Talk:Monogenesis (linguistics)

Reverted edit

Reverted addition of ", labeled the Proto-World language," from the first sentence

In linguistics, monogenesis refers to the doctrine that all spoken human languages are descended from a single ancestral language, labeled the Proto-World language, spoken many thousands of years ago in the Paleolithic or Old Stone Age.

because:

(1) The description of what monogenesis means is primary here, any names given to the resulting proto-language a bit of a distraction from it.

(2) In spite of what is implied in the current version of the Wikipedia article "Proto-World language", the use of this term is very far from universal. Others prefer for instance "Proto-Human" (e.g. Harold C. Fleming). There is in fact no generally accepted name at the present time.

(3) The term "Proto-World", whether it endures or not, is of recent mintage, whereas advocates of monogenesis were active long before it, e.g. Alfredo Trombetti.

(4) "Proto-World language" is already included under "See also", so anyone interested can find it pretty readily here.

(5) It's not necessarily true that the most recent common ancestor of extant human languages was the first language. Monogenesis does not require that it be.

VikSol 05:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I find your arguments unpersuasive:

1. Giving the 'name' is simply linking to the relevant page.

2. It doesn't matter whether or not this is the most prevalent term, it's what the article is called, and therefore what the link should be called.

3. It doesn't matter whether it's recent or not for the same reason.

4. If it is not explained what it is, the see also is not a great deal of help. Links should be in the text.

5. True, but the sentence does not say that the most recent common ancestor of extant human languages was "the first language".

My own problem is with the folowing: "Monogenesis was dismissed by many linguists in the late 19th century. It is scarcely more popular today. It is probably fair to say that most historical linguists at the present time (2008) do not view monogenesis as a respectable theory." Is there any evidence of this? I suspect that the author may be confusing attempts to reconstruct the language or the branch-patterns stemming from it, with the central concept itself. Paul B (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"Proto-World" is a very recent concept. Monogenesis is a much wider and deeper idea. For example, for centuries theories appeared that Hebrew was the original language, or Phrygian, or Avestan, etc. Some advocates of monogenesis have attempted to derive language from a few primordial exclamations; this is not Proto-World (though lumped with it in the current article), which derives in varying degrees from two modern techniques, mass comparison and the standard comparative method (regrettably, the current articles on both of these are untrustworthy). As can be seen from these examples, it is not the case that all concepts of the original language fit the model of "Proto-World". Calling all notions of the first language "Proto-World" is a bit like calling all cars "Fords": Proto-World is an individual case of a more general phenomenon - not the phenomenon itself.

Strange though it may seem, it is true that most linguists dismiss monogenesis out of hand. As evidence you might want to examine the unlimited scorn lavished on Trombetti from all sides, not only for weaknesses (real or alleged) in his work but simply for espousing the idea of monogenesis in the first place. E.g. Edward Sapir called Trombetti "a frenzied monogenist", reflecting the prevailing view that monogenists are typically frenzied. Another characteristic statement: the Nostraticist Ilya Yakubovich (1998) speaks dismissively of "fantastic monogenetic constructs like those of A. Trombetti".[1] The reasons for this widespread rejection have not been chronicled, to the best of my knowledge. It would be an interesting contribution to intellectual history to do so. However, it has not been done. I believe I can offer one clue: Ernst Haeckel.

The best available introduction to these issues from a perspective sympathetic to monogenesis is Merritt Ruhlen's On the Origin of Languages: Essays in Linguistic Taxonomy (1994). You can find the Sapir quote there and a good deal of other material besides.

VikSol 20:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Your quotations actually support my argument that there is a confusion in the sentence between rejecting monogenism as such and rejecting the claims of linguists to have modelled the process of language development from the beginning. That's like confusing the (uncontroversial) claim that humans have a single common ancestor with the (wild) claim that one can trace and identify the actual ancestor. Yakubovich ridicules "fantastic monogenetic constructs", which suggests that he is rejecting the claim any such models are plausible. While I accept that PWL is not identical to monogenesis, I can't really see that in practice is is a "wider and deeper" concept as you imply. If Hebrew or any other language were the primal human speech it would PWL unless later languages were invented from scratch (btw I've never heard of anyone who believes that Avestan was the earliest language, though there are some Wikipedians who will insist that Sanskrit was). The origin of language from 'primordial exlamations' would be consistent with either a monogenetic or polygenetic model, so it sems something of a red herring. Paul B (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a tradition in Zoroastrianism that Avestan is the language of the Supreme Being, presumably making it the primordial language. The assumptions involved are not too different from those that suggest to some that Hebrew is the primordial language in the Judaic and Christian traditions. This is what I was referring to. In any case the Hebrew and Phrygian examples suffice to make my point.

You are giving too much credence to the article "Proto-World language", which has not yet escaped the character of a tit-for-tat blog argument. In fact, Ruhlen, Bengtson, Greenberg, Trombetti, Swadesh, and other scientific monogenists have never claimed to have reconstructed the proto-language (e.g. in phonology, morphology, and syntax), but only to offer some glimpses of lexical items it might have contained, e.g. a word of the approximate form tik meaning 'finger'. These claims are generally rejected by linguists. Basically, most linguists, conscious of the difficulties in reconstructing even recent prehistoric languages, reject the notion that research into still earlier phases has scientific validity. Whether you or I find their view logical or not is beside the point: this is the existing situation.

With regard to the biological descent of humans, you need to check your facts. See Polygenism and Multiregional hypothesis: you will learn that plenty of scientists have disputed and continue to dispute the "claim that humans have a single common ancestor". See Mitochondrial Eve, Y-chromosomal Adam, and similar articles: you will learn that, at least for parts of the human genome, "the actual ancestor" can be identified (even if we don't know their name).

Proto-World is a specific hypothesis. Why should we take away from the people who founded it a perfectly good name, demanding that they invent another?

VikSol 00:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't need to check my facts on evolution. On that point, frankly, you are simply mistaken. Plenty of scientists do not dispute that humans have a single common ancestor. Polygenism, which I am only too well aware of, is a theory of separate creation which has nothing to do with evolution and is supported by no scientist of which I am aware. The distinction between Out of Africa and the multiregional hypothesis is irrelevant since both imply a common ancestor - the latter theory simply implies more ancient common ancestors. Indeed if you check Last universal ancestor you will see that it is really just a matter of how far back we go before a common ancestor can be identified. This degree of confusion does not sit well with your claims. And yes, I've read the article on Mitchondrial Eve - a long while ago - and no, the "actual ancestor" is not identified. It's not even known which century she lived in. All this is almost wholly irrelevant since the example was a vivid analogy. Your need to try to assert your superior knowledge rather than to recognise the point of the analogy is, I'd suggest, unhelpful. We are supposed to be here to improve the article. Of course I knew what you were referring to with regard to Hebrew, as should have been obvious from my comment about Sanskrit, so you really don't need to labour such points. I am also well aware that scientific monogenists have never claimed to have reconstructed the proto-language. My point was that it is what they do attempt to reconstruct that is criticised, not the central claim that all extant languages had a common ancestor. It is therefore wrong to assert that "It is probably fair to say that most historical linguists at the present time (2008) do not view monogenesis as a respectable theory." It would be more appropriate to rephrase the sentence to say that most researchers - to adopt your phrase about very ancient languages - reject the notion "that research into still earlier phases has scientific validity".

I am not aware that I ever suggested that the people who invented the term Proto-World should invent another name. In fact I wrote "It doesn't matter whether or not this is the most prevalent term, it's what the article is called, and therefore what the link should be called". If this comment is intended to improve the article, please clarify. My guess is that it follows from your delinking of "Proto-World" which had been hidden behind another phrase. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia practice, but such linkings are common. They allow the reader to go directly to the correct article without disrupting the sentence. This is to help the reader. Helping the reader is part of the purpose of an article. Burying a link in "see also", where the meaning of the phrase "Proto-World" is not even explained, does not do that. It hinders the reader. This is not helpful. Paul B (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between arguing that all humans are descended from a small group living in Africa some 200,000 years ago and arguing that they represent several lineages descended from Homo erectus which have exchanged some genetic material, as the multiregional hypothesis claims. But I'm not going to knock down all the straw men you have set up. More relevantly, it seems that we agree on the fundamental issues here, so it seems pointless to engage in a dispute. I suggest we refocus the discussion on the issue of whether to mention "Proto-World" in the article.

There are two fundamental problems with doing so:

(1) First, the term "Proto-World" is not a standard linguistics term. I checked with one of the leading specialists in the field and he cannot recall ever having used the term. Harold C. Fleming has reportedly used the term "Proto-Human"; on short notice I have been unable to confirm this. Most articles and books that treat of this subject do not use a name for the hypothesized language, e.g. Merritt Ruhlen's On the Origin of Languages, and seem to find this no inconvenience. Ruhlen has recently been using the term "Proto-Sapiens". The article "Proto-World language" speaks as if this term is in general use and indeed is premised on the assumption that it is, which is factually incorrect.

(2) Second, the article is of low quality. Its discussion page is one long litany of complaints against the quality of the article. It seems to have been put together by somebody out to discredit and ridicule the concept and to have undergone some additions by people inclined to defend it, but the fundamental problems remain, starting with the lack of NPOV. I believe this article is a strong candidate for deletion.

That the subject of the hypothesized first language is of great interest we both agree. But it needs a different article, with a different title and a different text. Someday that article will exist, but not just yet.

In the event you wish to pursue this discussion further, let's do so in a friendly manner.

Regards, VikSol 08:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Monogenesis and the posited most recent common ancestor of languages

Dbachmann has raised the question of whether the article "Monogenesis" should be merged with the article "Proto-World". As I have noted above, and as many others have noted on its talk page, the article "Proto-World" has to date been of low quality (in spite of a few elements that are acceptable) and is not in a situation to be merged with anything unless and until it has been greatly improved.

As a question of principle, there would be arguments on either side. It would certainly be possible to integrate an article on the posited MRCA and one on the doctrine of monogenesis. I think there are two reasons not to do so:

• Monogenesis is a general concept that has been held by many linguists (albeit probably a minority) since the 19th century if not earlier. There are various arguments for it, some non-linguistic. The MRCA, in contrast, is a highly specific concept, involving contemporary attempts to identify a few items of vocabulary based on current techniques (albeit not always generally accepted ones, notably mass comparison). It's easier for readers to assimilate them separately, in my judgment.

• Wikipedia discourages long articles, because they are harder for the average reader to assimilate. In spite of the skepticism or, to speak frankly, scorn with which it is viewed by many linguists, research on the posited MRCA is proceeding in several quarters (most of them linked in one way or another to ASLIP), and it is likely that it will constitute a substantial body of material within a few years, though it remains to be seen whether it will be accepted any better by the majority of linguists.

In general, monogenesis is a concept which has various arguments for and against it, and an interesting history behind this (which is only brushed over in the current version of the article but could be greatly expanded), and these deserve to be considered on their own grounds, whereas "Proto-World" (not a term much used by those investigating it) is a specific language (real or imaginary, as the case may be) and constitutes a subject by itself, though there is some linkage between them.

I recommend keeping these articles separate. I am provisionally removing the "Merge" tag pending possible further discussion.

However, since there is obviously interest in this subject, I am going to try to make time to edit the article "Proto-World language" a bit, to try to begin moving it toward something useful. Let us bear in mind, however, that research into this posited language is in an extremely preliminary state and there is as yet no comparative grammar for it such as one finds in, for instance, Nostratic languages.

VikSol 04:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Separate page from Proto-Human Language

So it appears this has been discussed before, but I think this bears discussion again. Monogenesis deserves to be a separate page from Proto-Human Language. The page on 'proto-Human language' is a treatment of the fringe ideas by Ruhlen, Gell-Man, Bengstrom and others, which are roundly rejected by mainstream linguists. The concept of the monogenesis of human language, on the other hands, is an unsettled but entirely plausible theory within linguistics. Perfectly reasonable suggestions for mongenesis have been made (for example, in Derek Bickerton's Language and Species) but these scholars do not attempt to reconstruct a proto-Human language, in fact, many of them argue that such a reconstruction is impossible. I can contribute to a page on monogenesis but I'm not sure I'd be able to make it anything more than a stub. Still though, I think separating these concepts bears consideration because they are really two radically different things. Darkaardvark (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)