Cover not available
Part of
Investigating Language Isolates: Typological and diachronic perspectives
Edited by Iker Salaberri, Dorota Krajewska, Ekaitz Santazilia and Eneko Zuloaga
[Typological Studies in Language 135] 2025
► pp. 208–245

The Múra doculects and Múra-Pirahã historical linguistics

ORCID logo | Museu Nacional — Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (MN/UFRJ)
In the absence of related languages, research on isolates must pay close attention to dialectal differentiation. As these varieties are often poorly recorded in rather idiosyncratic pre-modern sources, a certain amount of philological acumen is needed as well. This paper addresses Múra-Pirahã (Brazil) by examining the existing sources on the Múra dialect(s). The main isoglosses characterizing the doculects are discussed, and a series of claims on language contact are presented and evaluated. It is argued that the impact of Tupi-Guarani languages on Múra-Pirahã is more complex and varied than assumed so far, and a series of novel claims on the role of Múra-Pirahã in the diffusion of regional loanwords and Wanderwörter is advanced.
Keywords: reconstitution, comparative method, language isolates, Múra-Pirahã
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Múra-Pirahã: Clearing the way
  • 3.Múra and its reconstitution
    • 3.1Background on the phonology of modern Pirahã
    • 3.2Indentity correspondences
    • 3.3Non-identity correspondences
    • 3.4The Múra-Pirahã dialect cluster: Summary of findings and possible isoglosses
  • 4.Language contact
    • 4.1Tupi-Guarani elements in Múra-Pirahã
    • 4.2Diffusion chains and the Múra-Pirahã unstable velar stop
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (59)
References
Anjos, Zoraide dos. 2011. Fonologia e Gramática Katukina-Kanamari. PhD dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Broadbent, Sylvia M. 1957. Rumsen I: Methods of reconstitution. International Journal of American Linguistics 23(4): 275–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 1997. American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Classification of the indigenous languages of South America. In The Indigenous Languages of South America: A Comprehensive Guide, Lyle Campbell & Verónica Grondona (eds), 59–166. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carvalho, Fernando O. de. 2021. A comparative reconstruction of Proto-Purus (Arawakan) segmental phonology. International Journal of American Linguistics 87(1): 49–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cysouw and Jeff Good. 2013. Languoid, doculect and glossonym: Formalizing the notion “language”. Language Documentation and Conservation 7: 331–360.Google Scholar
Dench, Alan. 2000. Comparative reconstitution. In Historical Linguistics 1995, John C. Smith & Delia Bentley (eds), 57–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2004. Proto-Arawá phonology. Anthropological Linguistics 46(1): 1–83.Google Scholar
Edelweiss, Frederico. 1969. Estudos tupis e tupi-guaranis: Confrontos e revisões. Rio de Janeiro: Livraria Brasiliana.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel L. 1979. Aspectos da fonologia do Pirahã. MA dissertation, Universidade Estadual de Campinas.
1984. Sociophonetic restrictions on subphonemic elements in Pirahã. In Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Antonie Cohen & Marcel P. R. van den Broecke (eds), 611–614. Amsterdam: Foris.Google Scholar
1986. Pirahã. In Handbook of Amazonian Languages, Vol. 1, Desmond C. Derbyshire & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds), 200–325. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Everett, Daniel. 1990. A critical evaluation of Greenberg’s classification of Arawan, Chapacuran and Muran: When not saying anything is best. Unpublished draft.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel L. 2005. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã: Another look at the design features of human language. Current Anthropology 46(4): 621–646. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Facundes, Sidney. 2000. The language of the Apurinã people of Brazil. Doctoral dissertation, The State University of New York.
Faulhaber, Priscila. 2008. Etnografia na Amazônia e Tradução Cultural: Comparando Constant Tastevin e Curt Nimuendaju. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi 3(1): 15–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gonçalves Dias, Antonio. 1858. Diccionario da Lingua Tupy chamada Lingua Geral dos Indigenas do Brazil. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew K. 2016. Phonological Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph. 1987. Language in the Americas. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hanke, Wanda. 1950. Vocabulário e idioma Mura dos índios Mura do Rio Manicoré. Arquivos: Coletânea de documentos para a História da Amazônia 12: 3–8.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2004. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heinrichs, Arlo. 1961. Questionário: Mura-Pirahã Rio Marmelos. In Formulário dos Vocabulários Padrões para estudos comparativos preliminares de línguas indígenas brasileiras, Peter Weisserburger (ed). Rio de Janeiro: Museu Nacional.Google Scholar
. 1963. Questionário: Mura-Pirahã Rios Marmelos e Maici. In Formulário dos Vocabulários Padrões para estudos comparativos preliminares de línguas indígenas brasileiras, Peter Weisserburger (ed). Rio de Janeiro: Museu Nacional.Google Scholar
Jensen, Cheryl. 1998. Comparative Tupí-Guaraní morphosyntax. In Handbook of Amazonian Languages, Vol. 4, Desmond C. Derbyshire & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds), 489–618. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jolkesky, Marcelo. 2016. Estudo arqueo-ecolinguístico das terras tropicais sul-americanas. PhD dissertation, Universidade de Brasília. DOI logo
Koop, Gordon & Koop, Lois. 1985. Dicionário Dení-Português (com introdução gramatical). Arquivos Lingüísticos 145(Special issue).Google Scholar
Kostakis, Andrew. 2007. More on the origin of uvular [R]: Phonetic and sociolinguistic motivations. IULC Working Papers 7(1): 1–20.Google Scholar
Lakarra, Joseba A. 2017. Basque and the reconstruction of isolated languages. In Language Isolates, Lyle Campbell (ed), 59–99. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loukotka, Čestmír. 1968. Classification of the South American Indian. Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar
Martius, Carl F. Ph. von. 1867. Beiträge zur Ethnographie und Sprachenkunde Amerika’s zumal Brasilien, II: zur Sprachen kunde. Lepzig: Friedrich Fleischer.Google Scholar
Meira, Sérgio & Franchetto, Bruna. 2005. The Southern Cariban languages and the Cariban family. International Journal of American Linguistics 71(2): 127–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michelena, Luis. 1963. Lenguas y protolenguas. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca.Google Scholar
Monserrat, Ruth & Silva, Abel O. 1984. Dicionário kulina-português e português-kulina (dialeto do Igarapé do Anjo). Acre: Conselho Indigenista Missionário.Google Scholar
Mortensen, David. 2012. The emergence of obstruents after high vowels. Diachronica 29(4): 434–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nies, Joyce. 1986. Diccionario piro. Yarinacocha: ILV-SLP-22.Google Scholar
Nikulin, Andrey. 2017. A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Cerrado (Jê family). Journal of Language Relationship 15(3): 147–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nimuendaju, Curt. 1925. As tribos do alto Madeira. Journal de la Société des Américanistes 17: 137–172.Google Scholar
. 1932. Wortlisten aus Amazonien. Journal de la Société des Américanistes 24: 93–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1948. The Mura and Piraha. In Handbook of South American Indians, Vol. 3, Julian Steward (ed), 255–268. Washington: Bureau of American Ethnology.Google Scholar
Nimuendaju, Curt & Henrique do Valle Bentes, Euclydes. 1922. Documents sur quelques langues peu connues de l’Amazone. Journal de la Société des Américanistes 15: 215–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Okrand, Marc. 1980. Rumsen II: An evaluation of reconstitution. In American Indian and Indoeuropean Studies. Papers in Honor of Madison S. Beeler, Kathryn Klar, Margaret Langdon, & Shirley Silver (eds), 169–182. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, Adélia E. de. 1978. A terminologia de parentesco Mura-Pirahã. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi, Antropologia 66: 1–33.Google Scholar
Payne, David L. 1991. A classification of Maipuran (Arawakan) languages based on shared lexical retentions. In Handbook of Amazonian Languages, Desmond C. Derbyshire & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds), 355–499. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ramirez, Henri. 2001. Línguas Arawak da Amazônia Setentrional: Comparação e Descrição. Manaus: EDUA.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, Aryon D. 1986. Línguas Brasileiras. São Paulo: Editora Loyola.Google Scholar
1990. You and I=neither you nor I: The personal system of Tupinambá. In Amazonian Linguistics: Studies in Lowland South American Languages, Doris L. Payne (ed), 393–405. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Salles, Raiane. 2023. Pirahã (Apáitisí). In Amazonian Languages: Language Isolates II: Kanoé to Yurakaré: An International Handbook, Patience Epps & Lev Michael (eds), 957–994. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Salzer, Meinke & Chapman, Shirley. 1996. Dicionário bilíngue nas línguas Paumarí e Portuguesa. Porto Velho: Sociedade Internacional de Linguística (SIL).Google Scholar
Sandalo, Maria F. 1989. Aspectos da língua Pirahã e a noção de polifonia. MA dissertation, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP).
Sandalo, Maria F. & Abaurre, Maria B. 2010. Orality spread in Pirahã. Línguas Indígenas Americanas (LIAMES) 10: 7–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seifart, Frank & Hammarström, Harald. 2017. Language isolates in South America. In Language Isolates, Lyle Campbell (ed), 260–286. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheldon, Linda. 1976. Pirahã pedagogical grammar. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Sheldon, Steven. 1974. Some morphophonemic and tone perturbation rules in Mura-Piraha. International Journal of American Linguistics 40(4): 279–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1988. Os sufixos verbais múra-piraha. Série Lingüística 9(2): 147–175.Google Scholar
Spix, Johann B. von & Philip von Martius, Carl F. 1831. Reise in Brasilien: Dritter und Letzter Theil. Leipzig: Friedrich Fleischer.Google Scholar
Stradelli, Ermanno. 1929. Vocabularios da lingua geral Portuguez-Nheêngatú e Nheêngatú-Portuguez. Rio de Janeiro: J. Leite.Google Scholar
Taylor, Douglas. 1957. Spanish canoa and its congeners. International Journal of American Linguistics 23(3): 242–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. & Everett, Daniel L. 2001. Pronoun Borrowing. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 27: 301–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vovin, Alexander. 1993. A Reconstruction of Proto-Ainu [Brill’s Japanese Studies Library 4]. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar