Korean and Japanese -- Genetic Relationship?

Please read the original here:

Februar 2010

http://groups.google.com/group/pmjs/browse_thread/thread/6c6ba946940cf33e


Keywords: genetics, language


I have been working my way through Alexander Vovin's new book *
Koreo-Japonica: A Re-evaluation of a Common Genetic Origin* (Hawai'i 2010).
Vovin's conclusion is that "it seems highly unlikely that any evidence
presented thus far in favor of a Koreo-Japonic genetic relationship can be
accepted. The nature of the relationship between Korean and Japonic seems to
be areal, not genetic." (p. 239)


Just when I had thought it was safe to be certain that Japanese was in fact
genetically related to Korean and that both were Altaic languages (see the
festschrift for R. A. Miller titled *Japanese and the Other Altaic Languages
*-- Wiesbaden : Harrassowitz, 1999), Vovin and J. Marshall Unger have upset
the apple-cart and put everything in doubt again. (See Unger, *The Role of
Contact in the Origins of the Japanese and Korean Languages*, Hawai'i 2009)
[David Lurie has an excellent summary and critique of Unger's book in *Japanese
Studies*: 29-3, Dec. 2009]


The parts of Vovin's book dealing with material from the *Senmyou* are of
particular interest to me. He discusses "case marker -i" and the "ra" ending
in the *Senmyou* and suggests that both are loans from varieties of Old
Korean. (pp. 45-49; 56-58)


Problematic for non-specialists (meaning those of us who aren't historical
linguists) is the technical nature of both books. Whatever the defects of RA
Miller's methodology (Vovin rather wryly thanks him in the acknowledgments
for demonstrating "how Japonic historical linguistics and philology should
not be done"), Miller's books and lectures for non-specialists were at least
comprehensible to the layperson. I remember on first reading his *Origins of
the Japanese language : lectures in Japan during the academic year, 1977-78
*(Univ of Washington Press, 1980) feeling that I finally had a grasp of a
very difficult subject.


Perhaps the next step for linguists like Vovin, Unger, Whitman, Bentley,
Miyake, Frellesvig and the others working in this very obscure field should
be to produce a primer for those of us Japanese historians who find it
difficult to work their way through all the abstruse arguments being
produced in this very lively and exciting field.


--
Ross Bender
http://rossbender.org


oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

First off, I will confess to having not read Vovin's book yet though it has now vaulted to the top of my "to read" list. However, as a historian rather than a linguist I felt complelled to look at his arguement from a different point of view. At first I found the assertion of a lack of common genetic heritage troublesome as most of what we assume about the Yayoi, Kofun and to a certain extent the Asuka period is predicated on the assumption of at least two major migrations from the Korean Peninsula to Japan. However, the more I pondered this line of thought the more plausible it seemed for the following reasons.


1) While the genetics of a modern Japanese would not reflect a 100% common heritage with a modern Korean, there would seem to be varying degrees of Korean genetic heritage with one's region of origin playing an important part (though perhaps that is what Vovin meant by "areal" - that was a new word to me). Obviously someone whose family had traditionally inhabited a northern region of Japan would have significantly less common genetic heritage with a modern Korean than someone whose family traditionally lived on Kyushu, simply because Kyushu is thought to have a been one of the main entry points for the aforementioned migrations.


2) I think this is also indicative of a larger problem of social and ethnic identity that Japan has begun to wrestle with in the last 10-20 years. Though many have argued that Japan is racially homogeneous, a long view of Japan historically disproves that. One could argue that at the very least there are 2 or 3 distinct peoples represented in Japanese history (Southern Japanese, Emishi, and immigrants from the Korean Peninsula) and that there are 3 separate sources for the original inhabitants of the islands (Eastern Russia, Korean Peninsula, Pacific Islanders).


Bearing this in mind, it makes sense to say that Japanese will not show a uniform genetic heritage with Koreans because Japan itself does not have a uniform genetic heritage. Certain regions could be expected to show a greater degree of Korean genetic heritage because of increased traffic between the region and the Korean Peninsula, just as other regions (like Okinawa) would show a greater degree of Southern Chinese genetic heritage.
What all of this means for any linguistic heritage issues between Korean and Japanese, whether they are both truly Altaic languages, is beyond me.


Respectfully,
James Guthrie

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


Dear All,


I have been following this and earlier threads on related topics with some
interest. I just recently began teaching an undergraduate course on
Japan-Korea relations that, although focused primarily on issues from 1600
(well, 1592, actually) onward, obviously requires that students also become
familiar with the early history of both regions and to recognize that there
is a long history of contact.


Thus I, like James Guthrie, am a historian rather than a linguist. But I
would like to ask a point of clarification that linguists who have read
professor Vovin¹s book will most likely be to be able to answer without much
difficulty. Namely, the question concerns how the term ³genetic² is being
used throughout that work. I assume ­ and it is only my assumption here ­
that the term is being used in its linguistic sense to refer to two
languages that derive from a common earlier language and are part of the
same larger language family (in this case, so-called ³Altaic²). Is this
correct?


I ask because, if this is the case, this discussion of ³genetics² has
nothing to do with human genetics whatsoever, or at least it would seem to
me that linguistic ³genetic² affinities need not align with biological
³genetics² as seen in human populations. Which is not to deny that there
were people moving back and forth from the Korean peninsula to the Japanese
archipelago at various points in history ­ but this is a different issue
than linguistic ³genetics.²


Again, I just want to make certain that we are not muddying the waters here
by combining two very different uses of the term ³genetic² and potentially
skewing what it is that Professor Vovin aims to prove in his study.


Sincerely,


David Eason


--
Dr. David A. Eason
Assistant Professor of Japanese
Department of East Asian Studies
University at Albany
(518) 442-4579
dea...@uamail.albany.edu


ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

continue HERE
http://groups.google.com/group/pmjs/browse_thread/thread/6c6ba946940cf33e



:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

BACK TO
Uwe's Archive Pages