JAPANESE LANGUAGE CLASSIFICATION
Japanese Language Classification: The classification of
the Japanese Language is uncertain and disputed. Historical linguists who
specialize in Japanese agree that it is one of the two members of the
Japonic language family, but remain divided as to the origins of the Japonic
languages. An older view, still held by many non-specialists, is that
Japanese is a language isolate. However, since the Japonic family consists
of two known members, Japanese and Ryukyuan, this analysis is now incorrect.
IMPROVE YOUR JAPANESE
 The
best way to improve your Japanese is to use it regularly. The best
way to use your Japanese regularly is to talk to native Japanese who
are interested in developing their English skills. This way you
improve your language skills, help them with their English and make
new friends at the same time.
GoJapanGo Friends is the ideal way to find language
partners, both male and female. It is great to have friends in Japan
so when you travel there, you can meet them and they can show you
around. This way you can experience the real Japan that you would
normally miss as a tourist.
Japanese Language External Relations
As for its relation to other languages, there are several
theories, presented in descending order of probability:
Extinct Korean-peninsular languages hypothesis
The Korean-peninsular languages hypothesis proposes that Japanese is a
relative of extinct languages spoken by historic cultures of Korea and
Manchuria. The best attested of these is the language of Goguryeo (a.k.a.
Koguryo), with the more poorly-attested Buyeo languages of Baekje (a.k.a.
Paekche) and Buyeo (a.k.a Puyo) hypothesized to also be related. Supporters
of the Buyeo languages theory generally do not include modern Korean as part
of that family because it is thought to have derived from the ancient
language of Silla. The limited data on these languages-just a few words, no
sentences or even phrases-as well as these cultures' historic ties, are the
primary evidence. Unless a significant body of documents in these extinct
languages is discovered, the paucity of data on these languages necessarily
limits scholars' ability to verify or falsify this claim.
Korean hypothesis
Scholars such as such as Samuel E. Martin and John Whitman have proposed
that Japanese is a relative of Korean. This theory is partly based on the
high degree of similarity between Japanese and Korean grammar, and supported
by numerous non-trivial Japanese-Korean cognates that show regular
correspondences. The idea of a Japanese-Korean relationship is often
subsumed into the Altaic theory (see below), though not all versions of
Altaic theory incorporate Korean. Furthermore, one can assume a relationship
between Japanese and Korean without addressing the problem of Altaic.
Critics of this theory have pointed out that the further back in time one
goes, the less Korean and Japanese resemble each other; furthermore, they
have no shared innovations.
Altaic hypothesis
Japanese is often included in the proposed Altaic language family;
notable scholars supporting this hypothesis include Roy Miller and the late
Sergei Starostin. The languages to which the Japonic family is connected via
the Altaic grouping include Mongolic, Tungusic, Turkic, and, according to
many proponents, Korean. Evidence for this theory lies in the fact that like
Turkic and Korean, Japanese is an agglutinative language. Additionally,
there are a suggestive number of correspondences in vocabulary, as shown in
the following table.
|
Japanese |
Turkish |
gloss |
|
ishi |
daş |
'stone' |
|
yo |
d�rt |
'four' |
|
kura |
k�rt�n |
'saddle' |
|
kiru |
kir- |
'to cut' |
|
inu |
it |
'dog' |
|
kuro |
k�l |
J
'black' T 'shadow' |
|
kurai |
k�l |
J
'to be dark' T 'shadow' |
These examples come from Starostin's database, which
contains a comprehensive list of comparisons and hypothetical Altaic
etymologies. While Starostin was a first-class scholar, there are weakness
with Altaic, not the least of which is the poor quality of the vowel
correspondences. Another one is the relative paucity of reconstructions for
basic vocabulary terms. Furthermore, Starostin made numerous mistakes with
the Japanese data, such as misidentifying Japanese words, reconstructing
secondary phenomena in dialects back to the proto-language, overlooking
accentual distinctions in Japanese, and ignoring the historical formation
(i.e., morphological structure) of certain words. Moreover, he made mistakes
with data in other Altaic languages as well. Whatever connection Japanese
may have to Altaic languages cannot be demonstrated by the current state of
Altaic reconstruction.
Creole hypothesis
The phonological similarities and geographical proximity of Japanese to
the Austronesian languages have led to the theory that Japanese may be a
kind of creole language, with an Altaic substratum and an Austronesian
superstratum, or vice versa. However, different scholars have come up with
lists of proposed Japanese-Austronesian cognates that do not agree with each
other. This is a bad sign, because different scholars, working
independently, should come up with similar results. Furthermore, the number
of words possibly identified as Austronesian is extremely small.
Austronesian hypothesis
One of the less likely theories is that Japanese is a purely
Austronesian language; this is rejected by all mainstream specialists in
both Austronesian and Japanese, since the grammar, lexis, and morphology of
Japanese are vastly different from those of any known Austronesian language.
Proponents of this theory point out examples of convergent lexis, such as
Japanese hina "doll" and hime "princess," as cognate with the Māori word
hine "girl," or Japanese kaku "to write, to scratch" with the Hawaiian kākau
"to write, to tattoo". However, it is important to note that many totally
unrelated languages exhibit chance occurrences of convergent lexis;
furthermore, these alleged "cognates" soon fall apart upon closer analysis.
For example, the word Japanese word hime is clearly a compound word; modern
Japanese /h/ comes from earlier /p/; Hawaiian /k/ comes from earlier /t/;
and no language has to write as part of its basic vocabulary. Moreover, the
time depths for Japanese and Proto-Polynesian do not match, and Polynesia is
far more distant from Japan than Taiwan, the proposed Austronesian homeland.
If there were an Austronesian connection, it might be found closer to the
Japanese archipelago. Beyond that, the time depth for proto-Austronesian, at
roughly 6000 years BP, makes it far too old to be compared with Japanese,
which came to the Japanese islands perhaps 2500-3000 years ago (see the
Yayoi page for more).
Tamil hypothesis
A few scholars have suggested that Japanese may be related to Tamil and
possibly other Dravidian languages, mostly spoken in South India. This was
first proposed by the Japanese language scholar Susumu Ohno, and is
supported by a very few others, including R. Caidwell, Susumu Shiba, and
Akira Fujiwara. Evidence for this theory is that Japanese and Tamil are both
agglutinative languages and also have similar vocabularies and phonetics,
though Japanese has nothing like Tamil's retroflex consonants. This
hypothesis has little support outside of the scholars mentioned here, and
has been strongly criticized by experts in both Japanese and Dravidian. One
reason for this is that Ohno made errors in history and archaeology; another
is that he made multiple methodological errors in applying the comparative
method. For example, he posits multiple correspondences without giving
conditioning factors, e.g., Tamil c : Japanese s; Tamil c : Japanese �; and
Tamil � : Japanese s. Even if there is some validity to the hypothesis, it
cannot be demonstrated in light of these major shortcomings in data and
application of theory.
Other hypotheses
Since the late nineteenth century, various proposals have been made to
link Japanese with any number of other languages, such as Basque, the
Chinese languages, English, Sumerian, various West African languages, and
others. These have all been discredited, though in the 1990s, Christopher
Beckwith proposed a Japanese-Chinese connection. His efforts were sharply
criticized by specialists in Japanese. Now, Beckwith is a proponent of the
hypothesis linking Japonic to the extinct Korean Peninsular languages of
Goguryeo, Baekje, Buyeo, and Gojoseon.
Known connections and analysis
Specialists in Japanese historical linguistics all agree that Japanese
is related to the Ryukyuan languages (including Okinawan); together,
Japanese and Ryukyuan are grouped in the Japonic languages. Among these
specialists, the possibility of a genetic relation to Goguryeo et al. has
the most credence; relationship to Korean is considered plausible but is
still problematic; the Altaic hypothesis has less currency. Almost all
specialists reject the idea that Japanese could be genetically related to
Austronesian/Malayo-Polynesian languages or Sino-Tibetan languages, and the
idea that Japanese could be related to Tamil is entirely excluded.
(Article
based on
Wikipedia article and used under the
GNU Free Documentation License) |
