In historical linguistics, a macrofamily, also called a superfamily or phylum, is a proposed genetic relationship grouping together language families (also isolates) in a larger scale classification.[1][2] However, some linguists[3] regard this term as superfluous, preferring "language family" for those classifications for which there is consensus. Thus, a macrofamily proposal which becomes widely accepted is generally just referred to as a language family.

Research into macrofamilies can be seen as a direct continuation of the work which lead to the grouping of families in the first place. The addition of individual languages to a family (as was the case historically with Armenian, generally is not considered as creating a new macrofamily, rather joining of previously-considered disparate families are, though this line can be heavily blurred by a single "language" actually being its own small family, as with Italian.[citation needed]

Macrofamily proposals have been both a highly fruitful area of linguistic research and one prone to pseudoscience, particularly since the latter half of the 20th century, when the use of the comparative method became standardized. This relationship is made even more challenging by macrofamily proposals falling out of favour, such as Altaic, while still having scholarly support from a small minority.[citation needed] This creates a situation where the historical literature can present a theory as fact or widely accepted when contemporary understanding has either rejected it outright or determined that the evidence does not exist at present to demonstrate a relationship.[4]

Proposed macrofamilies

edit

Several major proposals for macrofamlies have seen widespread contemporary or historical support, and represent the the work of a large number of linguists working in tandem to understand the validity of a proposal. Other macrofamily proposals are the result of either individual researchers or small groups of researchers working in tandem. Limited amount of research into a given proposal does not necessarily invalidate it; many genetic relationships are challenging to explore without a high degree of familiarity with multiple of the proposed family members, which very few people possess. As a result, many linguists take a firmly agnostic stance on new macrofamily proposals until suitable domain experts can publish on the topic. [citation needed]

Many of these proposals have been rejected outright for methodological problems, particularly when incomplete dictionaries, previously rejected language family proposals (such as Nostratic taking the existence of Altaic as a given), and mass comparison are utilized.[citation needed] Others represent narrow domain knowledge and haven't been subject to enough scrutiny for many linguists to take a firm stance on.[citation needed]

Indo-Pacific Languages

edit
Indo-Pacific
(spurious)
Geographic
distribution
Oceania, Southeast Asia, South Asia, Australia
Linguistic classificationProposed language family
Subdivisions
Language codes
GlottologNone

Austric Languages

edit
Austric
(proposed)
Geographic
distribution
Southeast Asia, Pacific Islands, South Asia, East Asia, Madagascar
Linguistic classificationProposed language family
Subdivisions
Language codes
GlottologNone
 
The distribution of Austric languages

North Caucasian Languages

edit
North Caucasian
Caucasic
(controversial)
Geographic
distribution
Caucasus
Linguistic classificationProposed language family
Subdivisions
Language codes
ISO 639-5ccn
GlottologNone
 
North Caucasian languages

Indo-Uralic Languages

edit
Indo-Uralic
(controversial)
Geographic
distribution
Eurasia
Linguistic classificationProposed language family
Subdivisions
Language codes
GlottologNone
 

Ural-Altaic Languages

edit
Ural-Altaic
(obsolete as a genealogical proposal)
Geographic
distribution
Eurasia
Linguistic classificationconvergence zone
Subdivisions
Language codes
GlottologNone
 
Distribution of Uralic, Altaic, and Yukaghir languages

Eurasiatic Languages

edit
Eurasiatic
(controversial)
Geographic
distribution
Before the 16th century, most of Eurasia; today worldwide
Linguistic classificationNostratic (?)
  • Eurasiatic
Proto-languageProto-Eurasiatic
Subdivisions
Language codes
GlottologNone
 
The worldwide distribution of the Eurasiatic macrofamily of languages according to Pagel et al.

Amerind Languages

edit
Amerind
(spurious)
Geographic
distribution
New World
Linguistic classificationProposed language family
Subdivisions
  • Almosan–Keresiouan
  • Hokan–Penutian
  • Central Amerind
  • Andean–Chibchan–Paezan
  • Equatorial–Tucanoan
  • Ge–Pano–Carib
Language codes
GlottologNone
 
Map of the area of Amerind languages

Borean Languages

edit
Borean
(hypothetical)
Geographic
distribution
Eurasia, sometimes the Americas
Linguistic classificationProposed language family
Proto-languageProto-Borean language
Subdivisions
  • Disputed
Language codes
GlottologNone
 
Borean macro-family according to Sergei Starostin

Proto-Human Language

edit
Proto-Human
Proto-Sapiens, Proto-World
(disputed, hypothetical)
Geographic
distribution
EraPaleolithic
Linguistic classificationsuperfamily
  • Proto-Human
Language codes

Dené-Caucasian Languages

edit
Dené–Caucasian
(probably spurious)
Geographic
distribution
scattered in Eurasia and North America
Linguistic classificationHypothetical language family
Proto-languageProto-Dené–Caucasian
Subdivisions
Language codes
GlottologNone
 

See also

edit

References

edit
  1. ^ Campbell, Lyle and Mixco, Mauricio J. (2007), A Glossary of Historical Linguistics, University of Utah Press/Edinburgh University Press.
  2. ^ Matthews, P.H. (2007), Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, Oxford University Press.
  3. ^ Campbell, Lyle (2004), Historical Linguistics: An Introduction, Edinburgh University Press.
  4. ^ Campbell, Lyle (1998). Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. The MIT Press. p. 311. ISBN 978-0262518499.
  5. ^ Kortlandt, Frederik (2004). "NIVKH AS A URALO-SIBERIAN LANGUAGE". researchgate.net.