Throughout the course of this class, we have explored how external factors affect our production of language. A quick scroll through this blog is evidence of that. We have touched upon everything from multilingualism and its effect on speech to the Christopher Nolan-esque consideration of language in the realm of dreams. This post will be no different as I presume to explore a new variable: geography.
With regards to this subject, I came across an interesting article by Caleb Everett of the University of Miami titled, “Evidence for Direct Geographic Influences on Linguistic Sounds: The Case of Ejectives”. The crux of the article seems to point towards the conclusion that the specific geographic features of an area in which a language is spoken have a direct effect on that language’s phonological form. Specifically, Everett makes the case for a correlation between high altitude and the presence of ejectives. According to Wikipedia’s article “Ejective consonant”, ejectives are defined in phonetics as “voiceless consonants pronounced with simultaneous closure of the glottis” (to hear what ejectives sound like watch this nifty YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWjZfWaoPwM). Also, it appears ejective consonants are not as ubiquitous as one may first believe, as they are only present in about 20% of the world’s languages with specific prominence in the Caucasus mountain region of Eurasia. This fact served as Everett’s inspiration for his research.
Everett’s team examined a phonetic database of 567 languages and determined the specific geographic coordinates and elevation of the area in which each language was spoken. The results were clear. Languages with phonetic ejective consonants were found to occur more commonly in areas of high-elevation such as the North American Rocky Mountain region and African southern plateau. Specifically, Everett found that two thirds of the languages that possessed ejectives were spoken in high-altitude mountain regions all around the world.
Pointing out this correlation was the easy part. Yet, one must ask: Why does this pattern exist? Everett provides two hypotheses as to the existence of this phenomenon. The first suggests, “that ejective sounds might be facilitated at higher elevations due to the associated decrease in ambient air pressure, which reduces the physiological effort required for the compression of air in the pharyngeal cavity–a unique articulatory component of ejective sounds.” Meanwhile, the second hypothesizes that use of ejectives is a biological adaptation to the dryness of mountain areas as production of ejectives reduces the amount of water vapor loss in speech. Both these explanations attempt to marry the effect of the environment at higher altitudes and the pattern of ejective use in these areas. Are they successful?
While Everett’s explanations may prove to be nothing more than fanciful conjecture, I still think it underscores an interesting point about languages that sometimes may be overlooked. I may not necessarily agree with Everett on everything, yet, I still think geography is a factor in the evolution of languages. An obvious example comes to mind: Eskimo’s have around 50 different words for referring to ‘snow’ while tribes in the Amazon have none. This example may seem contrived, and I would not disagree. Perhaps, at risk of being completely incorrect I’ll provide an example from my own country of Guatemala. In Guatemala, there are 24 official languages encompassed in an area about the size of South Carolina. Why such diversity in such a small area? Most of this linguistic diversity is rooted in complex historical reasons, but I would still argue some of it is derived from the geographic make up of the region. Guatemala, specially the area where you find most of the linguistic diversity, is a very mountainous and I would argue this geography makes natural barriers between peoples as it makes travel and communication more difficult. As such, it provides the ideal scenario for new dialects and languages to evolve as it limits contact between people. This might explain why the Caucasus mountain region -- the source of inspiration for Everett – also has so many different languages.
All in all, I think it is interesting to explore the notion that geography directly affects the way we speak; from the obvious Eskimo example to the more complex phonemic example presented by Everett.
What do you think? Can you come up with any other examples of where geography affects language? Or, on the other hand, is this notion completely wrong?
Everett C (2013) Evidence for Direct Geographic Influences on Linguistic Sounds: The Case of Ejectives. PLoS ONE 8(6): e65275. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065275
What an interesting article Nico! It's extremely interesting that geographical properties can shape languages and phonology. I wonder if there's some cultural reason for the existence of ejectives, much like there are differences in word existence depending on culture. The example I have in mind is the number of distinct adjectives different languages have to describe color. For instance, take this beautiful animated illustration that compares colors in English versus colors in Chinese. (http://muyueh.com/greenhoney/).
ReplyDeleteWhat I think would be really cool to know is how it is that these linguistic tools (ejectives, existence of words) arise from cultural/geographic elements. And moreover, what is the interplay between culture and geographic features, and how does this interplay affect linguistic development. It's very hard not to bring up the Whorfian hypothesis in these cases!
Nicolas,
ReplyDeleteAlthough we cannot completely prove why ejectives are more common at high altitude, after reading the research work by Dr. Everett, I have to agree that it was likely a biological adaption of a mixture of both the necessity to preserve water at high altitudes and a need to preserve energy that manifested itself through speech adaptation. However, a major “loophole” or flaw that I felt was unaddressed in his research was other methods of phonological variation. He states, “ If geographic factors do somehow directly impact phonemic inventories contra the common assumption in linguistics, the factor most likely to have such an impact would relate to atmospheric conditions. It seems that he largely ignores other possibilities for variation in language due to geographic factors and hyper-focuses on atmospheric conditions. Regardless, In this particular study he is dealing with only atmospheric variation so he can make this statement, although I think different geographic features and not just atmospheric condition likely are at play.