Language Families
DR DINESH RAMOO
Loan words
WHEN WE DON’T HAVE ENOUGH
What are Loan Words?
 A loanword is a word adopted from a donor language and incorporated into a
recipient language without translation.
 Loan words get accepted into a language because:

Words for and animal or object that is not found in the native language


From a dominant field of activity


Kangaroo, Catamaran, Atoll
Italian words in Classical Music, Greek terms in Philosophy
Passing into general use

Beef, Mutton, Pork, Parliament
 Function words such as pronouns, and words referring to universal concepts,
are the most static words within each language and are rarely borrowed.
Functions words are borrowed only rarely such as English they from Old
Norse þeir.
Some Loan Words in English
Hindi
Tamil
Arabic
Greek
Jungle (जंगल)
Betel (வெற்றிலை)
Admiral (‫)أمير‬
Angel (ἄγγελος)
Dacoit (डकैत्)
Coir (கயிறு)
Adobe (‫)الطوبت‬
Apostle (ἀπόζηολος)
Juggernaut (जगन्नाथ)
Congee (கஞ்சி)
Alchemy (‫)الكيمياء‬
Aristocracy (ἄριζηος)
Chutney (चटनी)
Corumdum (குருந்தம்)
Alcohol (‫)الكحل‬
Atlas (Ἄηλας)
Pundit (पण्डित)
Curry (கறி)
Algebra (‫)الجبر‬
Demon (δαίμφν)
Veranda (बरामदा)
Mango (மாங்காய்)
Cipher (‫)صفر‬
Dolphin (δελθίς)
Blighty (विलायती)
Rice (அரிசி)
Coffee ( ‫)قهوة‬
Thesis (θέζις)
Shampoo (चाँपो)
Pandal (பந்தல்)
Giraffe (‫)زرافت‬
Hormone (Ὁρμή)
Thug (ठग)
Teak (தேக்கு)
Harem (‫)حريم‬
Psychology (υστή)
Bungalow (बंगला)
Catamaran (கட்டுமரம்)
Jinn (ّ‫)الجن‬
-logy (λόγος)
Proportion of Loan Words
English
Turkish
Turkish
Arabic
French
Persian
Italian
English
Greek
Latin
German
Germanic
French
Latin
Greek
Other Languages
Proper Names
Wanderwort (Wandering word)
janjapili
(Georgian)
Singavera
(Prakrit)
zanjabil
(Persian)
zanjabil
(Arabic)
skenjebbir
(Kabyl)
tangawizi
(Swahili)
zenghebhil (Hebrew)
chinkiver
↕
injiver
zencefil
(Turkish)
(Dravidian/Tamil)
zingiberis
(Greek)
zenzero
(Italian)
gingembre (French)
ginger
(English)
gyomber (Hungaria)
ghimber
(Romanian)
ingwer
(German)
imbier
(Polish)
Relationship between Languages
NOT BORROWED BUT INHERITED
Evolution of some words
Sanskrit
putra
Sanskrit
Prakrits
putta
(Pali)
Prakrits
kamma
(Pali)
karama
(Prakrit)
Modern
kama
(Sinhala)
karam
(Hindi)
Modern
Sanskrit
pu:t
(Hindi)
puta:
(Sinhala)
puttar
(Punjabi)
dharma
karma
Sanskrit
ma:rga
Magga
(Pali)
Prakrits
dhamma
(Pali)
dharama
(Prakrit)
Prakrits
Modern
dahama
(Sinhala)
dharam
(Hindi)
Modern
ma:g
(Hindi)
maga
(Sinhala)
ma:rga
(Punjabi)
Evolution of the word ―tooth‖
*h₃dónts
(PIE)
tanþs
(PGer)
tōþ
(OE)
tooth
(Eng)
dēns
(Latin)
Indo-Iranian
danta
(Sanskrit)
Persian
zahn
(German)
dandân
(Iranian)
da:nt
(Hindi)
dat
(Sinhala)
Romance
dente
(Italian)
diente
(Spanish)
dent
(French)
Related Words
 tooth (Modern English)
 tōþ (Old English)
 *tanþs ‎(Proto-Germanic)
 *h₃dónts (Proto-Indo-European)
 Cognate with
 Scots tuth, tuith ‎
 North Frisian toth, tos ‎
 Dutch tand ‎
 German Zahn ‎
 Danish and Swedish tand ‎
 Icelandic tönn ‎
 Welsh dant ‎
 Latin dēns ‎
 Lithuanian dantìs ‎
 Ancient Greek δούς ‎(odoús)/ὀδών ‎(odṓn)
 Armenian ատամ ‎(atam),
 Persian ‫( دندان‬dandân),
 Sanskrit दत्‎‎(dát, ―tooth‖).
Indo-European Languages
 The Indo-European languages are a family of
several hundred related languages and dialects.
 There are about 445 living Indo-European
languages, according to the estimate by
Ethnologue, with over two-thirds (313) of them
belonging to the Indo-Iranian branch.
 The Indo-European family includes most major
current languages of Europe, and parts of
Western, Central and South Asia.
 It was also predominant in ancient Anatolia
(present-day Turkey), and the ancient Tarim
Basin (present-day Northwest China) and most
of Central Asia until the invasion and migrations
of Turkic speakers especially during the
Mongol–Turkic conquest in the 13th century.
Language Families
 A language family is a group of languages related through descent from
a common ancestor, called the proto-language of that family.
 The term 'family' reflects the tree model of language origination in
historical linguistics, which makes use of a metaphor comparing
languages to people in a biological family tree, or in a subsequent
modification, to species in a phylogenetic tree of evolutionary
taxonomy.
 No actual biological relationship between speakers is implied by the
metaphor.
Indo-European Language Family
Common Ancestry
Turkish
Ata
West Oghuz
Azerbaijani
Ata
Southwestern
Northwestern
Old Turkic
Ata
East Oghuz
Turkmen
Ata
West
Uzbek
Ota
East
Uyghur
Ata
North Siberian
Yakut
Ata
Southeastern
Northeastern
South Siberian
Common Ancestry
Turkish
göz
West Oghuz
Azerbaijani
göz
Southwestern
Northwestern
Old Turkic
köz
East Oghuz
Turkmen
göz
West
Uzbek
ko'z
East
Uyghur
köz
North Siberian
Yakut
kos
Southeastern
Northeastern
South Siberian
Common Ancestry
Turkish
dağlık
West Oghuz
Azerbaijani
dağlıq
Southwestern
East Oghuz
Northwestern
Old Turkic
taglıg
West
Uzbek
togʻlik
East
Uyghur
tağlıq
Southeastern
North Siberian
Northeastern
South Siberian
Common Ancestry
Turkish
Oğuz
West Oghuz
Azerbaijani
Oğuz*
Southwestern
Northwestern
Old Turkic
Okz*
East Oghuz
Turkmen
Oguz*
West
Uzbek
Oguz*
East
Uyghur
Oghuz*
North Siberian
Yakut
Uoz*
Southeastern
Northeastern
South Siberian
Turkic Languages
Turkic Languages
Language
WALS code
Language
Country
WALS code
Country
Altai
aso
Russia
Kumyk
kuq
Russia
Aynu
ayn
China
Noghay
nog
Russia
Azari (Iranian)
azi
Iran, Iraq
Noghay
nok
Russia
Azerbaijani
aze
Azerbaijan, Iran
Salar
slr
China
Bashkir
bsk
Russia
Saryg
syg
China
Chulym
cly
Russia
Shor
shr
Russia
Chuvash
chv
Russia
Tatar
tvo
Russia
Crimean
cri
Uzbekistan
Tatar
ttb
Russia
Tatar
tmi
Russia
Dolgan
dol
Russia
Tatar-Noghay
tlb
Russia
Gagauz
gag
Moldova
Tofa
tof
Russia
Karachay-Balkar
krc
Russia
Turkic
tex
Iran
Karaim
krm
Lithuania,
Turkish
tur
Turkey
Karakalpak
kkp
Uzbekistan
Turkmen
tkm
Turkmenistan
Kazakh
kaz
Kazakhstan
Tuvan
tuv
Russia,
Khakas
khk
Russia
Urum
urm
Georgia,
Khalaj
khl
Iran
Uyghur
uyg
China
Kirghiz
kgz
Kyrgyzstan
Uzbek
uzb
Uzbekistan,
Kirghiz
kfy
China
Uzbek
uzn
Uzbekistan
Krymchak
kym
Ukraine
Yakut
ykt
Russia
Yurt
yta
Russia
Dravidian Language Family
Dravidian
Northern
Brahui
Southern
KurukhMalto
Kurukh
Malto
Central
Southern I
Tamil
Kodagu
Kota
Kannada
Southern II
Tulu
Toda
KolamiNaiki
P-O-G
Telugu
Kolami
Parji
Malayalam
Gondi
Naiki
Ollari
Irula
Kui
Kuvi
Konda
Pengo
Gadaba
Distribution of Language Families
Cultural Universals
 A cultural universal (also called an anthropological universal or human
universal) is an element, pattern, trait, or institution that is common to
all human cultures worldwide.
 In his book Human Universals (1991), Donald Brown defines human
universals as comprising "those features of culture, society, language,
behavior, and psyche for which there are no known exception",
providing a list of 67 items.
Cultural Universals
Language and cognition
Society
Myth, ritual and aesthetics
Technology
Manipulation
Personal names
Magical thinking
Shelter
Misinformation
Family or household
Divination
Control of fire
Abstraction
Male Domination
Beliefs about death
Tools, tool making
Antonyms/ Synonyms
Violent males
Beliefs about disease
Weapons
Colour terms: black, white
Peer groups
Dream interpretation
Containers
Tabooed utterances
Age statuses
Childbirth customs
Cooking
Units of time
Moral sentiments
Death rituals, mourning
Lever
Poetry
Laws
Body adornment
Tying material
Symbolic speech
Property
Art
Twining : weaving
Tracing back to the Original Families
 The Proto-Human language (also Proto-Sapiens, Proto-World) is the
speculative most recent common ancestor of all the world's languages.
 The concept of "Proto-Human" presupposes monogenesis of all natural
languages apart from pidgins, creoles, and sign languages.
 It does not presuppose a common ancestor of these languages with all
extinct lineages, whether human or possible Neanderthal languages.
 This has direct links with biological evolution.
Phonological Rules
WHEN PHONEMES GET INTERESTING
Introduction
 A phonological rule is a formal way of expressing a systematic
phonological or morphophonological process or diachronic sound
change in language.
 Phonological rules are commonly used in generative phonology as a
notation to capture sound-related operations and computations the
human brain performs when producing or comprehending spoken
language.
 They may use phonetic notation or distinctive features or both.
Vowel Harmony
Final vowel
Followed by
aı
aı
ou
au
ei
ei
öü
eü
Vowel Harmony rule
 Turkish has two classes of vowels
– front and back.
 Vowel harmony states that words
may not contain both front and
back vo
 i
and
ı
tend
to
become ü and u respectively after
rounded vowels.
 Türkiye'dir "it is Turkey",
 kapıdır "it is the door",
 but
 gündür "it is day",
 paltodur "it is the coat".
Phonological rules in other languages
German
English
 Unvoiced stops are aspirated at
the beginning of syllables.



pip  [phip]
kit  [khit]
tip  [thip]
 Stops are voiceless at the end of
syllables.
 Tag  [tak]
 Hund  [hunt]
 Bad  [baːt]
 Red! [ʁeːt]
Bäder [ˈbɛːdɐ]
Reden [ˈʁeːdn̩]
Linguistic Relativity
SAPIR–WHORF HYPOTHESIS
Language and thought
 In George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, language restricted the way
in which people thought.
 The rulers of the state deliberately used ―Newspeak,‖ the official language of
Oceania, so that the people thought what they were required to think.
 ―This statement … could not have been sustained by reasoned argument,
because the necessary words were not available‖ (Orwell, 1949, p. 249, in the
appendix, ―The principles of Newspeak‖).
 Orwell’s idea is a version of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis.
Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
 The central idea of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis is that the form of our language determines
the structure of our thought processes.
 Language affects the way we remember things and the way in which we perceive the world.
 It was originally proposed by a linguist, Edward Sapir, and a fire insurance engineer and
amateur linguist, Benjamin Lee Whorf (see Whorf, 1956a, 1956b).
 Although Whorf is most closely associated with anthropological evidence based on the study
of American Indian languages, the idea came to him from his work in fire insurance.
 He noted that accidents sometimes happened because, he thought, people were misled by
words—as in the case of a worker who threw a cigarette end into what he considered to be
an ―empty‖ drum of petrol. Far from being empty, the drum was full of petrol vapor, with
explosive results.
Ideas within Linguistic Relativity
 The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis comprises two related ideas.
1.
Linguistic determinism is the idea that the form and characteristics of
our language determine the way in which we think, remember, and
perceive.
2. Linguistic relativism is the idea that as different languages map onto
the world in different ways, different languages will generate different
cognitive structures.
Linguistic Relativity
 The principle of linguistic relativity holds that the structure of a language affects its
speakers' world view or cognition. Popularly known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis
(after Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf never co-authored anything, and
never stated their ideas in terms of a hypothesis), the principle is often defined to
include three versions (Miller & McNeill, 1969):
 The strong version says that language determines thought, and that linguistic
categories limit and determine cognitive categories.
 The weak version says that linguistic categories and usage only influence thought
and certain kinds of non-linguistic behavior.
 In the weakest version, language differences affect processing on certain tasks
where linguistic encoding is important.
Anthropological Evidence
 The anthropological evidence concerns the inter-translatability of languages.
 Whorf analyzed Native American Indian languages such as Hopi, Nootka,
Apache, and Aztec.
 He argued that each language imposes its own ―world view‖ on its speakers.
 For example, he concluded that as Hopi contains no words or grammatical
constructions that refer to time, Hopi speakers must have a different
conception of time from us.
 Whorf’s data are now considered highly unreliable (Malotki, 1983).
Vocabulary Differentiation
 The way in which different languages have different vocabularies has been used to
support the Whorfian hypothesis, in that researchers believe that cultures must view
the world differently because some cultures have single words available for concepts
that others may take many words to describe.
 Boas (1911) reported that Eskimo (or Inuit) language has four different words for
snow; there are 13 Filipino words for rice.
 An amusing debunking of some of these claims can be found in Pullum (1989):
Whorf (1940/1956) inflated the number of words for snow to seven, and drew a
comparison with English, which he said has only one word for snow regardless of
whether it is falling, on the ground, slushy, dry or wet, and so on.
 Vocabulary differences are unlikely to have any significant effects on perception—
although again it is important to bear in mind what perception might cover.
Colour Hierarchy
Black
White
English
purple
blue
green
yellow
orange
red
Red
Yellow
Shona
cipswuka
Tamil
uthaa
citema
cicena
cipswuka
Green
neelam
paccai
manjal
sivappu
Blue
Purple
Orange
Pink
Grey
Dani
mili
mola
Deixis
 Deixis refers to words and phrases, such as ―me‖ or ―here‖, that cannot be
fully understood without additional contextual information -- in this case, the
identity of the speaker (―me‖) and the speaker's location (―here‖).
 Words are deictic if their semantic meaning is fixed but their denotational
meaning varies depending on time and/or place.
 Words or phrases that require contextual information to convey any meaning
– for example, English pronouns – are deictic.
 Possibly the most common categories of contextual information referred to
by deixis are those of person, place, and time
Differences in Deictic Pronouns
Evaluation of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
 The weak version of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis has enjoyed a resurgence.
 There is now a considerable amount of evidence suggesting that linguistic factors can affect
cognitive processes.
 Even color perception and memory, once thought to be completely biologically determined,
 show some influence of language.
 Furthermore, research on perception and categorization has shown that high-level cognitive
processes can influence the creation of low-level visual features early in visual processing
(Schyns, Goldstone, & Thibaut, 1998).
 This is entirely consistent with the idea that, in at least some circumstances, language might
be able to influence perception.
Questions?