Korean and Japanese -- Genetic Relationship?

[Ross Bender]

I have been working my way through Alexander Vovin's new book Koreo-Japonica: A Re-evaluation of a Common Genetic Origin (Hawai'i 2010). Vovin's conclusion is that "it seems highly unlikely that any evidence presented thus far in favor of a Koreo-Japonic genetic relationship can be accepted. The nature of the relationship between Korean and Japonic seems to be areal, not genetic." (p. 239)

Just when I had thought it was safe to be certain that Japanese was in fact genetically related to Korean and that both were Altaic languages (see the festschrift for R. A. Miller titled Japanese and the Other Altaic Languages -- Wiesbaden : Harrassowitz, 1999), Vovin and J. Marshall Unger have upset the apple-cart and put everything in doubt again. (See Unger, The Role of Contact in the Origins of the Japanese and Korean Languages, Hawai'i 2009) [David Lurie has an excellent summary and critique of Unger's book in Japanese Studies: 29-3, Dec. 2009]

The parts of Vovin's book dealing with material from the Senmyou are of particular interest to me. He discusses "case marker -i" and the "ra" ending in the Senmyou and suggests that both are loans from varieties of Old Korean. (pp. 45-49; 56-58)

Problematic for non-specialists (meaning those of us who aren't historical linguists) is the technical nature of both books. Whatever the defects of RA Miller's methodology (Vovin rather wryly thanks him in the acknowledgments for demonstrating "how Japonic historical linguistics and philology should not be done"), Miller's books and lectures for non-specialists were at least comprehensible to the layperson. I remember on first reading his Origins of the Japanese language : lectures in Japan during the academic year, 1977-78 (Univ of Washington Press, 1980) feeling that I finally had a grasp of a very difficult subject.

Perhaps the next step for linguists like Vovin, Unger, Whitman, Bentley, Miyake, Frellesvig and the others working in this very obscure field should be to produce a primer for those of us Japanese historians who find it difficult to work their way through all the abstruse arguments being produced in this very lively and exciting field.

--
Ross Bender
http://rossbender.org

[edward moreno]

Dear Ross: Amen, amen, and hallelujah!  But do you really think the miracle (identification/agreement) MAY OCCUR during our lifetimes (single or even combined?) I’m still awaiting the epiphany on the origin of the Jomon language—at least!!!!

Ed Moreno

 

---

--
You are subscribed to PMJS: Premodern Japanese Studies.
To post to the list, send email to pm...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send email to pmjs+uns...@googlegroups.com
Visit the PMJS web site at www.pmjs.org
Contact the group administrator at edi...@pmjs.org

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2691 - Release Date: 02/15/10 23:35:00

[James Guthrie]

First off, I will confess to having not read Vovin's book yet though it has now vaulted to the top of my "to read" list.  However, as a historian rather than a linguist I felt complelled to look at his arguement from a different point of view.  At first I found the assertion of a lack of common genetic heritage troublesome as most of what we assume about the Yayoi, Kofun and to a certain extent the Asuka period is predicated on the assumption of at least two major migrations from the Korean Peninsula to Japan.  However, the more I pondered this line of thought the more plausible it seemed for the following reasons.  
 
1)  While the genetics of a modern Japanese would not reflect a 100% common heritage with a modern Korean, there would seem to be varying degrees of Korean genetic heritage with one's region of origin playing an important part (though perhaps that is what Vovin meant by "areal" - that was a new word to me).  Obviously someone whose family had traditionally inhabited a northern region of Japan would have significantly less common genetic heritage with a modern Korean than someone whose family traditionally lived on Kyushu, simply because Kyushu is thought to have a been one of the main entry points for the aforementioned migrations.
2)  I think this is also indicative of a larger problem of social and ethnic identity that Japan has begun to wrestle with in the last 10-20 years.  Though many have argued that Japan is racially homogeneous, a long view of Japan historically disproves that.  One could argue that at the very least there are 2 or 3 distinct peoples represented in Japanese history (Southern Japanese, Emishi, and immigrants from the Korean Peninsula) and that there are 3 separate sources for the original inhabitants of the islands (Eastern Russia, Korean Peninsula, Pacific Islanders).
 
Bearing this in mind, it makes sense to say that Japanese will not show a uniform genetic heritage with Koreans because Japan itself does not have a uniform genetic heritage.  Certain regions could be expected to show a greater degree of Korean genetic heritage because of increased traffic between the region and the Korean Peninsula, just as other regions (like Okinawa) would show a greater degree of Southern Chinese genetic heritage.
What all of this means for any linguistic heritage issues between Korean and Japanese, whether they are both truly Altaic languages, is beyond me.
 
Respectfully,
 
James Guthrie 

---

Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:41:27 -0500

Subject: [PMJS] Korean and Japanese -- Genetic Relationship?

From: ross....@gmail.com
To: pm...@googlegroups.com

--
You are subscribed to PMJS: Premodern Japanese Studies.
To post to the list, send email to pm...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send email to pmjs+uns...@googlegroups.com
Visit the PMJS web site at www.pmjs.org
Contact the group administrator at edi...@pmjs.org

---

Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

[David Eason]

Dear All,

  I have been following this and earlier threads on related topics with some interest.  I just recently began teaching an undergraduate course on Japan-Korea relations that, although focused primarily on issues from 1600 (well, 1592, actually) onward, obviously requires that students also become familiar with the early history of both regions and to recognize that there is a long history of contact.

Thus I, like James Guthrie, am a historian rather than a linguist.  But I would like to ask a point of clarification that linguists who have read professor Vovin’s book will most likely be to be able to answer without much difficulty.  Namely, the question concerns how the term “genetic” is being used throughout that work.  I assume – and it is only my assumption here – that the term is being used in its linguistic sense to refer to two languages that derive from a common earlier language and are part of the same larger language family (in this case, so-called “Altaic”).   Is this correct?

I ask because, if this is the case, this discussion of “genetics” has nothing to do with human genetics whatsoever, or at least it would seem to me that linguistic “genetic” affinities need not align with biological “genetics” as seen in human populations.  Which is not to deny that there were people moving back and forth from the Korean peninsula to the Japanese archipelago at various points in history – but this is a different issue than linguistic “genetics.”  

Again, I just want to make certain that we are not muddying the waters here by combining two very different uses of the term “genetic” and potentially skewing what it is that Professor Vovin aims to prove in his study.  


Sincerely,

David Eason

--
Dr. David A. Eason
Assistant Professor of Japanese
Department of East Asian Studies
University at Albany
(518) 442-4579
dea...@uamail.albany.edu

[James Guthrie]

Just wanted to say "Thank you" to David Eason for clarifying what may have been an unintentional error on my part.  My apologies if I got my meanings confused.
 
Respectfully,
 
James Guthrie
 

---

Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:04:09 -0500
Subject: Re: [PMJS] Korean and Japanese -- Genetic Relationship?
From: dea...@albany.edu
To: pm...@googlegroups.com

--
You are subscribed to PMJS: Premodern Japanese Studies.
To post to the list, send email to pm...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send email to pmjs+uns...@googlegroups.com
Visit the PMJS web site at www.pmjs.org
Contact the group administrator at edi...@pmjs.org

---

Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now.

[Alexander Vovin]

Dear all,

Let me clarify two points:
1) Genetic relationship between two or more languages means that they
"sprung from the same common source" in words of Oriental Jones, the
founder of Indo-European Studies. That is, they go back to the same
ancestor. Please note that there is no connection, at least no direct
connection between language genetic relationship and human genetics. A
Chinese adopted into American family is genetically Chinese, but will
grow up a speaker of English, to give the most trivial example.
2) Areal relationship, on the other hand, is a relationship between
two or more languages that are not necessarily genetically related,
but nevertheless influence each other or just one another through
contact. In the case of very intensive contacts originally very
dissimilar languages could become very similar, or one language could
borrow from another huge portions of lexicon and grammar.

Best,

Sasha

--
============
Alexander Vovin
Professor of East Asian Languages and Interim Chair
Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures
University of Hawai'i at Manoa, USA
========================
iustitiam magni facite, infirmos protegite

[Ross Bender]

Thanks to Prof. Vovin for that clarification, and also for providing us the nickname of Sir William Jones, which I for one was not aware of. I immediately thought of the movie hero Indiana Jones, who must surely have been inspired by this legendary linguist.

An excellent, but tasteless and offensive, account of the great man is available on the website "Oriental Jones and the Indoeuropeans", which informs us, among other details, that "By the time he died, Sir William Jones knew 15 Languages fluently and could get laid, drunk, and Tattooed, in another 30."

http://www.larochestonebook.com/Heiligmike/mike%20pages/mike%20braun/NB%208%20Oriental%20Jones.html

--
Ross Bender
http://rossbender.org

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Alexander Vovin <sasha...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear all,

Let me clarify two points:
1) Genetic relationship between two or more languages means that they
"sprung from the same common source" in words of Oriental Jones, the
founder of Indo-European Studies. That is, they go back to the same
ancestor. Please note that there is no connection, at least no direct
connection between language genetic relationship and human genetics. A
Chinese adopted into American family is genetically Chinese, but will
grow up a speaker of English, to give the most trivial example.
2) Areal relationship, on the other hand, is a relationship between
two or more languages that are not necessarily genetically related,
but nevertheless influence each other or just one another through
contact. In the case of very intensive contacts originally very
dissimilar languages could become very similar, or one language could
borrow from another huge portions of lexicon and grammar.

Best,

Sasha