Search for other papers by Lyle Campbell in
Current site
Google Scholar
This paper examines aspects of how linguistics and human genetics can collaborate in the investigation of human prehistory. Matters that need more careful attention for linguistic-genetic correlations to have value are emphasized. Some ways to make collaboration between geneticists and linguists more productive are considered, while some misconceptions frequently encountered in work which correlates languages and genes are clarified. In particular, the questions posed by Comrie (2006) in his position paper on language and genes are addressed.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
2
Hunley et al. (2007) tested the human genetic fit with three separate linguistic classifications, Loukotka (1968), Greenberg (1987), and Campbell (1997). Testing against multiple linguistic classifications could be a good methodological procedure to attempt to avoid flaws in linguistic classifications. However, in this case, comparison with Loukotka (1968) and Greenberg (1987) serves no purpose, since both are based on methods that linguists have rejected, meaning classifications based on these methods are also rejected. Moreover, the data upon which these classifications were based are generally considered highly flawed (for discussion and references, see Campbell, 1997, Campbell and Poser, 2008). A lack of genetic-linguistic correspondence can hardly be surprising when these two unreliable linguistic classifications are involved. The classification in Campbell (1997) comes closer to representing a consensus view. Even here, however, lack of correspondence between human genetic and linguistic phylogenetic classifications might surprise scholars with an expectation of correspondence between the two, but hold no surprise for most linguists with their expectation that there will often not be a good match between genes and languages.
-
5
Torres et al. (2006) would appear to confirm that the genetic marker of their study (haplogroup C) does not fall squarely into any single one of Greenberg’s large South American linguistic groupings, but nevertheless seem critical because “there is no apparent correlation between Campbell’s [1997] linguistic classification and the population distribution of the revertant C lineages” (p. 64). That is, they seem to expect a priori a direct human genetic-linguistic association. However, their three languages (Guahibo [Guajiboan], Sáliva [Sálivan], and Piacopo [Arawakan]), though members of different language families, are spoken in adjacent regions, and it should be no surprise that genes could flow across adjacent populations of speakers of languages which are not demonstrably related to one another phylogenetically.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 729 | 178 | 3 |
| Full Text Views | 270 | 8 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 139 | 20 | 0 |
Search for other papers by Lyle Campbell in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
This paper examines aspects of how linguistics and human genetics can collaborate in the investigation of human prehistory. Matters that need more careful attention for linguistic-genetic correlations to have value are emphasized. Some ways to make collaboration between geneticists and linguists more productive are considered, while some misconceptions frequently encountered in work which correlates languages and genes are clarified. In particular, the questions posed by Comrie (2006) in his position paper on language and genes are addressed.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 729 | 178 | 3 |
| Full Text Views | 270 | 8 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 139 | 20 | 0 |