Paper for the Symposium Contact and the Dynamics of Language: Theory and Implications 10-13 May 2007 Leipzig

Rethinking structural diffusion

Peter Bakker First draft. Very preliminary version. Please do not quote. May 2007.

Abstract Certain types of syntactic and morphological features can be diffused, as in convergence and metatypy, where take over such properties from neighboring languages. In my paper I would like to explore the idea that typological similarities in the realm of morphology can be used for establishing historical, perhaps even genetic, connections between language families with complex morphological systems. I will exemplify this with , in particular the possible connections between the language families of the Northwest coast/ Plateau and those of the eastern part of the . I will argue on the basis on typological similarities, that (ancestor languages of ) some families (notably Algonquian) spoken today east of the continental divide, were once spoken west of the continental divide. This will lead to a more theoretical discussion about diffusion: is it really possible that more abstract morphological features such as morpheme ordering can be diffused? As this appears to be virtually undocumented, we have to be very skeptical about such diffusion. This means that mere morphological similarities between morphologically complex languages should be taken as evidence for inheritance rather than the result of contact.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 0. Preface Not too long ago, many colleagues in were skeptical that many were actually due to contact. Now that language contact research has become much more mainstream and central than when I started to work in that field, it is time to take the opposite position. I would like to take issue with a phenomenon that has been routinely ascribed to contact, more concretely diffusion. Diffusion in the case of polysynthetic languages appears virtually undocumented and extremely hard to prove. Genetic inheritance seems more likely.

1. Introduction We know that Algonquian and Salish languages have been in contact recently and may have exchanged some vocabulary and grammar. Van Eijk (2006) argued that Shuswap developed an inclusive/exclusive distinction inspired by , as the only Salish language. But could there be a provable connection between Algonquian and Salish on a much deeper time level, going back thousands of years ago? In Bakker (2006c) I compared the two languages systematically and concluded that there was a connection. I did not claim that it was necessarily a genetic connection (i.e. both language families descend from one proto-language), but I suggested that there was at

1 least a historical connection, i.e. that both languages had been spoken in areas adjacent to one another. My evidence was almost exclusively typological: the two families shared a number of typological traits that were too numerous, and too different from other languages, to be due to chance. These shared traits, or at least not those clusters of traits, are not found in other language families in North America (except in the Wakashan and Chimakuan families, which are rather similar to Salish, and the isolate , which shares traits with both Salish and Algonquian), apparently due to a common source. The suggestion that Algonquian (and Ritwan), Wakashan, Chimakuan and Salish form a superfamily is of course not new: Sapir =s (1929) classification already contained a Wakashan-Algonquian grouping. Sapir =s published proof, however, consisted exclusively of typological similarities between these groups, and not a single set of lexical cognates, let alone regular sound changes, were presented. Nobody after Sapir has pursued this line of research, and not surprisingly, Sapir =s grouping was never accepted, by lack of evidence. As far as I know, the only two other lumping attempts are Haas (1958), who tried to connect Kutenai and Algonquian lexically (with a few additional Salish forms), and Morgan (19XX; unpublished; not available to me) presented a considerable number of potential Salish- Kutenai cognates. Matthew Dryer has pointed out a number of striking typological similarities between Kutenai and Algonquian (1992, 1994, 1998), some of them already observed by Boas. Bakker (2006c) was a systematic typological comparison, in which Salish and Algonquian, despite striking structural and phonological differences, were shown to share a number of structural traits, suggestive of an ancient conenction, either genetic or through contact. Thus far, most Algonquianists and Salishanists refrained from commenting, and probably this silence can be interpreted as disapproval. The only specialized scholar who overtly expressed his disagreement is Jan Van Eijk (2007). His paper forced me not only to reply to his quite reasonable objections, but also to study the similarities and differences in more detail. The result of this exercise is that I think that a reasonable case can actually be made for a deep genetic connection between Algonquian and Salish. This conclusion could be drawn on the basis of typological similarities (Bakker 2006). Only after the observation of those structural parallels, a number of probable lexical cognates and a regular sound change could be adduced to strenghten the case for an explanation in genetic terms rather than contact terms. This led me to reconsider the more or less continuous discussion about whether typological similarities in the morphological realm alone, can be taken as evidence for a genetic connection between two languages. More recently, Nichols (1992) revolutionized typology and historical linguistic with her claim that certain typological traits can be taken as deep genetic evidence, with a much more impressive time depth than the standard method of lexical comparison. Even though some of her chosen features and her conclusions about them being inherited rather than spread from one family to another have been attacked, her techniques have been accepted and adopted elsewhere, and the combination of typological and historical-comparative research has now become mainstream. Thus, the Salish-Algonquian morphological-typological similarities first seemed to point to contact but on closer scrutiny appeared more likely to be genetic. In this paper I want to take up the challenge posed by these data, and Nichols = finding, and study the phenomenon of morphological diffusion in more general terms: is morphological diffusion really so common as often claimed, or is it really inheritance?

2 In this paper I will first summarize the most important typological similarities between Algonquian and Salish (section 2) from Bakker (2006). Thereafter I will present some lexical similarities between Salish and Algonquian (or Algic, the higher-level grouping that covers Algonquian and two languages of , Wiyot and Yurok, which constitute together the Ritwan languages) that suggest that the connection is genetic rather than contact-induced (section 3). Thereafter I will give a brief overview of documented patterns of morphological change - suggesting that the type of morphological diffusion as envisaged as the proposed explanation for similarities between polysynthetic languages, is in fact an unlikely process (4). It is well known that polysynthetic languages cluster in certain areas of the world, and in section 5 I will briefly discuss incorporation and polysynthesis, in section 6 morphological change, in order to study (in section 7) the possibility of morphological diffusion in polysynthetic languages. In section 8 I get back to the question of the connection between Algonquian and Salish, arguing that the connection is more likely to be genetic than diffused.

2. Structural similarities between Algonquian and Salish In Bakker (2006c) I discussed a number of typological similarities between Salish and Algonquian. For more detailed information, I refer to that paper. In both families, it is difficult to distinguish between derivation and inflection. Both families have a similar order in the verbal morphology. Table 1 shows a comparative overview of the verbal morpheme order in the two families. The morpheme orders in Table 1 show a number of differences and resemblances. The most remarkable similarities are: (a) person markers and aspect markers are found both as suffixes and prefixes. (b) those categories that are found as either prefixes and suffixes are so in both languages. (c) the order of the prefixes and the suffixes converge for a great deal. (d) both families can express verbal plurality with prefixes (Algonquian only marginally with ) There are also differences: (d) A number of semantic categories are only found in either Salishan (control) or Algonquian () (e) There are some minor differences in ordering. Table 1: comparative table of morpheme orders Salishan-Algonquian

Salish person Aspect locativ Redupl ROOT redupl. Primar Lexical Trans Object Subjec Aspect terms e y Suffixe /intrans t / s /contro aspect l

Salish -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Algon- 1 4-6 5 5-6 8 - 9 10 11+19 18+19 21 quian

Algonq person prever prever redupl. Initial medial final obv. obv. itera- uian b b 7 rel. Theme Theme tive terms root

3 Some of the ordering patterns are more significant than others, such as the position of the aspect markers relatively far from the root: aspect is usually found quite close to the root (Bybee 1985), except in languages like the that have a templatic morphology. The presence and position of the locative markers is also significant. Other similarities are: the use of different types of reduplicative patterns to express plurality and aspects, the use of diminutive symbolism (found in Basque, Georgian, Chukchi, one language in , one in Southern California (Nichols 1971). In North America the phenomenon is ubiquitous west of the Rocky Mountains from Central California to , but in the east only found in Algonquian (from Cree to Narragansett; Pentland 1975) and Dakota. Both Salish and different Algonquian and Ritwan languages show dialectal variation between /l, n, r/, possibly going back to an earlier stage. Further, Salish and Algonquian share the presence of multiple successive diminutives, pejorative diminutives, real (Salish) or reconstructed (Algonquian) glottalized , and hierarchical person marking. Most of these are quite common west of the Rocky Mountains, but not in the east. This suggests that Algonquian moved from east of the Rocky Mountains to the west. In Bakker (2006c), I did not present formal similarities between the morphemes with shared meanings, except for a limited number of grammatical morphemes. Van Eijk (2007) criticized the conclusions. He argued that the shared typological features were so common that one could not conclude anything on their basis, and the formal similarities in grammatical forms could be due to chance. Before accepting proof, he demanded lexical similarities and regular sound changes - quite reasonable demands from the perspective of comparative linguistics. Some shared features could be due to borrowing in his view. In my reply (Bakker, forthcoming) I give arguments against most of the objections raised by Van Eijk. His claim that the numeral Aone @ is borrowed between the language families is unlikely, for two reasons. Both Algonquian and Salish reconstruct two forms for Aone @, and it is not very likely that the semantic distinction underlying the numerals would be borrowed. Haas had reconstructed the forms as follows in 1965: 85-88; Kuipers 2002: 70, 217, 220): Proto-Algonquian Proto-Salish Kutenai (after Haas 1965: 88) one (A) * nekwet(w)- *nek =We?, nak = ?uk=i one (B) * pe:šekw- one (C) pe:yak (Cree) * pala? (Central) two (A) *ni:š * nwas (Interior Salish) two (b) *? csal(i/a)*esal, *asal ?as

More recent research suggests PA * neketwi and * pe:šekwi / *pe:yakw (Rhodes & Costa 2003: 181-183) and PS * nak = / *nk =-u? / nk =Wu? and *pala? (Kuipers 2002: 70-71, 217). The latter root is found in words menaing both Aone @ and Ahundred @ in both Salish and Algonquian. A more devastating is, that numerals are always borrowed from 9 down. Greenberg stated in 1978: AIf an atomic numeral expression is borrowed from one language into another, all higher atomic expressions are borrowed. (An atom is a lexically expressed number, not a compound, P.B.). This universal is quite robust: no counterexamples are presented in the

4 Universals Archive (http://ling.uni-konstanz.de:591/Universals/introduction.html). In addition, Van Eijk demanded lexical similarities and regular sound changes. Due to the time depth I had not expected to find many. Rather surprisingly, they are not easy to spot.

3. Some lexical similarities between Algonquian and Salish Despite the phonological differences between Salish and Algonquian, a number of lexical similarities were already identified by Haas (1965), here given with the addition of reconstructed PS forms of Salish. In some cases, Kutenai provides a link between Salish and Algonquian forms, again confirming the intermediate position of Kutenai between Salish and Algonquian (cf. Dryer 2006).

Table 2: some potential cognates between Algonquian and Salish Proto-Algonquian Kutenai Proto-Salish (Haas 1965) (Haas 1965) (Kuiper 2002) bone -kane:- Abone @ (H247) ma:k = (s) …am = Haas 87 break po:hkw (H2824) -qa =- q=awa » 90 burst/scatter pa:šk -paq =mik- pcq?/k? chop/sever/cut ki:šk- -kic- k=ct(xW) 224 close/shut kep- c=up(na) qcp= 148, 180 dive (jump) ko:k- -wac- ?us, ?isu? 20 die nepe:-, -up- -ip- pul 177 earth akyi (H0502) ?amak tamixW Haas87 with foot -ešk (Hp244) -ikin -xin, -xcn Haas 87 grease nama:kw- t=inamu qWtat 93 by hand -en- -kin- -ak 204 knife (mo)hkoma:n (H1975) cama » -k=aman Haas 87 lie down šenk- -saq- »eqW 60 melt θenk- »uqinku- li/a ¨w / yaXW 157 neck -hkwe:kan- -o:kak- k=cspan 43 negative kat- qa- xWa? /?awa N15 penis -θak- -u»ac s-t=iqs 153 poor, miserable ketem- k=um(na)- qWan 183 swallow -kwan-, -ko:n- -u?mqo » q=cm, m cq= 69, 88, 145 yester(day) we θakw- wa »ka Xy-awt 198

However, such an arbitrary list could very well reflect solely chance similarities especially since the list is limited. Haas also lists a few regular sound changes in her article, but only for a limited number of forms. I therefore decided to do a more systematic search, and took all the forms starting with *p in Kuipers (2002), and added Proto-Algonquian or Algic meaning equivalents, as shown in Table 3.

5

Table 3: all Proto-Salish roots starting with p- and their Algonquian and Algic equivalents Proto-Salish meaning Proto-Algonquian/ Proto-Algic forms (H = Hewson 1993) Paci/a? Diggingstick Packl leaf aniipyiH0270 pǩkɀ/qɀ spill,pour (so:k,siikH29772993) pal thin,flat napakaaH2169 pepak“flat”(Goddard1982:36) pi/al scatter,smudge piiwa?tscatter–H2788 pul tipover kiipH1203 splucin mouth,edge spAlmn calfofleg,muscle pǩl’kɀ/pǩtkɀ pierce patahk“pierce”H2547 Creepayip“pierce” spǩlan skunk spǩlq penis Pǩǩxɀ pierce,popout Creepayip“pierce” Creepôhc “enters.t.inahole”PA* pekw“pierce”,Proulx1985:91) pǩlaX putaspellon,totell pǩł,płu/ał thick(layer) kexpak”thick”H1170 *petekwesiwa”heisthickandround (Goddard1982:32)PApel”big” puŻ come,cometoanend,comeout pye:či“come”H2850 pan time,periodʈ pan“preteritsuffix” pu/an find,get pǩq white waap,aap”see,white Kutenaiupxa”toknow/see”(Haas1965) wa:pešk”white”H34503463 pǩqɀ/kɀ scatter,powder penkwi“dust,ashes”H2654 pisa? Smallanimal(bird,bug,worm) peleehš“bird” půůt boil,bubble (PAR*pw,PA*apwewa“toroast”,Wiyot puw“cook”(Berman1984:338) pat arrange,lineup.Splice,spread ProtoRitwanplag,Wiyotpłag(Berman 1990:433) pit notice,think put right,sufficient,exact,very tep“own,pay,measure”H3339 pǩ(tǩ)Xɀ spit (??Pa?θa:kwa“tochoke”Goddard1982: 38) paw,puh,pu/axɀ blow,breathe,swell poota“blow”h2821 paakihš“swell” pǩx/xǩp comb(out) penah ”comb”H2647 pax air() pweekit ”fart”H2844 pǩxɀ faded,stale waapa?t “fade”H3422 pǩy happy,joyful spyu/a? Bird peleehš“bird”h2585 pǩȥɀ/w prod,knock,drum pakam) “strike”H2515(cf.Yurok pȉkɀ)

6 There are 32 Proto-Salish roots starting with p-. For only 10 of them no equivalent in Algic or Algonquian could be fond. These 10 words included all four nominalizations (with an s-prefix) and one cultural item, the diggings stick. If we exclude the nominalizations (which are as a rule derived from different roots as nouns), we have 28 forms, and for 21 of them there is an Algonquian root starting with p- as well. Even if we exclude possible onomatopoetic forms such as the words meaning “to blow”, we still end up with a number of similarities than cannot be due to chance. For the sake of clarity, I have to add that words starting with p- are not exceptionally frequent in Proto-Algonquian. Hewson lists 2895 roots, 2473 of which start with p-, i.e. ca. 10% of the words, whereas almost three quarters show potential cognates. It is not easy to point to additional sound correspondences beyond the initial consonants in the set of words in Table 3, but often the places of articulation of the other consonants are indeed comparable (dental, sibilant or velar/uvular, or clusters). Furthermore, in a number of cases Ritwan or Kutenai forms are intermediate between Salish and Algonquian (see also Table 2 for a number of examples), linking words that otherwise seem unrelated, such as PS pǩq ”white” andPS waap,aap”see,white”,andKutenai upxa”toknow/see”(Haas1965)inthelist. Itisnotthatdifficulttospototherpotentialcognates. Table 4: Proto-Salish roots starting with p- and their Algonquian and Algic equivalents Proto-Salish (PS) PS meaning Proto-Algonquian form and meaning *k’ɀuy “mother,aunt”PSR51 *kya“mother”H2263 *m^c’ǩp “bee,wasp” PSR66 *amo:hsa“bee”H0048 *miXał “blackbear” PSR70 *maθkwa“bear”H1635 *takɀ “perceive” PSR103 Creetak“perceivebyhearing” A second way to check potential cognates is to look systematically at a semantic domain, preferably basic ones such as numerals, body parts and kinship terms. I chose body parts. Most body parts do not look like cognates, but there is a substantial set where the forms show remarkable similarities.

Table 5: Selected body parts in Salish and Algonquian/Algic Meaning Proto-Salish source PA Belly *Ż’ak PCS212 * ečye:- “body, belly” (HDPA 245), * w ə?t’ (Kuipers 2002: 116 after Nater 1994), *daǴ“belly”(R132) Blood *Mit’k’aya^?(PIR174) PAR:**tko?wi,cko?wi(PP126) Body,chest *was PSS210 *iyaw“body”H2404PAR:**weTewi, **wegetawi“body,flesh)PP375) Claw,leg,foot,nail *q’ɀaX/XɀPSR97 *ka:te:H0889,xka:čiH2354“leg”,Wiyot vȜtgȜ?n“fingerortoenail”(R132);PAškašyaSiebert1975:323,Yurokłketeg“claw, fingernail”(Garret2001:290) Skin,feather*k’ɀǩl’(PSR48)*θokayiH235,wašakahaya“hisskin” H3561,*watehkwe:pyi“hisskin”(Goddard1974:105),*lo:k,θo:k“skin,hide”(Haas 1965),Kutenaiuqła(Haas1965),WiyotwȜtgai?“skin”(R132),PAR**ayPP053“skin”: PAR**waSlak,waSlek,arek,erekPP280

All this will probably not be enough to convince the more skeptical Americanists. We are, however dealing with the boundaries of the possibility of proving a genetic relationship. The lexical similarities are invoked in order to show that the similarities in morphological typology

7 may be due to inheritance rather than diffusion. If skeptics would say that this is borrowing, then still it would still prove that Algonquian and Salish were spoken in the same area several millennia ago. In the next section I will discuss morphological change, in order to establish the range of possibilities of typological change in morphology.

4. How do languages change their morphological typological features? There are a range of language contact phenomena that are visible in morphology. I will discuss them in this chapter, where we try to identify different types of morphological change. Depending on whether or not contact was involved, we can distinguish between internal and external changes.

4.1. Internal changes 4.1.1 Grammaticalization A language can grammaticalize lexical elements into grammatical elements: person markers can cliticize, etc. When this happens, the language gets morphologically more complex, at least in the number of morphemes attached to a stem. Some examples are the attachment of the third person reflexive pronoun * sig to the in Scandinavian languages, yielding a form of passive construction:

(1) svar udbede-s answer request-D Aan answer is requested @

Or the attachment of (reduced forms of) pronouns to provide possessive markers and/or verbal agreement, as in Algonquian, here exemplified with Plains Cree, where the independent pronouns niya (first person) and kiya (second person) became morphological part of the nouns and in a reduced form:

(2) ni-maskisin ni-nipâ-n 1SG-shoe 1SG-sleep-INFL

ki-maskisin ki-nipâ-n 2SG-shoe 2SG-sleep-INFL

It is often assumed that the process of a free morpheme developing (usually via a clitic stage) into bound morphemes is a slow process, which takes centuries. Andersen (1987: 29, quoted in Hopper & Traugott 1993) measured that the Polish copula gradually cliticized more to the verb, from 29 % in the 1500s to 84 % in the 1900s, suggesting half a millennium for the process to complete. However, there is no a priori proof that this is always a slow process. Grammaticalization can also be contact-induced, of course, as shown in most detailed ways in Heine & Kuteva (2005).

8 4.1.2. Attrition Morphologically complex forms may become shorter and lose one or more morphemes. While Latin marked five cases on the nouns, its modern descendant languages do not have case markers on the noun. Case markers have been lost in the modern Romance languages, with only a remnant of a former case system in the personal pronouns. Most cases of attrition relate to the end of words.

4.1.3. Merger of morphemes Several lexical morphemes can combine into a new morpheme, e.g. English Goodbye , from AGod be with you @, or French du from de le , or y-all from you-all in some English , or the negative desiderative suffix -yuumiiit- from -yug-umi-ite- (desiderative-stative-negative) in Yupik (the latter example from Mithun).

4.1.4. Folk etymology When speakers interpret the morphemes of a word so that a word may change its form. Instead of the correct word discus-prolaps Ahernia @, some Danish speakers use discus-kollaps, as it reminds them of a collapse. English examples in which original forms have changed permanently are sweetheart from sweetard , or bridegroom from Old English bryde-goma.

4.1.5. Changes All of these internal changes relate to individual changes, not to wholesale changes that lead to changes in the typological make-up of languages. Only if many such changes take place, presumably slowly.

4.2. External changes External changes take place due to contact with other languages. They are not unambiguously separate from internal changes: many of the internal changes can be the consequence of language contact as well.

4.2.1. Pidginization and creolization When speakers of different have no full access to a language, and they do need a medium of communication in circumstances where a common language is lacking, they may create a makeshift language (a ), or, if the circumstances permit, turn a pidgin in a full-fledged language (a creole). Typically, and creoles display fewer bound morphemes than their lexifiers.

4.2.2. Intertwining There are a number of languages that show a dichotomy between the lexicon and bound morphemes. Roughly, the lexicon is from one language and the grammatical system from another, which means that in this type of languages roots from one language are typically combined with affixes from another. Such languages have been called intertwined languages, split languages, bilingual mixed languages or simply mixed languages. This is an example of a newly discovered intertwined language, a mixture of Thay and

9 Malay, spoken by the Samsam. According to Le Roux (1998:239) they Aare particularly characterized by their language (a pidgin formed by a Mon-Khmer and Siamese vocabulary, together with an Austronesian grammatical structure). @

If it combines the grammatical structure of one language and a vocabulary of another, it would not be a pidgin but an intertwined language. Furthermore, the data he provides shows that his characterization of the language is wrong. The only sentence given in this language can be analyzed as follows(Crawfurd 1828:28-29 in Le Roux 1998:239): Saya na pai naik keh bun gunung Malay Thai? Thai Malay Malay Malay Malay 1sg EMPH ? go ascend to summit mountain AI want to ascend the mountain @

The lexicon is Malay, and if the keh element is indeed a Malay preposition, also some of the more grammatical elements are apparently from Malay. The speakers of the language are the result of the fact that a “population of Malay Muslims commonly marries with Thai Buddhists without serious religious hesitation. This custom created an ethnic group known as Samsam, meaning mixed person”. Other, better documented cases can be found in Bakker & Mous (1994) and Thomason (1996), and discussion in Matras & Bakker (2003).

4.2.3. Grammatical calquing/replicating Languages can develop new grammatical categories under the influence of other languages. For example, a language may develop a distinction between inclusive and exclusive Awe @ (see Van Eijk 2006 for an example), or develop noun class marking. Heine and Kuteva (2005) discuss a wealth of examples. These contact-induced changes are often syntactic and to some extent morphological when the new distinctions are expressed morphologically.

4.2.4. Metatypy Some languages take over the structural features of another language without actually taking over morphemes from them. This phenomenon has been called metatypy (Ross 2006). This can be seen as (almost) wholesale grammatical calquing. An example of this process is the metamorphosis of Sri Lanka Creole Portuguese from an analytic SVO language to an agglutinative SOV language, with case markers, as in :

bkb-ntu fu:l b pb-bota: na:-poy na: (SL Portuguese) that-LOC flower INF-put NEGPOT-can TAG "[You] can't embroider [litt. put flowers] on that [sewing machine], can you?"

Under the influence of Dravidian Tamil: at-ila pu: po:T-a e:l-a:t e: (SL Tamil) that-LOC flower put-INF can-NEGPOT TAG

10

The whole nominal realm of the language has been restructured in this way. Semantically, the replica language and model language have converged even more significantly. More examples can be found in Ross = work and in Heine & Kuteva (2005).

4.3. Morphological diffusion When we are confronted with the phenomenon of languages that are presumed to be unrelated but which show a lot of striking similarities in their structure, especially in their morphological make-up, linguists have tended to explain these similarities by resorting to diffusion. But is this morphological diffusion really documented as a process, apart from the assumption? In most cases this seems to have been assumed just because the languages, or language families, showed structural similarities but no lexical similarities. The only process discussed above that comes close to morphological diffusion is the grammatical calquing/metatypy example. However, when we look at the cases where the changes have been documented, then we cannot find any examples of morphological diffusion. The cases of calquing almost always relate to syntactic constructions (e.g. a question word used as a relativizer, or word order changes), semantic adjustments such as the calquing of metaphors or the semantic adjustment of grammatical meanings, and/or rather superficial morphological additions on the basis of a model language. The cases of metatypy all deal with cases of complete structural turnover (i.e. metatytypy), which is what we are looking for, but in all documented cases, the process always proceeds from relatively analytic structures (creoles, Oceanic) to agglutinative structures. There are, to my knowledge, no documented cases of developments from or into polysynthetic languages - only presumed ones, where the assumption is solely based on morphological similarities. Which casts doubt on the possibility of such a development involving polysynthetic languages. In order to investigate this, I discuss polysynthetic languages in the next section.

5. Polysynthesis and incorporation Two structural features are typical for many North American languages: incorporation and polysynthesis.

5.1. Noun incorporation A number of languages, mostly in North America, can use nominal elements in verbs. Objects or subjects with quite concrete meanings (e.g. AWoman @, Aboat @), can find their way into verbal morphological constructions. The form of the independent nouns and those of the incorporated nouns must be closely related. display noun incorporation. These incorporated nouns must be distinguished from elements with nominal meanings found in verbs, which are known by a variety of terms, such as Alexical affixes @ (e.g. Salish) and “medials” (Algonquian).

5.2. Polysynthesis Even though it is well known among specialists, many linguists assume that polysynthetic languages constitute one distinct type of language. From the perspective of Standard Average

11 European, polysynthetic languages may seem equally exotic, but in fact there are significant differences between languages, and different types can be distinguished. Polysynthetic languages are concentrated in North and Central America, where they constitute the dominant type of language. They are also found in the adjacent parts of North East Asia, the Northwest Caucasus and parts of New Guinea and Northern Australia. What are polysynthetic languages? First, one should not confuse incorporation with polysynthesis. Both involve the use of material with concrete nominal meanings in the verb, but only in incorporation one can argue that the nouns have become part of the verb by some kind of syntactic process, whereas polysynthetic languages contain elements with nominal meanings that are usually unrelated to the nouns with equivalent meanings. Fortescue (1994) claimed that there are three basic types of polysynthetic languages, and in addition three mixtures of these three types. First is the type which displays incorporation, i.e. the use of nominal material in a verbal structure. Those languages may have multiple lexical stems in one verb. Chukchi (Chukotko- Kamchatkan) and Onondaga (Iroquoian) are examples. Fortescue calls this type Apure incorporating @. The second and third type donot have multiple lexical stems. The second type is one where each verb has one and only one root, to which a wide range of affixes can be added, typically in a semantically motivated order. These affixes may have quite concrete lexical meaning, including nominal ones, but these affixes have no formal similarities with roots with comparable meanings. West Greenlandic and Yupik are examples of this type, called Arecursively suffixing @ by Fortescue. The third type is characterized by Aa wide range of >field = affixes in the verbal complex (indicating, for instance, precise location of an action or the instrument with which it is carried out)”. Fortescue calls this type Afield-affixing @. Examples of these languages are Atsugewi and Kalispel (Salish). Algonquian would also fit here. Note that these observations on polysynthesis do not imply anything about the possible degree of fusion of adjacent morphemes, bound or free. In this respect polysynthetic languages show a wide range of synthesis, Ablaut and allomorphy. Polysynthetic languages typically express a range of categories in the verb that other languages would express in the noun: gender, case, location, benefactives, number, etc. (Mithun 1989, 1999: 37-56). In the next section I will discuss a number of processes of typological changes in morphology, in order to investigate these in relation to polysynthetic languages.

6. Typological change in morphology Having discussed morphological changes in languages, it is now time to get back to the question: how can languages change their typological make-up? One can think of several types of changes: changes in the order of affixes with respect to the stem, or of wholesale or partial developments from prefixing to suffixing, or the other way around.

6.1. Changes in order To my knowledge, only a few studies have been devoted to changes in the order of affixes. Generally, these seem quite fixed and not subject to change. Haspelmath (1993) was perhaps the

12 first article devoted to this subject. Haspelmath claimed that changes in affix order are rare, and in fact limited to a single cause: Awhen inflectional affixes are trapped in an internal position as the result of the grammaticalization and affixation of an uninflected element @ (1993: 279). His examples are: - the change of the order Q(uestion.word)-C(ase.marker)-I(ndefinite.marker) in Georgian to Q-I- C, via a Q-C-I-C stage in the word ra-s-me > ra-me-s Aanything @ and other forms of the paradigm, as well as a similar but more complex change in the Aanybody @ forms; - a similar development in Icelandic; - Germanic/Old English, Latin, Greek and Basque demonstratives, where a deictic particle originally followed case markers, but later preceded them. - the order change verb-person-aspect in Pengo (Dravidian) to verb-aspect-person, via verb- aspect-person-aspect - the change verb-person-reflexive into verb-reflexive-person in Lithuanian dialects, and a similar development in colloquial Spanish. - the change of indefinite marker-case-root to case-indef.marker-root in Russian indefinite pronouns, showing that both suffixes and prefixes can be affected. - some changes in inflection in compounds, as sisters-in-law becoming sister-in-law-s in German and English On the basis of these examples, Haspelmath generalizes and claims that (A) the changes are unidirectional, i.e. inflection will never move to a more internal position. (B) only inflectional, not derivational affixes are externalized. 8) only the inflectional affix is ever marked twice in the process. All of these changes can be explained with reference to the generalization that derivation occurs closer to the stem than inflection (Greenberg =s universal 28; Greenberg 1963). This order is connected to the cognitive principle of diagrammatic iconicity, as formulated by Bybee (1985: 33), who explains the order of elements relative to a verbal root as guided by the relative relevance these elements have with regards to the meaning of the root. Mithun (2000) also discussed changes in affix order, but from a slightly different perspective. Her examples include some in which a derivational affix is reinterpreted as an inflectional affix. First, she discusses four accounts of morpheme order: (1) morphological derivations that reflect syntactic derivations: later syntactic operations yield affixes farther from the stem. (2) semantic scope: affixes farther away from the root have scope over affixes closer to the root. (3) relevance: the more relevant the meaning of an affix is to the meaning of the stem, the closer it will be found to the stem. (4) diachrony: affixes closer to the stem morphologized earlier than affixes farther away from the stem. These four accounts are not incompatible, according to Mithun. For instance, languages with a layered or hierarchical morphology such as Yup =ik typically display the scope patterns of account (2). Languages with a templatic morphology such as or Athabaskan can best be explained by account (4): Iroquoian languages, for instance, share a core of prefixes and suffixes close to the root, whereas the outer affixes tend to differ from one language to the next, suggesting later additions after the languages split off. Harris (2004-5) discusses cases of languages which have both person-number prefixes and person-number suffixes. When an inflected auxiliary becomes attached to a verb or pronoun,

13 inflectional elements may get trapped between the main verb and the inflected auxiliary. This conflict with the cognitive and processing principles discussed above, may lead, according to Harris, to - a loss of affixes that are trapped (see also Harris & Faarlund 2006) - reanalysis of two morphemes as one - analogical extension of a morpheme to a different position. Summarizing, changes in the order of affixes is limited to (a) scope differences that allow for alternative orders (b) changes with respect to more recently attached affixes that move to a semantically and cognitively more appropriate location.

6.2. Affix order Can we use the order of affixes in a verb - in the absence of formal similarities - as a sign of a genetic connection, or can it be caused by language contact? Bybee (1985) studied the morphological expression of semantic categories and their typical positions relative to the stem, based on a survey of a representative sample of the languages of the world. She concluded that the most typical order is STEM-valence-voice- aspect-tense-mood-number-person-gender. The observed deviations from this order were: Navaho, where person markers occur closer to the stem than aspect and tense markers; , where mood occurs closer to the stem than tense; in five languages the order root-person-mood was found. There is a certain tradition in using affix order in the establishment of genetic connections. Hymes (1956a, b), for instance, argues that Athabaskan morpheme order can be used in establishing genetic connections, even beyond the Athabaskan family. Similarities in affix order, however, are not considered sufficient proof for establishing a genetic relationship. If two languages have the same orders, this may also be a consequence of universal principles, as Bybee showed. However, if they show the same type of deviations from general patterns, a connection may be more significant. We have to exclude orders that are expectable on the basis of universalist observations. For instance the fact that derivation is found closer to the stem than inflection should be considered the default, since this is what is expected from a typological viewpoint. It is only interesting if two languages share a deviant order here.

6.3 Changes from prefixing to suffixing It is quite common for languages to have both prefixes and suffixes, but it is rather rare to have formally similar suffixes and prefixes. Greenberg (1977, 1978) shows that languages families with prefixes in some languages and suffixes in others, may reflect different morphologizations of elements with variable orders. Green (1995) and Harvey et al. (2006) report on similar cases from Australia. These would not count as changes, but as different grammaticalizations in the different languages. There have been a number of cases where (primarily) prefixing languages changed to (primarily) suffixing languages. In the rare cases described in the literature, such developments seem mostly contact-induced, for instance developing prefixes under the influence of prefixing languages. Some languages with both prefixes and suffixes may reflect an intermediate stage in

14 this development. The actual borrowing of prefixes or suffixes is less common than using the language =s own resources to develop new categories. However, I am not aware of studies documenting or reconstructing such developments.

6.4. Order changes The order of affixes seems to be rather conservative cross-linguistically. Incidental small-scale changes have been reported, usually over a longer time period, and in the direction of a more semantically motivated position along the lines of Bybee (1995). When languages changes from suffixing to prefixing or the other way around, the changes seem to be contact-induced, and based on native language material rather than borrowed bound morphemes.

7. Diffusion, contact and polysynthetic languages The core question of this paper are: how can polysynthesis diffuse? The fact that polysynthetic structures are concentrated in geographical clusters, where different language families are of the same type (at least, it is impossible to prove that these families are genetically related one the basis of the normal criteria of comparative linguistics), suggest that polysynthesis difuuses. In mainland South East Asia, languages tend to be isolating, whereas North American languages tend to be polysynthetic. If these languages do not share a deep genetic unity, then these languages must have altered their type due to contact with other language types. In several cases we do know that morphologically complex languages and isolating languages stem from a common source languages: some originally isolating Chinese dialects have become agglutinative languages in North West China under the influence of Tibetan and Mongolian (Li 1983, Wurm 1996). The fact that Tibetan and Chinese are related shows that one Proto-language may develop into languages of quite distinct type. Development into polysynthetic languages, however, has hardly been described or documented. The question of how polynthesis spreads from one language or family to another, is of course connected to the question how polysynthesis emerges. Mithun (1997) tried to answer this question. She takes Bella Coolla as the exemplifying language. Bella Coolla has both stems, denoting persons, objects, actions and states, and also affixes denoting tense, aspect, plural and the like. However, Bella Coolla differs from European languages in that there are also suffixes with noun-like meanings, such as Ban Aear @, -lst Arock @, -lt Achild. There are often nouns with a similar meaning but a different form: stem suxa , suffix -ak Ahand @, sometimes a similar form stem cuca , suffix -uc Amouth @. The meanings of the suffixes tend to be more diffuse than those of the stems: only -uc can also mean Alips, nets, edges @ and more meanings associated with Amouth @. The stems and lexical suffixes coexist typically, not only in Bella Coolla and Salish languages, but also in other languages of the same type, and in both nouns and verbs. Lexical suffixes are not used to introduce new referents. The exact nature of the discourse role of suffixes is not relevant. According to Mithun, the so-called Alexical suffixes @ of Salish originate in stems. The way stems and suffixes combine resemble compounds in other languages (Mithun 1997: 365). Both in compounds and in stem-suffix combinations, the relationship between the two elements is not semantically or grammatically constrained. When stem-suffix combinations function as

15 predicates, they often share properties of Verb + Noun compounds (noun incorporation). Neither incorporated nouns nor suffixes carry inflection for definiteness, number, or case, and they do not specify core arguments of the clause. Further similarities can be found in Mithun (1997). Several researchers before her have proposed that these lexical suffix constructions originate in compounds. Compounding often persists in these languages, and the order of elements in the is consistent with the verb-initial order of Salish. Bella Coolla also has a few lexical prefixes (also other ). Those lexical prefixes appear to have very similar functions as the lexical prefixes in Eskimoan, and - the last ones spoken in areas adjacent to Salish languages. Those functions are described by Mithun as Aconsiderably more root-like than most affixes @, and she assumes an origin in roots. The lexical suffixes and prefixes in Salish, even though partly similar to the results of ordinary pathways of grammaticalization: they bonded with their hosts in compounds while still maintaining their function as roots. An origin in incorporation can also explain the high number of these lexical suffixes - up to 200 in some Salish languages. In other words, one grammaticalization process was responsible for a whole set of suffixes, and not a range of individual suffixes that grammaticalized from independent roots. Mithun does not directly invoke contact here, but she does indirectly suggest that areal patterns, and hence diffusion, played a role. Mithun (2004) related polysynthesis to the contact issue, when she discussed the problem of how this intimate aspect of grammar could spread. And if so, whether polysynthesis could spread without the actual affixes themselves. Lexical suffixes are found in three genetically unrelated families of the Northwest coast: Salish, Wakashan and Chimakuan. In all three families, we find lexical affixes with concrete meanings as normally found in verbs, adjectives and nouns. Between 250 and over 400 have been identified for languages of the different families. Roots are always word-initial, whereas suffixes are never word-initial. Michael Fortescue (2006) (ms.) … Is it indeed likely that diffusion and contact are responsible for these changes? Have Wakashan, Salish and Chimakuan languages converged to such an extent that their typological make-up have become quite similar morphologically? Or is it alternatively possible to claim that these similarities are genetic rather than areal? Sapir, one of the most brilliant linguists of all times, was skeptical about the possibility of morphological diffusion. In his popularizing book Language (1921, end of chapter 9) he wrote: AAttempts have sometimes been made to explain the distribution of these fundamental structural features by the theory of diffusion. We know that myths, religious ideas, types of social organization, industrial devices, and other features of culture may spread from point to point, gradually making themselves at home in cultures to which they were at one time alien. We also know that words may be diffused no less freely than cultural borrowed, elements, that sounds also may be A @ and that even morphological elements may be taken over. We may go further and recognize that certain languages have, in all probability, taken on structural features owing to the suggestive influence of neighboring languages. An examination of such cases, however, almost invariably reveals the significant fact that they are but superficial additions on the morphological kernel of the language. So long as such direct historical testimony as we have gives us no really

16 convincing examples of profound morphological influence by diffusion, we shall do well not to put too much reliance in diffusion theories. On the whole, therefore, we shall phonetic pattern ascribe the major concordances and divergences in linguistic form C and morphology Cto the autonomous drift of language, not to the complicating effect of single, diffused features that cluster now this way, now that. Language is probably the most self-contained, the most massively resistant of all social phenomena. It is easier to kill it off than to disintegrate its individual form. @ Sapir of course does not exclude morphological influence categorically, as shown in this footnote: AI have in mind, e.g., the presence of postpositions in Upper Chinook, a feature that is clearly due to the influence of neighboring languages; or the use by Takelma of Hokan instrumental prefixes, which are likely to have been suggested by neighboring A @ languages Shasta, Karok .

( ) @

Boas similarly had expressed his skepticism with regards to morphological diffusion in his Introduction to Handbook of American Indian Languages (1911: 45): AI do not know, however, of any observations which would point to a radical modification of the morphological traits of a language through the influence of another language @ This brings us back to the question of the relations between Algonquian and Salish. If these morphological similarities between the two families are not due to chance, are they borrowed or inherited?

8. Algonquian and Salish: a case study. Are Algonquian and Salish related on a deep time level? Or can some of the similarities be explained by contact? Let us suppose that some of the properties discussed in section 2 came from languages spoken at an earlier location, either by diffusion or because the other languages spoken in the original area are remotely related genetically. If we find the location of the proto-language and if we more or less know the properties of the relevant languages spoken in that area at the time, then we can compare the languages and speculate about which traits are original, and which ones are contact-induced, and perhaps also which language type triggered the changes. It is now widely accepted, both on archaeological (Denny 1989a, 1991) and linguistic grounds (Goddard 1994) that the Proto-Algonquians came from the West - rather than from the as suggested earlier (Siebert 1967). This would enable us to limit our quest to a location on the Columbia Plateau, and perhaps even closer to the Northwest coast. Sapir (1929) presented a speculative classification of the languages in North America in a few supergroups. In Table 2 I have summarized the properties he mentioned as being constitutive of the five families that are geographically close or adjacent to present-day Algonquian, which Sapir put in one group with a.o. Salish and Wakashan (more about this below). The properties in

17 brackets were added by me. A more elaborate version can be found in Golla (1984).

Table2: Properties of four of Sapir =s groupings of North American languages

Algonkin- -Aleut Nadene Hokan-Siouan Wakashan

morph. polysynthetic polysynthetic polysynthetic agglutinative Typology (field affixing) (recursive) (incorporating and field affixing)

affixation prefix + suffix suffixes prefixes prefixes rather than suffixes

stems inner stem inner stem monosyllabic - modifications & modifications & elements reduplication reduplication & compounding

alignment - (ergative) active-stative active-stative

nouns weak case case - -

adpositions - - postpositions -

stems built up by verbs complex radicals with compounding suffixing (mode, person) derivational elements

Note that all of the properties presented by Sapir are typological, while they are presented as being genetically inherited. Algonquian apparently shares most properties with Salish, Wakashan etc. He has never presented lexical evidence to support this classification, even though it is said that he also had lexical evidence. The Algonkin-Salish-Wakashan-Kutenai grouping is clearly distinct typologically from all the other neighboring families. If we let us guide by archaeology, then the Algonquian homeland is most likely located on the Columbia Plateau. This was suggested by Peter Denny (1989a, 1991), who identified archaeological connections between findings associated with Algonquian speakers with more easterly peoples. He also pointed out some linguistic similarities between Salishan and Algonquian. The languages spoken today on or near the Columbia Plateau are Kutenai, classified as an isolate, Interior Salishan languages and formerly also Nicola, and Athabaskan language. These are the language groupings I will dealt with first. Before doing that, I will have to provide more information about the history of Algonquian.

18

8.1. Archaeology and linguistics: Algonquian, Salish and Kutenai A great deal of work has been done towards the reconstruction of Proto-Algonquian, not only at the lexical level (e.g. Aubin 1975, Hewson 1993), but also at the morphological level, starting with Bloomfield =s famous ASketch @ (1946). While there are a number of controversies, e.g. between Proulx and Goddard (Goddard 1974, 1979, 1983, Proulx 1980, 1982, 1984), historical linguists agree that the independent forms (those with person prefixes and suffixes, see 4.1) are a more recent development compared to the conjunct forms (Goddard 1974: 327, Proulx 1980: 294, Pinnow 1986: 213), but they disagree on the process. The work on Proto-Algonquian by Bloomfield was based on four so-called Central ( Cree, Fox, Menomini, Ojibwe), and specialists disagree whether these reconstructions also cover the so-called Eastern Algonquian languages, and whether the latter constitute a genetic subgrouping or a geographical grouping. An additional challenge is the presence of two languages far removed from the Algonquian area which have been proven to be related to Algonquian. Wiyot and Yurok in California, together constituting the Ritwan languages, have been proven, after a period of controversy, to be related to Algonquian (Goddard 1975; see also Poser 2003), together constituting the Algic family. Against this background, we have to try and see to what extent the suggested reconstructed language and the processes suggested are compatible with the findings on Proto-Algonquian and Proto-Algic. Also we have to look at adjacent languages, notably Kutenai and Salish, to study possible influences.

8.2. The Algonquian homeland There are several established methods to try and find out the original homeland of the speakers of a Proto-language. One is to study reconstructed names for flora and fauna, and try and determine where these animals and plants were found at the time the proto-language was spoken. This method was used by Siebert (1967), who located the homeland around the Great Lakes. Another method is to establish where one finds most variation, based on the assumption (often confirmed empirically) that more recent migrations would show a more homogenous language in the new settlement. This would place the Algonquian homeland either somewhere at the east coast, in Southern New England, where more diversity is found than in the west in the sense that there are many languages with relatively minor territories, or in the far west, where Blackfoot is so deviant from Algonquian languages, that it took a century before a relationship between Blackfoot and Algonquian languages the languages was established (Goddard 1996). This misclassification lasted as long as only vocabularies were available, since the language is lexically quite deviant. Some have even raised doubts about a lexical connection between Blackfoot and Algonquian, or one at a very different and deeper time level than the other languages (Bakker 2000). If one would include the Ritwan languages and the diversity these two languages display with regards to one another and to Algonquian, one would have to suggest California as the homeland for Algonquian, as the Ritwan languages show a fair degree of diversity, and those languages again with Algonquian. Finally, if Pentland (1987) is right in his reconstruction of glottalized consonants for pre-Proto-Algonquian (based on frequency counts of the preaspirated consonants with correlates with articulatory patterns for glottalized consonants),

19 a connection is suggested to the Northwest coast, where glottalized consonants are an areal feature. In short, different methods and interpretations would have placed the Proto-Algonquian homeland on the east coast, the northwest coast, the southwest coast (California) and a central part of North America (the Great Lakes). This may have been the state of the art some fifteen years ago. In the meantime several researchers have added to the knowledge, partly by integrating several homelands in one theory, partly by in-depth studies of historical linguistic developments, partly by integrating linguistics and archaeology.

8.3. Archaeology and linguistics: the search for the homeland Denny (1989a) started a renewed quest for an Algonquian homeland. Interested in the spread of the family he was worried by the observations of some archaeologists. Archaeologists had claimed a presence of speakers of Algonquian languages in the Québec-Labrador peninsula for a period which was incompatible with the date accepted in linguistic circles for the existence of Proto-Algonquian. In addition, he found that a number of reconstructed Proto-Algonquian roots were incompatible with life in an egalitarian society, even though Algonquian societies are typically egalitarian. His study of the archaeological literature led him to the conclusion that the Proto-Algonquian homeland was not located in the Great Lakes area, as was the most widely accepted viewpoint at that time, but to the west, in the Columbia Plateau, where today Kutenai and Salishan languages are spoken. Salishan languages are also spoken on the Pacific coast. Denny also suggested a connection between Salishan languages and Algonquian. Denny also pointed out with regard to the Ritwan languages, that archaeologists have concluded that the speakers came from the North, more specifically from the Columbia Plateau - suggesting a common history for Ritwan and Algonquian in that area (see Foster 1996). As early as 1928, Sapir had already suggested that Algonquian languages were part of a wider grouping he called Almosan, which includes Algonquian, Ritwan, Beothuk of Newfoundland , Kutenai of the Plateau, and three families of the Northwest coast: Wakashan, Salishan and Chemakuan, which together form the Mosan subgroup. All the similarities Sapir had noted were in fact typological similarities (see Table 1 above). Very few people before Denny have pursued research in Sapir =s direction. Berman (1982: 419; quoted in Denny 1989a: 88) has noted Athe similarity of the Proto-Algonquian-Ritwan vowel system to the proto- Salishan vowel system @. Haas (1965) pointed out a number of lexical similarities between Algonquian and Kutenai, including a few regular sound changes, and she included a smaller set of potential cognates linking these two families to Salishan - but apparently not enough to convince anybody since. Denny writes: AThe best way to establish a very ancient relationship between language families is that practiced by Goddard in the Algonquian-Ritwan case: show that there are idiosyncratic morphological identities. If one finds a package of these, they are unlikely to have occurred by chance or borrowing, and therefore are evidence for common descent from an ancestor language. @ Denny provides a few of those between Algonquian and Salishan, and Bakker (2006b) was a more systematic quest for similarities, be it not so much with concrete morphemes as with morphological structures. Before going into these, first a few words on suggested genetic links between Algonquian and Kutenai. Boas (1920) was the first to hint at structural resemblances between Kutenai and

20 Algonquian (Haas 1965: 80). Boas did not consider these similarities as proof for their relationship. The traits he mentioned are: Athe use of instrumentals, which indicate the manner of action as performed with parts of the body, or by other instruments @ (Boas 1920 [1940] 218). These traits are, according to Boas, also found in Uto-Aztecan and Siouan. Further he mentions obviation, shared between Algonkian and Kutenai. The supergroup that Sapir suggested in 1928 with Algonkian-Ritwan, Kutenai and Mosan (Wakashan, Salishan and Chimakuan) remains controversial. Mithun (1999: 306) wrote for instance about the Mosan group: AThe lexical and structural resemblances are now generally attributed to contact @ and Foster (1996: 79) is also negative. Dryer has more recently compared Kutenai and Algonquian in a liited numer of areas: obviation, inverse, , prenouns (Dryer 1992, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006), and the common prefixing patterns for subject prefixes/proclitics, tense and other categories. Dryer (2006) considered them Aunlikely coincidental @ since they are so specific and quirky and surmised that they are Amost likely due to contact @. Dryer (2006) also pointed out that the more general typological characteristics of Kutenai point more strongly to the west, i.e. mostly Salishan and the Northwest coast. This concerns especially phonological properties, but also the absence of genders and evidentials, the presence of numeral classifiers, the position of possessive affixes, order of subject and verb. In short, Kutenai shows typlogical features in common with Algonquian and Salishan and other languages from the Northwest Coast. Bakker (2006b) took up Denny =s suggestion for a linguistic connection between Salishan and Algonquian, and compared structural features and the form of some grammatical roots between Salish and Algonquian, concluding that there was a historical connection, perhaps even a genetic connection, between the two families. A team of geneticists have also studied Denny =s claims of an origin of the Algonquians in the Columbia Plateau (Schultz et al. 2001). They compared mitochondrial DNA in a number of current Salish and Algonquian populations and from a few archaeological sites in the Great Lakes. Their results are not very conclusive. Analysis of haplogroup frequencies shows closer connection between the Nuu-Chah-Nulth and Bella Coola () of the northwest coast with Algonquian groups of the Northeast, whereas Plateau groups cluster together. On the Plateau, current populations appear to be genetic continuations of groups from the archaeological sites studied. One of the archaeological sites in the Great Lakes area (once supposedly the Proto- Algonquian homeland), however, fits genetically with Plateau populations. One site in the Algonquian area (with a small sample size), is of course not enough to prove a movement of a population from the Plateau to a location around the Great Lakes. If these were Proto-Algonquian speakers, they must have imposed its language on local populations which after that expanded through most of the continent. Sapir (1929; pages refer to 1958 reprint) also gave a brief description of the structures of his Algonkian-Wakashan supergrouping: AThe Algonkin-Wakashan languages, too, are Apolysynthetic @ [like Eskimo-Aleut] and, especially as regards Algonkian, inflective; make use of suffixes; to a much less extent, particularly in Algonkian-Ritwan, of prefixes; have important inner stem modifications, including reduplication; have a weak development of case; and illustrate to a marked degree the process of building up noun and verb themes by suffixing to stems local,

21 instrumental, adverbial, and concretely verbalizing elements @ (Sapir 1929 [1958]: 174).

All of these relate to structural-typological similarities, and none to lexical similarities. Comparative linguists consider systematic morphological similarities are the backbone of proof, for example Goddard (250):

AAccordingly, it will be argued that the kinds of similarities which are most valuable for showing genetic inheritance are those which involve details of the morphological structures of the languages. If one finds in two languages what is essentially the same system, with the same internal structure, embedded in their grammars, then it is likely that he criteria for proof can be met. Similarities between lexical stems are much less satisfactory, since individual words are readily borrowed and since each comparison must stand alone and does not have the added impact which it would gain from being part of a system of similarities @

Sapir =s groupings are not accepted by Americanists, including Goddard (1979). Apparently the morphological similarities presented by Sapir are not sufficient to prove a genetic relationship between Algonquian, Kutenai, Salishan and the other languages. Bakker (2006b; summarized above in section 2) outlined the morphological similarities between Salishan and Algonquian and to a lesser extent Kutenai, which he found striking enough to suggest an areal if not genetic connection. For details I refer to that paper. Despite differences especially in phonological aspects, Salishan and Kutenai share a number of traits with Algonquian. Algonquian was originally spoken adjacent to Mosan languages and Kutenai. on the Plateau, and also the Ritwan languages were spoken there. The similarities between Ritwan and Algonquian are universally accepted to be genetic, whereas the similarities between Algonquian, Salish and Kutenai (and Wakashan and Chimakuan) are generally at most suggested to be due to diffusion, if linked at all. The fact that so many languages from many (but by no means all) in North America and relatively few elsewhere are, suggests that polysynthesis as a pattern diffused from one family to another. One the other hand, polysynthetic languages do not form a homogenous group. If Sapir and Boas are right that morphological diffusion does not exist as a wholesale process (except in cases as discussed in 4.2.4, I like to add), then we have to assume that Salish and Algonquian are genetically related rather than through contact diffusion. In this paper I have presented some lexical similarities, and the beginnings of phonological regularities. There will not be a sufficient number of them to convince skeptical readers. That is not surprising, given the time depth involved. But with the additional morphological similarities, it is becoming increasingly likely that Salish and Algonquian and some other west coast families indeed form a genetic grouping.

22 References Andersen, Henning. 1987. From auxiliary to desinence. In: M.B. Harris & P. Ramat (eds.) Historical Development of Auxiliaries . Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 21-51.

Aubin, George. 1975. A Proto-Algonquian dictionary . (Canadian Ethnology Service Paper No 29. Mercury Series). : National Museums of Man.

Bakker, Peter. 2000. Rapid language change: creolization, intertwining, convergence. In C. Renfrew, A. McMahon, R.L. Trask (eds.), Time Depth in . Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research ( Papers in the Prehistory of Languages ). 585- 620.

Bakker, Peter. 2006a. The Sri Lanka : the newcomers Portuguese and Malay. Linguistic areas. Convergence in Historical and Typological Perspective , edited by Yaron Matras, April McMahon & Nigel Vincent. Houndmills Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.135- 159.

Bakker, Peter. 2006b. Algonquian verb structure: Plains Cree. In: Grazyna Rowicka & Eithne Carlin (eds.) What’s in a verb? . (LOT Occasional Series 5). Utrecht: LOT. 3-27. Online: http://lotos.library.uu.nl/publish/articles/000151/bookpart.pdf

Bakker, Peter. 2006c. Algonquian-Ritwan, (Kutenai) and Salish: proving a distant genetic relationship. University of Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 1-32.

Bakker, Peter. Forthcoming. Response to van Eijk: more arguments for an Algonquian-Salish connection. Ms.

Berman, Howard. 1982. Two phonological innovations in Ritwan. International Journal of American Linguistics 48: 412-420.

Berman, Howard. 1990. New Algonquian-Ritwan cognate sets. International Journal of American Linguistics 56(3): 431-434.

Berman, Howard. 2003. An archaic pattern of initial change in Yurok. International Journal of American Linguistics 69(2): 229-231.

Boas, Franz. 1911. Handbook of American Indian languages . , D.C.: Government Printing Office. [Reprinted in F. Boas & J.W. Powell, Introduction to Handbook of American Indian Languages plus Indian Linguistic Families of America North of Mexico , edited by Preston Holder. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1966]

Boas, Franz. 1920. The classification of American languages. American Anthropologist 22: 367-

23 76 [reprinted in , Race, language, and Culture , , 1940, 211-218]

Crawfurd, John (1828) [1967]: Journal of an embassy to the courts of Siam and Cochin China. [1967 edition: Singapore: Oxford University Press].

Czaykowska-Higgins, Eva & M. Dale Kinkade. 1998. Salish languages and linguistics. In: E. Czaykowska-Higgins & M. Dale Kinkade. (Eds.). 1998. Salish languages and linguistics. Theoretical and Descriptive Perspectives: 1-68 . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Denny, J. Peter. 1989. The nature of polysynthesis in Algonquian and Eskimo. Pp. 230-258 in Theoretical Perspectives on Native American Languages . Donna B. Gerdts & Karin Michelson, eds. New York: State University of New York Press.

Denny, Peter. 1991. The Algonquian migration from Plateau to Midwest: linguistics and archaeology. In: William Cowan (ed.): Papers of the Twenty-Second Algonquian Conference: 103-124. Ottawa: Carleton University.

Dryer, Matthew S. 1992. A comparison of the obviation systems of Kutenai and Algonquian. In: Papers of the Twenty-Third Algonquian Conference , edited by William Cowan, pp. 119-163.

Dryer, Matthew S. 1994. The discourse function of the Kutenai inverse. In: T. Givón (Ed.), Voice and Inversion (pp. 65-99). Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.

Dryer, Matthew S. 1998. Obviation across clause boundaries. Studies in Native American Linguistics , ed. by John Kytle, Hangyoo Khym & Supath Kooikiattikon. Special issue of Kansas Working papers in Linguistics 22(2): 33-51.

Fortescue, Michael. 1994. Morphology, polysynthetic. In: R. Asher (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2601-2602). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Fortescue, Michael. 1998. Language Relations Across Bering Strait. Reappraising the Archaeological and Linguistic Evidence . London/New York: Cassel.

Fortescue, Michael. 2006. Drift and the grammaticalization divide between Northern and Southern Wakashan. International Journal of American Linguistics 72(3): 295: 324.

Fortescue, Michael. 2006ms.

Goddard, Ives. 1982

Goddard, Ives. 1983. The Eastern Algonquian subordinative mode an the importance of morphology. International Journal of American Linguistics 49(4): 351-387.

24 Goddard, Ives. 1994. The west-to-east cline in Algonquian dialectology. In: W. Cowan (ed.): Actes du Vingt-Cinquième Congrès des Algonquinistes: 187-211.

Golla, Victor (ed.) 1984 The Sapir-Kroeber Correspondence: Letters Between and A. L. Kroeber, 1905-1925 . Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, Report No. 6. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley.

Green, Ian. 1995. The death of >prefixing =: contact-induced typological chnage in northern Australia. Proceedings of the Berkley Linguistic Society , Vol 21, 1995: 414-425.

Greenberg, Joseph. 1963. CHK Greenberg, Joseph H. 1977. Niger-Congo noun class markers: prefixes, suffixes, both or neither. Studies if African Linguistics, Supplement 7: 97-104.

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978. How does language acquire gender markers? In: J. H. Greenberg et al. (eds.) Universals of Human Language , Vol. 4, pp. 47--82.

Haas, Mary. 1965. Is Kutenai related to Algonkian? Canadian Journal of Linguistics 10(2/3): 77- 92.

Haas, Mary. 19XX. Grammar or lexicon? The American Indian side of the question from Duponceau to Powell. International Journal of American Linguistics 35: 239-255.

Harris, Alice C. 200X. Law and order: establishing and maintaining morpheme order through change.

Harris, Alice C. 2004-2005. Establishing and maintaining morpheme order through change. In: W. Østreng (ed.) Convergence. Interdisciplinary Communications 2004-2005: 139-142.

Harris, Alice C. & Jan Terje Faarlund. 2006. Trapped morphology. Journal of Linguistics (2006), 42: 289-315.

Harvey, Mark, Ian Green and Rachel Nordlinger. 2006. From Prefixes to Suffixes: Typological Change in Northern Australia. Diachronica 23 (2): 289-311.

Haspelmath, Martin.1993. The diachronic externalization of inflection. Linguistics 31.2: 279- 309.

Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. How hopeles is geneaological linguistics, and how advanced is areal linguistics? Studies in Language 28(1): 209-233.

Heine, Bernd & Tanya Kuteva. 2005. Language Contact and Grammatical Change . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

25

Hewson, John. 1993. A Computer-Generated Dictionary of Proto-Algonquian dictionary . (Canadian Ethnology Service Mercury Series Paper 125). Ottawa: Canadian Museum of Civilization.

Hopper, Paul & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hymes, Dell. 1956a. Na- and Positional Analysis of Categories. American Anthropologist , New Series, Vol. 58, No. 4 (Aug., 1956), pp. 624-638 Hymes, D. H. . 1956b. Positional analysis of categories: a framework for reconstruction. Word 11:10-23.

Le Roux, Pierre (1998): To Be or Not to Be Y The Cultural Identity of the Jawi (Thailand). Asian Folklore Studies 57 (2), pp 223-255.

Li, Charles. 1983. Languages in contact in western China.

Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60: 847-894.

Mithun, Marianne. 1986. On the nature of noun incorporation. Language 62: 62-67..

Mithun, Marianne. 1997. Lexical affixes and morphological typology. Essays on Language Function and Language Type . John Haiman, Joan Bybee, and Sandra Thompson, eds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.357-372.

Marianne. , Marianne. 1999. The languages of Native North America . Cambridge: CUP.

Mithun, Marianne. 2000. The reordering of morphemes. Reconstructing Grammar: Comparative Linguistics and Grammaticalization . Spike Gildea, ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 231-255.

Mithun, Marianne. 2003.Why prefixes? Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50:1-31. Special issue Preverbs and prefixes , edited by Ferenc Kiefer and Wolfgang Dressler.

Mithun, Marianne. 2004. AUnborrowable @ areal traits. Paper presented at the Linguistic Association of Great Britain, August 2004.

Mithun, Marianne. In press. Integrating approaches to diversity: Argument structure on the Northwest Coast. Diversity in Language . Yoshiko Matsumoto, David Oshima, Orrin Robinson, and Peter Sells (eds.). Stanford: CSLI (Center for the Study of Language and Information).

Nater, Hank. 1994. The Athapaskan component of Nuxalk. International Journal of American Linguistics 60(2): 177-190.

26

Nichols, Johanna. 1971. Diminutive consonant symbolism in Western North America. Language 47(4): 826-848.

Pentland, David H. 2006. Algonquian and Ritwan languages. In: K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 161-166. Elsevier.

Poser, William J. 2003. On the end of the Ritwan controversy. http://www.billposer.org/Papers/oerc.pdf

Rhodes, Richard A. & David J. Costa. 2003. The history of Algonquian number words. In: Essays in Algonquian, Catawban and Siouan Linguistics in Memory of Frank T. Siebert, edited by Blair A. Rudes & David J. Costa. Winnipeg: Algonquian and Iroquoian Linguistics. 181-215.

Ross, Malcolm. 2006. Metatypy. In Keith Brown, ed., Encyclopedia of language and linguistics . 2nd edition, 8: 95-99. Oxford: Elsevier.

Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language An Introduction to the Study of Speech . CHK

Sapir, Edward. 1929. Central and North American languages. Encyclopædia Britannica , 14 th edition, 5: 128-140. Reprinted in D. Mandelbaum (1949, ed.): Selected Writings of Edward Sapir. Berkeley: University of California Press. 169-178.

Schultz, Beth A. Ripan S. Malhi & David G. Smith: 2001 Examining the Proto-Algonquian Migration: Analysis of mtDNA. In: John D. Nichols (ed.), Papers of the Thirty-second Algonquian Conference/ Actes du Vingt-Cinquième Congrès des Algonquinistes, , 470-492. Winnipeg: University of .

Siebert, Frank T., Jr. 1967. The original home of the Proto-Algonquian people. Pp. 13-47 in Contributions to Anthropology: Linguistics, I (Algonquian). Anthropological Series 78, National Museum of Canada Bulletin 214. Ottawa: National Museum of Canada.

Wurm, S.A.. 1996. The. Wutun. Language. In: Atlas of Languages of Inter-cultural Communication in the Pacific, Asia and the Americas, ed. by Stephen A. Wurm, Peter Mühlhäusler & Darrell T. Tryon. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

27