On the Origin of Myths and Myths of Origin: How Views on the Origins of Languages can be More Significant than Genetic Ethnicity in Forming Group Identity.
- David M. T. Arnold, University of Edinburgh
- Old College Lorimer Room, University of Edinburgh
Darwin’s ideas on the common ancestry of organisms with shared characteristics were, to a
certain extent the product of a general period of enlightenment and intellectual inquiry. Preceding
Darwin are influential figures such as Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540-1609), William Jones (1746-
1794), Jacob Grimm (1785-1863), Rasmus Rask (1787-1832) and Franz Bopp (1791-1867) who
recognised lexical connections between different languages and language families and the later of
them went on to develop theories of common ancestry (laying the foundations of diachronic
linguistics today). It was only after the work of such philologists that Darwin applied similar ideas to
biological entities.
Darwin’s idea is often regarded ‘dangerous’ for the controversial ways many have interpreted it
in to normative social ideologies, such as eugenics and racism; it has been taken out of context as
descriptive science. This paper asks whether analogous ideas on the relationship, classification
and origins of languages can be taken out of context in a similar way to form myths of group
identity and origin. Could there even be such a phenomenon as ‘euglossics’?
Both language and perceived genetic ethnicity are key features in the construction of individual
and group identity. This paper focuses on two situations of ethno-linguistic identity which fall at
either end of a spectrum.
In Southern India there is a notion that the speakers of the Indo-European and Dravidian
languages form two distinct genetic populations with the Dravidian speakers being descended from
the original inhabitants of the area and the Indo-European speakers being descended from those
that migrated south later on. This has led to antagonism between these groups, including the 1965
Tamil language riots. Recent genetic surveys, however, indicate that these populations, despite
being linguistically heterogeneous, are genetically homogenous.
In China this phenomenon is reversed. The Han Chinese, which was considered to be a
genetic group is now known to be genetically heterogeneous. This perception of genetic
homogeneity was helped by the fact that there is linguistic homogeneity in the Sino-Tibetan
languages that are spoken throughout this population.
There are further connotations here for cultural and language evolution in that cultural and
biological descent appear to have been operating on two mutually exclusive levels.
These two case studies form the basis of a paradigm for ethno-linguistic identity: a genetically
homogenous and linguistically heterogeneous population is demonstrated by the situation in India
and the second is a counter-model with a linguistically homogenous but genetically heterogeneous
population as can be seen in China.
Linguistic myths, then, can lead to fallacies and misinterpretations that can be potentially
dangerous. The effects, however, are somewhat more subtle and less studied than those relating
to genetics and ethnicity. What is more, it seems that linguistic identity can sometimes be a more
powerful socio-cultural force in forming group identity than genetic ethnicity. Blood may be thicker
than water, but language, it seems, may be the most viscous of the three.
certain extent the product of a general period of enlightenment and intellectual inquiry. Preceding
Darwin are influential figures such as Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540-1609), William Jones (1746-
1794), Jacob Grimm (1785-1863), Rasmus Rask (1787-1832) and Franz Bopp (1791-1867) who
recognised lexical connections between different languages and language families and the later of
them went on to develop theories of common ancestry (laying the foundations of diachronic
linguistics today). It was only after the work of such philologists that Darwin applied similar ideas to
biological entities.
Darwin’s idea is often regarded ‘dangerous’ for the controversial ways many have interpreted it
in to normative social ideologies, such as eugenics and racism; it has been taken out of context as
descriptive science. This paper asks whether analogous ideas on the relationship, classification
and origins of languages can be taken out of context in a similar way to form myths of group
identity and origin. Could there even be such a phenomenon as ‘euglossics’?
Both language and perceived genetic ethnicity are key features in the construction of individual
and group identity. This paper focuses on two situations of ethno-linguistic identity which fall at
either end of a spectrum.
In Southern India there is a notion that the speakers of the Indo-European and Dravidian
languages form two distinct genetic populations with the Dravidian speakers being descended from
the original inhabitants of the area and the Indo-European speakers being descended from those
that migrated south later on. This has led to antagonism between these groups, including the 1965
Tamil language riots. Recent genetic surveys, however, indicate that these populations, despite
being linguistically heterogeneous, are genetically homogenous.
In China this phenomenon is reversed. The Han Chinese, which was considered to be a
genetic group is now known to be genetically heterogeneous. This perception of genetic
homogeneity was helped by the fact that there is linguistic homogeneity in the Sino-Tibetan
languages that are spoken throughout this population.
There are further connotations here for cultural and language evolution in that cultural and
biological descent appear to have been operating on two mutually exclusive levels.
These two case studies form the basis of a paradigm for ethno-linguistic identity: a genetically
homogenous and linguistically heterogeneous population is demonstrated by the situation in India
and the second is a counter-model with a linguistically homogenous but genetically heterogeneous
population as can be seen in China.
Linguistic myths, then, can lead to fallacies and misinterpretations that can be potentially
dangerous. The effects, however, are somewhat more subtle and less studied than those relating
to genetics and ethnicity. What is more, it seems that linguistic identity can sometimes be a more
powerful socio-cultural force in forming group identity than genetic ethnicity. Blood may be thicker
than water, but language, it seems, may be the most viscous of the three.