Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 31:3 (2014) ► pp.407–447

Deep relationships among California languages

| Yale University
The Hokan and Penutian language classifications, introduced by Dixon & Kroeber (1913), remain controversial nearly a century after they were first proposed. Recently developed computational methods for identifying historical relationships between languages are promising tools for assessing distant linguistic relationship proposals such as these. This paper uses a variation of the linguistic relatedness metric and multilateral clustering procedure developed by Kessler (1999, 2001) to study California language phylogenetics. The purpose is twofold: to evaluate the utility of this methodology for identifying deep relationships, and to re-examine the evidence for Hokan and Penutian groupings. While this paper illustrates several advantages of the methodology employed, it ultimately fails to provide any additional support for Hokan or Penutian. I conclude that while this result may be influenced by the sensitivity of the methodology to the composition of the input sample, it ultimately casts further doubt on the genealogical nature of the Hokan and Penutian classificatory groups.
Keywords: Hokan, Penutian, phylogenetics, multilateral comparison, recurrent sound correspondences, lexicostatistics
Published online: 14 November 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.31.3.04hay
References (87)
de Angulo, Jaime & L.S. Freeland. 1930. The Achumawi language. International Journal of American Linguistics 61. 77-120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. n.d. Jaime de Angulo and L.S. Freeland papers. Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, University of California, Berkeley.
Beckman, Jill N. 1998. Positional faithfulness. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Bergsland, Knut & Hans Vogt. 1962. On the validity of glottochronology. Current Anthropology 31. 115-153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, Howard. 1983. Some California Penutian morphological elements. International Journal of American Linguistics 491. 400-412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bethel, Rosalie, Paul V. Kroskrity, Christopher Loether & Gregory A. Reinhardt. 1993. A dictionary of Western Mono, 2nd edn. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Bolnick, Deborah A. (Weiss), Beth A. (Schultz) Shook, Lyle Campbell & Ives Goddard. 2004. Problematic use of Greenberg’s linguistic classification of the Americas in studies of Native American genetic variation. American Journal of Human Genetics 751. 519-523. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bright, William. 1957. The Karok language. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
. 1968. A Luiseño dictionary. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bright, William & Susan Gehr. 2008. Karuk dictionary (online). [URL].
Broadbent, Sylvia M. & Harvey Pitkin. 1964. A comparison of Miwok and Wintun. In William Bright (ed.), Studies in California linguistics (University of California Publications in Linguistics 34), 19-45. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Callaghan, Catherine A. 1965. Lake Miwok dictionary. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
. 1987. Northern Sierra Miwok dictionary. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
. 1997. Evidence for Yok-Utian. International Journal of American Linguistics 631. 18-64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. More evidence for Yok-Utian: A reanalysis of the Dixon and Kroeber sets. International Journal of American Linguistics 671. 313-346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 1997. American Indian languages: The historical linguistics of Native America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chitoran, Ioana, Louis Goldstein & Dani Byrd. 2002. Gestural overlap and recoverability: Articulatory evidence from Georgian. In Carlos Gussenhoven & Natasha Warner (eds.), Laboratory phonetics, vol. 71, 419-447. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Couro, Ted & Christina Hutcheson. 1973. Dictionary of Mesa Grande Diegueño. Banning CA: Malki Museum Press.Google Scholar
Crawford, James M. 1989. Cocopa dictionary. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Daley, Jon P. 1989. Tümpisa (Panamint) Shoshone dictionary (University of California Publications in Linguistics 116). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, Roland B. 1905. The Shasta-Achomawi: A new linguistic stock, with four new dialects. American Anthropologist 7(2). 213-217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Roland B. & A.L. Kroeber. 1913. New linguistic families in California. American Anthropologist 151. 647-655. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1919. Linguistic families of California (University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 16). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Dunn, Michael. 2009. Contact and phylogeny in Island Melanesia. Lingua 1191. 1664-1678. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunn, Michael, Angela Terrill, Ger Reesink, Robert A. Foley & Stephen C. Levinson. 2005. Structural phylogenetics and the reconstruction of ancient language history. Science 3091. 2072-2075. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dyen, Isidore, Joseph B. Kruskal & Paul Black. 1992. An Indoeuropean classification: A lexicostatistical experiment. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 82(5). iii-132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Felsenstein, J. 2001. PHYLIP: Phylogeny inference package: Version 3.6. Department of Genetics, University of Washington.
Frachtenberg, Leo J. 1918. Comparative studies in Takelman, Kalapuyan and Chinookan lexicography, a preliminary paper. International Journal of American Linguistics 1(2). 175-182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Golla, Victor. 2011. California Indian languages. Berkeley: University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gow, David W., Janis Melvold & Sharon Manuel. 1996. How word onsets drive lexical access and segmentation: Evidence from acoustics, phonology and processing. In H. Timothy Bunnell & William Idsardi (eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, 66-69New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph. 1987. Language in the Americas. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Gursky, Karl-Heinz. 1974. Der Hoka-Sprachstamm. Eine Bestandsaufnahme des lexikalischen Beweismaterials. Orbis 231. 170-215.Google Scholar
Haas, Mary R. 1963. Shasta and Proto-Hokan. Language 39(1). 40-59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halpern, Abraham M. 1964. A report on a survey of Pomo languages. In William Bright (ed.), Studies in Californian linguistics (University of California Publications in Linguistics 34), 88-93. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Haynie, Hannah J. & Loretta Kelsey. 2007. Southeastern Pomo field notes. Unpublished raw data.
Hill, Kenneth C. (ed.). 1998. Hopi dictionary/Hopìikwa lavàytutuveni: A Hopi-English dictionary of the Third Mesa dialect, with an English-Hopi finder list and a sketch of Hopi grammar. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, William H. 1958. Washo and Karok: An approach to comparative Hokan. International Journal of American Linguistics 24(3). 195-212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Keith. 2008. Quantitative methods in lingiustics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Terrence. 1988. A research program for reconstructing Proto-Hokan: First gropings. In Scott DeLancy (ed.), Papers from the 1988 Hokan-Penutian languages workshop, 50-168. Eugene, Oregon: Department of Linguistics, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Kessler, Brett. 1999. Estimating the probability of historical connections between languages. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2001. The significance of word lists. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kessler, Brett & Annukka Lehtonen. 2006. Multilateral comparison and significance testing of the Indo-Uralic question. In Peter Forster & Colin Renfrew (eds.), Phylogenetic methods and the prehistory of languages, 33-42. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California (Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin). Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.Google Scholar
Lamb, Sydney. 1958. Monachi dictionary. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B. 1953. The basis of glottochronology. Language 291. 113-127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McLendon, Sally. 1964. Northern Hokan (B) and (C): A comparison of Eastern Pomo and Yana. In William Bright (ed.), Studies in Californian linguistics (University of California Publications in Linguistics 34), 126-144. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
McMahon, April & Robert McMahon. 2005. Language classification by numbers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1999. The languages of Native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. Grammar, contact, and time. Journal of Language Contact – THEMA 11. 133-155.Google Scholar
Moshinsky, Julius. 1965. Julius Moshinsky papers. Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, University of California, Berkeley.
Nichols, Johanna. 1999. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Olmsted, D.L. 1956. Palaihnihan and Shasta I: Labial stops. Language 321. 73-77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1957. Palaihnihan and Shasta II: Apical stops. Language 331. 136-138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1959. Palaihnihan and Shasta III: Dorsal stops. Language 351. 637-644. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1961. Atsugewi morphology I: Verb inflection. International Journal of American Linguistics 271. 91-113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1966. Achumawi dictionary. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
. 1984. A lexicon of Atsugewi. Berkeley: Survey of California and Other Indian Languages.Google Scholar
Olmsted, D.L. & William Bright. 1959. A Shasta vocabulary. The Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers 20(1). 1-55.Google Scholar
Oswalt, Robert L. 1964. The internal relationships of the Pomo family of languages. In D.F. México (ed.), Actas y memorias del XXXV Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, vol. II1, 413-427. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.Google Scholar
. 1970. The detection of remote linguistic relationships. Computer Studies 31. 119-129.Google Scholar
. 1975. Kashaya vocabulary (Kashaya Pomo Language in Culture Project Working Papers 32). Department of Anthropology, California State College, Sonoma.Google Scholar
. n.d. Robert Louis Oswalt papers on Pomoan languages. Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, University of California, Berkeley.
Pitkin, Harvey. 1985. Wintu dictionary. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Pitkin, Harvey & William Shipley. 1958. A comparative survey of California Penutian. International Journal of American Linguistics 24(3). 174-188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Powell, John Wesley. 1891. Indian linguistic families of America, north of Mexico (Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1885-1886). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Ringe, Donald, Tandy Warnow & Ann Taylor. 2002. Indo-European and computational cladistics. Transactions of the Philological Society 1001. 139-151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, David. 1972. Reconstructing the history and geography of an evolutionary tree. American Mathematics Monthly 791. 596-603. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1917. The position of Yana in the Hokan stock (University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 13). Berkeley: The University of California Press.Google Scholar
. 1921a. A bird’s-eye view of American languages north of Mexico. Science 541. 408. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1921b. A characteristic Penutian form of stem. International Journal of American Linguistics 21. 261-273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward & Morris Swadesh. 1960. Yana dictionary (University of California Publications in Linguistics 22). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Sawyer, Jesse. n.d. Jesse Sawyer papers. Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, University of California, Berkeley.
Shipley, William F. 1963. Maidu texts and dictionary. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
. 1980. Penutian among the ruins: A personal assessment. In Bruce R. Caron, Meredith A.B. Hoffman & Marilyn Silva (eds.), Proceedings of the sixth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 437-441. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Silver, Shirley. 1961. Shirley Silver papers. Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, University of California, Berkeley.
. 1964. Shasta and Karok: A binary comparison. In William Bright (ed.), Studies in Californian linguistics (University of California Publications in Linguistics 34), 170-181. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Sjoberg, Andrée & Gideon Sjoberg. 1956. Problems in glottochronology. American Anthropologist 581. 296-308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Starostin, George. 2003. A lexicostatistical approach towards reconstructing Proto-Khoisan. Mother Tongue 81. 81-126.Google Scholar
Swadesh, Morris. 1952. Lexico-statistical dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 961. 453-463.Google Scholar
. 1955. Towards greater accuracy in lexicostatistical dating. International Journal of American Linguistics 211. 121-137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
The Southern Ute Tribe. 1979. Ute dictionary, preliminary ed.. Ignacio, CO: Ute Press.Google Scholar
Uldall, Hans J. & William Shipley. 1966. Nisenan texts and dictionary. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Vihman, Eero. 1970. Eero Vihman papers. Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, University of California, Berkeley.
Voegelin, C.F. & E.W. Voegelin. 1966. Map of North American Indian Languages. New York: American Ethnological Society.Google Scholar
Voegelin, C.F. & F.M. Voegelin. 1973. Recent classifications of genetic relationships. Annual Review of Anthropology 21. 139-151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whistler, Kenneth & Victor Golla. 1986. Proto-Yokuts reconsidered. International Journal of American Linguistics 521. 913-934. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zigmond, Maurice L., Curtis G. Booth & Pamela Munro. 1990. Kawaiisu: A grammar and dictionary, with texts. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Emlen, Nicholas Q. & Johannes Dellert
2020. On the polymorphemic genesis of some Proto-Quechuan roots. Diachronica 37:3 ► pp. 318 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.