Final Glottalization in Barbareiio Chumash and Its Neighbors* Tsuyoshi Ono, Suzanne Wash, and Marianne Mithun University of , Santa Barbara

0. Introduction Final glottalization in Barbarefio Chumash appears in a variety of environments which include reduplication, imperative, and emphasis. l Interestingly, we have found that final glottalization occurs in similar environments in neighboring languages which include Uto-Aztecan, , and Yuman languages. Below, we will present final glottalization data from Barbarefio and report the results of a small survey of the functions of final glottalization in neighboring languages. We hope our paper will stimulate discussion and further investigation by interested individuals.

1. Data Barbarefio data come from microfilms of ' s manuscripts. Barbarefio transcription has been regularized because Harrington used a variety of symbols for individual segments over the course of his work. The data for other languages are taken from published sources such as grammars and dictionaries. We have generally retained the transcriptions of the sources.

2. Barbareiio Chumash Final Glottalization In this section, we will present final glottalization data from Barbarefio Chumash. We will first discuss its phonetic

*We would like to thank Dale Kinkade, Margaret Langdon, Herb Luthin, Amy Miller and Mauricio Mixco for sharing with us their expertise on the languages they have worked on. Our work on Barbarefio Chumash has been made possible by grant BNS90-11018 from the National Science Foundation. l~inalglottalization probably appears in similar environments in other Chumash languages. For instance, all the environments described in this paper are reported in Inesefio (Applegate 1972). Final glottalization is also found with transitivization and nominalization in Barbarefio. Interestingly, these other uses also seem to be shared by neighboring languages. This awaits for future investigation. 2~hemicrofilms were kindly made available to us by the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. al ** d m A (dal % c, C -4 Oc,C % Ck c,c, al m -4 O3 -4P =d al al C E C c, 0.4 03 6 al . -a EI m-rl azr( ma: c rdc, m k (d-4 *c, N C C-4 C U Od0 al U (d-4 al c,c, am* rd m-4 o N d -4 w hmd 0s rd ad+' msa+, 4J CO k @.4d (ddw m rd id ard tnd C k.4 r c, 3c, Cal C -4 0 tn a, c a-4 kc, alw m al X m -4 -4 w al kw . . k5 WkdO ~$4-c 3U4J C0 u.rlld ob) ';ldEal U m-4 3mm 0 Oc, m -4 3 E m al c,-4 m m al N orlad U kc, m ale4 k ac c C k-4 - 3C U 3rd C c, -4 $8"8 wxw 0 U 4J X hQ) 0 -4 al aln m 4 rd Wal% sun al m alU 3:iC 0 dm c LI a k-4 Id alCd gc,k Z22& rlc,c, a a m al (d a 3 E u m al E al orla alalrd nc al cadal C alC 0SJw 0 a4k m mc,

m m r d k rd - rdrl 3 m C L . c,rd om m -4 u al C (d '8 s c,c,04J 0~rd dR -4 C c, m d 0 h 4 c, al Q) m Id k FI ld C E -4 d al Pd ODd-I(d - rdc 4J -4 al a m ~rle3 0 U C k rd (d rd@ m C a . c, 3.4 3 -4 E d -4 0 rn~durn u4 al C - @ -4 c, (d c, 3 A cdalam rdcdm al -4. Ah "Yt C (d s kc- ~m ul 4J 0 CmC aN '44 -4 al E -4 r 0 alal~0m*CE w c ao-4 al 0.4 Uwc, ald 4J d Q)OC (d c .ria4J ma+,nc,d-4 Cal a a, al m alc, al E al C C N-rl (d rdc al m al -4 k c, k 0 -4 4 4 d N c, c, 3 :Ah 00 0) w .I. E$ 0. C kdad-4 (d w m -4 m w a- o E k rd~hd c b (d -4 aid -4rdrd4Jrdmrdal 0 -4 I d 4J muc, 4Jd a c,- Iad m (d Id (dm 0 ac, tn c, N (d ~4 o m ~d tn -4 4 (d C al 0 6 (d -c: a al -4 -4 -4 -4mc,(drlc r 3* w rl dk d mcd la -4 Q\ k (docmal m 4~ v sd $4 01 k 0 c ac al 44 N c, 3 al c, 0.4~arc m m 8 rd -a .rlw c,u-rls.rlLI rd m m k .(d (do a al I-4 8 4; ~CIE a@ al al m al 0 Cc,c,d-4 C al Erc mmX c, C k d dad c,-4 k 4J Nrd Am c, al mc-rl ala CW+J h 0 3 aln 8 ok~rlalm c 4J 4J C al dmrd~3 0) n. (d C B.4 0 9) alW- k 0 -4 (d sm! :a C -4 4J C -4 al (d GO m3~+,0 al tE @c: a -4 -4 U al c, rd W al . - A0 WC m~ w U Wk E 9) \;a al c, 04J al c, 0 w E -a, Ud al C c, d L k 0 k 3C-4 C -4 (d c, -4 mrd m k.2, m E n E? ardmal ua-4 "t Q) 0 04 N N \3 d 3--4CX OW- @(d al (d -dE cd ca u c, \3 Q ol \3 N n10alal3-4 Q) L9 gal30 E '#-0 -d %5 al al c m 5 \Y & x -4um3d al k mad C +, (d C C C C k-ddOrQahE w C E m.. (d m 4J rd c, -4 3 9 2 3 \3 Uc,(d~dalrdO - -4 m k X A X X mk. d+JEtn 4J -4 -4 c rl m m 0 C k drd M m . m a- as dam al C (d t(d \a-4 Nc, alm uo -4 a rd a-4 h-4 m h C C C N (d -4 N -4 m q k CmUCn 20 k0(d.4 -4 m N el c,rda)o 00 a c, m rl .. k.4 c, m-da -4 c, C 4 -4 m -4 ,-,a m ld (d h No Eil- rl 3.4 (dd -4 kn N a I a cwalc,rnmc,al c, ald \o mc c k m la PY pLL oosardrda-4 u QN*. z' %, c, H.4d -4C C Nal xc, al C II A& C C 5 5 al-4 m - c, 0 %'8 .4 mal k alkd Cdal N B (d W C S L) .4 g ,a w 3 3 a a a Gk ualuua rnrdm - V) 24 m al Id 4J k -43 *tnC3tnEi C, 0 o kc, a~c,c,c o +,a kU(d C U k(dO(d d(dU (Y Ok al al r; d 3 CC C 3 01 rdalQkEalkU C; EI B ow (Y k mw mc,owc, (d ma 3- Neighbors -Mono Languages from three distinct language families, which are Mono, another Numic language, seems to use final neighbors of Barbarefio, exhibit similar uses of final qlottalization to indicate emphasis: glottalization. In this section, we will present data from these languages. (6) Emphasis (Lamb 1958:220-221) cam ' good ' cam' 'very good8 3.1- Uto-Aztecan PY~Y 'after a while8 pyty' 'pretty soon' We first examine data from Uto-Aztecan languages from several different branches of the family. Final glottalization seems to have some intensification function in Tiibatulabal, which by itself makes up a separate subgroup of the Uto-Aztecan family: In Kawaiisu, a Ndclanguage, final glottalization is used to mark imperative^:^ (7) Iterative (Distributive) (Voegelin 1935:llO-111) (5) Imperatives (Zigmondet al. 1990:35) atatdaha 'it bursts open' a'tatda*" 'they (pl.subj.) burst open8 naakee- 'to hear8 XtXbXha 'it breaks8 XOtXba e 8 'it broke in many places' ka2a-tii - kalati2i-ni eat -CAUS- feed:MOM=me XtXtdXha 'it is sawed up' x0t~dx.8 'the sticks (p1.sub-j.) got sawed up8 'to feed8 'Feed me 1 ' -ye=- magatii-gwe2e atsabaha 'it is torn' 'go In order to' feed -go:to:MOM a'tsaba*" 'it got torn in many places8 'Go feed it18 a amaha 'tree is felled (through an impersonal agent)' a08ama."' 'the trees (pl.subj.) got felled (in the wind)'

Voegelin uses the terms 'iterative', but the term 'distributive' seems to capture the function betterO6 Notice in these pairs ( .. .continued) restricted to verbs, and final glottalization is the sole segmental indicator of this function, facts that suggest that final glottalization has become part of the verbal morphology. he following data are also given by Lamb (1958:220-221), Finally, in the third use, final glottalization accompanies which suggests that glottalizationmay not necessarily be on the reduplication: it occurs with nouns and does not have independent final syllable: status as a meaningful marker. In other words, its occurrence is an automatic consequence of noun reduplication. This may kywapaah '.beside' kywa'paah 'beside (and very close to)' indicate that final glottalization is more fully integrated into the morphology than in the case of imperative. ma -ni -hi mani ' hi that-like-DEM 'just like that' 4~igmondet al. (1990:96) also give the following set of 'like that8 data where the addition of glottal can be said to indicate some type of intensification. Zigmond et ale treat it as the 6~roeberand Grace (1960:138) present the following set of momentaneous aspect and the position of the glottal is not on the data from Luiseiio, a Takic language (another branch of Uto- final syllable: Aztecan). Though they describe these data in terms of pluralization, it looks very much like the distributive use of yozi- 'to fly8 y020Ei- 'to jump8 final glottalization in Tiibatulabal: 2aga-zi-ki- 'to be a light8 2alaka-ci2i-ki- 'to be a flashing light8 (continued...) that final glottalization is accompanied by lengthening and (10) Imperatives (Langacker 1977~54-55) stress as in Barbareiio.

Similar examples are found for , a Takic language: paxa -ni -' e -'as (8) Accompaniment to reduplication (Anderton 1988~59,61) enter-CAUS-Im your-pet '$ la-mukpi 'his nose8 la-mu-mukpi? 'points of land8 hayhazy ' bird sp. ' huyhuly 'bird spa8 caycaZy 'bird sp. Imperative glotta Lso appears in Cupefio, another Takic ' language: * Though there are no simplex forms for the last three examples, the pattern is still very suggestive. In fact, these forms may (Hill 1966: 164) never have had simplex counterparts; the final glottalization could have been due to an analogy to regular reduplicated forms 5laca 'clean8 y61aci2 'clean (it)lf which may also have had automatic final glottalization. Sla ' snip ' cSli? 'Snip (it)18 #dwa 'be holle: kw6wya? 'hollerl' Kitanemuk also shows the imperative use of final -I.3----m glottalization: 11aya ' speak Luiseiio8 aya r 'Speak Luisefio18

(9) Imperative (Anderton 1988~698)

wiroy y instr.' w. i imp. This may not be a very productive process because it is the only example we found in the source. 01 ne Yo1ruts 1.anguage, Wikchanmi, u mark i~nperat :ives : Cahuilla, another Takic language, shows the imperative use: 'to sink8 ti2il 'sinkl' 'to stay' $aka? 'stay overnight18 'to urinate' cutu? 'urinate18

( .. .continued ) koti 'cover itl' ~tlli cover them 1 hol 'spread it8 ~llli spread them- Finally, one Yuman language, Dieguefio, uses final glottalization to mark imperativr--

hu-yaki 'pull out two8 hG-i?i/hu-ylli?'pull1 them c>ut, up' hu-yaq 'is left over, exceeds '

'A 'A closely related language exhilbits eIn intriguing pattern where the glottal seems r;o De moved to cneL. end to form ill ( 1966: 164) also gives the fvrrvwing data, which show imperatives (Hill 1967:217): that glottalization is nut always on the final syllable. According to her, the position depends on the verb class: Ei'a EiA8 'pick it up!' pi: 'a pig:' 'throw itl' kGpa 'sleep' kG?pa 'sleep1 ' cdgpala 'mend' cdgpalala 'mend!' (13) Imperatives (Langdon1970~74) A forth possibility is chance. First of all, Langacke~ (1977~54)states that the imperative suffix fi is attested -a* 'to go' ka? imp. both Northern and Southern branches of the Uto-Aztecan fami: -. k this -mi 'to cry' kami? imp. the two divisions of the family. eems possible to --' - morpheme was ?to-languag it has resulted simple final ntion throu e reduction of t 4. Possible Explanations the Uto-Azte~arr~a~~y~crges we discussru above. Similarly, some Yokuts languages includingWikchamni sc use a glottal suffix to mark the future tense (Newman 1944) Thus we have seen that the intensification funcz~onor final to be co~o~ glottalization in Barbarefio is shared by neighboring languages semantic change from future to imperative seems from distinct families. ~here'couldbe four possible cross-linguistically. These facts can suggest that Uto-Aztc explanations for this phenomenon. A first possibility is cc and Yokuts may have independently developedthe intensifyinc genetic inheritance. However, Chumash, Yokuts, Uto-Aztecan, arru final glottalization, and thus the similarity among the languages of thes;e twoI families may be due to chance. Yuman are all separate families. A further grouping has not been ut to successful. Hc bwever-, even if the scenarios given above turn o be n Rarl A second possibility is a universalhuman propensity. It correct:, we still have to account for the situations i,, ,,,barefic seems reasonable to entertain the idea that human vocalization and Dieguefio, especially the former, which uses the fi s that naturally involves glottalizationin its expressive modes. That glottalization extensively. Here we should remind our - is, glottalization may be produced naturally when humans are the segment in question, , is rather small vocalizing in certain expressive (or excited) modes. It is not cross-linguistically suchsegments as /k/, /q/, and /h 1 impossible that this could lead to the grammaticization of reduced to it over time. If this type of sound change glottalization to encode intensification. for the Barbarefio and Dieguefio cases, we should see si This suggestion would predictthat the type of morphemes we morphemes in many languages. However, as we noted above described above should thenbe common in languages of the world. regarding the universal human propensity possibility,this does However, our informal survey of other Native American languages not seem to be the case. This fact thus may also suggest that the phenomenon we found may not be simply due to chance. Thus we does not seem to support thi=- r*w.n-diction. That is, though there are some languages which hav,e the same kind of morphemes, they are again left with the fascinating concentration of languages in Santa Barbara and its surrounding area allof which seem to use are still not very common and the:re is certainly nothing like the A much kind of concentration of lanYuayes-.. - --. which we discussed above. final glottalization forthe intensification function. A third possibility is contact. There are several points more in depth investigation will be necessary to evaluate all which should be made here. First of all, these languages are all these facts and possibilities fully. spoken in a relatively small area and, in fact, contact among the Finally, Margaret Langdon (p.c.) reminds us of the speakers of these languages has been amply demonstrated (Heizer possibility of more than one factor responsible for the sharing 1978). It is especially noteworthy that, compared with these of features among languages. Accordingly, the glottalization groups, Barbarefio had a relatively small amount of contact with could have originated inone family as the result of natural its northern neighbor, andthat we did not find any expressive tendencies or phonological reduction,then spread relevant patterns in Salinan. An incompleteness of the Salinan through contact. We hope what we have presented in this paper database is probably not the reason for this because the main will stimulate discussions and furtherinvestigations by portion of the Salinan data was collected by Harrington in 1920s interested scholars. and 1930s. By that time, he was quite familiar with the grammars of Chumash languages. If he had found anything similar in Salinan, he would not have missed it. References Another pertinent fact comes from the Yuman : Anderton, Alice J. 1988. The language of the Kitanemuks of Dieguefio, which uses final glottalization to mark ;QLIVC?S, is spoken in the most northern part of the Yuman speaking area, the fl?lifornia. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, closest among many Yuman languages to the languages in this 1s Angeles. paper. These facts regarding Salinan and Dieguefio may point to A1 ~te,Richard B. 1972. Inesefio Chumash grammar. Ph.D. contact as the ultimate factor. However, Mauricio Mixco (p.c.) -,ssertation, University of California, Berkeley. has pointed out that Kiliwa, another Yuman language spoken in Gamble, Geoffrey. 1978. Wikcharnni grammar. UCPL89. Mexico, also uses ylottalization in similar environments. Harrington, John P. (nod.) Manuscript materials of linguistic anc ~ntriguingly,Mauricio Mixco also has pointed out that Dieguefio ethnographic work among the Chumash. Kraus Microfilm and Kiliwa are the only Yuman languages which have this feature Edition. Vo1.3. Reel 33. Smithsonian Institution, National and that the migration history of the speakers of these languages Anthropological Archives, Washington, D.C. is not very clear. Heizer, Robert. F. (ed.) 1978. California. Handbook of North American Indians. Vo1.8. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Hill, Jane H. 1966. A grammar of the Cupeiio language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Pngeles. Hill, Kenneth C. 1967. A grammar of the . Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Kroeber, A. L. and George W - :e. 19" -he Sparkman grammar of Luisefio. UCPL16. Lamb, Sydney M. 1958. Mono ar. Ph issertation, University of California, Berkele,. Langacker, Ronald W. 1977. An overview of Uto-Aztecan grammar. Studies in Uto-Aztecan grammar. Vol.1. Dallas: Summer Institute of . Langdon, Margaret. 1970. A grammar of DiegueAo: The Mesa Grande dialect. UCPL66. Newman, Stanley. 1944. of California. New York: The Viking Fund. Voegelin Charles F. 1935. T Labal grammar. UCPAAE34r55-190. Zigmond, Maurice L., Curtis 30th and Pamela Munro. 1990. Kawaiisu: A grammar and dictionary with texts. UCPL119.