Jump to content

User:Pcg111/Reasons for merging linguistic monogenesis and polygenesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reasons for merging linguistic monogenesis and polygenesis

[edit]

Here are a list of reason why I think that Linguistic monogenesis should be merged into Linguistic polygenesis into Draft:Linguistic monogenesis and polygenesis:

  • Notability of polygenesis:
    • As far as I know, there aren't any reviews on polygenesis papers; but there are some on monogenesis (see Campbell & Poser (2008), who reject global etymologies but not monogenesis per se).
    • The majority of the research about the origin of language is focused on monogenesis, and not polygenesis.
    • Monogenesis is the most widely accepted theory. [1]
    • I didn't found any secondary sources in polygenesis (please, if you find one, leave a message in this talk page), but there are in monogenesis (see the references at the monogenesis article).
  • Merge of polygenesis and monogenesis:
    • In various tertiary sources, monogenesis and polygenesis are in the same chapter (or article in the case of the Spanish, Galician, Catalan and Dutch Wikipedias).
    • Polygenesis has been a stub since 2006 (the creation of the article).
    • The article Origin of language focuses on the non-linguistic (neurological, paleonthological...) approaches to the origin of language, and it's already too big to have the monogenesis and polygenesis linguistic approaches of language incorporated.
    • The readers would have more context reading this two under-researched topics in historical linguistics than in two separate articles.

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Freedman, David A.; Wang, William S-Y. (April 1, 1996). "Language Polygenesis: A Probabilistic Model" (PDF). Anthropological Science (Technical Report No. 435): 1. Retrieved May 25, 2024. Monogenesis of language is widely accepted [...]