Evaluating Proposals of Language Genealogical Relationship the Beck-Wichmann-Brown (Bwb) System

Language Dynamics and Change 7 (2017) 252–285

brill.com/ldc

Evaluating proposals of language genealogical relationship The Beck-Wichmann-Brown (bwb) system

Cecil H. Brown Northern Illinois University [email protected]

Abstract

In an endeavor to objectify and provide uniformity to the comparative method of historical linguistics, this study describes the Beck-Wichmann-Brown (bwb) system for evaluating lexical sets assembled as evidence for proposals of language genealogical relationship. The approach quantitatively assesses the degree of support that collections of comparative sets provide for proposals, with regard to whether or not observed lexical similarity exceeds coincidental expectation. bwb is illustrated through application to an assemblage of 51 comparative sets compiled by Pache (2016) for the affiliation of Pumé and Chocoan languages of South America. This study presents and ranks bwb quantitative results for 65 language comparisons (of global distribution) and pro- poses a framework for interpreting ranked findings. Evaluations for the 65 comparisons are compared with those provided by three online classifications of the world’s languages.

Keywords comparative method – distant genetic relationship – historical linguistics – language classification – language families – Swadesh basic vocabulary

1 Introduction

The comparative method of historical linguistics compiles evidence in support of the genealogical relatedness of languages. This evidence typically consists of words from compared languages that are similar in sound and meaning, i.e.,

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/22105832-00702003Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 03:44:14AM via free access evaluating proposals of language genealogical relationship 253 lexical lookalikes. If matched words are not only similar but also attest to regular sound correspondences, the words may be cognate, i.e., inherited from a common ancestral language. If cognate, compared languages are genealogically affiliated.1 While the comparative method has been in use for at least two centuries, the approach is not without problems. Particularly vexing is the identification of cognates. No widely-shared protocol is available for distinguishing those lexical lookalikes that are probable cognates from those explained by factors other than common ancestry, such as borrowing, universal tendencies, and chance. Another issue is lack of a standard for deciding whether or not a collection of potential cognates is of sufficient strength to demonstrate relatedness. Kessler (2001: 1) succinctly summarizes the situation:

When a linguist has finished compiling lists of correspondences between languages, there remains the problem of judging whether the amount of evidence is strong enough to prove that the languages are historically connected […] yet there is no commonly agreed upon method for doing so. Linguists looking at the same data can come up with widely differing appraisals as to whether the case for historical connection has been proved or not.

This paper describes the Beck-Wichmann-Brown (bwb) system for evaluating lexical evidence. bwb provides a rigorous quantitative approach for identify- ing likely cognates and for appraising the strength of collections of potential cognates as support for language relationship. This is the first such standard to be advanced in the long history of comparative linguistics, the broad adoption of which has the potential to render the comparative method compatible with 21st-century norms of scientific inquiry.

2 The Beck-Wichmann-Brown (bwb) system

First described in Brown, Wichmann, and Beck (2014), bwb facilitates evaluation of comparative sets of lexical items by quantitatively distinguishing sets showing similarities more likely explained by chance from those less likely.

1 This is not the only approach to assessing relationship. Grammatical similarities, especially morphological patterns, are used as well, but this strategy is not addressed in this essay.

Language Dynamics and Change 7 (2017) 252–285 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 03:44:14AM via free access 254 brown

Application of the approach results in culling weaker sets from an assemblage of comparative sets, often leaving a smaller collection, but one whose similarities are more likely due to historical connection2 than to coincidence.3 Development of bwb came about in response to the work of Lyle Campbell, who for decades has challenged evidence compiled for proposals of language relatedness where the languages compared were not previously known to be genealogically associated—referred to by Campbell as proposals of “distant genetic relationship” (dgr). Campbell wisely advises that lexical similarities of assembled comparative sets are sometimes more likely due to coincidence, universal tendencies, borrowing, or other factors than to phylogenetic kinship (e.g., Campbell, 1973, 1988, 1995, 1997, 2011; Campbell and Poser, 2008). Campbell’s approach is exemplified by his review (Campbell, 2011) of The Dene-Yeniseian Connection (Kari and Potter, 2010), especially in comments directed at a contribution by Vajda (2010), who assembles evidence for the genealogical affiliation of Na-Dene languages of the New World and Yeni- seian languages of the Old World. In addition to grammatical evidence, Vajda presents 103 comparative sets supporting sound correspondences attesting to the relationship. Campbell (2011) points out that many, if not most of the comparative sets are deficient with respect to one or more of his criteria for judging a set’s convincingness; these shortcomings include loose semantic latitude, shortness of form, unexplained phonological residue, and so on. His evaluation is:

In sum, the majority of the proposed cognates are problematic, challenged on the basis of standard criteria for investigating proposals of distant genetic relationship. The remaining forms are not sufficient in number to support conclusions about sound correspondences. The lexical comparisons do not warrant the assumption of a genetic relationship between Yeniseian and Na-Dene. 2011: 448

2 “Historical connection” in this study refers to both language contact (diffusion/borrowing) and genealogical affiliation (inheritance). 3 The idea for the bwb approach originated with David Beck, and its initial development involved equal contributions from Beck, Søren Wichmann, and Cecil H. Brown. As originally conceived, the method was designed for vetting individual comparative sets in the process of assembling lexical evidence for a proposal (Brown, Wichmann, and Beck, 2014). The idea of applying the system to evaluation of pre-existing proposals, as done in this study, originated mostly with the present author, as have some changes from the original bwb recommendations described and used in this study.

Language Dynamics andDownloaded Change from 7 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2017) 252–285 03:44:14AM via free access evaluating proposals of language genealogical relationship 255

In introducing bwb, Brown et al. (2014) argue that Campbell’s approach to this and other dgr proposals is much too severe to be considered the final word on their convincingness or lack thereof. They agree that little support would remain for proposed sound correspondences if all of Vajda’s sets found deficient by Campbell’s criteria were eliminated from the supportive body of lexical evidence. The weakness of Campbell’s approach is that some comparative sets may be challenged by one of his criteria but may be considered stronger when judged by some other criterion or criteria. Such sets should not be summar- ily dismissed for a single negative when offset by one or more positives. For example, a set might compare words that are short, but, nonetheless, show the same glosses (translation equivalence); or a set might not show translation equivalence but, nonetheless, compare words attesting to three or more sound correspondences; or a set may exhibit unexplained phonological residue in matching but show no evidence of onomatopoeia, and so on. Such combi- nations of strengths and weaknesses should be taken into consideration when evaluating the persuasiveness of dgr proposals. bwb employs a judicious balance of different criteria for assessing the quality of comparative sets used in the construction of genealogical proposals. It does not incorporate all criteria cited by Campbell, but does include those that appear consistently to be most relevant for evaluating lexical similarity.The criteria used are also of such a nature that decisions concerning their pertinence to comparative sets should be reasonably obvious to most informed scholars, which makes the system both simple to apply and replicable. In the system, comparative sets earn points for the presence of features that can be cited in support of cognation. For example, a set with compared words showing translation equivalence (te) will earn points, while a set lacking te receives no points for this feature. In addition, points are earned by sets showing lack of potential influence of onomatopoeia, by those showing no unexplained segmental residue in matching, and for the degree to which sets involve sound correspondences. The specifics of assigning points to a set are:

2 points: For each sound correspondence 2 points: For translation equivalence 1 point: For lack of potential onomatopoeia 1 point: For lack of unexplained, unmatched phonological segments

Language Dynamics and Change 7 (2017) 252–285 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 03:44:14AM via free access 256 brown

2.1 Point assignment Guidelines for point assignment are as follows.

2.1.1 Sound correspondences Two sound segments correspond when they occur in corresponding positions in cognate words. For example, K’iche’ raʃ ‘green’ and Huastec jaʃ ‘green’ are cognate words since both are descendant forms of a word for ‘green’ in their common ancestral language, Proto-Mayan (Mesoamerica). Correspond- ing sounds in this example are r ~ j, a ~ a, and ʃ ~ ʃ. A sound correspondence is apparent when corresponding sounds occur in at least two comparative sets for genealogically related languages. (Sound correspondences typically occur in more than two comparative sets, and for bwb, recognition must occur in at least three comparative sets; see Section 2.2). For example, r ~ j is also attested by K’iche’war ‘sleep’/Huastec waj ‘sleep’ and by K’iche’ ra:h ‘spicy’/Huastec jah- ‘spicy.’ Sound correspondences result from historical changes in the sounds of languages. For example, the r ~ j correspondence is the product of a Proto- Mayan sound segment, *r, that developed in different ways in the daughter languages (Campbell, 1999: 125), being maintained as r in K’iche’ and shifting to j in Huastec.4 Evidence assembled in support of genealogical relationship for two or more languages may or may not include sound correspondences. When it does not, a comparative set will not earn points for this feature. When it does, if correspondences are clearly presented, it is usually a straightforward matter to determine how many correspondences pertain to a comparative set, and how many points are earned accordingly.

2.1.2 Translation equivalence A great challenge for the comparative method is distinguishing meanings of compared words that are usual for cognates from those that are not. Schol- ars agree that meanings of cognates are typically either identical or similar. Unfortunately, no consensus exists on what constitutes semantic similarity. Only rarely do comparative studies specify precise criteria for judging meanings of compared words to be similar. In the bwb system, recognition of translation equivalence (te) attempts to objectify the treatment of semantics in comparative analysis. Matched words are awarded 2 points if assigned glosses show identity or near-identity. Ideally,

4 For more general discussion of sound correspondences, consult Brown, Holman, and Wich- mann (2013).

Language Dynamics andDownloaded Change from 7 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2017) 252–285 03:44:14AM via free access evaluating proposals of language genealogical relationship 257 equivocation should only rarely arise in deciding whether or not te is applica- ble for compared words, and subjective interpretation involving semantics is minimized. te is observed, and 2 points are earned by a comparative set, when glosses of compared words are identical, e.g., dog/dog. Instances of near-identity also earn te points, for example, inflected forms of the same stem such as dog/dogs and burn/burned (identical constituents are in boldface), and suppletive- related inflected forms such as mouse/mice, go/went, and tear/torn. In addition, 2 te points are earned when glosses are not identical, but have a “core constituent” in common: e.g., flower/to flower, friend/friendly, and acorn woodpecker/woodpecker. A core constituent is a stem bearing the semantic weight of a complex gloss. For example, woodpecker is the core constituent of acorn woodpecker because the latter’s referent is a woodpecker, not an acorn. The compared glosses grass and grasshopper, on the other hand, would not earn 2 points because the shared lexeme, grass, is not a core constituent of grasshopper (the referent of grass is not a type of insect). te points are also earned under other conditions where glosses are not identical: for nomenclaturally unrelated synonyms, e.g., small/little; or when one gloss of compared words designates a taxonomic type of a “reasonably narrow category” denoted by the gloss of the other word, e.g., spruce/evergreen tree, sapsucker/woodpecker, and car/vehicle, where the second gloss of each match, respectively, designates the category in question. Categories designated by tree and bird, in contrast, would not be considered reasonably narrow and, consequently, compared glosses such as spruce/tree or sapsucker/bird do not earn 2 points. When two glosses denote members of the same reasonably narrow generic category, they too earn 2 points; e.g., spruce/redwood, sapsucker/acorn woodpecker, and car/van, where categories are respectively ‘evergreen tree,’ ‘woodpecker,’ and ‘vehicle.’ Matched words in comparative sets can be either proto-words reconstructed for ancestral languages, or words for recorded descendant languages that are assumed to be reflexes of proto-words. Accordingly, the glosses compared may be either those reconstructed for proto-words or those found for reflexes. te can be observed for glosses of two compared proto-words, for glosses of a proto- word compared with a reflex, or for two compared reflexes (see Section 3 for Pumé/Chocoan examples). Assignment of te points to comparative sets based on these criteria is usually straightforward, but not always problem-free. For example, glosses can be orthographically identical and yet have unrelated meanings such as lie (untruth)/lie (prone), fair (social event)/ fair (reasonable), fly (movement through air)/ fly (insect). te points are not earned by such matches. Should

Language Dynamics and Change 7 (2017) 252–285 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 03:44:14AM via free access 258 brown meanings of homophones used as glosses be ambiguous, pertinent comparative sets should best be excluded from bwb evaluation. A difficult issue involves the concept “reasonably narrow category” dis- cussed above. Deciding what categories may or may not so qualify is not, at present, objectively informed. Also problematic is that identification of syn- onymic glosses similarly lacks objective guidelines. Clearly, given these potential ambiguities, full objectivity is not realized through use of te. Nevertheless, the approach represents a significant step in diminishing the influence of subjective interpretation in dealing with meaning.

2.1.3 No potential onomatopoeia Sets are judged as lacking potential onomatopoeia, and accordingly earn one point, when none of the referents of the words compared entail objects or actions having a characteristic or iconic sound. An unambiguous example of such a set is where compared words all refer to ‘moon,’ since this referent is not directly associated with a sound at all. Another example is where all compared words mean ‘to talk, to say.’ Such a set earns one point for no potential onomatopoeia since, while the meanings involve the making of sounds, no specific sound produced in talking or saying is iconic of this action. Unambiguous examples where potential onomatopoeia is present include sets in which compared words designate things such as ‘dog,’ ‘fire,’ ‘lightning’ or ‘rain,’ all of which directly produce a characteristic sound. Such sets, of course, do not receive a point for the feature. Note that the earning of points in this category does not depend on whether or not the forms in question appear to be likely or plausible phonological imitations of the sounds associated with their referents, since this is an inherently subjective process and likely to lead to substantial disagreements among individuals scoring sets. There are more complex cases. For example, one word in a set might mean ‘to boil,’ which is clearly potentially onomatopoeic, and the other ‘to cook in water,’ which is not. In such a case, a point for lack of potential onomatopoeia is not earned, since the meaning ‘to cook in water’ could have developed from the meaning ‘to boil’ and therefore the form could have originally been onomatopoeic before undergoing semantic shift. Therefore, even if just one of the forms compared is potentially onomatopoeic, the entire set could be infected by this confounding factor, and in such an instance it is appropriate to err on the conservative side by not assigning the set a point for lacking potential onomatopoeia.

Language Dynamics andDownloaded Change from 7 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2017) 252–285 03:44:14AM via free access evaluating proposals of language genealogical relationship 259

2.1.4 Phonological residue If one word of a comparative set shows a certain number of phonological segments and the other shows the same number, then typically no unmatched, unexplained residual segments are present and the set receives a point. An example from Pache’s (2016) assemblage of comparative sets for the Pumé/ Chocoan proposal (Section 3) is set 18: Pumé duɾi ‘after’/ PChocoan *duˈɾu ‘tail’ (PChocoan = Proto-Chocoan; see Online Appendix a, specifically a.1 (https:// doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5441536.v1). (Segments compared in matched words are presented in boldface in this work.) A point is not earned for this feature when one of the compared words of a set shows more segments than the other, and the residue is not explained; for example, Pumé/Chocoan set 19: Pumé ɛ ‘poison’/PChocoan *ase ‘bitter.’ If the segmental residue can be identified, for example, as being an affix, it is considered explained, and the set earns a point for the feature; for example, set 27, where a hyphen signals a morpheme boundary perhaps distinguishing a stem from a suffix: Pumé gõãɾã ‘cloud’/PChocoan *hɯ̃ɾa-ˈɾa ‘cloud.’

2.2 System enhancement Two changes to the original bwb system (Brown, Wichmann, and Beck, 2014) involving sound correspondences enhance its ability to eliminate comparative sets likely explained by coincidence: 1) Assigning no points to a sound correspondence involving a sound segment corresponding with ∅ (nil). Correspon- dences of the form c ~ ∅ or v ~ ∅ (c = consonant, v = vowel) are considerably more likely than c ~ c and v ~ v correspondences to be artifacts of chance.5 2) A sound correspondence is deemed observed (and thus earns 2 points) only if it is supported by at least three comparative sets (each of which shows at least 7 bwb points, Section 2.3). A correspondence supported by only two sets is more likely due to chance than one supported by three or more sets. For the most part, collections of comparative sets to which bwb has thus far been applied (Section 4) have not contained what Nichols (2010: 301–302) calls “selective parsing.” This includes metathesis, unexplained interspersing of consonants and vowels, and other kinds of phonotactic freedom in com- paring words. As an additional enhancement of the system, I exclude sets with metathesis from the collections supporting proposals. Sets demonstrating other types of selective parsing are retained.

5 Thanks to David Beck for this observation.

Language Dynamics and Change 7 (2017) 252–285 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 03:44:14AM via free access 260 brown

2.3 System threshold score Aggregate points for comparative sets are considered indicative of degree of set convincingness: the more points a set earns, the more likely the words compared are cognates. In order to use this information to evaluate comparative sets, a numerical threshold is identified such that sets with aggregate points at or above the benchmark are considered persuasive support (unlikely to be explained by chance) and those below it are considered unconvincing support (likely to be explained by chance). Deciding on such a threshold depends solely on the latitude of convincingness tolerated by individual researchers. Brown, Wichmann, and Beck (2014) use a threshold of 7 points whereby comparative sets below that threshold are not considered convincing enough, i.e. not suffi- ciently free of chance similarity, to be included among bwb sets assembled in support of a proposal. Evaluating comparative sets for this study, I adopt the 7-point benchmark of Brown, Wichmann, and Beck (2014) ensuring at least two sound correspondences per acceptable set, which is of paramount importance. It is mathematically impossible for a set with less than two sound correspondences to receive more than 6 points. It is possible for a comparative set to earn 7 or more points and not receive 2 points for translation equivalence. However, to reduce the influence of coincidence, I recommend eliminating from consideration all bwb sets lacking translation equivalence even if these show 7 or more points. As another strategy to reduce chance influence, I recommend removing those sets with 7 or more points from bwb evaluation if correspondences observed for them involve only vowels (v ~ v) but no consonants (c ~ c).6 Since language vowel inventories are nearly, if not always substantially smaller than consonant inventories, chance vowel correspondences are considerably more likely to occur in comparisons than are chance consonant correspondences. Thus, requiring at least one consonant correspondence per comparative set is an important hedge against coincidental similarity.

6 These two changes in the bwb approach are used for evaluation of sets assembled for all but one of the 65 language comparisons treated in Table 5, the single exception being Pumé- Chocoan (Pache, 2016, no. 62 in Table 5).

Language Dynamics andDownloaded Change from 7 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2017) 252–285 03:44:14AM via free access evaluating proposals of language genealogical relationship 261

3 Illustration of the application of bwb to comparative sets

Pache (2016) presents 51 comparative sets in support of the genealogical relationship of Pumé and Chocoan. This section illustrates application of the bwb system using these sets. The 51 sets are reproduced in Online Appendix A of this paper (https:// doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5441536.v1). Phonological segments of the words compared in these sets support 32 sound correspondences presented in Pache’s Table 8 (consonant correspondences, p. 116) and Table 22 (vowel correspondences, p. 133). In these tables, for each correspondence series, those comparative sets in which the series is found are identified by number (1–51). Table 1 of this paper is my reanalysis of Pumé/Chocoan correspondences (both vowels and consonants) based on the phonological relationships observed for the 51 comparative sets. My sound-correspondence table differs from Pache’s Tables 8 and 22 in that it differentiates between some sound segments I regard as distinct (e.g., ɓ and b) while these same segments are merged by Pache. However, my analysis agrees with Pache in merging plain and nasal vowels of the same quality, e.g., a and ã.7 In Table 1, some segments are parenthesized to suggest that they are regular variants of the non-parenthesized segments in the same cell, perhaps involving some contextual influence yet to be determined or of which I am unaware. Table 1 identifies 51 correspondence series, compared to the 32 identified in Pache’s Tables 8 and 22. An identification number is supplied for each series (1–51). In the enhanced version of bwb (Section 2.2), comparative sets earn points only for correspondences supported by at least three sets. 36 correspondences of Table 1 are supported by fewer than three sets and, thus, are not taken into consideration in assigning points (e.g., correspondences 3, 4, 14, and 24). In addition, points are not earned by correspondences involving a consonant corresponding with nil (c ~ ∅), see series 35, 49, 50, 51. Table 2 is a revision of Table 1 in which all correspondences supported by fewer than three sets and/or involve c ~ ∅ are eliminated. The number of correspondences remaining in Table 2 is 13. This table is used as the basis for assigning bwb correspondence points to Pumé-Chocoan comparative sets.

7 All applications of bwb thus far (seeTable 5 and Online Appendix b) restrict recognized vowel correspondences to vowel quality, ignoring features such as nasalization, tone, length, and laryngealization. Also, consonant length is ignored. For consistency, these applications are recommended for all future use of bwb.

Language Dynamics and Change 7 (2017) 252–285 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 03:44:14AM via free access 262 brown

table 1 51 sound correspondences identified from the 51 Pumé/Chocoan comparative sets presented in Pache (2016: 112–115) id No. Pumé Waunana N. Emberá Epena PChocoan Supporting Sets

1 i/ĩ i/ĩ i i/ĩ i 8, 9, 14, 37, 37, 45 2 i/ĩ e/ẽ e/ẽ e (ɨ̃) e/ẽ 5, 15, 35, 36 3 i i u u u 18 4 i e i 50 5 e/ẽ a 4, 32, 46 6 e/ẽ i i i i 11, 42 7 ɛ a a a a 6, 19, 39, 46 8 ɛ i i i 20, 51 9 ɛ a o o 40 10 ɛ ∅ e e 3 11 a/ã a/ã a/ã a/ã a/ã 1, 2, 8, 9, 13, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 47, 49 12 a/ã ẽ 4, 32 13 a aa 7 14 a õ o o 5, 41 15 ã e e e 3 16 ɤ o 29 17 ɤ o 41 18 ɤ u u 30 19 ɤ ɨ 17 20 u u (a) u (ɨ) u u 18, 34, 36, 51 21 u u o 50 22 u o w 49 23 o/õ u (o) u/ũ (w) u 10, 11, 23, 25, 26, 28, 33, 39 24 o/õ ɨ̃ ɨ̃ ɯ̃ 24, 27 25 o o o o 40 26 o o 43 27 o õ õo 38 28 õ w u 22 29 õ w ɨ 21 30 ɔ ɨ e ɨ ɯ 31, 44 31 ɔ ɨ ɨ ɨɨ 48 32 ɔ u o o o 16 33 ɔ õ 45 34 g h h h 24, 27

Language Dynamics andDownloaded Change from 7 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2017) 252–285 03:44:14AM via free access evaluating proposals of language genealogical relationship 263

id No. Pumé Waunana N. Emberá Epena PChocoan Supporting Sets

35 g ∅ ∅ ∅ ∅ 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30 36 b w b b 36 37 b ɓ b 6 38 b m 20 39 m m m 42 40 th t t th t 47, 48 41 d d d (ɗ) t d 3, 13, 16, 17, 18 42 d ɕ z (tʃ, dʒ) tʃ tʃ 12, 14, 15, 31 43 cç tʃ s s 8, 9, 37 44 cç t (tɾ) th 7, 10, 11 45 ɾ ɾ ɾ ɾ ɾ 4, 5, 17, 18, 27, 30, 32, 46, 51 46 k k (g) kh k 38, 39, 40, 41 47 h ∅ ∅ ∅ 31, 32 48 h h h h h 33, 34 49 ∅ k (g) k kh k 2, 5, 20, 36, 43, 44, 45, 50 50 ∅ ∅ h ∅ 3 51 ∅ h 4

Note: PChocoan stands for Proto-Chocoan, the parent language of Waunana, N. Emberá (North Emberá), and Epena (see Pache, 2016)

Comparative set 9 (Online Appendix a) can be used to illustrate system-point assignment:

9. Pumé cçĩã-ɾeã ‘sugar cane’; N. Emberá tʃia-sõ ‘sugar cane’; Epena sĩa-sõ ‘sugar cane’; PChocoan *siˈa ‘reed’ [Evaluation: 10 (6,2,1,1)]

The above duplicates the information provided by Pache (2016: 112) for set 9, which I have supplemented with bwb-point information. Sound segments in boldface are those compared by Pache. I assume that hyphens, all provided by Pache, indicate morpheme boundaries, and that the elements following hyphens are affixes of some kind. The bracketed information represents the bwb evaluation results. The format used is “[Evaluation: x (a,b,c,d)],” where x = overall set score (aggregate of scores for a, b, c, and d), a = sound correspondence score (2 points for each), b = translation equivalence score (2 points if observed), c = potential for onomatopoeia score (1 point if not observed), and d = unexplained phonological residue score (1 point if not observed).

Language Dynamics and Change 7 (2017) 252–285 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 03:44:14AM via free access 264 brown

table 2 Revision of Table 1 in which correspondence series supported by fewer than three comparative sets and/or involving c ~ ∅ have been eliminated id No. Pumé Waunana N. Emberá Epena PChocoan Supporting Sets

1 i/ĩ i/ĩ i i/ĩ i 8, 9, 14, 37, 37, 45 2 i/ĩ e/ẽ e/ẽ e (ɨ̃) e/ẽ 5, 15, 35, 36 5 e/ẽ a 4, 32, 46 7 ɛ a a a a 6, 19, 39, 46 11 a/ã a/ã a/ã a/ã a/ã 1, 2, 8, 9, 13, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 47, 49 20 u u (a) u (ɨ) u u 18, 34, 36, 51 23 o/õ u (o) u/ũ (w) u 10, 11, 23, 25, 26, 28, 33, 39 41 d d d (ɗ) t d 3, 13, 16, 17, 18 42 d ɕ z (tʃ, dʒ) tʃ tʃ 12, 14, 15, 31 43 cç tʃ s s 8, 9, 37 44 cç t (tɾ) th 7, 10, 11 45 ɾ ɾ ɾ ɾ ɾ 4, 5, 17, 18, 27, 30, 32, 46, 51 46 k k (g) kh k 38, 39, 40, 41

Set 9 earns 6 points for sound correspondences, i.e., 2 points for each of the three correspondences identified in Table 2 (series 1, 11, and 43). 2 points are earned for translation equivalence. While the English glosses for Pumé and PChocoan are different, respectively ‘sugar cane’ and ‘reed,’ Pumé does share the same gloss, ‘sugar cane,’ with reflexes of the PChocoan term in the mod- ern Chocoan languages, and this is sufficient for earning 2 points for translation equivalence (Section 2.1.2).8 The set shows no potential for onomatopoeia, scoring 1 point for this feature. Those non-boldface parts of compared words following a hyphen (supplied by Pache) are assumed to be affixes and, consequently, are treated as explained phonological residue. Consequently, set 9 earns 1 point for showing no unexplained phonological residue. The total number of points earned by the set is 10, exceeding the minimum of 7 points for a set to be retained as convincing support for a proposal of genealogical relationship (Section 2.3).

8 The PChocoan term could have originally designated ‘reed’ and, subsequently, reflexes of this word in N. Emberá and Epena acquired the meaning ‘sugar cane’ with the introduction of this crop during the colonial era.

Language Dynamics andDownloaded Change from 7 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2017) 252–285 03:44:14AM via free access evaluating proposals of language genealogical relationship 265

Set 51 is less successful since it scores fewer than 7 points:

51. Pumé uɾɛdi ‘deep’; N. Emberá uˈɾia ‘cave, hole’; Epena uˈɾia ‘hole’; PChocoan *uˈɾia ‘hole’ [Evaluation: 5 (4,0,1,0)]

Four correspondence points are earned by set 51 since it demonstrates two correspondences of Table 2, numbers 20 and 45. In this set, Pache also com- pares Pumé ɛ, N. Emberá ia, Epena ia, and PChocoan ia, but this matches no correspondence series listed in Table 2 and, thus, fails to earn 2 points. The glosses of the compared words, ‘deep’ and ‘cave, hole,’ do not accord with the criterion of translation equivalence, and no points are earned for this feature. The set earns 1 point for lack of potential onomatopoeia, but no points for the phonological-residue category, since unexplained residue is observed (see non- boldface segments of the Pumé word). Earning only 5 total points, the word similarity of set 51 is not sufficient for the set to be included as convincing evidence for genealogical affiliation. Evaluation of the 51 comparative sets based on the bwb criteria yields only 15 sets of the original 51 with 7 or more points. These are sets 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 27, 31, 32, 36, 37, and 39. These 15 sets as well as the 36 failing to earn 7 or more points can be reviewed in Online Appendix a, where each of the 51 sets is presented with its bwb evaluation. Similarities observed for the 36 sets are deemed more likely explained by chance than are those of the remaining 15 (at least up to this stage in the evaluation). The latter sets, then, constitute the best lexical evidence for the proposal of genetic relatedness (at this appraisal stage), and only these are considered in the further evaluative steps described below. Restricting additional analysis only to the best evidence, the 15 sets with more than 6 points require re-evaluation since the other 36 less persuasive sets are no longer in the analytical mix, which significantly alters the array of sound correspondence supporting the surviving sets.9 For a correspondence to be considered in evidence, it must be supported by at least three sets showing 7 or more points (2.2). Removal of the 36 sets results in diminished support for the correspondences of Table 2 since some of them are no longer supported by more than two comparative sets. Table 3 reports all correspondences of Table 2 remaining after those supported by fewer than three sets are eliminated. Only

9 Removal of these 36 sets from further consideration does not necessarily mean that some or even all of these involve non-cognate similarity. Should the final result of bwb evaluation demonstrate the proposal persuasive, higher-scoring, if not all sets of these 36 might prof- itably be revisited as possibly being cognate.

Language Dynamics and Change 7 (2017) 252–285 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 03:44:14AM via free access 266 brown table 3 Sound correspondences remaining after removal of correspondences of Table 2 that are no longer supported by at least three comparative sets id No. Pumé Waunana N. Emberá Epena PChocoan Supporting Sets

1 i/ĩ i/ĩ i i/ĩ i 8, 9, 14, 37, 37 11 a/ã a/ã a/ã a/ã a/ã 8, 9, 13, 27, 31 41 d d d (ɗ) t d 13, 17, 18 43 cç tʃ s s 8, 9, 37 45 ɾ ɾ ɾ ɾ ɾ 4, 5, 17, 18, 27, 32, 46

table 4 Sound correspondence remaining after removal of correspondences of Table 3 that are no longer supported by at least three comparative sets id No. Pumé Waunana N. Emberá Epena PChocoan Supporting Sets

1 i/ĩ i/ĩ i i/ĩ i 8,9,37,37 11 a/ã a/ã a/ã a/ã a/ã 8,9,13,27 43 cç tʃ s s 8,9,37 45 ɾ ɾ ɾ ɾ ɾ 17,27,46 five correspondences remain: 1, 11, 41, 43, and 45. The 15 remaining comparative sets are re-evaluated against the revised array of five correspondences of Table 3 (see Online Appendix a). Of these 15 sets, only six (8, 9, 13, 17, 27, and 37) show 7 or more points. A further re-evaluation is required because removing 9 of the 15 sets from the analytical mix results, again, in additional correspondence-array reduction. Table 4 reports all correspondences of Table 3 remaining after correspondences supported by fewer than three comparative sets are removed. Four correspondence series are now attested (1, 11, 43, and 45). Further repetitions of the pro- cedure of re-evaluating surviving sets against altered (and diminished) arrays of sound-correspondences lead to the result that none of the 51 sets assembled by Pache earn more than 6 points and, consequently, none of them, by the convention followed here, can be regarded as convincing evidence for the Pumé/Chocoan proposal. The negative bwb result for Pumé/PChocoan should not be taken as the last word on this proposal. This finding only indicates that the comparative sets assembled by Pache (2016) fail to constitute strong support for genealogical

Language Dynamics andDownloaded Change from 7 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2017) 252–285 03:44:14AM via free access evaluating proposals of language genealogical relationship 267 relationship, not that Pumé and PChocoan are not related historically. Con- ceivably, supplementing this evidence with additional (higher quality) lexical sets may produce an augmented collection that, when evaluated through use of bwb, is found to provide strong support for the proposal. However, until such is forthcoming, the proposal should not be considered convincing.

4 bwb results for 65 language comparisons

In addition to providing a standard for evaluating evidence for individual genealogical proposals, bwb results for two or more proposals can be compared to make apparent the relative strength of lexical evidence assembled for them. In Table 5, 65 language comparisons, mostly from published sources, but also supplied through personal communications, are ranked by bwb quantitative results. In Section 4.1, a framework for interpreting ranked findings is provided, but the major contribution of Section 4 is not the suggested framework—which is subject to revision or even complete replacement—but the ranked results themselves, available for all to use and interpret as they see appropriate. Table 5 gives the following information in seven columns from left to right: 1) language-comparison identification number (1–65); 2) names of compared languages; 3) name of the language group (family) with which the comparison is usually thought associated, and recognition of the group (if any) by one or more of three online sites dedicated to classification of the world’s languages (Autotyp (a), http://www.autotyp.uzh.ch/; Glottolog (g), http://glottolog .org/; and walsOnline (w), http://wals.info/);10 4) number of bwb sets observed (i.e., those sets earning 7 or more evaluation points); 5) number of bwb sound- correspondence series observed (= CORi [correspondence index]); 6) basic-vocabulary index (+BVi) (see Section 4.1); and 7) composite index (COMi) which combines CORi and +BVi through simple multiplication (see Section 4.1). Also indicated for the final three columns of the table, respectively, are averages for CORi, +BVi, and COMi based on values of these indices found for all the language comparisons of the table for which more than zero (0) bwb sets are observed. In the three columns, all indices for individual comparisons greater than or equal to (≥) average are given in boldface. Language comparisons are ranked in the table by size of COMi, from largest to smallest. Abbreviations, sources of lexical sets, geographic regions of languages compared, and endnotes are presented at the bottom of the table.

10 These sites were accessed on July 14, 2017.

Language Dynamics and Change 7 (2017) 252–285 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 03:44:14AM via free access 268 brown

table 5 Comparison of bwb results for 65 collections of lexical sets assembled in support for proposals of language genealogical relationship id Language comparison (see Affiliation and online No. of CORi, +BVi, COMi, no. bottom of table for sources recognition (a = Autotyp, bwb boldface boldface boldface and geographic location) g = Glottolog, w = wals) sets ≥ average ≥ average ≥ average (13.7) (43.0) (548.1)

1 Gadsup/Tairora Kainantu (a,g,w) 74 30 91.1 2757.0 2 Defaka/Nkọrọ Ijoid (a,g,w) 25 15 100.0 1500.0 3 Witoto/Ocaina/Nonuya Witoto Proper (a,g,w) 191 18 59.0 1062.0 4 Proto-Je/Maxacali (Nuclear-)Macro-Je (a,g,w) 26 14 73.1 1023.4 5 Washo/Karok Hokan 62 27 37.1 1001.7 6 Classical Attic Greek/Early Indo-European (a,g,w) 26 14 69.2 968.8 Vedic Sanskrit 7 Proto-Paman/Proto-Ngayarda Pama-Nyungan (a,g,w) 28 13 71.4 928.2 8 Proto-Maidun, California Penutian (w) 62 31 29.0 899.0 Maidu/Proto-Wintun, Wintu 9 Proto-Panoan/Proto-Takanan Pano-Takanan (a,g) 70 23 37.1 853.3 10 Proto-Central Algic (a,g,w) 39 20 43.6 872.0 Algonquian/Wiyot 11 Quechua-Tarasco Quechuan-Tarascan 14 8 100.0 800.0 12 Klamath/Sahaptian Plateau Penutian (a,w) 45 22 35.6 783.2 13 Proto-Northern Iroquoian (a,g,w) 70 21 34.3 720.3 Iroquoian/Cherokee 14 Proto-Totonacan/Proto-Mixe- Totozoquean 43 16 44.2 707.2 Zoquean 15 Proto-Pomo/Proto-Yuman Hokan (w) 18 9 77.8 700.2 16 Proto-Quechua/Proto-Aymara Quechumaran 67 24 28.4 681.6 17 Gorokan/Kainantu Eastern Highlands (a,g,w) 12 8 83.3 666.4 18 Lakota/Catawba Siouan (a,g,w) 36 17 38.9 661.3 19 Proto-Kakua-Nukak/Puinave Puinavean 22 11 59.1 650.1 20 Seneca/Proto-Siouan Iroquoian-Siouan 36 17 30.6 520.2 21 Japanese/Korean Transeurasian1 104 26 20.0 520.0 22 Uto-Aztecan/Proto-Tanoan Aztec-Tanoan 16 9 56.3 506.7 23 Atakapa-Chitimacha Atakapa-Chitimacha 67 26 19.4 504.4 24 Chitimacha/Proto-Mixe- Chitimacha-Totozoquean 34 14 35.3 494.2 Zoquean, Proto-Totonacan 25 Timucua-Warao Timucua-Warao 30 16 30.0 480.0 26 Proto-Khoe/Kwadi Khoe-Kwadi (a,g,w) 19 8 57.9 463.2

Language Dynamics andDownloaded Change from 7 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2017) 252–285 03:44:14AM via free access evaluating proposals of language genealogical relationship 269

id Language comparison (see Affiliation and online No. of CORi, +BVi, COMi, no. bottom of table for sources recognition (a = Autotyp, bwb boldface boldface boldface and geographic location) g = Glottolog, w = wals) sets ≥ average ≥ average ≥ average (13.7) (43.0) (548.1)

27 Proto-Eskimo/Aleut Eskimo-Aleut (a,g,w) 107 28 16.0 448.0 28 Proto-Jê/Proto-Jabuti, Arikapú, (Nuclear-)Macro-Jê (g) 11 7 63.6 445.2 Djeoromitxi 29 Proto-Japanese/Proto- Transeurasian1 30 17 23.3 396.1 Mongolic 30 Efik/Proto-Bantu Benue-Congo (a,g,w) 25 11 36.0 396.0 31 Reef-Santa Cruz/Proto-Oceanic Temotu-Oceanic (g,w) 16 10 37.5 375.0 32 Proto-Central Algonquian, Algonquian-Gulf 13 9 38.5 346.5 Proto-Central Eastern Algonquian/ Proto-Muskogean 33 Proto-Mayan/Proto-Mixe- Mayan-Zoquean 9 6 55.6 333.6 Zoquean, Proto-Mixe, Proto-Zoquean 34 Proto-Pama-Nyungan/Proto- Australian 9 5 66.7 333.5 Tangkic 35 Proto-Shuar/Candoshi Jivaroan-Candoshi 60 22 15.0 330.3 36 Natchez/Proto-Muskogean Gulf 44 23 13.6 312.8 37 English/Tocharian b Indo-European (a,g,w) 9 7 44.4 310.8 38 Proto-Japanese/Proto-Tungusic Transeurasian1 55 24 12.0 288.0 39 Miskito/Cacaopera Misumalpan (a,g,w) 16 7 37.5 262.5 40 Proto-Samoyedic/Proto- Uralo-Siberian 14 9 28.6 257.4 Eskimo 41 Wintu/Lake Miwok California Penutian (w) 12 7 33.3 233.1 42 Zuni/Yawelmani Yokuts Zuni-California Penutian 13 10 23.1 231.0 43 Proto-Eskimo/Proto-Yukagir Uralo-Siberian 4 3 50.0 150.0 44 Proto-Japanese/Proto-Turkic Transeurasian1 25 12 12.0 144.0 45 Awtuw/Alamblak Sepik (a,g,w) 3 2 66.7 134.4 46 Proto-Witoto/Proto-Boran Witotoan (a,w) 7 3 42.9 128.7 47 Tol (Jicaque)/Chontal Jicaque-Tequistlatecan 5 3 40.0 120.0 (Tequistlatec) 48 Maidu/Lake Miwok California Penutian (w) 14 7 14.3 100.1 49 Proto-Ongan/Proto- Ongan-Austronesian 6 3 33.3 99.9 Austronesian

Language Dynamics and Change 7 (2017) 252–285 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 03:44:14AM via free access 270 brown

table 5 Comparison of bwb results for 65 collections of lexical sets (cont.) id Language comparison (see Affiliation and online No. of CORi, +BVi, COMi, no. bottom of table for sources recognition (a = Autotyp, bwb boldface boldface boldface and geographic location) g = Glottolog, w = wals) sets ≥ average ≥ average ≥ average (13.7) (43.0) (548.1)

50 Proto-Popolocan/Proto- Otomanguean (a,g,w) 4 2 25.0 50.0 Mixtecan 51 Maidu/Yawelmani Yokuts California Penutian (w) 4 3 0.0 0.0 52 Haida/Proto-Athabascan, Eyak, Haida-Na-Dene 0 0 0 0 Tlingit 53 Nubian/Nilotic Eastern Sudanic (w) 0 0 0 0 54 Paya/Bribri, Cabecar, Terraba Chibchan (a,g,w) 0 0 0 0 55 Proto-Chiapanec-Mangue/ Otomanguean (a,g,w) 0 0 0 0 Proto-Mixtecan 56 Proto-Chiapanec- Otomanguean (a,g,w) 0 0 0 0 Mangue/Proto-Popolocan 57 Proto-Indo-European/ Indo-Uralic 0 0 0 0 Proto-Finno-Ugric 58 Proto-Jê/Karaja (Nuclear-)Macro-Jê (a,g,w) 0 0 0 0 59 Proto-Na-Dene, Proto- Dene-Yeniseian 0 0 0 0 Athabaskan, Proto-Athabas- kan-Eyak/Proto-Yeniseian 60 Proto-Otopamean/Proto- Otomanguean (a,g,w) 0 0 0 0 Popolocan-Mixtecan, Proto-Popolocan 61 Proto-Yokuts, Proto-General California Penutian (a,w)2 0 0 0 0 Yokuts/Proto-Utian, Proto- Costanoan, Proto-Miwok 62 Pumé/Proto-Chocoan, Pumé-Chocoan 0 0 0 0 Waunana, North Emberá, Epena 63 Tlapanec, Subtiaba/Isthmus Otomanguean (a,g,w) 0 0 0 0 Zapotec 64 Tlapanec, Subtiaba/ Otomanguean (a,g,w) 0 0 0 0 Proto-Popolocan 65 Wappo/Biloxi, Proto-Siouan Yukian-Siouan 0 0 0 0

Language Dynamics andDownloaded Change from 7 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2017) 252–285 03:44:14AM via free access evaluating proposals of language genealogical relationship 271

Table endnotes: 1 Transeurasian includes Korean, Japanese, Mongolic, Tungusic, and Turkic, basically extending core Altaic to Korean and Japanese (Johanson and Robbeets, 2010). 2 a (Autotyp) recognizes Yokuts-Utian, but not California Penutian; w (wals) recognizes California Penutian, of which both Yokuts and Utian are considered members, but not Yokuts-Utian per se.

Abbreviations: CORi = Correspondence index (number of bwb correspondence series), +BVi = Basic-vocabulary index (see text), COMi = Composite index (CORi x +BVi).

Sources for comparative sets evaluated (id nos.) and geographic region (Middle America = Central America and Mexico): 1. McKaughan (1973), Papua New Guinea, 2. Blench and Williamson (2017), Africa, 3. Alvaro Echeverri, and Seifart (2015), South America, 4. Davis (1968), South America, 5. Jacobsen (1958), North America, 6. Don Ringe (pers. comm.), Eurasia, 7. Alpher (n.d), Australia, 8. Pitkin and Shipley (1958), North America, 9. Girard (1971), South America, 10. Haas (1958a), North America, 11. Swadesh (1967), South America and Middle America, 12. Aoki (1963), North America, 13. Julian (2010), North America, 14. Brown, Beck, Kondrak, Watters, and Søren Wichmann (2011), Middle America, 15. Langdon (1979), North America, 16. Emlen (2017), South America, 17. Foley (1986), Papua New Guinea, 18. Carter, Jones, and Rankin (2006), North America, 19. Epps and Bolaños (forthcoming), South America, 20. Chafe (1964), North America, 21. Robbeets (2005), Asia, 22. Whorf and Trager (1937), Middle and North America, 23. Swadesh (1946), North America, 24. Brown, Wichmann, and Beck (2014), Middle and North America, 25. Granberry (1993), North America, 26. Güldemann and Elderkin (2010), Africa, 27. Fortescue, Jacobson, and Kaplan (1994), North America, 28. Rivail Ribeiro and van der Voort (2010), South America, 29. Robbeets (2005), Asia, 30. Greenberg (1966), Africa, 31. Ross and Næss (2007), Solomon Islands, 32. Haas (1958b), North America, 33. Mora-Marín (2016), Middle America, 34. Alpher (n.d.), Australia, 35. Payne (1981), South America, 36. Haas (1956), North America, 37. Don Ringe (pers. comm.), Eurasia, 38. Robbeets (2005), Asia, 39. Constenla Umaña (1987), Middle America, 40. Fortescue (pers. comm.), Asia and North America, 41. Pitkin and Shipley (1958), North America, 42. Newman (1964), North America, 43. Fortescue (2016), Asia and North America, 44. Robbeets (2005), Asia, 45. Foley (2005), Papua New Guinea, 46. Alvaro Echeverri and Seifart (2015), South America, 47. Campbell and Oltrogge (1980), Middle America, 48. Pitkin and Shipley (1958), North America, 49. Blevins (2007), Andaman Islands and South Pacific Basin, 50. Gudschinsky (1959), Middle America, 51. Pitkin and Shipley (1958), North America, 52. Enrico (2004), North America, 53. Greenberg (1966), Africa, 54. Constenla Umaña (1981), Middle America, 55. Fernández de Miranda and Weitlaner (1961), Middle America, 56. Fernández de Miranda and Weitlaner (1961), Middle America, 57. Ringe (1998), Eurasia, 58. Davis (1968), South America, 59. Vajda (2010), Asia and North America, 60. Bartholomew (1965), Middle America, 61. Callaghan (2014), North America, 62. Pache (2016), South America (see Section 3), 63. Rensch (1977), Middle America, 64. Rensch (1977), Middle America, 65. Elmendorf (1963), North America.

Language Dynamics and Change 7 (2017) 252–285 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 03:44:14AM via free access 272 brown

Online Appendix b (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5441536.v1) gives full information for each of the 65 comparisons treated in Table 5. In addition to repeating some information provided in the table, for each comparison the appendix presents a map roughly locating the languages compared; all bwb comparative sets including words compared from original sources; overall number of bwb-evaluation points earned by each set, and points earned for individual features of sets (i.e., points for number of sound correspondences, for translation equivalence, for no potential for onomatopoeia, and for no unexplained phonological residue; see Section 2.1). Also presented for each comparison is a sound correspondence chart reporting bwb correspondence series and the id numbers of supporting bwb sets. Evaluation of the 65 comparisons of Table 5 has involved the enhancements of the bwb approach described in Section 2.2, and the changes noted in Section 2.3.

4.1 Interpretation The bwb results reported in Table 5 can be used to interpret the relative strength of lexical evidence assembled in support of proposals of language genealogical relationship. For example, a larger collection of bwb comparative sets could be considered more indicative of genealogical association than a smaller one. The numbers of bwb sets reported for the 65 comparisons in Table 5 range from 191 to 0. Fourteen comparisons (nos. 52–65) show no sets with 7 or more points and, thus, provide no bwb support for the historical connection of the languages compared, while 51 comparisons (nos. 1–51) show bwb-set collections ranging in size from 191 to 4. Instead of set-collection size, the number of bwb correspondences series observed can be used as a gage of lexical support: the more series, the stronger the supporting evidence. The numbers of bwb correspondence series reported for the 65 comparisons in Table 5 (CORi) range from 31 to 0. Fourteen comparisons (nos. 52–65) show no correspondence series, while 51 comparisons (nos. 1–51), show series ranging in number from 31 to 3 (averaging 13.7). Set-collection size and number of correspondence series (CORi) might be equally good measures of the strength of lexical comparisons, a possibility that can be statistically investigated. The correlation (Pearson’s r) of values of the columns “No. of bwb sets” and CORi of Table 5 is 0.79, a very strong association but not a perfect one, suggesting that one of these two metrics is a slightly better measure of the strength of a comparison than the other. CORi is theoretically the better metric since, while measuring lexical similarity, it also registers phonological systematicity. Sound correspondences represent an order of complexity shared by languages that is greater than that attested

Language Dynamics andDownloaded Change from 7 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2017) 252–285 03:44:14AM via free access evaluating proposals of language genealogical relationship 273 by lexical similarity alone. Any approach for appraising the strength of lexical evidence that does not take correspondence systematicity (or lack thereof) into consideration is inadequate. However, a large number of bwb-correspondence series should not necessarily be considered conclusive support, since the similarities it reflects may be due to language contact (borrowing/diffusion) rather than to common ancestry. While competent compilers of comparative sets do not include obvious loanwords (e.g., Robbeets, 2005), not all loanwords are obvious, and any collection of sets can be compromised by unrecognized lexical borrowing (especially by borrowing of great chronological depth) attributing to sound correspondence observation. Basic vocabulary can be of substantial help in evaluating borrowing as a potential explanation for observed lexical similarity. Words of basic vocabulary designate objects, concepts, and actions universal to human experience and are expected to be found in lexicons of all spo- ken languages, for example, words for ‘one,’ ‘louse,’ ‘knee,’ ‘sleep,’ ‘moon,’ and ‘water’ (see Online Appendix b (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5441536 .v1) for Swadesh’s [1971: 283] list of 100 items of basic vocabulary, the list used in this study). Mainstream comparativists have long assumed basic vocabulary to be more resistant to diffusion and, hence, to lexical replacement through borrowing than non-basic vocabulary (Campbell and Poser, 2008: 24, 166–167, 174, 194). If lexical similarities observed for compared languages involve basic vocabulary, similarities should tend not to be due to borrowing, but rather to genealogical association. Thus, the more basic vocabulary, the more likely genealogical affiliation. Conversely, the less basic vocabulary in comparative sets, the more likely observed similarities are explained by borrowing. Problematically, the widely-held assumption that basic vocabulary is more resistant to borrowing than other vocabulary has not been empirically demon- strated. Some recent cross-language investigations (Holman et al., 2008; Bow- ern et al., 2011; Epps, 2017) have brought together impressive bodies of evidence indicating that basic vocabulary is borrowed very sparingly, typically at a rate well below 10 percent. However, these studies provide no clear evidence that this low level of borrowing is not also shared by non-basic vocabulary such as words referring to cultural items. Haspelmath and Tadmor (2009a, b) assemble high-quality data relating to lexical borrowing from 41 globally distributed languages. This entails identify- ing words in each of these languages for a large number of meanings (1,460 in 2009a and more in 2009b), and having language specialists specify those words that are loanwords into these languages and, by default, those that are not. To quantify this information, a borrowing index is calculated for each meaning, which is essentially the number of languages with loanwords for a specific

Language Dynamics and Change 7 (2017) 252–285 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 03:44:14AM via free access 274 brown meaning divided by the total number of languages for which a word for the meaning has been reported. Online Appendix c (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9 .figshare.5441536.v1) describes in detail my use of this information to determine whether or not basic vocabulary (specifically, Swadesh’s list of 100 meanings) is more resistant to borrowing than cultural vocabulary. The unequivocal finding is that basic vocabulary, on average, is at least around four times less likely to be borrowed than cultural vocabulary. The analysis is also extended to a comparison of borrowing for vocabulary in general versus basic vocabulary, with the result that basic vocabulary is at least two and a half times less likely to be borrowed than words of the general lexicon (cf. Robbeets 2004). One of the indices used inTable 5, +BVi (basic-vocabulary index), is designed to inject basic vocabulary into the analytical mix for interpreting bwb results. It is used to measure the likelihood that a historical connection found for compared languages involves genealogical relationship rather than contact (diffusion/borrowing). A larger +BVi is more indicative of descent from a common ancestor than a smaller one. For comparisons involving 100 or fewer bwb sets, +BVi is the same as the basic-vocabulary percentage (+BVp), i.e., the number of bwb sets involving basic vocabulary divided by the total number of bwb sets observed for a comparison, multiplied by 100. For comparisons with more than 100 bwb sets (of which there are only three in Table 5: nos. 3, 21, 27) +BVi is the absolute number of sets involving basic vocabulary. A bwb set involves basic vocabulary (+bv) if any word of the set is glossed by a word designating a Swadesh basic-vocabulary item or if some reflex of a proto-word of a set is so glossed. CORi and +BVi can be considered together as indicative of the relative strength of evidence assembled in support of proposals for genealogical relationship.11 For doing so, another measure is introduced in Table 5, the Com- posite Index (COMi), which mathematically combines CORi and +BVi values so that assessing proposal support involves only a single metric. COMi is derived through simple multiplication of CORi and +BVi values: for example, for Washo/Karok (no. 5), COMi = 17 (CORi) × 37.1 (+BVi) = 1001.7. Table 5 ranks the 65 language comparisons by COMi, from largest to smallest. The COMi can be consulted to assess the relative strength of bwb-evaluated lexical evidence for genealogical affiliation: the larger the index, the more likely the relationship, the smaller the index, the less likely. A numerical threshold

11 These two metrics are not independent since it is impossible for a language comparison with no observed correspondence series to demonstrate a +BVi greater than 0. On the other hand, it is possible for a +BVi value to equal 0 when a CORi value exceeds 0 (see, for example, no. 51).

Language Dynamics andDownloaded Change from 7 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2017) 252–285 03:44:14AM via free access evaluating proposals of language genealogical relationship 275 above which a COMi value is decisive evidence for genealogical association, and below which it is not, has yet to be determined.12 A proxy for this threshold, used here, is the average or mean for the COMi values reported for all comparisons of Table 5 with more than 0 bwb sets (i.e., comparisons nos. 1– 51). This average is 548.1.13 As a working rule of thumb, I suggest that all language comparisons with COMi values larger than or equal to this mean be considered strong support for genealogical relationship, while comparisons with COMi values smaller than the mean be considered less than strong support for genealogical association. In Table 5, all COMi values greater than or equal to this threshold are given in boldface. Table 5 also provides averages for both CORi and +BVi, these respectively being 13.7 and 43.0. CORi and +BVi values greater than or equal to these means are given in boldface in the table. Seventeen comparisons with COMi values smaller than average nevertheless show either a CORi or a +BVi that is greater than average (see nos. 20–29, 33–38, 43, and 45). These above-average metrics (but below average with respect to the COMi mean) should be considered when using bwb results for evaluating relative strength of lexical evidence. At the very least, these indices indicate historical connection of the languages compared. For language comparisons where CORi values are above average (nos. 20, 21, 23–25, 27, 35, 36, 38), historical connection is unlikely to involve genealogical relationship, given the counter-indication of their below-average +BVi values. Language contact involving borrowing/diffusion is the more likely explanation in these cases. For language comparisons where +BVi values are above average (nos. 22, 26, 28, 33, 34, 37, 43, and 45), historical connection is at least moderately supported, but, considering the relatively small CORi values, this connection can be assumed to involve exceptionally remote language- genetic affinity (note, for example, the metric profile of English/Tocharian b [no. 37], which is a broadly recognized very distant relationship within the Indo-European family).14

12 And, hopefully, eventually will be determined by statisticians using probability measures. 13 The COMi average is subject to change as more language comparisons and their unique COMi values are added to subsequent versions of Table 5. 14 Thomas Martin (pers. comm.) makes the following suggestion: “When the CORi is very small, let’s say 5 or smaller, and COMi is below average, then even when the +BVi is above average … the bwb result should be considered only to have weak support for genealogical relationship …” Were this recommendation followed, support for the common ancestry for three comparisons, Proto-Pama-Nyungan/Proto-Tangkic (34), Proto-Eskimo/Proto- Yukagir (43), and Awtuw/Alamblak (45), would change from moderate to weak.

Language Dynamics and Change 7 (2017) 252–285 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 03:44:14AM via free access 276 brown

table 6 Summary of interpretive framework

Metric Profile Interpretation Language-Comparison id No.

COMi ≥ Mean Strong support for genealogical relationship. 1–19 COMi < Mean Less than strong support for genealogical 20–65 relationship. COMi < Mean; CORi ≥ Mean; Strong support for historical connection, but 20, 21, 23–25, 27, 35, 36, 38 +BVi < Mean for one limited to language contact. COMi < Mean; CORi < Mean; At least moderate support for genealogical 22, 26, 28, 33, 34, 37, 43, 45 +BVi ≥ Mean relationship, but for one of very great chronological depth. COMi < Mean; CORi < Mean, Weak support for historical connection. 30–32, 39–42, 44, 46–51 but > 0; +BVi < Mean COMi = 0; CORi = 0; +BVi = 0 No support for historical connection. 52–65

Included among those language comparisons with COMi values smaller than average are 14 for which both CORi and +BVi values are also smaller than average but greater than 0 (nos. 30–32, 39–42, 44, 46–51). bwb results for these are weak and should not be regarded as providing compelling support for the historical connection of any of the languages compared. The 14 comparisons of Table 5 showing 0 realizations for all indices (nos. 52–65) offer no support at all for proposals of language relatedness. Table 6 provides a summary of the interpretative framework for bwb results sketched out above. This framework is tentative and offered only as an informed suggestion. Scholars, of course, are free to evaluate bwb findings in any manner they choose, bearing in mind that rankings of comparisons by these results (such as in Table 5) do impose a logical limitation on interpretation. For example, to propose that a language comparison with a COMi smaller than that of another comparison should be viewed as the stronger or more convincing of the two obviously is inappropriate;15 for example, logic precludes the conclusion that lexical evidence for no. 27, Proto-Eskimo/Aleut (Eskimo-Aleut), with a COMi of 448.0 is more persuasive of genealogical

15 That is, if additional information involving, for example, evidence of paradigmatic grammatical similarity, is not available.

4.2 bwb results and online classifications Table 5 provides information relating to how online classifications deal with the 65 language comparisons, indicating whether or not a comparison is recognized by one or more of three web sites dedicated to classification of the world’s languages—Autotyp (a), Glottolog (g), and wals Online (w). Nineteen language comparisons of Table 5 (nos. 1–19) show COMi values greater than average, indicating strong support for genealogical relationship (see Table 6). Fourteen of these proposals (nos. 1–4, 6–10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18), or 74 percent, are recognized by at least one of the three online classifications. Eight comparisons of Table 5 (nos. 22, 26, 28, 33, 34, 37, 43, 45) show both below-average COMi values and below-average CORi values, but above-average +BVi values, indicating at least moderate support for very distant genealogical affiliation (see Table 6). Four of these (50 percent)—Proto-Khoe/Kwadi (26), Proto-Jê/Proto-Jabuti (28), English/Tocharian b (37), and Awtuw/Alam- blak (45)—are recognized by at least one of the three online classification sites. Fourteen comparisons of Table 5 (nos. 30–32, 39–42, 44, 46–51) show below- average values for COMi, CORi, and +BVi, indicating weak support for both genealogical affiliation and language contact (see Table 6). Six of these comparisons (32, 40, 42, 44, 47, 49), or 43 percent, are not recognized by any of the three classification sites, meaning, of course, that 57 percent are so recognized. Fourteen comparisons of Table 5 (nos. 52–65) show no support for historical connection whatsoever, demonstrating 0 for all three metrics. Only 5 of these comparisons (nos. 52, 57, 59, 62, 65) or 36 percent are not recognized by any of the three online sites, meaning, of course, that 64 percent are so recognized. Ten comparisons of Table 5 (nos. 20, 21, 23–25, 27, 29, 35, 36, 38) yield support for historical connection, but connection involving language contact rather than common ancestry (COMi < average, CORi > average, and +BVi < average). Online classifications largely agree with these results, since 9 of the 10 comparisons (90 percent) are not recognized by any of the three sites. (The single exception is Proto-Eskimo/Aleut [27], identified by all three online classifications.)

16 Interestingly, in Table 5, Proto-Eskimo/Aleut (no. 27) is recognized by all three online classifications (a, g, w), while Washo/Karok (no. 5) is not recognized by any of the three.

Language Dynamics and Change 7 (2017) 252–285 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 03:44:14AM via free access 278 brown

General agreement between the bwb results of Table 5 and online classification is low, at only 59 percent (38/65), exceeding chance expectation but not by much. Agreement is better for positive outcomes, where 67 percent (18/27) of bwb results that indicate a genealogical relationship concur with online classifications, but worse for negative outcomes, where only 53 percent (20/38) of bwb results agree with the online sources. The following are language comparisons of Table 5 for which there is no agreement between bwb and online classification, beginning with those identified by bwb as providing convincing support for genealogical association, followed by those for which persuasive bwb support for common ancestry is not apparent.

Genealogical association supported by bwb but not recognized by online classification:

5. Washo/Karok (Hokan) 11. Quechua/Tarasco (Quechuan-Tarascan) 14. Proto-Totonacan/Proto-Mixe-Zoquean (Totozoquean) 16. Proto-Quechua/Proto-Aymara (Quechumaran) 19. Proto-Kakua-Nukak/Puinave (Puinavean) 22. Uto-Aztecan/Proto-Tanoan (Aztec-Tanoan) 33. Proto-Mayan/Proto-Mixe-Zoquean (Mayan-Zoquean) 34. Proto-Pama-Nyungan/Proto-Tangkic (Australian) 43. Proto-Eskimo/Proto-Yukagir (Uralo-Siberian)

Scholars responsible for online classifications might seriously consider including some or all of the above nine comparisons among their recognized related languages, or, at the very least, acknowledge these as especially promising potential additions.

Genealogical association with weak or no bwb support, but recognized by online classification:

27. Proto-Eskimo/Aleut (Eskimo-Aleut) 30. Efik/Proto-Bantu (Benue-Congo) 31. Reef-Santa Cruz/Proto-Oceanic (Temotu-Oceanic) 39. Miskito/Cacaopera (Misumalpan) 41. Wintu/Lake Miwok (California Penutian) 46. Proto-Witoto/Proto-Boran (Witotoan) 50. Proto-Popolocan/Proto-Mixtecan (Otomanguean)

Language Dynamics andDownloaded Change from 7 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2017) 252–285 03:44:14AM via free access evaluating proposals of language genealogical relationship 279

51. Maidu/Yawelmani Yokuts (California Penutian) 53. Nubian/Nilotic (Eastern Sudanic) 54. Paya/Bribri, Cabecar, Terraba (Chibchan) 55. Proto-Chiapanec-Mangue/Proto-Mixtecan (Otomanguean) 56. Proto-Chiapanec-Mangue/Proto-Popolocan (Otomanguean) 58. Proto-Jê/Karaja ((Nuclear-) Macro-Jê) 60. Proto-Otopamean/Proto-Popolocan-Mixtecan, Proto-Popolocan (Otomanguean) 61. Proto-Yokuts/Proto-Utian (California Penutian) 63. Tlapanec, Subtiaba/Isthmus Zapotec (Otomanguean) 64. Tlapanec, Subtiaba/Proto-Popolocan (Otomanguean)

Scholars responsible for online classifications should rescind the recognition of some or all of these genealogical relationships or, at the very least, should care- fully re-examine evidence for their postulation. Special consideration should be given to altogether eliminating the California Penutian and Otomanguean families.17 Online classifications recognize genealogical associations in a binary way— they either postulate a genealogical relationship or not. On the other hand, bwb results differentiate between genealogical relationships and historical connections limited to language contact. The following is a list of comparisons from Table 5 for which there is strong bwb evidence for historical connection involving language contact but not for common ancestry.

bwb supported historical connection involving only language contact:

20. Seneca/Proto-Siouan (Iroquoian-Siouan) 21. Japanese/Korean (Transeurasian) 23. Atakapa-Chitimacha (Atakapa-Chitimacha) 24. Chitimacha/Proto-Mixe-Zoquean, Proto-Totonacan (Chitimacha- Totozoquean) 25. Timucua-Warao (Timucua-Warao) 27. Proto-Eskimo/Aleut (Eskimo-Aleut)

17 Of the five comparisons for California Penutian of Table 5 (nos. 8, 41, 48, 51, 56), only Proto-Maidun, Maidu/Proto-Wintun, Wintu (no. 8) shows better than weak support for genealogical affiliation. Only one online classification, wals Online, recognizes California Penutian. All six Otomanguean comparisons (nos. 50, 55, 56, 60, 63, 64) show weak to no bwb support. Otomanguean is recognized by all three online classifications.

Language Dynamics and Change 7 (2017) 252–285 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 03:44:14AM via free access 280 brown

29. Proto-Japanese/Proto-Mongolic (Transeurasian) 35. Proto-Shuar/Candoshi (Jivaroan-Candoshi) 36. Natchez/Proto-Muskogean (Gulf) 38. Proto-Japanese/Proto-Tungusic (Transeurasian)

One of these ten comparisons, Proto-Eskimo/Aleut, is posited by online classification to involve common ancestry. This evaluation should be reconsid- ered by gate-keeping online classifiers. At least six of the ten comparisons involve languages of reasonably close geographic proximity to one another (nos. 20, 21, 23, 27, 35, and 36), so bwb results indicating that these languages developed similar lexical items through contact are not particularly surpris- ing. What is of special interest is that contact was of such great intensity that lexical similarity yields bwb sound correspondences for these languages. Four comparisons involve pairs of languages of considerable geographic distance from one another: Chitimacha (Lower Mississippi Valley)/Proto-Totozoquean (Mesoamerica), Timucua (Florida)/Warao (Northern South America), Proto- Japanese (Insular Asia)/Proto-Mongolic (Interior East Asia), and Proto-Japa- nese/Proto-Tungusic (Interior East Asia). Results for these comparisons indicate long-distance (direct or indirect) interactions and post-contact migra- tions, which should garner the attention of prehistorians.

5 Conclusion bwb evaluation of lexical evidence is not the final word on the historical connection of compared languages, especially if findings should prove non- supportive. Negative bwb results for any comparison might be reversed when a collection of comparative sets is augmented with new (and improved) lexical data. Broad adoption by historical linguists of bwb or some other standard of even greater quantitative rigor would constitute a significant improvement of the comparative method, perhaps the most important enhancement since development of the approach some two centuries ago.

Acknowledgments

Gene Andersen, Juliette Blevins, Pamela Brown, Catherine Callaghan, Wallace Chafe, Patience L. Epps, E.M. Kempler-Cohen, Silke Lambert, Thomas Martin, Martine Robbeets, Edward J. Vajda, Søren Wichmann, and two anonymous

Language Dynamics andDownloaded Change from 7 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2017) 252–285 03:44:14AM via free access evaluating proposals of language genealogical relationship 281 referees are thanked for commenting on drafts of this manuscript. David Beck is to be singled out for special thanks. If there were a page of this article not influenced by his thoughtful remarks, I would be surprised. Others are thanked for contributing data or in various other important ways including Alexandra Aikhenvald, Juan Alvaro Echeverri, Roger Blench, Robert Blust, Claire Bowern, Lyle Campbell, Matthew Dryer, Nicholas Q. Emlen, William A. Foley, Robert Forkel, Michael D. Fortescue,Tom Güldemann, Magnus Pharao Hansen, Martin Haspelmath, Eric Holman, Matthias Pache, Malcolm Ross, Johanna Nichols, Don Ringe, Frank Seifart, and George Starostin.

Supplementary materials

Online Appendix a contains bwb evaluation of lexical comparative sets assembled by Pache (2016) for the Pumé-Chocoan proposal. Online Appendix b contains details of bwb evaluation of 65 collections of lexical comparative sets cited in Table 5 (Section 4) of the main text. Online Appendix c contains evidence for basic vocabulary’s greater resistance to borrowing compared to cultural and general vocabulary.

References

Alpher, Barry. n.d. Pama-Nyungan: Phonological reconstruction and status as a phylogenetic group. Unpublished manuscript in possession of its author. Alvaro Echeverri, Juan and Frank Seifart. 2015. Proto-Witoto-Ocaina-Nonuya and its relation to Proto-Bora-Muinane: A re-evaluation of the Witotoan family. Unpub- lished manuscript in possession of its authors. Aoki, Haruo. 1963. On Sahaptian-Klamath linguistic affiliations. International Journal of American Linguistics 29: 107–112. Bartholomew, Doris A. 1965. The Reconstruction of Otopamean (Mexico). PhD dissertation, University of Chicago. Blench, Roger and Kay Williamson (†). 2017. A comparative study of the Ịjọ languages. Volume ii: Core lexicon (Cambridge, June o3, 2017). Manuscript in possession of its surviving author. Blevins, Juliette. 2007. A long lost sister of Proto-Austronesian? Proto-Ongan, mother of Jarawa and Onge of the Andaman Islands. Oceanic Linguistics 46: 154–198. Bowern, Claire, Patience Epps, Russell Gray, Jane Hill, Keith Hunley, Patrick McConvell, and Jason Zentz. 2011. Does lateral transmission obscure inheritance in hunter- gatherer languages? PLoS one 6(9): 1–9.

Language Dynamics and Change 7 (2017) 252–285 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 03:44:14AM via free access 282 brown

Brown, Cecil H., David Beck, Grzegorz Kondrak, James K. Watters, and Søren Wich- mann. 2011. Totozoquean. International Journal of American Linguistics 77: 323–372. Brown, Cecil H., Eric W. Holman, and Søren Wichmann. 2013. Sound correspondences in the world’s languages. Language 89: 4–29. Brown, Cecil H., Søren Wichmann, and David Beck. 2014. Chitimacha: A Mesoamerican language in the Lower Mississippi Valley. International Journal of American Linguis- tics 80: 425–474. Callaghan, Catherine A. 2014. ProtoUtianGrammarandDictionarywithNotesonYokuts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Campbell, Lyle. 1973. Distant genetic relationships and the Maya-Chipaya hypothesis. Anthropological Linguistics 15: 113–135. Campbell, Lyle. 1988. Review of Language in the Americas by Joseph H. Greenberg. Language 84: 591–615. Campbell, Lyle. 1995. The Quechumaran hypothesis and lessons for distant genetic comparison. Diachronica 12: 157–200. Campbell, Lyle. 1997. American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America. New York: Oxford University Press. Campbell, Lyle. 1999. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge, ma: mit Press. Campbell, Lyle. 2011. Review of The Dene-YeniseianConnection edited by James Kari and Ben A. Potter. International Journal of American Linguistics 77: 445–451. Campbell, Lyle and David Oltrogge. 1980. Proto-Tol (Jicaque). International Journal of American Linguistics 46: 205–223. Campbell, Lyle and William J. Poser. 2008. Language Classification: History and Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carter, Richard T., A. Wesley Jones, and Robert L. Rankin. 2006. Comparative Siouan dictionary. Version of August 17, 2006. Unpublished manuscript in possession of its authors. Chafe, Wallace L. 1964. Another look at Siouan and Iroquoian. American Anthropologist 66: 852–862. Constenla Umaña, Adolfo. 1981. Comparative Chibchan Phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Constenla Umaña, Adolfo. 1987. Elementos de fonología comparada de las lenguas Misumalpas. Filología y Linguística 13: 129–161. Davis, Irvine. 1968. Some Macro-Jê relationships. International Journal of American Linguistics 34: 42–47. Elmendorf, William W. 1963. Yukian-Siouan lexical similarities. International Journal of American Linguistics 29: 300–309. Emlen, Nicholas Q. 2017. Appendix to ‘Perspectives on the Quechua–Aymara contact relationship and the lexicon and phonology of pre-Proto-Aymara.’ International Journal of American Linguistics 83: 307–340.

Language Dynamics andDownloaded Change from 7 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2017) 252–285 03:44:14AM via free access evaluating proposals of language genealogical relationship 283

Enrico, John. 2004. Toward Proto-Na-Dene. Anthropological Linguistics 46: 229–302. Epps, Patience. 2017. Subsistence pattern and contact-driven language change: A view from the Amazon basin. Language Dynamics and Change 7: 47–101. Epps, Patience and Katherine Bolaños. Forthcoming. Reconsidering the “Makú” language family of northwest Amazonia. International Journal of American Linguistics. Fernández de Miranda, María Teresa and Robert J. Weitlaner. 1961. Sobre algunas rela- ciones de la familia Mangue. Anthropological Linguistics 3: 1–99. Foley, William A. 1986. The Papuan Languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Foley, William A. 2005. Linguistic prehistory in the Sepik–Ramu basin. In Andrew Pawley, Robert Attenborough, Robin Hide, and Jack Golson (eds.), Papuan Pasts: Cultural, Linguistic and Biological Histories of Papuan-speaking Peoples, 109–144. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Fortescue, Michael. 2017. Correlating Palaeo-Siberian languages and populations: Re- cent advances in the Uralo-Siberian hypothesis. Man in India 97: 47–68. Fortescue, Michael, Steven Jacobson, and Lawrence Kaplan. 1994. Comparative Eskimo Dictionary with Aleut Cognates. Fairbanks: University of Alaska. Girard, Victor. 1971. Proto-Takanan Phonology. Berkeley: University of California Press. Granberry, Julian. 1993. A Grammar and Dictionary of the Timucua Language. 3rd ed. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. The Languages of Africa. University of Indiana, Blooming- ton. Gudschinsky, Sarah A. 1959. Proto-Popotecan: A Comparative Study of Popolocan and Mixtecan. Supplement to InternationalJournalof AmericanLinguistics 25(2). Bloom- ington, in: Indiana University. Güldemann, Tom and Edward D. Elderkin. 2010. On external genealogical relationships of the Khoe family. In Matthias Brenzinger and Christa König (eds.), Khoisan Lan- guages and Linguistics: Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium, January 4– 8, Riezlern/Kleinwalsertal, Quellen zur Khoisan-Forschung 24, 15–52. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe. Haas, Mary R. 1956. Natchez and the Muskogean languages. Language 32: 61–73. Haas, Mary R. 1958a. Algonkian-Ritwan: The end of a controversy. International Journal of American Linguistics 24: 159–173. Haas, Mary R. 1958b. A new linguistic relationship in North America: Algonkian and the Gulf languages. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 14: 231–264. Haspelmath, Martin and Uri Tadmor. 2009a. Loanwords in the World’s Languages: A Comparative Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Haspelmath, Martin and Uri Tadmor (eds.). 2009b. World Loanword Database (wold). Leipzig: Max Planck Digital Library. Available at http://wold.clld.org/ (accessed July 18, 2017).

Language Dynamics and Change 7 (2017) 252–285 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 03:44:14AM via free access 284 brown

Holman, Eric W., Søren Wichmann, Cecil H. Brown, Viveka Velupillai, André Müller, and Dik Bakker. 2008. Explorations in automated language classification. Folia Lin- guistica 42: 331–354. Jacobsen, William H., Jr. 1958. Washo and Karok: An approach to comparative Hokan. International Journal of American Linguistics 24: 195–212. Johanson, Lars and Martine Robbeets. 2010. Introduction. In Lars Johanson and Mar- tine Robbeets (eds.) Transeurasian Verbal Morphology in a Comparative Perspective: Genealogy, Contact, Chance. pp. 1–5. (Turcologica 78.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Julian, Charles. 2010. A History of the Iroquoian Languages. PhD dissertation, University of Manitoba. Kari, James and Ben A. Potter (eds.). 2010. The Dene-Yeniseian Connection. Fairbanks, ak: Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Kessler, Brett. 2001. The Significance of Word Lists: Statistical Tests for Investigating Historical Connections between Languages. Stanford, ca: csli Publications. Langdon, Margaret. 1979. Some thoughts on Hokan with particular reference to Pomo- an and Yuman. In Lyle Campbell and Marianne Mithun (eds.), The Languages of Native America: Historical and Comparative Assessment, 592–649. Austin: University of Texas Press. McKaughan, Howard. 1973. A study of divergence in four New Guinea languages. In Howard McKaughan (ed.), The Languages of the Eastern Family of the East New Guinea Highland Stock, 694–738. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Mora-Marín, David E. 2016. Testing the Proto-Mayan-Mije-Sokean hypothesis. Interna- tional Journal of American Linguistics 82: 127–180. Newman, Stanley. 1964. Comparison of Zuni and California Penutian. International Journal of American Linguistics 30: 1–13. Nichols, Johanna. 2010. Proving Dene-Yeniseian genealogical relatedness. In Kari and Potter (eds.), 299–309. Pache, Matthias. 2016. Evidence for a genealogical link between Pumé (Yaruro) and Chocoan. Language Dynamics and Change 6: 99–155. Payne, David L. 1981. Bosquejo fonológico del proto-shuar-candoshi: Evidencia para una relación genética. Revista del Museo Nacional 16: 323–377. Pitkin, Harvey and William Shipley. 1958. A comparative survey of California Penutian. International Journal of American Linguistics 24: 174–188. Rensch, Calvin R. 1977. Classification of the Otomanguean languages and the position of Tlapanec. In David Oltrogge and Calvin R. Rensch (eds.), Two Studies in Middle American Comparative Linguistics, 53–108. Dallas, tx: The Summer Institute of Lin- guistics/Arlington, tx: The University of Texas at Arlington. Ringe, Donald. 1998. Probabilistic evidence for Indo-Uralic. In Joseph Salmons and Brian Joseph (eds.), Nostratic: Sifting the Evidence, 153–197. Amsterdam: John Ben- jamins.

Language Dynamics andDownloaded Change from 7 Brill.com09/28/2021 (2017) 252–285 03:44:14AM via free access evaluating proposals of language genealogical relationship 285

Rivail Ribeiro, Eduardo and Hein van der Voort 2010. Nimuendajú was right: The inclusion of the Jabutí language family in the Macro-Jê stock. International Journal of American Linguistics 76: 517–570. Robbeets, Martine. 2004. Swadesh 100 on Japanese, Korean and Altaic. Tokyo Univer- sity Linguistic Papers, tulip 23, 99–118. Robbeets, Martine. 2005. Is Japanese Related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Ross, Malcolm and Åshild Næss. 2007. An Oceanic origin for Äiwoo, the language of the Reef Islands? Oceanic Linguistics 48: 456–498. Swadesh, Morris. 1946. Phonologic formulas for Atakapa-Chitimacha. International Journal of American Linguistics 12: 113–132. Swadesh, Morris. 1967. Lexicostatistic classification. In Norman A. McQuown (ed.), Handbook of Middle American Indians: Linguistics, 79–115. Austin: University of Texas Press. Swadesh, Morris (edited by Joel Sherzer). 1971. The Origin and Diversification of Lan- guage. Chicago: Aldine Atherton. Vajda, Edward J. 2010. A Siberian link with Na-Dene languages. In Kari and Potter (eds.), 33–99. Whorf, Benjamin L. and George L. Trager. 1937. The relationship of Uto-Aztecan and Tanoan. American Anthropologist 39: 609–624.

Language Dynamics and Change 7 (2017) 252–285 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 03:44:14AM via free access