Lyle Campbell

The Settlement of the Americas: A Comparison of the Linguistic, Dental, and Genetic Evidence [and Comments and Reply]

The classification of the indigenous languages of the Americas by Greenberg distinguishes three stocks, Amerind, Na-Dene, and Aleut-Eskimo. The first of these covers almost all of the New World. The second consists of Na-Dene as defined by Sapir and, outside of recent. Athapaskan extensions in California and the American Southwest, is found in southern Alaska and northwestern Canada. The third, Aleut-Eskimo, is the easternmost branch of the Eurasiatic language family located in northern Asia and Europe. These three linguistic stocks are found to agree well with the three dental groups proposed by Turner and the genetic divisions of the New World population advanced by Zegura. The three groups are hypothesized as representing the settlement of the New World by successive migrations from Asia. The earliest is in all probability the Amerind; the relative priority of Na-Dene to Aleut-Eskimo is less certain. The evidence regarding the absolute chronology of these proposed migrations is discussed.

What's wrong with grammaticalization?

Abstract Claims about grammaticalization, and especially about “grammaticalization theory,” are assessed. It is argued that grammaticalization is derivative, that is, that it has no independent status of its own, but rather relies on other processes and mechanisms of linguistic change which are independent of grammaticalization but which provide the explanations for the phenomena involved in grammaticalization. This raises the question of whether grammaticalization has any value at all. The position taken here is that it does, that while the phenomenon of grammaticalization is interesting and attention on it has provided a range of valuable information, there are serious problems with so-called “grammaticalization theory.”

Introduction: conceptions of grammaticalization and their problems

Abstract The primary purpose of this paper is to introduce the papers in this issue of Language Science, dedicated to taking stock of both grammaticalization and so-called “grammaticalization theory” (i.e. claims about grammaticalization). This introduction sets the stage for the other papers by surveying the large range of definitions of grammaticalization in the literature and placing them in context. It also mentions the major questions addressed by each paper and relates these to the overall themes of the volume, namely clarifying what grammaticalization is (and isn’t), highlighting what’s good and (in particular) what’s bad about grammaticalization theory, and, in the process, contributing to greater understanding of these phenomena.

Problematic Use of Greenberg's Linguistic Classification of the Americas in Studies of Native American Genetic Variation

To the Editor: In recent years, there has been a burgeoning interest in comparisons of genetic and linguistic variation across human populations. This synthetic approach can be a powerful tool for reconstructing human prehistory, but only when the patterns of genetic and linguistic variation are accurately represented (Szathmary 1993). If one or both patterns are inaccurate, the resulting conclusions about human prehistory or gene-language correlations may be incorrect. Here, we present evidence that comparisons of genetic and linguistic variation in the Americas are problematic when they are based on Greenberg’s (1987) classification of Native American languages, for these very reasons. Greenberg (1987) argued that all Native American languages, except those of the “Na-Dene” and Eskimo-Aleut groups, are similar and can be classified into a single linguistic unit, which he called “Amerind.” His tripartite classification (Amerind, Na-Dene, and Eskimo-Aleut) was based on the method of multilateral comparison, which examines many languages simultaneously to detect similarities in a small number of basic words and grammatical elements (Greenberg 1987). Greenberg (1987) also suggested that his three language groupings represent three separate migrations to the Americas, and Greenberg et al. (1986) interpreted their synthesis of the linguistic, dental, and genetic evidence as supportive of this three-migration hypothesis. Over the past 18 years, this three-migration model has become entrenched in the genetics literature as the hypothesis against which new genetic data are tested (e.g., Torroni et al. 1993; Merriwether et al. 1995; Zegura et al. 2004), and Greenberg’s linguistic classification has been the primary scheme used in studies comparing genetic and linguistic variation in the Americas. Of 100 studies of Native American genetic variation published between 1987 and 2004, 61 cite Greenberg (1987) or Greenberg et al. (1986), and at least 19 others were influenced by his tripartite classification (15 studies use the Amerind, Na-Dene, and Eskimo-Aleut groupings, and 4 others use the similar language groupings of Greenberg’s student M. Ruhlen.) Whereas Greenberg’s classification has been widely and uncritically used by human geneticists, it has been rejected by virtually all historical linguists who study Native American languages. There are many errors in the data on which his classification is based (Goddard 1987; Adelaar 1989; Berman 1992; Kimball 1992; Poser 1992), and Greenberg’s criteria for determining linguistic relationships are widely regarded as invalid. His method of multilateral comparison assembled only superficial similarities between languages, and Greenberg did not distinguish similarities due to common ancestry (i.e., homology) from those due to other factors (which other linguists do). Linguistic similarities can also be due to factors such as chance, borrowing from neighboring languages, and onomatopoeia, so proposals of remote linguistic relationships are only plausible when these other possible explanations have been eliminated (Matisoff 1990; Mithun 1990; Goddard and Campbell 1994; Campbell 1997; Ringe 2000). Greenberg made no attempt to eliminate such explanations, and the putative long-range similarities he amassed appear to be mostly chance resemblances and the result of misanalysis—he compared many languages simultaneously (which increases the probability of finding chance resemblances), examined arbitrary segments of words, equated words with very different meanings (e.g., excrement, night, and grass), failed to analyze the structure of some words and falsely analyzed that of others, neglected regular sound correspondences between languages, and misinterpreted well-established findings (Chafe 1987; Bright 1988; Campbell 1988, 1997; Golla 1988; Goddard 1990; Rankin 1992; McMahon and McMahon 1995; Nichols and Peterson 1996). Consequently, empirical studies have shown that “the method of multilateral comparison fails every test; its results are utterly unreliable. Multilateral comparison is worse than useless: it is positively misleading, since the patterns of ‘evidence’ that it adduces in support of proposed linguistic relationships are in many cases mathematically indistinguishable from random patterns of chance resemblances” (Ringe 1994, p. 28; cf. Ringe 2002). Because of these problems, Greenberg’s methodology has proven incapable of distinguishing plausible proposals of linguistic relationships from implausible ones, such as Finnish-Amerind (Campbell 1988). Thus, specialists in Native American linguistics insist that Greenberg’s methodology was so flawed that it completely invalidates his conclusions about the unity of Amerind, and Greenberg himself estimated that 80%–90% of linguists agreed with this assessment (Lewin 1988). Given this, the use of Greenberg’s (1987) classification can confound attempts to understand the relationship between genetic and linguistic variation in the Americas. Many studies of Native American genetic variation continue to use this classification (e.g., Bortolini et al. 2002, 2003; Fernandez-Cobo et al. 2002; Lell et al. 2002; Gomez-Casado et al. 2003; Zegura et al. 2004). However, Hunley and Long (2004) recently showed that there is a poor fit between Greenberg’s classification and the patterns of Native American mtDNA variation. On the basis of their findings, we believe that Greenberg’s groupings should no longer be used in analyses of mtDNA variation. To further evaluate how the use of this classification influences our understanding of the relationship between genetic and linguistic variation in the Americas, we examined how well different linguistic classifications “explain” the patterns of Native American Y-chromosome variation. Data were compiled on the Y-chromosome haplogroups of 523 Native Americans, representing 36 populations (table 1). We compared hierarchical analyses of molecular variance (AMOVAs), using Greenberg’s (1987) classification and a more conservative one (Campbell 1997) that is widely accepted by specialists in historical linguistics of Native American languages (Golla 2000; Hill and Hill 2000). The AMOVAs were based on population frequencies of the haplogroups known to be pre–European contact Native American lineages (Q-M19, Q-M3*, Q-M242*, and C-M130). All calculations were performed by Arlequin 2.000 (Schneider et al. 2000). Table 1 Populations and Language Classifications Used in AMOVAs The AMOVAs show that differences among Greenberg’s three groups could account for some genetic variance (ΦCT=0.319; P=.027), but the more generally accepted linguistic classification (as given in Campbell [1997]) of the same populations (17 groups) explainsa greater proportion of the total genetic variance (ΦCT=0.448; P<.001). The magnitude of ΦCT increases 40.4% when the accepted language classification is used, which indicates that it is important to consider language classifications other than that of Greenberg (1987) when evaluating the relationship between genes and language in the Americas. Other factors, such as geography, have likely influenced patterns of genetic variation more than language, but accepted language groupings should, nonetheless, be used when exploring these relationships. Thus, in future studies comparing genetic and linguistic variation in the Americas, we recommend use of the consensus linguistic classification, as given in Campbell (1997), Goddard (1996), and Mithun (1999), rather than Greenberg’s tripartite classification (Greenberg et al. 1986; Greenberg 1987). In addition, since there is no legitimate reason to believe that “Amerind” is a unified group (linguistic or otherwise), it has been essentially abandoned in linguistics and should not be used in genetic analyses. Finally, because synthetic studies provide such important insights into human prehistory, we advocate continued collaboration between geneticists and linguists (and other anthropologists) to ensure accurate comparisons of genetic, linguistic, and cultural variation.

Language in the Americas

This book is concerned primarily with the evidence for the validity of a genetic unit, Amerind, embracing the vast majority of New World languages. The only languages excluded are those belonging to the Na-Dene and Eskimo- Aleut families. It examines the now widely held view that Haida, the most distant language genetically, is not to be included in Na-Dene. It confined itself to Sapirs data, although the evidence could have been buttressed considerably by the use of more recent materials. What survives is a body of evidence superior to that which could be adduced under similar restrictions for the affinity of Albanian, Celtic, and Armenian, all three universally recognized as valid members of the Indo-European family of languages. A considerable number of historical hypotheses emerge from the present and the forthcoming volumes. Of these, the most fundamental bears on the question of the peopling of the Americas. If the results presented in this volume and in the companion volume on Eurasiatic are valid, the classification of the worlds languages based on genetic criteria undergoes considerable simplification.

The Indigenous Languages of South America: A Comprehensive Guide

The Indigenous Languages of South America: A Comprehensive Guide is a thorough guide to the indigenous languages of this part of the world. With more than a third of the linguistic diversity of the world (in terms of language families and isolates), South American languages contribute new findings in most areas of linguistics. Though formerly one of the linguistically least known areas of the world, extensive descriptive and historical linguistic research in recent years has expanded knowledge greatly. These advances are represented in this volume in indepth treatments by the foremost scholars in the field, with chapters on the history of investigation, language classification, language endangerment, language contact, typology, phonology and phonetics, and on major language families and regions of South America.

Areal Linguistics: A Closer Scrutiny

The goal of this chapter is to re-examine areal linguistics and in doing so to arrive at a clearer understanding of the notion of ‘linguistic area’. The conclusion reached is that it is individual historical events of diffusion that count, not the post hoc attempts to impose geographical order on varied conglomerations of these borrowings.

Proto-Aztecan Vowels: Part I

5. The cognate sets below, numbered (1)-(198), yield for the most part fairly straightforward PA reconstructions. The list contains most of the Pochutec forms for which GA cognates are available. Highly problematic sets are omitted, as are a handful of very obvious late loans; further research will no doubt turn up further cognates shared by Po and GA, but not terribly many. Naturally, a substantial number of PA reconstructions can be made on the basis of GA alone, in conjunction with UA data from outside Aztecan, but we have not attempted to do that here. Vowel length is difficult, as noted earlier, and sources (even a single source) sometimes differ. In such cases, we have selected that form, from the alternatives cited, which agrees most closely with length as attested in other daughters (see n. 24 above). The symbol V is used when we cannot decide between *i and *i, because the Po vowel drops or gives no clear evidence. Also, it should be borne in mind that differences such as that between oa and owa, or ia and iya, are more transcriptional than real. We omit basic absolutive suffixes from noun reconstructions. (1) all, everything *moci: Po noco, CN moci, T nocI, Z noci, Pi muci. The source of the m/n variation is unclear. (2) ant *?iika-: Po ?iket, CN ?iikatl, T ?ikatl, Pi ?iikat.

The life of language : papers in linguistics in honor of William Bright

TRENDS IN LINGUISTICS is a series of books that open new perspectives in our understanding of language. The series publishes state-of-the-art work on core areas of linguistics across theoretical frameworks, as well as studies that provide new insights by approaching language from an interdisciplinary perspective. TRENDS IN LINGUISTICS considers itself a forum for cutting-edge research based on solid empirical data on language in its various manifestations, including sign languages. It regards linguistic variation in its synchronic and diachronic dimensions as well as in its social contexts as important sources of insight for a better understanding of the design of linguistic systems and the ecology and evolution of language. TRENDS IN LINGUISTICS publishes monographs and outstanding dissertations as well as edited volumes, which provide the opportunity to address controversial topics from different empirical and theoretical viewpoints. High quality standards are ensured through anonymous reviewing.

The Last Lenca

ye/ becomes Mc/e:/.7 Thus, these words attest the pre-Micmac sequences */-ikwe: ye-k/ and */-ikwe:ye-ya:n/ respectively. The most plausible reconstruction for (2) is thus PA */-i:nkwe:ye-/ have such an eye: F/-i: kwe: -/, O/-i: nkwe: -/, uD/-i: nkwe:-/, Mc /-ikwe:-/. The languages other than Micmac all drop PA */ye/ after a long vowel, which explains why no word containing such a sequence has hitherto been reconstructed for PA. We can now account for the psPA morphophoneme *ae: and the corresponding Micmac vowel length in a straightforward way: they reflect the PA sequence */eye/. The reflexes of PA */we ye/ merge with those of PA */o i/ respectively between a preceding consonant and a following sonorant in all of the languages (and in other positions in some of them).8 Subsequently, the reflex of PA */ye/ in each of the daughter languages lengthens a preceding vowel if it is short and then disappears. Thus, we have PA */aOemweyensa/ little dog: M/ane: mo: hsak/ little dogs,