Japanese Language Classification

EXTERNAL RELATIONS

As for its relation to other languages, there are several theories, presented in descending order of probability:

Extinct Korean-peninsular languages hypothesis

Japanese is a relative of Extinct Language s 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 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

Japanese is a relative of Korean . This theory is partly based on the high degree of similarity between Japanese and Korean Grammar . Proponents of this theory, such as Samuel E. Martin and John Whitman , have also proposed numerous, non-trivial Japanese-Korean cognates that show regular correspondences. The idea of a Japanese-Korean relationship is often subsumed into the Altaic theory, 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 a member of the Altaic Language family. Other languages in this group include Mongolian , Manchu - Tungusic , Turkish , and, according to many proponents, Korean . Evidence for this theory lies in the fact that like Turkish and Korean , Japanese is an Agglutinative Language . Additionally, there are a suggestive number of correspondences in vocabulary, as shown in the following table.

These examples come from the late . 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

Japanese is a Creole Language . Phonological similarities and geographical proximity to Austronesian Languages have led to the theory that Japanese may be a kind of creole, 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

Japanese is a purely Austronesian language. This theory 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

Japanese is related to s and also have similar Vocabularies and Phonetics , though Japanese has nothing like Tamil's Retroflex Consonant s. 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 mutiple 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 Ø; and Tamil Ø : 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

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, various proposals were made to link Japanese with any number of languages, such as the Chinese Language s, English , Sumerian , various West Africa n 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 Japanese-Goguryeo/Baekje/Buyo hypothesis.

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.

REFERENCES

Vovin, Alexander. 2003. 日本語系統論の現在：これからどこへ (The Genetic Relationship of the Japanese Language: Where Do We Go from Here?). In Vovin & Toshiki Osada (eds.), 日本語系統論の現在 (Perspectives on the Origins of the Japanese Language). Kyoto: International Center for Japanese Studies. ISSN1346-6585.

Information About

Japanese Language Classification