Role of positive bias in interpreting material findings in linguistics : Case study of Tocharian borrowings in Chinese
Abstract
The role of findings of archaeology and anthropology to both historical and contact linguistics (and vice versa) is of utmost importance, yet, informed evaluation is not always part of the process. Given the differences in methodologies, historical linguists may be tempted to interpret the material culture with less caution than their own probabilistic data.
One then often finds a ghost reconstruction which, unless refuted, in turn compromises findings of other disciplines. In the case study, based on author's (2017) prior evaluation of the proposed Tocharian borrowings in Chinese, the methodological gap between Indo-European and Chinese linguistics is such that identification of borrowings in each language family rests on so limited and uncertain data that incorporation of archaeology and anthropology is inevitable, yet for the reasons given above, the exclusive identification of the material and cultural artefacts with certain linguistic data is enforced by lack of alternatives - an enforced positive bias.
Believing a semantic gap needs to be filled from external sources, based on proposed synchronicity between the arrival of Tocharians who supposedly already possessed chariots with the advent of chariots in Sinosphere, the idea that husbandry terms have been, to an extent, borrowed has been accepted repeatedly (e.g Pulleyblank 1962, 1966, Gamkrelidze 1984, 1985, Schuessler 2007), now supposedly supported by archaeological evidence presented by Shaugnessy (1989). While a proponent, Lubotsky (1998:381) states his rules: 1.
The form and semantics have to be similar in both languages. 2. Old Chinese word has to be isolated in Sino-Tibetan. 3.
A good etymology has been found for Tocharian side in Proto-Indo-European. 4. "The word must belong to a semantic field liable to borrowing." Rule 4 seems sufficient, yet the fact that borrowing is a situation-dependent process is ignored: the concept must have an imaginable context, where the specific cultural contact may give rise to its borrowing. The dependency is usually considered on the macro-level (e.g.
Mallory & Adams 1997). The proposal here is that in historical contact linguistics, more emphasis is to be put on the micro-level.
Defining multi-layer comparative concepts should be part of shared-etymology proposition, i.e. defining not only the phonetic and semantic similarity with time-frame and geo-political situation but also the context of borrowing (e.g. word usage). Otherwise, one may propose cognates solely on a semantic field affiliation.
A few examples: consider 輻 fú "spokes of wheel" being of Tocharian origin (Lubotsky 1998:383). Postulated on the aforementioned interpretation of archaeological findings, supported by a Proto-Tocharian reconstruct with only few, improbable, cognates.
Blažek (1997:235) goes even further, as, based on the Chinese word 轂 "nave of wheel" restores Tocharian A ku//// "nave, hub" to kuk°. Lubotsky (1998:384-385) challenges the status of one of the bases of the semantic field, 車 "chariot", which he believes to come from 居 "to dwell".
An argument against anthropological findings, as the people in question did not dwell in their carts. In sum, inconsistent incorporation of socio-pragmatic input into etymology creates a chain of inherent errors, even circles, which end up effectively circumventing the scientific method.