen has filtered out most everything but the hits. Even so (surprise!) I found hints of a Dravidian association with Etruscan, unlikely as that seems, and having worked to get to this conclusion, I feel my own ego getting involved in defending it, so I can understand the wars of clashing egos that Ruhlen's book alludes to.

(I will conceed to everyone who cares that Etruscan does not have a Dravidian grammar. In fact it seems wonderfully Indo-European. But this is way beside the point.)

This is a book people are going to care about, because people care about work they've done themselves. Ruhlen is breeding up a multitude of enthusiastic "lumpers" and I include myself in that number.