Review of Paul Black’s“Lexicostatisticswith Massive Borrowing:The Caseof Jingulu and Mudburra”

楊 憶

（浙江傳媒學院，浙江 杭州 310018）

In such a place as Australia,the mix of different nations makes it seen as a country with extensive lexical borrowing.There are lots of people who were interested in this area such as Rob Pensalfini,Isadore Dyen and so on.The conclusion of formal researches are based on“treating meaning as having cognate forms even if the shared cognate is only one of a number of synonyms in one or both languages.” (p.64).However,in comparing with the formal findings Black adjusts the data base by demarcating the line of cognate and non-cognate words and“applies lexicostatistics to the most massive case of borrowing known for Australia,namely between the Jingulu and Mudburra languages of the Northern Territory,” (p.63).Using the way of statistics and comparison he argues that lexical borrowing results in “the correct genetic classification of these languages” (p.63).Furthermore,he demonstrates the condition that whether borrowing can be detected or not lies on“certain relationships among the lexicostatistical percentages that may not always obtain in other cases of heavy borrowing.”(p.63).

The main thrust of Black’s conclusion that “the conditions under which borrowing can and cannot be detected in a lexicostatistical study”(p.64)is explicitly developed drawing on his data statistics and comparison with Pensalfini’s research.The breadth of the reasoning supports the complexity of the borrowing among Jingulu,Mudburra and the other languages in Australia and clearly demonstrates that one way of detecting the history of a language is from its borrowing.Black did plenty of research which we can find out from his references which he cited.From the words of Sir Isaac Newton：“If I can see further than anyone else,it is only because I am standing on the shoulders of giants”.The author is also “standing on the shoulders of giants”.The 18 references which he has listed are representing the specialty and authority.Such as Isadore Dyen is a very famous researcher in the field of lexicostatistics who has five articles during the ten years’period between 1962 and 1975,then in 1992 he has cooperated with Joseph Kruskal,the author of this article Paul Black and published the article： “An Indoeuropean Classification,a Lexicostatistical Experiment”on the authoritative journal Transactions of the American Philosophical Society.Within these,the corn concepts are defined and explained where necessary.

Although in formal aspects,the standpoint is well supported,there are still someareasin thisarticlewheretheargument islimited or weakened.

Firstly,from the title of this article,readers would expect the borrowing between Jingulu and Mudburra to have more focus in argument while the authors’standpoint is on what condition the borrowing can be detected.Beyond the data of lexical borrowing there is little support of the borrowing from Mudburra to Jingulu which classify the genetic of a language.In addition,the author should put more other people’s findings as the evidence to his argument.For example,the statement of Carol Myers-Scotton (2006：231)that： “Borrowed words in a language are evidence of past historical contacts”can fully support has point of view.

A second limitation in Black’s argument is the lack of basic information such as the definition of language borrowing or lexical borrowing,the different definition between borrowing and code-switching,and the classification of Australian languages and so on.Although the author has a short introduction of the eight languages he compared we are not clearly of the relationship between them.It is better to make a figure and give the reader an outline of the languages.For instance,when talking about Nyulnyulan which is a group of languages spoken in northern part of Australiaclosely related Australian Aboriginal languages Evans(2003：31)uses a figure which illustrate the language and their relationships clearly.On theaspect of definition,Gumperz(cited in De Fina.2007：380)defined code-switching as“the juxtaposition within the same speech exchange of passage of speech belonging to two different grammatical systems or subsystems”.This definition is deep and confused.Irecommend Peter Auer’s“the alternating use of two or more ‘codes’ within one conversational episode” (Auer.1998：6)with which we can have an outline of codeswitching.In addition,the essential definitions can help the readers understand theauthors’argumentation properly.

Thirdly,the author uses only one methodology of Lexicostatistics which appears insufficient and deficiently in argument.He needs some kinds of other methodologies to support his standing point,such as investigation and survey with the native speakers.His reasoning would be more evidentiary and reliable with various kinds of evidences and methods of demonstration.

In conclusion,Black’s argument and reasoning are sufficient.Although there are some deficiency on addressing himself the author do provide some evidence to challenge the formal findings and to support his point of view that lexicostatistics can“detect and correct for the effects of borrowing” (p.70)but not always can because it depends on certain conditions.In the case of Jingulu,borrowing was related to Mudburra’s close relative Gurindji.

［1］Black,Paul.Lexicostatistics with Massive Borrowing：The Case of Jingulu and Mudburra[J].Australian Journal of Linguistics，2007，4，27（1）：63-71.

［2］De Fina,Anna.Code-Switching and the Construction of Ethnic Identity in a Community of Practice[J].Language in Society，2005,36（3）：371-92.

［3］Auer,Peter.1998.Code-Switching in Conversation：Language,Interaction and Identity[M].London and New York.