Nostratic hypothesis
-
What is the Nostratic hypothesis?
The Nostratic hypothesis is a controversial theory proposing a language family of northern Eurasia. First suggested in 1903 by Holger Pedersen, the term aims to classify language families, such as Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic, Afro-Asiatic, and possibly others, under a single, broad category.
Modern research on the hypothesis began with Vladislav M. Illich-Svitych in the mid-1960s. Illich-Svitych argued for the relatedness of the above-named groups, together with Kartvelian and Dravidian, and offered a reconstruction of Proto-Nostratic. The theory remains highly controversial, partly because much of Illich-Svitych's work was published posthumously with unresolved problems.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What does it mean to say languages belong to the same family?
When languages are said to belong to the same family, it means they are grouped together based on their degree of historical relatedness. This is called genetic, or genealogical, classification, where languages are classified into families based on diachronic connections.
The Nostratic hypothesis is a proposed, though controversial, language family of northern Eurasia. The hypothesis suggests that Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic, Afro-Asiatic, and possibly other language families, can be categorized under one broad group.
The similarities in languages of the same family result from slight deviations accumulating over generations. These deviations lead to dialects and eventually distinct languages if communities are scattered and cultural ties weaken.
4 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Which languages or language groups are included in the Nostratic hypothesis?
The Nostratic hypothesis is a proposed language family of northern Eurasia. First suggested in 1903 by Holger Pedersen, the hypothesis suggests that Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic, and Afro-Asiatic languages can be categorized under one broad language family.
Later, Vladislav M. Illich-Svitych argued for the relatedness of the above-named groups, together with Kartvelian and Dravidian. While the inclusion of some of these language families has been questioned, other language families, such as Yukaghir, Eskimo-Aleut, and Chukchi-Kamchatkan, are good candidates for inclusion.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Why do some linguists believe these languages are connected?
The Nostratic hypothesis is a proposed language family of northern Eurasia that is still controversial. Linguists suggest that similarities in the proto-forms of languages, rather than later forms, indicate a common origin. Parallels in words resistant to borrowing, such as personal pronouns and body parts, also strongly suggest genetic relatedness.
Interest in classifying the world’s languages has been reawakened, with new research refining earlier findings and discovering evidence supporting the theory. Some linguists are correcting doubtful parts and building on promising aspects, such as the sound system and lexical evidence. Some have found Nostratic words to be more widely attested than previously suspected.
However, the theory remains controversial because much of the original work was published posthumously with unresolved problems. Some question the inclusion of certain language families, like Afro-Asiatic and Dravidian. Some believe that Indo-European may be distantly related to Uralic languages.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What kinds of evidence do researchers use to support the Nostratic hypothesis?
Researchers supporting the Nostratic hypothesis use several types of evidence. This controversial theory proposes a language family of northern Eurasia, seeking to connect language families such as Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic, and Afro-Asiatic.
Evidence for the Nostratic hypothesis includes:
* Systematic phonological correspondences Comparing reconstructed proto-forms of languages rather than later forms. For example, Proto-Indo-European *t, *d, *dh correspond to Proto-Kartvelian *t', *t, *d, respectively.
* Analysis of words resistant to borrowing Focusing on forms less likely to be borrowed, such as personal pronouns, some body parts, and natural phenomena.
* Widely attested words Discovering Nostratic words more widely attested across language families than previously known.2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Why is the Nostratic hypothesis controversial among language experts?
The Nostratic hypothesis, which suggests a common origin for language families like Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic, and Afro-Asiatic, remains controversial among language experts.
Key points of contention include:
* Much of the original research was published posthumously with unresolved issues.
* Distinguishing between shared words due to common origin versus borrowing is difficult.
* The inclusion of certain language families like Afro-Asiatic and Dravidian is debated, while others are considered for inclusion.Despite the controversy, recent research has refined earlier findings and presented new evidence, lending greater credibility to the theory among some linguists. This includes the reconstruction of Proto-Nostratic and the identification of widely attested Nostratic words.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
Nostratic hypothesis, proposed, but still controversial, language family of northern Eurasia. The term Nostratic was proposed in 1903 by the Danish linguist Holger Pedersen to encompass Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic, Afro-Asiatic, and possibly other language families under one broad category.
Modern research on the Nostratic hypothesis began with the work of the Russian Vladislav M. Illich-Svitych, who made a detailed case in the mid-1960s for the relatedness of the four above-named groups, together with Kartvelian and Dravidian. He also offered a detailed but still incomplete reconstruction of Proto-Nostratic. Important contributions to this theory were also made by the Russian-born Israeli linguist Aron Dolgopolsky. A quite different reconstruction of many of the same languages was proposed by the American Allan Bomhard.
After Illich-Svitych’s premature death in 1966, his incomplete work was published with a number of problems still unsolved, and Bomhard’s work raised additional unresolved issues. These are among the main reasons why Nostratic has not been well received thus far. More recently, rather than accept or reject the theory in toto, some researchers have focused on ways to correct its doubtful parts and build on the more promising aspects, e.g., revising parts of the proposed Nostratic sound system, adding to the lexical evidence for Nostratic, and resolving conflicts between Nostratic and existing work on the individual language families. This newer work, while also still controversial, is believed by many linguists to lend greater credibility to the Nostratic theory.
" height="20" alt="HEW Logo">
Illich-Svitych’s work was based on a number of major advances achieved by the 1960s in the understanding of the prehistory of the various language families involved, so that he was comparing the reconstructed proto-forms of each branch of Nostratic rather than the more divergent later attested forms. He proposed systematic phonological correspondences among the various languages, accounting for these and hundreds of other forms; for example, Proto-Indo-European *t, *d, *dh correspond to Proto-Kartvelian *t’, *t, *d, respectively. (An asterisk [*] indicates an unattested, reconstructed form.) In addition, Illich-Svitych proceeded by comparing all six protolanguages at once rather than two at a time, since parallels found across all or most of the language families being compared have a greater likelihood of being cognate (and thus representing a common genetic origin) than forms shared by only two or three of the families.
One of the most difficult problems in language comparison is to distinguish systematically between those words likely to be derived from a common protolanguage and the many words that are shared as a result of borrowing (and hence are not evidence of the languages themselves being related). Forms such as those listed above, including personal pronouns, some body parts, and natural phenomena, are known to be particularly resistant to borrowing, so parallels in these areas offer a strong diagnostic indicator of genetic relatedness.
The Nostratic theory remains highly controversial, in part because much of it was published posthumously, with many problems still unresolved. For a number of years after Illich-Svitych’s death, there was little further research in Nostratic.
But in recent years, interest in the classification of the world’s languages has been reawakened. In the 1990s, new research eliminated or refined many doubtful parts of Illich-Svitych’s work and discovered significant new evidence for the validity of the theory. For example, a number of Nostratic words have been found to be more widely attested (especially in Kartvelian and Afro-Asiatic) than was suspected. One interesting new etymology would offer an explanation for the hitherto troublesome connection between the Indo-European prototypes of the English words five, finger, and fist, all of which appear to come from a newly reconstructed Nostratic word, *p’ayngV (with V representing a vowel whose exact features cannot be determined), denoting the hand, or perhaps a way of holding the hand with the fingers bent (as for counting), based on a comparison of Indo-European, Uralic, and Altaic forms.
The trusted destination for professionals, college students, and lifelong learners.
SUBSCRIBE
The study of Nostratic is still in its early stages and, even if its basic validity is accepted, many issues of reconstruction remain problematic. In addition, the inclusion in Nostratic of some of the six families, notably Afro-Asiatic and Dravidian, has been questioned, while at the same time some further language families are good candidates for inclusion (especially Yukaghir, Eskimo-Aleut, and Chukchi-Kamchatkan [Luorawetlan]).
The Nostratic theory is among the most promising of the many currently controversial theories of linguistic classification. It remains the best-argued of all the solutions hitherto presented for the affiliations of the languages of northern Eurasia, a problem that goes back to the German Franz Bopp and the Dane Rasmus Rask, two of the founders of Indo-European studies.