On Mesoamerican Linguistics

850 AMERICAN A NTHR 0 POL OGIS T [82, 19801

References Cited

Abo, Takaji, Byron W. Bender, Alfred Capelle, and Tony DeBrum

1976 Marshallese-English Dictionary. Ho- nolulu: University Prms of Hawaii.

Brown, Cecil H. 1977 Folk Botanical Life-Forms: Their

Universality and Growth. American An- thropologist 79: 9 17-342.

1979 Folk Zoological Life-Forms: Their Universality and Growth. American An- thropologist 81 : 791 -81 7.

Pukui, Mary Kawena, and Samuel H. Elbert 1971 Hawaiian Dictionary. Honolulu: Uni-

versity of Hawaii Press.

Rcccawd 26 March 1980 Accepted 28 Apn‘l 1980

On Mesoamerican Linguistics

LYLE CAMPBELL SUNY, Albany

TERRENCE KAUFMAN University of Attsburgh

This paper is a response to Witkowski and Brown (AA 80:942-944, 1978). We restrict our comments to the more crucial hues: methods of distant genetic research, diffusion, and the cladication of Mesoamerican languages. Wit- kowski and Brown’s proposal of a linguistic phylum uniting most of the language families of Mesoamerica (except Uto-Aztecan and Hokan) contrasts with the bulk of current research and the c o r ~ ~ n s u s among the majority of specialists working in the area (for summaries. Long acre 1967, 1968; Kaufman 1974a, b; Perez Gon- zAlez 1975; and Campbell 1979). Our p u ’ p o ~ in this paper is to show why we find the Witkow- ski and Brown proposal unacceptable and to present an alternative view of the genetic relationship among Mesoamerican languagea, an alternative that we believe haa more empirical support and is more generally accepted.

It is moot unfortunate that Witkowki and Brown present no supporting evidence, since specialists cannot test their claims. This can be seriody misleading, since “bold” and “daring” hypothem of remote relatiomhips already abound, and nonspecialhu are not warned to

be careful. While Witkowski and Brown have presented no evidence for their proposed Meso- american phylum, they have published information concerning their proposed Mayan- Zoquean relatiomhip (Brown and Witkowski 1979). Since these languages constitute part of their Mesoamerican phylum, it is appropriate to evaluate their methods in the Maya-Zoquean paper and contrast them with successful methods of distant genetic research.

A plausible proposal of distant relationship needs more than a body of similarities shared by the compared languages. It muat be demonstrated that the similarities are best explained genetically, and not by chance, borrowing, universala. onomatopoeia, sound symbolism. or widespread occurrences. Brown and Witkowski IMC the lexical-lists approach with propoacd sound compondences, which has been the most common method of distant genetic in- vestigation. This approach, however, is usually not adequate; Goddards (1975) assessment of it is very much to the point:

It is widely believed that, when accompanied by lists of corresponding sounds, a moderate number of lexical similarities is sufficient to demonstrate a linguistic relationship. These lists of correspondences are presented to show that the resemblances are not random or ac- cidental, but systematic and regular. How- ever, there are several rcaons why thin approach is unsatisfactory. In general, the establishing of phonological cozespondences is something that goes on within the frame- work of a family of languages already known to be related. . . . This statement [of sound correspondences as reflexes of a given proto sound] is part of a complex hypothesis about the phonological system of the protolanguage and the vanom changea which it underwent while developing into the system of the descendant languagea. When, on the other hand, there h no systematic hypothesis about the phonological histories of the languagca in question, there can be no sound correspondences, properly speaking.

In the initial framing of such an hypothesis it is alwaya a Mt of good etymologies which forms the basis for the eventual postulation of true sound compondences. The criteria which have usually been considered necessary for a good etymology are very strict, even though there may seem to be a high a priori probability of relationship when similar words in languagca known to be related are

REPORTS AND COMMENTS 85 1

compared. . . . Where grammatical ele- ments are etymologized it is necessary to pre- Sent an hypothesis about the system of which they are a part in its entirety. It is obvious also that the greater the number of descendant languagcs attesting a form, and the greater the number of comparable phonemes in it, the more likely it is that the etymology is a sound one and the resemblances not merely the result of chance. A lexical similarity between only two languages is generally considered to be insufficiently supported, unless the match is very exact both phonologically and semantically and it is rare that a match of only one or two phonemes is persuasive. If the meanings of the forms compared differ, then there must be an explicit hypothesis about how the meaning has changed in the various cases. Now, if these strict criteria have been found necmary for etymologies with known linguistic families, it is obvious that much stricter criteria must be applied to word-comparisons between languages whose relationship is in question. In fact it is virtually impossible to prove a distant genetic relationship on the basis of lexical comparisons alone [Goddard 1975:254-255, emphasis in origi- nal].

Then plausible proposals of distant genetic relationship must eliminate all other possible explanations of similarities, leaving the genetic explanation as the only one likely. Thus pro- poMd cognates should be semantically equivalent, since any necessary assumption of semantic shift increases the potential that chance (rather than common ancestry) may explain the similarity. In the same way, the length of proposed cognates and the number of corresponding seg menu is important. Monosyllabic forma of only two segments (e.g., CV) may be true cognates, but they are so short that chance could also account for the similarity. If only one or two seg menu of longer forms correspond, then chance is a strong possible explanation. Potentially onomatopoetic forma must also be eliminated, since similarity may emanate from the sound of the referent in nature and not from any historical association. Moreover, widespread forma provide no direct support. Some compared forms occur in similar form in many very different American Indian langaugcs. Though such widespread forms may suggest some common ancestry, they do not show that the languages under comparison at the moment are more clmly related to one another than to any of the

others containing the widespread forms which possibly are not being compared at the moment. Other problems are comparison based on erroneous analysis of forms assumed to be mor- phologically complex, failure to eliminate loan words and areal features, etc. It is extremely difficult to demonstrate distant genetic affinity by lexical considerations alone (since sound correspondences may appear to occur in c a m of unidentified loan words). Therefore, better proposals will have grammatical compondencea as well. Clearly, the most credible proposals will be supported by both systematic sound correspondences and grammatical correspondences. anchored systematically in the grammars of the compared languages.

Since there is no agreement about the kinds or number of similarities explicable by accident, borrowing, universals, etc.. the proof of relationship can never be completely objective. Nevertheless, blatantly weak proposals need no longer be tolerated.

This raises the question: how did the weak proposals that now abound arise? They a r m in the early attempts to bring the tremendous genetic diversity of American Indian languagcs into manageable genetic schemes. The leading tendency, following Sapir’s influence, in attempted explanations of cross-family similarities was to try to show that many were due ultimate- ly to genetic relationship. Sapir (in contrast to Boas) came to believe that the effecw of diffusion would not be profound, making prospccu for dkovering remote relationships brighter. Following Sapir’s lead, scholars continued to attempt large-scale reductions in the number of ultimate genetic units in America by uniting previously established families into more in- clusive groupings. (For details. see Campbell and Mithun 1979.) When areal phenomena are taken into account, many hypotheses of remote affinity must be reevaluated; it is clear that the level of proof for remote relationship is much higher than thought by many of Sapir’s fol- lowers.

The emphasis on reduction of genetic diversity led to a number of poorly founded proposals. often proposed initially as hunches or long shots to be tested more fully later. Sapir’s skepticism about structural diffusion (ace Darnell and Shener 1971) led scholars to interpret some areal similarities as evidence of remote connec- tions. A good example is the Macro-Mayan hypothesis (see Radin 1916, 1924; Sapir 1929). We coxuider the background of the Macro-Mayan hypothesis (which in its most widely repeated

852 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [82, 19801

form relates Mayan, Mixe-Zoquean, and To- tonacan) because it involves the two language familes of Brown and Witkowski’s Maya- Zoquean, the evidence for which we will evaluate directly. McQuown (1942:37-38) launched hia version of the now widely accepted hypothesis based on:

The only other language family besides To- tonacan of Mexico that has thia glottalized series ia Mayan, and thia fact together with other signifcant detaih suggests to us the probable genetic relation of Totonac- Tepehua with Mayan; but the relatively mall number of coincidences in vocabulary in- dicates to us that thin kinship is quite distant [my translation, LC].

Since sweral other Mmamerican languages a h have a glottalized =ria (e.g., most Otomanguean languages, Tequistlatecan, Xin- can, Lencan, and Jicaque), and because glot- talization can be diffused areally, the Macro- Mayan hypothesis in thin form had a shaky origin.

Unlike many other such hypothcses, however, Macro-Mayan has received considerable atten- tion (see McQuown 1965; Kaufman 1964a; Arana 1964; Wakefield 1971; Jach 1972; Campbell 1972b; and now Brown and Witkow- ski 1979). However, the hypothesis has not pro- ven productive. Kaufman (1964a, referred to by Brown and Witkowski) assembled about 140 possible cognate sets (some McQuown’s, some Swadeshs, many added by Kaufman). Many oc- curred in only two of the t h m language families; more were between Totonacan and Mixe-Zoquean. A plausible act of sound correspondences was worked out, but new examples of these compondences were not forthcoming; most of the compondences were near-identi- ties or differed according to expectable substitu- tions. A lot of good will was required on Kauf- man’s part to assemble his poasible cognates. It was not poasible to suggest a Proto-Macro- Mayan sound system; there were simply not enough potential cognates to do so. Many of these are now demonstrated loan words, as shown by the criteria for establishing loans (discussed in Campbell and Kaufman 1976). The remaining i tem which cannot readily be disqualified provide no systematic sound correspondences upon which to base a believable genetic relationship. The upshot of this is that a reevaluation of the Macro-Mayan hypothesis based on much new information that has ap-

peared since 1964 shows that most (though not all) of the reasons for originally entertaining the hypothesis have dissolved.

With this background in mind, we turn to Brown and Witkowaki’s Maya-Zoquean proposal. They present 62 putative cognate sets for Mayan and Mixe-Zoquean, involving k’s and 9’s in Mayan. We find that their evidence suffers from the methodological problems considered above. To begin with, they present no Proto- Maya-Zoquean sound system, but they also present no Proto-Zoquean (pZ) (called Mixe- Zoquean by us) sound system and give no in- dications of how their pZ reconstructions were obtained. Proto-Mixe-Zoquean (their pZ) had roots of the shape CVCV and CVC (see Kauf- man 1963). (Zoquean languages retain CVCV, while Mixean languages show loss of the final vowel, though certain changes in adjacent con- sonants show that it was once present in Mixean as well.) Brown and Witkowaki have CVC roots for their pZ, which is misleadingly similar to the typical Proto-Mayan CVC root structure. One suspects that the pZ reconstruction in many c;ws is somewhat arbitrarily chosen to make the forma seem more similar to the Mayan forms. For example, their number 9) Proto-Mayan (pM) *kah sour, bitter, bile is compared to a pZ form *cah which is illustrated only by Sayula caytim unn‘pcfnrit (tihmfruit). It appears that the h of their pZ is chosen to make the form more similar to the pM form, since there is no indication of why or how Sayula y reflects pZ h. In 12) their pZ form is *ko:?i shrimp, baaed on only Mixe of Totontepec ka:?yn; it appears that the pZ 0: is chosen to make the form more similar to their pM *k& shrimp. Other examples where pZ acema adjusted to accommo- date greater similarity to Mayan are: 2, 9, 12. 14, 18, 41, q?), 46, 53, 54, 61, 62. Finally, in consideration of their phonological reconstructions, it is unclear why they p m n t the assumed developments from the postulated Proto-Maya- Zoquean directly to their branches of the Mayan family and not first to pM itxlf. It goes without saying that we do not a g m with their claasifica- tion of Mayan (see Kaufman 1976; Campbell 1977), but Kaufman’s reconstructions of pM lexical items (which they employ, adding some of their own) are based on a very different classification, which makes it impossible to evaluate the developments they propose. Reconstruction based on one classification and developments (sound changes) based on another classification are not necessarily commen- surable.

REPORTS A N D COMMENTS 853

Forms which are short (with only two compared segments) do not eliminate chance as a possible explanation. For example, they present pM *(ia)oq woman (*G female prefu), pZ *oko grandmother, female, godmother in 37). Other examplesarenumbers: 1, 8. 13, 25, 37, 38, 45, 48. Examples involving probable or potential onomatopoeia are: 3, 7, 10, 13, 26, 28, 29, 30, 35, 49, 51, 55, 60, 62. The involvement of onomatopoeia in some of these forms is clear, since they illustrate irregular correspondences within the Mayan langauges. Many of their forms are not semantically equivalent; for example, 33) compares Tzotzil yellow teeth with Zoque (Sierra Popoluca) hard thing; 38) compares pM tongue and Zoquean edge, cheek; 50) compares worm and ant. Other examples where the forms are not semantically equivalent are: 3, 4, 6, 9, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21. 22, 23, 27, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 40, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55. Some of these are much more implausible than others, but all involve necessary but unmoti- vated assumptions of semantic shift. A related semantic problem is that in many canes the gloss assigned to the proto language, especially pZ seems to be chosen to make the meanings of the compared forms appear more similar and are frequently not the same as the glossa of the forms upon which the reconstructions are based. For example, 9) is said to mean bitter, sour, but it is based solely upon a Sayula form meaning un+e fmit; the gloss bitter, sour appears to be assigned to make the form more similar to pM bitter, sour, bile. In 38) all Mayan languaga have the meaning tongue, but pM is said to mean mouth, making it like pZ, which is said to mean mouth, edge, but which is itself based on forms which mean only edge, cheek; thus neither has the assigned meaning mouth in any actual forms. Other examples of such created semantic similarity are: 9, 14, 21, 23, 26, 36, 38, 40, 46, 47, 51, 52. The forms in which widespread forms (so-called pan-ameri- canism) are involved are: 1, 5, 10, 13, 16, 20, 23.24, 31, 32, 34, 36,51.61 (see Campbell and Kaufman 1980 for documentation). For example, their 16) haa pZ +tek foot compared to pM +tek to step on, stand up, but similar fomu are found throughout languaga of the Americas: Jicaque tek foot, tik' knee, Tarascan eika-hta- kua thigh, Aymara taki foot, Quechua Eaki foot, ProtoPanoan + tan foot, Tehueleche te foot, Chumash stuko knee, Eastern Mayan 'E'ehk knee, etc.

The forms which are based on erroneous or forced analyses, especially of morphology, are:

6, 9, 21, 22, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 42, 50, 60. For example, 21) gives Quiche sak lobster compared to pZ * s a k shelffkh, but QuichC sak' means only grasshopper, apparently a mistaken translation of the Spanish gloss longosta which means both lobster and grasshopper. Their 36) has pM *saq white and pZ * s a k white based on Mixe -ga:?k (viqa:?k lriqht eyes) and Zoque (Sierra Popoluca) -saka (pokaaaka, literally white of egg). Since the Zoque form appears to reflect Proto-Zoquean *po(po) white, it is doubtful that the segmented -*aka could have anything to do with white. In some cases the same etymon is repeated in different sets (e.g., 1-4, 35-55, 49-60). Noncognate forms within Mayan or with Zoquean are compared in 14, 16. 19, 22, 24, 33, 47, 48. For example, 47) Quiche and Cakchiquel poqon painful cannot be cognate with Tzeltal, Tzotzil, Tojolabal pukuh and Moch6 puku:h devil, since in cognates where Quiche-Cakchiquel have q Moch6 also has q. In the following cam the pM form is based on but a single language or restricted branches and M not demonstrably pM: 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 39. 40,43. 47, 49, 51, 53, 56. 57, 58, 59, 60, 61. 62. For example, 8) M pM *ke to giue, based solely on Kekchl ke/k'eh. Number 8) illustrates the same problem in their Zoquean pZ *ci? to give, based only on Sierra Populuca ci?-. Other Zoquean fomu so limited and not demonstrably pZ are: 3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21,22, 26,27,29, SO, 32, 33, 39,40,41,42, 44, 45, 48, 54, 55, 56, 59, 60, 62.

In summary, we find major problems with almost all the 62 potential cognates propomcd by Brown and Witkowski. Their data fall far short of demonstrating a genetic relationship between Mayan and (Mixe-) Zoquean. Since these languages form a part of their propomcd Meso- american phylum, for which they have presented no evidence, we mume that their methods and evidence for the broader relation- ahips must be of the same sort. Therefore, we feel compelled to reject their p r o p d Meso- american phylum, at least until such time when they may present more compelling evidence than that found in the Maya-Zoquean proposal.

Turning now briefly to diffusion, we (Camp- bell and Kaufman 1976) attempted to spell out the criteria for demonstrating loan-word status and to follow them in our identification of Mixe-Zoquean loan words in many other Meso- american languages. This makes us particularly unsympathetic to the Witkowski and Brown (p. 943) claim that many of our loans may be


cognates in some larger genetic grouping. The languages that Witkowski and Brown propose to relate all participate in the Mesoamerican linguistic area (and in the Mesoamerican culture area/cotradition), M) that there is strong reason to suspect borrowing and to be particularly cautious of it. Given the documented diffusion in Mesoamerica, clearly the burden of proof in disputes of common ancestry versus diffusion is on the proposers of distant relationships.

We now present what we believe to be a more accurate and supported classification of Meso- american languages. This summary is based on much recent research, but unfortunately it is impmible to present the supporting evidence here. We expect no one to accept this summary uncritically, and therefore we refer to the major workn supporting the individual aspects of the classification; see especially our detailed revaluation of the proposed distant genetic relationships of Mesoamerica (Campbell and Kaufman 1980). The demonstrated and non- controversial language familes of Mesoamerica are: (1) Uto-Aztecan (Lastra 1975; Heath 1977; Campbell and Langacker 1978); (2) Otoman- guean (with seven branches; Mixtecan, Popolocan, Chiapanec-Mangue, Otopamean, Zapotecan, Chinantecan, Amuzgo) Longacre

quistlatecan (Chontal of Oaxaca, two languages) (Turner 1969; Waterhouse 1969); (4) Jicaque (two languages) (Campbell and Oltrogge 1980); (5) Tlapanec-Subtiaba (Camp bell 1975b; Weathers 1976); (6) Totonacan (Arana 1953); (7) Mixe-Zoquean (Wonderly 1953; Kaufman 1963; Campbell and Kaufman 1976); (8) Mayan (Kaufman 1964b, 1969, 1976; Campbell 1977); (9) Xincan (four languages) (Campbell 1972a, 1976b; Kaufman and Camp- bell 1980); (10) Lencan (two languages) (Camp- bell 1976a; Campbell, Chapman, and Dakin 1978); (11) Misumalpan (Miskito, Sumu, Matagalpa-Cacaopera) (Campbell 1975a, c, 1979); (12) Huave (hlatc, see SuArcz 1975); (13) Ta rwan (isolate); and (14) Cuitlatm (ex- tinct isolate, see Escalante 1962). (For general discwions, see Longacrc 1967, 1968; Kaufman 1974a. b; Perez-GonzAlez 1975; Campbell 1979.) All other proposals arc l a generally accepted and m a t arc questionable.

We consider the p ropa l s of dbtant genetic rclationhip in turn.

1. Macro-Mayan (Mayan, Totonacan, and Mixc-Zoquean). The evidence prrsented KY far is too weak for this hypothesis to be embraced, though it may be worthy of further research (see above).

1967, 1968; R e m h 1973, 1976); (3) Tc-

2. Mayan-Tarascan. The evidence presented by Swadcsh 1966 can easily be explained away ( ~ e Campbell and Kaufman 1980). The hypothesis should be abandoned.

3. Maya-Chipaya (Mayan and Chipaya-Uru of Bolivia). Upon reexamination. Ohon's (1964, 1965) initially attractive evidence dissolves (Campbell 1973).

4. Maya-Chipaya-Yunga (Maya-Chipaya and Yunga of Peru). This proposal (Stark 1974) shows a clear relationship between Chipaya-Urn and Yunga within South America, but the Mayan evidence suffers all the methodological weaknesses of the Maya-Chipaya hypothesis upon which it is based (Campbell 1972b, 1973).

5. Maya-Araucanian (framed by Stark 1970). All the evidence is explained away as accident, vague semantic associations, and the like. The hypothesis is too weak to warrant further atten- tion at this time (Campbell 1972a).

6. Mexican Penutian. Mexican Penutian in- cluded Huave and Mixe-Zoquean for Sapir (1929), these plus Mayan and Totonacan for Grcenberg (1956), these plus Uto-Aztecan for Whorf (1935). An generally conceived today it includes Aztec-Tanoan, Macro-Mayan, and others, all related to Californian and other Penutian languages. Since these components arc doubtful classifications themselves, it is far too premature to attempt more far-flung classifica tions.

7. Otomanguean-Huave (Swadesh 1964a. b; Longacre 1968; Rensch 1973, 1977). While the evidence presmted KY far is not abundant, it is strong enough to warrant much further in- vestigation.

8. Otomanguean-Tlapanec-Subtiaba (Rensch 1973, 1977). The evidence presented so far is rather limited, but it is strong enough to indi- cate that the hypothesis deserves further atten- tion. This is particularly important, since Sapir (1925) proposcd Subtiaba-Tlapanec as Hokan. Unfortunately, Sapir's evidence is much weaker than it had originally seemed (see Oltroggc 1977; R e m h 1973, 1976, 1977).

9. Jicaque-Hokan. The initial evidence (Gmnberg and Swadcsh (1953), based on 68 forms indiscriminately taken from the two Jicaque languages) was unconvincing, since Hokan itself is ill-defined.

10. Hokan. Traditional Hokan (including Tequistlatec. Sen, Subtiaba-Tlapanec, and now Jicaque) is very controversial; Hokan specialists now generally agree that it must be reevaluated (see Goddard 1979: Jacobsen 1979; and Langdon 1979).

REPORTS AND COMMENTS 855

11. Jicaque-Tequistlatec. Regardlees of the ultimate fate of Hokan, the evidence for the Jicaque-Tequistlatec relationship is very atrong (Oltrogge 1977; Campbell and Oltrogge 1980).

12. Xinca-Lenca. The only evidence pub- liahed is Lehmann's (1920) 12 fonna, 6 of which are certain loans; the others arc semantically quite different or onomatopoetic (Campbell 1976b, 1978, 1979). A certain amount of addi- tional evidence could be brought to bear, mme of which would tend to suggest a relationship, though not an exclusive one.

13. Paya-Chibchan. Until Holt's recent field- work, there was simply no real Paya data upon which its relationships could be established; the new data show conclusively that it belongs to Chibchan (Holt, 1975a, b; Holt and Bright 1976). For general and detailed considerations of all

these, .uc Campbell and Kaufman 1980.

References Cited

Arana, Evangclina 1953 Rcconstrucci6n del Proto-totonaco. In

Huastecoa, Totonacoa y sun Vecinoa. Igna- cio Bcrnal and Davaloa Hurtado, eds. pp. 123-130. Revista Mexicana de Estudioa Antropol6gicoa 13. Mexico, D.F., Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologla.

1964 Posibles Relaciones Externas del Grupo Lingiibtico Maya. Anales del In- stituto Nacional de Antropologla e Historia 13:lll-134.

Brown, Cecil H., and Stanley R. Witkowski 1979 hpts of the Phonological History of

Mayan-Zoquean. International Journal of American Linguistics 45:34-47.

Campbell, Lyle 1972a Mayan Loan Words in Xinca. Inter-

national Journal of American Linguistics

1972b Distant Genetic Relationship and P r o p o d Mayan Affinities. Ma. Depart- ment of Anthropology, State University of N m York, Albany.

1973 Distant Genetic Relationship and the Maya-Chipaya Hypothesis. Anthropo- logical Linguistics 15(3): 113-135.

El Estado Actual y la Afinidad Ge- nttica de la Lengua Indfgena de Cacaopera. La Universidad, Enero- Febrero, 45-54 (El Salvador).

1975b Subtiaba 1974. International Journal of American Linguistics 41:80-84.

1975c Cacaopera. Anthropological Linguis- tics 17(4):146-153.

58:187-190.

1975a

1976a The Last Lenca. International Jour- nal of American Linguistics 42:73-78.

1976b The Linguistic Prehistory of the Southern Mesoamerican Periphery. Fronteras de Mcsoamtrica. 14a Mesa Redonda, 1:157-184. Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologla.

1977 Quichean Linguistic Prehistory. Uni- versity of California Publications in Linguistics, 81. Loa Angela: University of California Press.

1978 Distant Genetic Relationship and Diffusion: A Mesoamerican Perspective. Paris. Proceedings of the International Congrm of Americanbts 52:595-605.

Middle American Languages. In The Languages of Native America: Historical and Comparative Assessment. Lyle Camp- bell and Marianne Mithun, e d ~ . pp. 902-1,000. Austin: University of Texas Prm.

Campbell, Lyle, Anne Chapman, and Karen Dakin

1978 Honduran Lenca. International Jour- nal of American Linguistics 44:330-332.

Campbell, Lyle, and Terrence Kaufman 1976 A Linguistic Look at the Olmecs.

American Antiquity 41:80-89. 1980 Linguistic Diffusion and Mesoameri-

can Prehistory. Ms. Department of An- thropology, State University of New York. Albany.

1979

Campbell. Lyle, and Ronald W. Langacker 1978 Proto-Aztecan Vowels (parts I, 11, and

111). International Journal of American Linguistics 44:85-102, 197-210, 262-279.

1979 Introduction: North American Indian Historical Linguistics in Current Perspec- tive. In The Languages of Native America: Historical and Comparative AsMssment. Lyle Campbell and Marianne Mithun, edE. pp. 3-69. Austin: University of Texas Presa.

Campbell, Lyle, and Marianne Mithun

Campbell, Lyle, and David Oltrogge 1980 Proto-To1 Uicaque). International

Journal of American Linguistics. (in p m ) .

1971 Areal Linguistic Studies in North America: A Historical Perspective. Inter- national Journal of American Linguistics

Darnell. Rcgna. and Joel Sherzcr

37:20-2a. Escalante, Roberto

1962 El Cuitlateco. Mexico: Instituto Na- cional de Antropologla e Historia.

Goddard, Ives 1975 Algonquian, Wiyot. and Yurok:


Proving a Distant Genetic Relatiomhip. In Linguistics and Anthropology: In Honor of C. F. Voegelin. M. Dale Kinkade, Kenneth L. Hale, and Oswald Werner, eds. pp. 249-262. L k : The Peter de Ridder Press.

1979 The Languages of South Texas and the Lower Rio Grande. In The Languages of Native America: Historical and Com- parative Assessment. Lyle Campbell and Marianne Mithun, eds. pp. 335-389. Aua- tin: University of Texas Prrss.

Greenberg, J w p h H. 1956 General Classification of Central

and South American Languages. In Men and Cultures: 5th International Congresa of Anthropological and Ethnological Sci- ences, Philadelphia, 791-794.

Greenberg, Jmeph H., and Mania Swadesh 1953 Jicaque as a Hokan Language. Inter-

national Journal of American Linguistics 43:27-36.

Heath, Jeffrey 1977 Uto-Aztecan Morphophonmia. In-

ternational Journal of American Linguis- tics 43:27-36.

Holt. Dennis 1975a Paya an a Chibchan Language. Ma.

Department of Linguistics, UCLA, Los Angeles.

1975b Paya Vocabulary. ME. Department of Linguistics, UCLA, Los Angeles.

Holt, Dennis, and William Bright 1976 La Lengua Paya y las Fronteras Lin-

@ticas de Mesoamerica. Las Fronteras de Mesoamerica. 14a Mesa Redonda, 1:149-156. Sociedad Mexicana de An- tropologfa.

Jacks, Lmis 1972 Macro-Mayan Cognate Sets. Ma. De-

partment of Anthropology, Southern 11- linois University, Carbondale.

Jacobsen. William 1979 Hokan Inter-branch Comparisons. In

The Languages of Native America: Historical and Comparative Awmment. Lyle Campbell and Marianne Mithun, eds. pp. 545-591. Austin: University of Texas RCM.

Kaufman, Terrence 1963 MkeZoque Diachronic Studies. Mi-

crofilm Collection of Manuscriprs on Mid- dle American Cultural Anthropology, 55. University of Chicago Library.

1964a Evidence for the Macro-Mayan Hy- pothesis. Microfilm Collection of

Manuscripts on Middle American Cultural Anthropology, 55. University of Chicago Library.

1964b Materiales Lingiilsticos para el Estudio de l a Relaciones Internan y Exter- nas de la Familia de Idiomas Mayan-. In har ro l lo Cultural de la Mayas. Evon Z. Vogt and Albert0 Ruz L., eds. pp. 81-136. Mexico: Seminario de Cultura Maya.

1969 Teco-A New Mayan Language. In- ternational Journal of American Linguistics 55:154-174.

1974a Meso-American Indian Languages. Encyclopaedia Britannica (1974 ed.), Macropaedia, Vol. 11: 956-963.

1974b Idiomas de Mesoamtrica. Seminario de Integraci6n Social Guatemalteca, Publication 33. Guatemala.

1976 Archaeological and Linguistic Come- latiom in Mayaland and Associated Areas of Mao-America. World Archeology 8: 101 -1 18.

Kaufman, Terrence, and Lyle Campbell 1980 Xincan Handbook: Comparative

Grammar and Dictionary of the Xincan Languages. Ma. Department of Anthropol- ogy, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsyl- vania.

Langdon, Margaret 1979 Some Thoughts on Hokan with Parti-

cular Reference to Pomoan and Yuman. In The Languages of Native America: Historical and Comparative Assessment. Lyle Campbell and Marianne Mithun, eda. pp. 592-649. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Lastra, Yolanda 1975 Panorama de los Estudios de Lenguas

Yutoaztecas. In Las Lenguas de Mexico. Evangelina Arana, ed. pp. 155-231. Mex- ico: Imtituto Nacional de Antropologla e Historia.

Lehmann, Walter 1920 Zentral Amerika. Berlin: Dietrich

Reimer (Ernst Vohsen). Longacre, Robert

1967 Systemic Comparison and Reconstruc- tion. In Linguistics. Norman McQuown. ed. pp. 117-160. Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 5. Robert Wauchope, gen. ed. Austin: University of Texas Press.

1968 Comparative Reconstruction of In- digenous Languages. In Current Trends in Linguistics. Thomas P. Sebeok, ed. 4:320-360. The Hague: Mouton.

REPORTS AND COMMENTS 857

McQuown, Norman P. 1942 Una Posible Slntesis Lingiilstica Mac-

ro-mayance. Mayas y Olmecas, 37-38. Segunda Reunidn dc Mesa Redonda sobre Problemas Antropoldgicos de Mexico y Centro America. Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologla.

Olson, Ronald D. 1964 Mayan Affinities with Chipaya of

Bolivia, I: Correspondences. International Journal of American Linguistics 30:313- 324.

Mayan Affinities with Chipaya of Boli- via, 11: Cognates. International Journal of American Linguistics 31:29-38.

1965

Oltrogge, David 1977 Proto-Jicaque-Subtiaba-Tcquiatlateco:

A Comparative Reconstruction. In Two Studies in Middle American Comparative Linguistics. David Oltrogge and Calvin Rensch, eds. pp. 1-52. Dallas: Summer In- stitute of Linguistics Series No. 55.

Perez Conz5lez. Benjamin 1975 Clasificaciones Lingiilsticas. In Laa

Lenguaa de Mexico. Evangelina Arana, ed. pp. 19-89. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Antropologla e Historia.

Radin, Paul 1916 On the Relatiomhip of Huave to

Mixe. American Anthropologist

The Relationship of Maya to Zoque- Huave. Journal de la SociCtC des AmCricanistes 16: 31 7-324.

18:411-421. 1924

Rensch, Calvin R. 1973 Otomanguean Isoglosses. In Current

Trends in Linguiatics. Thomas A. Sebeok, ed. 1 1:295-316. The Hague: Mouton.

1976 Comparative Otomanguean Phonol- ogy. Language Science Monograph, 14. Indiana University.

1977 Classification of Otomanguean Lan- guages and the Position of Tlapanec. In Two Studies in Middle American Com- parative Linguistics. David Oltrogge and Calvin Renxh, eds. pp. 53-108. Dallas: Summer Imtitute of Linguistics Series NO. 55.

1925 Sapir. Edward

The Hokan Affinity of Subtiaba in Nicaragua. American Anthropologist

1929 Central and North American Lan- guagcs. Encylopaedia Britannica, 14th ed.

27~402-435, 491-527.

Vol. 5:138-141.

Stark, Louisa R. 1970 Mayan Affinities with Araucanian.

Chicago Linguistics Society 6:57-69. 1972 Maya-Yunga-Chipayan: A New Lin-

guistic Alignment. International Journal of American Linguistics 38:119-135.

Suarez, Jorgc A. 1975 Estudioa Huaves. Coleccidn Cientlfica

Lingiihtica, 22. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Antropologla e Historia.

Swadesh, Mauricio 1964a Algunos Problemaa de la Lingiilstica

Otomangue. Anales de Antropologla 1:91-123.

Interim Notes on Oaxacan Phonol- ogy. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology

Porht y Maya. Anala de Antropol-

1964b

20: 168-189. 1966

ogla 3:173-204. Mexico Turner, Paul R.

1969 Proto-Chontal Phonemes. Interna- tional Journal of American Linguistics 35:34-37.

Wakefield, Walter 1971 The External Relationships of the

Mayan Family: A Review and k m e n t of Proposals and Evidence. Ms. Depart- ment of Anthropology, University of Texas, Auatin.

Waterhow, Viola 1969 Oaxaca Chontal in Reference to Pro

to-Chontal. International Journal of American Linguistics 35:231-233.

Weathers, Mark L. 1976 Tlapanec 1975. International Journal

of American Linguistics 42:367-571. Whorf, Benjamin L.

1935 The Comparative Linguistics of Uto- Aztecan. American Anthropologist 37 :600-605.

Witkowski, Stanley R., and Cecil H. Brown 1978 Mesoamerican: A PropoMd Language

Phylum. American Anthropologist 80: 942- 944.

Wonderly, William L. 1953 Sobre la Propuesta Filiacidn Lin-

giifntica de la Familia Totonaca con las familias zoqueana y Mayense. In Huantecos, Totonacoa y sun Vecinos. Ig- nacio Bernal and Davalos Hurtado, eds. pp. 105-113. Revista Mexicana de Estudioa Antropol6gicos 13:105-13. Mexico, D. F.: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologla.

Received 28 December 1979 Accepted 28 April I980

Documents

On Mesoamerican Linguistics