In the family tree metaphor, a proto-language can be called a mother language. Occasionally, the German termUrsprache (pronounced[ˈuːɐ̯ʃpʁaːxə]ⓘ; fromur- 'primordial, original' +Sprache 'language') is used instead. It is also sometimes called thecommon orprimitive form of a language (e.g.Common Germanic,Primitive Norse).[1]
In the strict sense, a proto-language is the most recent common ancestor of a language family, immediately before the family started to diverge into the attesteddaughter languages. It is therefore equivalent with theancestral language orparental language of a language family.[2]
Moreover, a group oflects that are not considered separate languages, such as the members of adialect cluster, may also be described as descending from a unitary proto-language.
Typically, the proto-language is not known directly. It is by definition alinguistic reconstruction formulated by applying thecomparative method to a group of languages featuring similar characteristics.[3] The tree is a statement of similarity and a hypothesis that the similarity results from descent from a common language.
The comparative method, a process ofdeduction, begins from a set of characteristics, or characters, found in the attested languages. If the entire set can be accounted for by descent from the proto-language, which must contain the proto-forms of them all, the tree, or phylogeny, is regarded as a complete explanation and byOccam's razor, is given credibility. More recently, such a tree has been termed "perfect" and the characters labelled "compatible".
No trees but the smallest branches are ever found to be perfect, in part because languages also evolve through horizontal transfer with their neighbours. Typically, credibility is given to the hypotheses of highest compatibility. The differences in compatibility must be explained by various applications of thewave model. The level of completeness of the reconstruction achieved varies, depending on how complete the evidence is from the descendant languages and on the formulation of the characters by the linguists working on it. Not all characters are suitable for the comparative method. For example, lexical items that are loans from a different language do not reflect the phylogeny to be tested, and, if used, will detract from the compatibility. Getting the right dataset for the comparative method is a major task in historical linguistics.
In a few fortuitous instances, which have been used to verify the method and the model (and probably ultimately inspired it[citation needed]), a literary history exists from as early as a few millennia ago, allowing the descent to be traced in detail. The early daughter languages, and even the proto-language itself, may beattested in surviving texts. For example,Latin is the proto-language of theRomance language family, which includes such modern languages as French, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Catalan and Spanish. Likewise,Proto-Norse, the ancestor of the modernScandinavian languages, is attested, albeit in fragmentary form, in theElder Futhark. Although there are no very earlyIndo-Aryan inscriptions, the Indo-Aryan languages of modern India all go back toVedic Sanskrit (or dialects very closely related to it), which has been preserved in texts accurately handed down by parallel oral and written traditions for many centuries.
Normally, the term "Proto-X" refers to the last common ancestor of a group of languages, occasionally attested but most commonly reconstructed through thecomparative method, as withProto-Indo-European andProto-Germanic. An earlier stage of a single language X, reconstructed through the method ofinternal reconstruction, is termed "Pre-X", as in Pre–Old Japanese.[5] It is also possible to apply internal reconstruction to a proto-language, obtaining a pre-proto-language, such as Pre-Proto-Indo-European.[6]
Both prefixes are sometimes used for an unattested stage of a language without reference to comparative or internal reconstruction. "Pre-X" is sometimes also used for a postulatedsubstratum, as in thePre-Indo-European languages believed to have been spoken in Europe and South Asia before the arrival there of Indo-European languages.
When multiple historical stages of a single language exist, the oldest attested stage is normally termed "Old X" (e.g.Old English andOld Japanese). In other cases, such asOld Irish andOld Norse, the term refers to the language of the oldest known significant texts. Each of these languages has an older stage (Primitive Irish andProto-Norse respectively) that is attested only fragmentarily.
There are no objective criteria for the evaluation of different reconstruction systems yielding different proto-languages. Many researchers concerned with linguistic reconstruction agree that the traditionalcomparative method is an "intuitive undertaking."[7]
The bias of the researchers regarding the accumulated implicit knowledge can also lead to erroneous assumptions and excessive generalization.Kortlandt (1993) offers several examples in where such general assumptions concerning "the nature of language" hindered research in historical linguistics. Linguists make personal judgements on how they consider "natural" for a language to change, and
"[as] a result, our reconstructions tend to have a strong bias toward the average language type known to the investigator."
Such an investigator finds themselves blinkered by their own linguisticframe of reference.
The advent of thewave model raised new issues in the domain of linguistic reconstruction, causing the reevaluation of old reconstruction systems and depriving the proto-language of its "uniform character." This is evident inKarl Brugmann's skepticism that the reconstruction systems could ever reflect a linguistic reality.[8]Ferdinand de Saussure would even express a more certain opinion, completely rejecting a positive specification of the sound values of reconstruction systems.[9]
In general, the issue of the nature of proto-language remains unresolved, with linguists generally taking either therealist or theabstractionist position. Even the widely studied proto-languages, such asProto-Indo-European, have drawn criticism for being outliers typologically with respect to the reconstructedphonemic inventory. The alternatives such asglottalic theory, despite representing a typologically less rare system, have not gained wider acceptance, and some researchers even suggest the use of indexes to represent the disputed series of plosives. On the other end of the spectrum,Pulgram (1959:424) suggests that Proto-Indo-European reconstructions are just "a set of reconstructed formulae" and "not representative of any reality". In the same vein,Julius Pokorny in his study onIndo-European, claims that the linguistic termIE parent language is merely an abstraction, which does not exist in reality and should be understood as consisting of dialects possibly dating back to thePaleolithic era in which those dialects formed the linguistic structure of the IE language group.[10] In his view, Indo-European is solely a system ofisoglosses which bound together dialects which were operationalized byvarious tribes, from which the historically attested Indo-European languages emerged.[10]
The first fallacy is that the comparative method is "scientific" and can offer predictions.
[...]
Another fallacy is very subtle: it is the tacit assumption that the reconstructed forms are actual and experts in this imaginary field discuss and argue among themselves as if they are realities.
^Koerner, E F K (1999),Linguistic historiography: projects & prospects, Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science; Ser. 3, Studies in the history of the language sciences, Amsterdam [u.a.]: J. Benjamins, p. 109,First, the historical linguist does not reconstruct a language (or part of the language) but a model which represents or is intended to represent the underlying system or systems of such a language.
^Schwink, Frederick W.: Linguistic Typology, Universality and the Realism of Reconstruction, Washington 1994. "Part of the process of 'becoming' a competent Indo-Europeanist has always been recognized as coming to grasp 'intuitively' concepts and types of changes in language so as to be able to pick and choose between alternative explanations for the history and development of specific features of the reconstructed language and its offspring."
Lehmann, Winfred P. (1993),Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics, London, New York: Taylor & Francis Group (Routledge)
Schleicher, August (1861–1862),Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen: 2 volumes, Weimar: H. Boehlau (Reprint: Minerva GmbH, Wissenschaftlicher Verlag),ISBN3-8102-1071-4{{citation}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
Pulgram, Ernst (1959), "Proto-Indo-European Reality and Reconstruction",Language,35 (Jul.–Sept):421–426,doi:10.2307/411229,JSTOR411229
Pokorny, Julius (1953),Allgemeine und Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft – Indogermanistik [General and Comparative Linguistics - Indo-European Studies], vol. 2, Bern: A. Francke AG Verlag, pp. 79–80
