1403 996571 02 previ - University of Hawai»i

v

Contents

List of Figures and Maps vii

List of Tables viii

List of Abbreviations ix

Notes on the Contributors xii

Introduction xv

1 Areal Linguistics: A Closer Scrutiny 1Lyle Campbell

2 All or Nothing 32Thomas Stolz

3 Keeping Contact in the Family: Approaches to Language Classification and Contact-induced Change 51April McMahon and Robert McMahon

4 Linguistic Areas, Language Contact and Typology: Some Implications from the Case of Ethiopia as a Linguistic Area 75Walter Bisang

5 Structural Isoglosses between Khoekhoe and Tuu: The Cape as a Linguistic Area 99Tom Güldemann

6 The Sri Lanka Sprachbund: The Newcomers Portuguese and Malay 135Peter Bakker

7 On the Roles of Turkic in the Caucasus Area 160Lars Johanson

8 The Circle That Won’t Come Full: Two Potential Isoglosses in the Circum-Baltic Area 182Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm

vi Contents

9 Complex Emotion Predicates in Eastern Indonesia: Evidence for Language Contact? 227Simon Musgrave

10 Another Look at Australia as a Linguistic Area 244Claire Bowern

11 Towards a Typology of the Siberian Linguistic Area 266Gregory D. S. Anderson

Index of Authors 301

Index of Language Families, Languages and Dialects 306

Index of Subjects 311

1

1 Areal Linguistics: A Closer Scrutiny Lyle Campbell

‘It is not down in any map; true places never are.’ (Herman Melville, Moby Dick)

1 Introduction

The goal of this chapter is to re-examine areal linguistics and in doing so toarrive at a clearer understanding of the notion of ‘linguistic area’. Theconclusion reached is that it is individual historical events of diffusion thatcount, not the post hoc attempts to impose geographical order on variedconglomerations of these borrowings.

It is generally acknowledged that linguistic areas are ‘notoriouslymessy’, ‘notoriously fuzzy’ things (Thomason and Kaufman, 1988: 95;Tosco, 2000: 332; Heine and Kuteva, 2001: 396), and that ‘what weunderstand about linguistic areas is depressingly meager’ (Thomason,2001: 99). I argue that the reason for this is because there is no mean-ingful distinction between borrowing and areal linguistics. Since weunderstand a great deal about borrowing, we do, as a consequence,understand linguistic areas – or better stated, we understand their limitations.The review (in Sections 2 and 3) of proposed definitions of ‘linguisticarea’ reveals the difficulties.

2 Definitions of ‘linguistic area’

A common perception is that the term ‘linguistic area’ is difficult to define(see Heine and Kuteva, 2001: 409). As Thomason (2001: 99) observes,‘linguistics has struggled to define the concept [linguistic area] ever since[Trubetzkoy, 1928], mainly because it isn’t always easy to decide whether aparticular region constitutes a linguistic area or not’. In spite of prolongedefforts to define ‘linguistic area’, there is no general agreement as to its

2 Areal Linguistics: A Closer Scrutiny

definition, and even for the most widely accepted linguistic areas, such asthe Balkans, scholars do not agree wholly on which languages belong to thearea, which linguistic traits characterize the area, and even its precisegeographical extent. In Stolz’s (2002: 260) words, ‘these terms [Sprachbund,linguistic area, and areal type] seem to invite as many meanings and read-ings as there are linguistic minds to contemplate them’. I argue that toomuch effort has been wasted on trying to define the concept, that littleprogress has been made, and that it would be more productive just to inves-tigate the facts of linguistic diffusion without the concern for defininglinguistic areas.

The principal definitions that have been given of the notion ‘linguisticarea’ (or of related and more or less synonymous terms, Sprachbund, diffu-sion area, convergence area and so on) follow, presented in chronologicalorder. These various definitions both differ from one other and support myconclusion that linguistic areas boil down merely to a study of locallinguistic borrowing and its history, and little else.1 I list with the defini-tions the key elements in them that relate to the questions (discussed inSection 3) of how linguistic areas are defined.

2.1 Early efforts

Areal linguistic-like notions have long existed. There were discussions ofborrowed structural traits and disputes about ‘mixed languages’ from thebeginning of comparative linguistics (see Girard, 1747; Schleicher, 1850:143; Ebel 1856 [cited by Kuhn, 1861: 75 and Haarmann, 1976: 20]; Müller,1861: 90; Schuchart, 1866–68; Whitney, 1868: 197 and 1979[1875]: 119;Schmidt, 1872; Powell 1891: 216–77; Meillet, 1921[1921]: 82; 1967: 102;Bloomfield, 1933: 468; Weinreich, 1953; Vendryes, 1968: 308, 319–20).Before explicit definitions of ‘linguistic area’ were sought, numerous traitswere identified of the Balkan area (Kopitar, 1829 and 1857; Schleicher, 1850;Miklosich, 1861; Sandfeld, 1902, 1912, 1930, 1934 and 1938; for others seeSchaller, 1975: 37–48) and the South Asian (or Indian) linguistic area (Konow,1906; Bloch, 1919, 1925, 1930 and 1934; Vendryes 1968: 305). The originsof modern areal linguistics are traced to Franz Boas’s (1917, 1920, 1929)work with American Indian languages. Boas identified examples of sharedstructural traits which did not seem to fit the genetic classifications (seeBoas, 1920: 211). He spoke of ‘acculturation’ and ‘absorption’, and raisedthe question of the difficulty in some instances of distinguishing what wasinherited from what was diffused. Boas’ ‘areal-typological’ approach wasinfluential (see Campbell, 1997a: 62–6); he compared the structural traits oflanguages in a particular region with their neighbours to determine whetherthey might be due to diffusion or be inherited, representing genetic rela-tionships. Boas’s thinking influenced the Prague school (Trubetzkoy, 1939;Jakobson, 1931, 1938: 354, 1944; Darnell and Sherzer, 1971; Campbell andMithun, 1979; Emeneau, 1956: 107).

Lyle Campbell 3

2.2 Definitions

It has been argued that the concept of linguistic area or Sprachbund was firstpresented in Trubetzkoy (1923), as:

It happens that several languages in a region defined in terms of geog-raphy and cultural history acquire features of a particular congruence,irrespective of whether this congruence is determined by common originor only by a prolonged proximity in time and parallel development. Wepropose the term language union (jazykovoj sojuz) for such groups whichare not based on the genetic principle. (Trubetzkoy, 1923: 116, quoted inToman, 1995: 204)

Key elements are geographical region; and any shared features (whetherfrom common origin or parallel development). Not stated: anything aboutborrowing or diffusion (though perhaps implied in ‘prolonged proximity’).

Trubetzkoy (1928) is better known; his ‘Proposition 16’ in the firstInternational Congress of Linguists is generally cited as the origin of theconcept. He spoke of the need for the notion ‘language group’ [Sprachgruppe] – acollection of languages bound to one another by a number of systematic agree-ments (Trubetzkoy, 1928: 18); he divided Sprachgruppe into two types, familiesof genetically related languages and Sprachbünde. The latter were defined as:

Groups composed of languages which show a high degree of similaritywith respect to syntax, a similarity in the principles of morphologicalconstruction, and which offer a large number of common culture words,sometimes also an outward similarity in the phonological inventories, –but which possess neither systematic sound correspondences, nor hasany correspondences in the phonological make up of the morphologicalunits nor any common basic lexical items – such languages groups wecall Sprachbünde. (Trubetzkoy, 1928: 18)2

Key elements are a ‘language group’ with syntactic, morphological andoften phonological similarities, lacking systematic sound correspondences,no common basic vocabulary. Not mentioned: borrowing, possibly inferredfrom ‘lacking systematic sound correspondences, and no common basicvocabulary’. There is nothing especially ‘areal’ about this view, apart fromthe fact that languages that share such traits tend, by inference, to be nearone another. The name ‘linguistic area’ in English comes from Velten’s(1943) translation of Sprachbund (literally ‘language union’), made widelyknown by Emeneau (1956).3

Trubetzkoy (1931: 233–4; 1931: 350–1), in a paper largely about dialect geog-raphy, associated phonological areal traits with isoglosses of dialect geography,but which extend beyond language boundaries into other languages. It has


become common to associate areal traits with dialect isoglosses (Jakobson,1931, 1938; Weinreich, 1953; Jacobs, 1954; Martinet, 1956; Emeneau,1980[1956]: 111, 1971, 1974 and 1980; Ramanujan and Masica, 1969; Katz,1975; Masica, 1976, 1992: 111). Trubetzkoy credited Jakobson (see below) forexamples and pointed out others of his own (for example, glottalized conso-nants in the Caucasus region shared by North and South Caucasian, Indo-Euro-pean and Turkic languages, Trubetzkoy, 1931, p. 233).

Jakobson (1931) seconded Trubetzkoy’s ‘Proposition 16’, thoughmentioning ‘die Fragen nach gemeinsamen Erschein gungen . . . die in derStruktur benachbarter Sprachen vorkommen und nicht durch gemeinsamenUrsprung bedingt sind’ (Jakobson, 1931: 234). Key elements are structuraltraits in common, neighbouring languages, not from a common origin.

Here, more so than in Trubetzkoy’s renditions, it is clear that the structuresin question are shared by ‘neighbouring languages’ and are not a result of acommon origin. Jakobson’s main example was the ‘Polytonie’ (tonalcontrasts) of the ‘Baltic Sprachbund’ (see Schaller, 1975: 53; Koptjevskaja-Tamm,2002: 210). As is often pointed out, the Baltic area was thus postulated on thebasis of a single defining trait, a matter to which we shall return.4

Becker’s (1948: 5) characterization of a Sprachbund differs from almost allothers, seemingly calling for structural convergence among the languagesinvolved:

Under a Sprachbund we understand a group of languages which throughcommon fate in the same culture area and through reciprocal influencehave approximated one another so strongly that in any of them roughly thesame thing can be said in roughly the same way.5 Key elements are a groupof languages, in the same cultural area, mutual influence, converge to saythe same thing in the same way.

Emeneau (1956) brought areal linguistics back to the attention ofscholars, particularly in America, where it had largely been abandonedbecause of Sapir’s view that grammatical traits are rarely borrowed, havinggained precedence over Boas’s. Emeneau spoke of ‘diffusion of linguistictraits across genetic boundaries’ (1956: 105). His definition is:

This term ‘linguistic area’ may be defined as meaning an area whichincludes languages belonging to more than one family but showing traitsin common which are found not to belong to the other members of (atleast) one of the families. (Emeneau 1956: 124)

Key elements are: area, two or more language families, traits not found inother members of the same family.

Sherzer’s (1973: 760) definition is often cited:

A linguistic area is defined here as an area in which several linguistictraits are shared by the languages of the area and furthermore, there is

Lyle Campbell 5

evidence (linguistic and non-linguistic) that contact between thespeakers of the languages contributed to the spread and/or retentionof these traits and thereby to a certain degree of linguistic uniformitywithin the area. It is important to remember that languages which areunrelated or distantly related may very well and probably do disagreewith regard to many traits and yet still in the same linguistic area [sic]according to the above definition, since they share several traits(which one might want to call diagnostic traits). What is significant,then, is that linguistic structure, usually impervious to influencescoming from outside its own internal mechanisms, has been affectedby linguistic contact.

Key elements are several linguistic traits, a geographical area, contact-induced spread of structural traits.

Katz’s (1975: 16) definition is precise:

One can speak of a Sprachbund if:

(a) at a given time (b) a continuous geographical region, that (c) is intersected by at least one language boundary, (d) is encompassed by at least one isogloss.6

Key elements are geographical region, at least one language boundary, atleast one isogloss. Note that by this definition a single trait crossing a singlelanguage boundary can be sufficient to define a linguistic area.

Schaller’s (1975: 58) definition contrasts with Katz’s:

With respect to the members of a Sprachbund, it is concerned with at leasta part of the languages, that do not belong to a single language, that aregeographically neighboring and, because of mutual influence, show aseries of common traits which relate the languages found in phonological,morphological or syntactic domains.

A Sprachbund shows at least two common traits which extend to least threelanguages not belonging to the same family, excluding genetically deter-mined origin or unilateral influence in the range of definition of theSprachbund.7 Key elements are geographical neighbouring languages, notjust a single family, several shared traits (phonological, morphological orsyntactic) because of mutual influence; at least two common traits whichextend to least three languages not belonging to the same family.

Bright and Sherzer (1978: 228) differ slightly but significantly fromSherzer (1973) in that they specify more clearly that borrowing is behind


the shared traits, and that different language families should beinvolved:

The term ‘linguistic area’ generally refers to a geographical area in which,due to borrowing, languages of different genetic origins have come toshare certain borrowed features – not only vocabulary . . . but alsoelements of phonological, grammatical, or syntactic structure, which areless liable to be diffused in this way.

Key elements are geographical area, languages of different families, sharedborrowed traits.

In Campbell (1985: 25), I presented what I took to be the common under-standing of the notion and added my own view:

Areal linguistics, as broadly conceived, deals with the results of diffusion ofstructural features across linguistic boundaries. As commonly viewed,linguistic areas are characterized by a number of linguistic features shared byvarious languages (some of which are unrelated or are from differentsubgroups within a family) in a geographically contiguous area. . . linguisticdiffusion and AL [areal linguistics] are to be equated and cannot profitablybe separated; i.e. I will argue that there is no sharp boundary between thetwo, that all areal linguistic phenomena involve diffusion and all structuraldiffusion involving more than two languages is areal.

Key elements are structural diffusion, more than two languages; commonlyheld to include also a number of shared features, various not closely relatedlanguages, geographical area.

I emphasized the lack of any significant boundary between individual actsof borrowing and areal linguistics in general. Today, I would amend thisdefinition to abandon the ‘more than two languages’ requirement andwould emphasize more fully that any structural borrowing is areal in nature(see Campbell, 1994: 1471).

Thomason’s (2001: 99) definition is:

A linguistic area is a geographical region containing a group of three or morelanguages that share some structural features as a result of contact ratherthan as a result of accident or inheritance from a common ancestor.

Key elements are geographical area, three or more languages, shared struc-tural features, from contact (not as a result of accident or inheritance).

Aikhenvald and Dixon (2001: 11) offer their view that:

A linguistic area (or Sprachbund) is generally taken to be a geographicallydelimited area including languages from two or more language families,

Lyle Campbell 7

sharing significant traits (which are not found in languages from thesefamilies spoken outside the area). There must be a fair number ofcommon traits and they should be reasonably distinctive.

Key elements are geographical area, different language families, fair numberof shared distinctive traits.

In Campbell (2002: 729) I attempted to give a definition that wouldrepresent the field generally (but not necessarily include my own doubts):

A linguistic area is a geographical area in which, due to language contactand borrowing, languages of a region come to share certain structuralfeatures . . . Central to a linguistic area [are] . . . structural similaritiesshared among languages of a geographical area (where usually some ofthe languages are unrelated or at least no all close relatives). It is assumedthat the reason the languages of the area share these traits is because theyhave borrowed from one another. (See Campbell et al., 1986: 530 for asimilar definition.)

Key elements are geographical area, shared structural features, languages notclosely related, borrowing.

For some other definitions, not appreciably different from those listed here,see Voegelin (1945, 1961); Wolff (1959); Zeps (1962); Birnbaum (1965: 12);Seidel (1965); Décsy (1973: 29); Aoki (1975); Holt and Bright (1976); Haas(1978); Hill (1978); Lehiste (1988: 59–61); Campbell (1994: 1471; 1996a; 1997b,1997c); Matthews (1997: 351); Trask (2000: 196–7); and Ramat (2002).

3 Questions about criteria

I turn now to a number of important questions about the criteria deemednecessary, or at least useful, for establishing linguistic areas which emergeabove from the survey of definitions.

3.1 Number of languages

The question of the number of languages required to constitute a linguisticarea frequently comes up. The most common answer assumes that severallanguages are needed, and that in every case there should be three or more.Thomason (2001: 99) says, ‘the reasons for requiring three or morelanguages is that calling two-language contact situations linguistic areaswould trivialize the notion of a linguistic area, which would then include allof the world’s contact situations’ (see Schaller, 1975: 54, 58). However, thereis no inherent linguistic, geographical or other tangible difference betweena situation with only two languages which borrow from one another, andone with three or more. If there is no significant difference betweenborrowing in general and areal linguistics in particular, as I argue, then the


requirement that there must be three or more languages to constitute alegitimate linguistic area is superfluous. For this to make sense, it would benecessary to show that there is a significant difference between diffusioninvolving two languages and diffusion among three or more, but there is nosuch difference. The kinds of changes that take place and the mechanismsby which they happen are the same whether two, or more than two,languages are involved (see Katz, 1975: 16).

3.2 Number of language families

Some require that two or more language families be involved to define alinguistic area – see Emeneau 1956: 124; 1965: 127; 1978: 1; also Schaller,1975: 58; van der Auwera, 1998a: 260; Tosco, 2000; Aikhenvald and Dixon,2001: 11). However, this is at best a desideratum, not a requirement, sincethe Balkan Linguistic Area, universally accepted, has only Indo-Europeanlanguages among its members (though some include Turkish) (see Masica,1992: 110). Some scholars argue that at least some of the languages of anarea, even if members of the same family, should not be closely related (seeCampbell, 1985: 25; 1994: 1471; Matthews, 1997: 351; Stolz, 2002: 261). Inany event, for most scholars, a number of structural traits borrowed acrossunrelated or only slightly related languages would be considered as strongerevidence of a linguistic area, though the idea of some minimum level ofrequired linguistic diversity among the languages of a linguistic area has notreally been a focus of attention. Any attempt to establish one would surelyturn out to be arbitrary.8 If we focus on the facts of linguistic diffusioninstead of seeking some diagnostic minimum amount of genetic distance asbeing necessary for the definition of linguistic area, the question of thenumber of language families needed disappears.

3.3 Number of traits

A common question is, ‘How many features must be shared before a linguis-tically diverse region can reasonably be called a linguistic area?’ (Thomason,2001: 100; see also Campbell, 2002: 732; Koptjevskaja-Tamm, 2002: 211;Stolz, 2002). Two competing answers have frequently been given: (1) onetrait is enough; (2) several traits are necessary. However, again, if there is nosignificant cut-off between borrowing in general and areal linguistics inparticular, then the requirement that there must be several shared traits toconstitute a linguistic area becomes superfluous. Any attempt to impose alower limit proves arbitrary and unjustified by anything other than termi-nological convenience. Let us examine more closely some views in favour ofeach of these positions.

3.3.1 The single-trait view

Though less common, the notion that a legitimate linguistic area might bedefined on as few as one shared trait has had a number of proponents (see

Lyle Campbell 9

Jakobson, 1931: 139; Trubetzkoy, 1931: 345; Weinreich, 1953: 378–9;Winter, 1973: 140; Katz, 1975: 16; Masica, 1976: 172; Bright and Sherzer,1978: 236; Campbell, 1985: 29, 48; Dryer, 1989: 266; Hickey, 1999: 36;Koptjevskaja-Tamm and Wälchli, 2001: 624). As mentioned above, Jakobson(1931) relied on a single trait, ‘Polytonie’, to define the Baltic Sprachbund(see Koptjevskaja-Tamm and Wälchli, 2001: 640–6). Katz (1975: 16) alsomade the single-trait minimum requirement diagnostic in his definition. Inconnection with the argument for the sufficiency of a single trait, I proposed:

In principle there is no meaningful way of distinguishing LAs [linguisticareas] defined on the basis of several features from those based on but asingle shared trait. Nevertheless, the question can be posed, not in theform, does or does not some entity qualify as a LA?, but rather as, howstrong or weak is a particular LA? (Campbell, 1985: 29)

Single-trait linguistic areas were to be considered the very weakest (see alsoMasica (1976: 172, 1992: 111). Stolz (2002: 262) adds to this:

Specialists with a background in quantitative linguistics have demon-strated convincingly that, no matter how hard you try, there is simply noway to identify a universally valid statistical minimum of similaritiesnecessary for the constitution of a linguistic area except through theabsolutely arbitrary decisions of the linguists themselves.

3.3.2 The several-traits view

For many scholars, the idea that a linguistic area should exhibit a number ofshared traits, ‘isoglosses’, was their principal and in some cases only diag-nostic criterion for defining linguistic areas (see Jakobson, 1931: 139;Trubetzkoy, 1931: 345; Becker, 1948; Wagner, 1964; Birnbaum, 1965; Hend-erson, 1965; Sherzer, 1973, 1976; Schaller, 1975: 54; Bright and Sherzer,1978: 233; Emeneau, 1978: 1; Sarhimaa, 1991; Aikhenvald and Dixon, 2001:11, among others).9 Thomason (2001: 101) argues explicitly against thesufficiency of a single trait for defining a linguistic area: ‘if a contact situ-ation is intense enough to produce one shared structural interferencefeature in a group of geographically close languages, it is intense enough toproduce other shared features too’. But this is not really the case. Masica(1992: 111) points out that ‘often a single trait appears to diffuse over a widearea, without other features necessarily being affected’. When diffusionbegins within an area, it is logically possible – and probable – that somesingle trait will be the first to spread; until others develop, it will be the onlytrait shared in this way. That is, a contact situation may be precisely onlyintense enough to have produced (so far) a single ‘structural interferencefeature’ – that is how a linguistic area might start to develop.10


Thomason (2001: 101) acknowledges that the answer to the question ofhow many features are needed ‘has to be a judgment call’, and that someareas are considered stronger or weaker, based on how many features theyshare. However, she asserts that ‘the absence of a clear dividing line betweena region that is a linguistic area and a region that is not does not justifyadopting the historically implausible position that one shared feature is inprinciple enough’. Nothwithstanding, it does not follow that anything‘historically implausible’ is at stake. Rather, there is nothing historicallyimplausible about a single borrowed trait being shared by some languages.Since there is no legitimate boundary between borrowing and areal linguis-tics, the nagging question of how many traits are required is answered: asingle trait is sufficient, albeit any linguistic area so designated would be avery weak one.

3.4 A question of boundaries

A major question is, how does one establish the boundaries of a linguisticarea – in particular, do areal isoglosses need to bundle? Opinions fall onboth sides of the issue, though more often on the side of non-bundling.

Emeneau (1978: 2) at times seemed to favour bundling: ‘once severalfeatures have been established as having the same boundaries, so that thereis an approximation of a “bundling of isoglosses”, the linguistic area can beconsidered to be typologically established’. Aikhenvald and Dixon (1998:244) assert that ‘the distribution of each “bundle” of areal features . . . iscrucial for determining the boundaries of linguistic areas’, (see Henderson,1965: 140; Winter, 1973: 140; Haarmann 1976: 24; Masica, 1976: 6, 170,179; Campbell, 1985: 28).

Many, however, disagree. For example, Emeneau (1965: 128) also notedthat ‘prima facie, one might expect that a linguistic area in the present sensemight be delimited in the same way [by ‘thick bundles of isoglosses’]. Unfor-tunately, I know of no demonstration of such a bundling of isoglosses’. ‘Inlinguistic area studies it is doubtful if there will every emerge isogloss-bundles’ (Emeneau 1965: 136) (see also Trubetzkoy, 1931: 345; Jakobson,1944: 193; Becker, 1948: 23; Emeneau 1956: 120; Henderson, 1965: 431;Ramanujan and Masica, 1969: 550; Sherzer, 1973: 132–3; Winter, 1973: 140;Katz, 1975: 12, 16; 1992: 111; Haarmann, 1976: 24; Holt and Bright, 1976;Masica, 1976: 5, 179–80; Campbell, 1985: 27–8; Wintschalek, 1993: 6–7;Dimmendaal, 2001: 387; Koptjevskaja-Tamm and Wälchli, 2001: 624, 728;Campbell, 2002: 732; Koptjevskaja-Tamm, 2002: 215; Stolz, 2002: 264).

Matisoff’s (2001: 300) question, ‘does not every “linguistic area” arisefrom an accumulation of individual cases of “localized diffusion”?’, impliesnon-bundling (see Koptjevskaja-Tamm, 2002). Clearly, if we shift the focusto individual localized borrowing events, regardless of how they come to bedistributed, the issue of isogloss bundling to define the borders of alinguistic area becomes irrelevant. Whatever the distributions of borrowed

Lyle Campbell 11

traits, the areas they cover become clear as we unravel the history of thechanges related to borrowing in the languages involved.

3.5 Core versus periphery

Many see areal linguistics as being akin to dialect geography, whereoften the isoglosses do not bundle at borders, but rather are moreintensely concentrated around some core zone. In Thomason’s (2001:101) words:

In the majority of cases, the boundaries are fuzzy; often there is a centralgroup of languages that share a large proportion of the characteristicfeatures, and scattered peripheral languages or groups that share aconsiderably smaller number of the features. Frequently, too, there areshared features that are found only in a small subset of the area’slanguages.

Thomason and Kaufman, 1988: 96–7; Tosco, 2000; Compare Dahl, 2001:1458. Often, several isoglosses radiate outwards from a centre of influ-ence, resulting in a pattern of more shared traits at the core, with fewershared features as one moves towards the periphery; some extend furtherfrom the core, others extend for less of a distance. In this vein, Becker(1948: 23) spoke of ‘Kernsprachen’ (core, nuclear languages) and ‘Rand-sprachen’ (peripheral languages) in a Sprachbund. As Thomason (2001:104) says:

it must be acknowledged that deciding where the boundaries are can be adifficult task, that some cases will be truly indeterminate, and that . . . anancient linguistic area can be overlaid by a more recently emergedlinguistic area with different boundaries . . . overlapping and interlockingisoglosses.

It has not gone unnoticed that this core–periphery pattern (and the lack ofisogloss bundling generally) creates problems with attempts to definelinguistic areas. Dahl sees in this core–periphery pattern a major challengeto areal linguistics:

An area with the typical center–periphery structure will often exhibit thegreatest genetic diversity in the peripheral parts . . . This means that anareal sample that aims at genetic representativeness will over-representthose parts and under-represents the more homogeneous center. It alsomeans that minor adjustments in the way the borders of an area aredefined may have rather dramatic consequences for such asample . . . This again raises the question about the reality of linguistic areas(Dahl, 2001: 1463) (Emphasis added)


The ‘core’ and fragmentary periphery are artefacts of the history of borrow-ings, nothing more. Thomason’s (2001: 102) take on this appears to supportthis conclusion:

This variation [fuzzy boundaries, non-bundling] is hardly surprising,since the way a linguistic area arises is through contact-induced changesthat occur over a long period of time and spread widely through theregion – but always from language to language in a series of events, notin some single mystical area-wide process that affects many languages atonce.

With the focus on the history of diffusion and not on defining the bounda-ries, there ceases to be a problem. This lends support to my conclusion thatdefining the areas is of little importance, and it is the history of diffusionthat counts. Indeed, it is the individual borrowing events involving specificindividual instances of language contact that produce these isogloss pattern-ings, and the investigation of the history of these individual borrowingsshould be our primary concern. As Masica (1992: 110) says, ‘the real locus oflanguage “contact” is the mind of the bilingual individual’, echoed also inGiannini and Scaglione’s (2002: 152) words, ‘the process . . . is . . . borrowing,and it is the bilingual speaker who is the material agent in this process.’

In this context, the question of numbers arises again. Consider a situationin which two particular languages in a linguistic area share significantlymore traits between the two of them than do any other languages of thearea. Do these two, then, constitute the ‘core’ of some particular area? Or, isthis to be considered just a case of local borrowing that is not ‘areal’, underthe assumption that two languages alone is not enough to constitute anarea, and that there must be three or more? Put differently, if all borrowings,hence all areal phenomena, ultimately come down to individual localborrowings, how could it be possible to rule out a situation where only twolanguages are engaged in borrowing? And, if all known linguistic areas arejust the aftermath and build-up of instances of such individual borrowingsamong pairs of languages, why should we attempt to adorn the concept of‘linguistic area’ with anything beyond a simple accumulation of individualborrowings that result from their own individual contingent histories, ahistory of borrowings? In this view, a core where many traits affect only twolanguages would be as ‘areal’ as a core in which more languages wereinvolved.

3.6 Different kinds of ‘linguistic area’?

It is generally recognized that what have been called linguistic areasinclude things that have widely divergent characters and historical back-grounds, depending on the social, cultural, political, geographical, attitu-dinal and other factors that correlate with diffusion of linguistic features

Lyle Campbell 13

in different regions (see Kuteva, 1998: 308–9; Aikhenvald and Dixon,2001: 11, 13; Dahl, 2001: 1458). As Thomason (2001: 104) explains,‘[linguistic areas] arise in any of several ways – through social networksestablished by such interactions as trade and exogamy, through the shiftby indigenous peoples in a region to the language(s) of invaders, throughrepeated instances of movement by small groups to different placeswithin the area’. One finds mentioned in the literature such differentsorts of linguistic areas as: incipient ones, only beginning to form andwith as yet few shared traits; moribund and decaying ones, where as aresult of many changes after the area was actively formed, fewer traits arecurrently recognizable among the languages; layered ones (with newlayers and old layers), and overlapping ones, where different areasformed on top of one another or overlapping one another at differenttimes for different reasons; multilateral versus unilateral areas;11 areasresulting from rapid conquest, to population spread and migration (traitsmoving with movement of speakers), others through home-grown, stay-in-place contact (movement of traits but not of peoples); disrupted areaswith ‘latecomers, earlier drop-outs, and temporary passers-by’ (Stolz,2002: 265) and so on.12

‘In short, “linguistic area” is not a uniform phenomenon, eithersocially or linguistically’ (Thomason, 2001: 115). This array of differentkinds of linguistic area raises questions about whether the notion of‘linguistic area’ is justified. Do all these different ‘objects’ legitimatelyqualify as ‘linguistic areas’, given their very different natures and compo-sition, and given the very different circumstances of their formation (anddecay)? The notion of a ‘linguistic area’ offers little on which thesedifferent sorts of linguistic areas can be united, other than the fact thatthey all involve borrowing in some way, but borrowings of differentsorts, for different reasons, in different settings and at different times.Thus Dahl asks:

In the end, we are led to the following more far-going question about thenotion of area: to what extent do areas . . . have a reality of their own andto what extent are they just convenient ways of summarizing certainphenomena? At the most basic level, linguistic contact relationships arebinary: one language influences another. An area is then simply the sumof many such binary relationships. (Dahl, 2001: 1458)

A linguistic area, to the extent that it may have a legitimate existence at all,is merely the sum of borrowings in individual languages in contact situa-tions. If we abandon the search for an adequate definition of this conceptand focus rather on understanding borrowings, those contingent historicalevents, the difficulty of determining what qualifies as a legitimate linguisticarea ceases to be a problem.


3.7 Is diachronic evidence required?

There is a distinction between what I called ‘historicist’ and ‘circumstan-tialist’ approaches to areal linguistics (Campbell, 1985, 1997a: 330–1; Camp-bell et al., 1986). The historicists call for historical evidence that the traitsused to define linguistic areas really were borrowed, while circumstantialiststend to amass a number of shared traits among the languages of a regionand allow the circumstances to imply the probability of diffusion, but donot require proof of this. A number of scholars hold that only linguisticareas supported by a significant amount of historical evidence documentingthe diffusion of the traits in question are fully legitimate (see Dahl, 2001:1457; Thomason, 2001: 102–3; several chapters in Ramat and Stolz, 2002). Itwill be noticed, however, that such a requirement, of actual historical evid-ence of diffusion, highlights the lack of distinction between areal linguisticsand borrowing in general. It supports my argument that structural borrow-ings deserve attention first and foremost, and that linguistic areas are after-the-fact constructs based on the residue and accumulation of borrowedtraits, regardless of how and when they came to be shared among thelanguages involved.

3.8 What about ‘geography’?

Is ‘geography’ required in areal linguistics? It would seem that the answershould obviously be ‘yes’, but in fact not everyone agrees – the answer tothe question is more complicated than it seems.

3.8.1 ‘Geography’ and ‘linguistic areas’

It is generally assumed that a linguistic area must be ‘a geographicallydelimited area’ (Aikhenvald and Dixon, 2001: 11), though some definitionsseem to concentrate only on the sharing of features and ignore region.Thomason (2001: 99) explains that ‘the reason for specifying a singlegeographical region [in the definition of ‘linguistic area’] is obvious: nodirect contact among speakers, no linguistic area’. Nevertheless, languagecontact does not inescapably require geography. As Dahl (2001: 1460)points out, ‘the whole notion of “areal phenomena” is built on the conven-ient fiction that each language has a specific location in space, that no morethan one language is spoken in each place, and that language contact takesplace between adjacent languages. However, language contacts typicallyoccur in densely populated places where speakers of many languages livetogether and bi- or multilingualism is common. In addition, manylanguages have a widely scattered distribution.’

Dahl (2001: 1458) argues against the ‘many current definitions whichmake [geographical] contiguity a necessary condition’. Some contact isnot infact ‘geographical’ but could be said to be vertical, as in the well-known instances of influence from older, ‘dead’ ancestor languages (as in

Lyle Campbell 15

the case of the significant impact of Latin on French and Spanish, or ofSanskrit on modern Indic languages). Contact can be vertical, or at leastnot geographical, in another sense also, where two or more languages arespoken in precisely the same location. Thomason’s (2001: 1) definitionsuggests this: ‘language contact is the use of more than one language inthe same place at the same time’ (emphasis added). That is, by implica-tion, that language contact does not necessarily involve languages indifferent but adjacent regions; both languages can occupy the same loca-tion.13 As some see it, the primary venue for the transfer of features fromone language to another is inside a single head – that of the bilingual –making geography unimportant.

On the other hand, some language contact, even when geography isinvolved, is not limited just to adjacent neighbours, but can be long-distance, through trade and travel, conquest and migration.14 For example,we can point to the well-known pattern of the spread of innovationsthrough long-distance contact and linguistic diffusion, first among majorcities at some distance from one another, with the innovations reaching therural areas later, and less distant from the urban elite who changed first –the spread of uvular ‘r’ in several European languages is a ready example ofthis pattern (see Trudgill, 1983: 56–9). There are also cases, such as the influ-ence of Latin on the structure of various European languages, English inparticular, with which it shared no geographical boundary (compare theinfluence on Sicilian, not from neighbouring Italian, but from languagesfurther afield).

Stolz (2002: 265–6) highlights the geography problem in the emigrationof speech communities:

The emigrants take their language and with it the areally defined featuresto a place that is located outside the original linguistic area. Does thismean that the language is no longer a member of the linguistic area/Sprachbund? Or rather does this mean that the linguistic area/Sprachbundautomatically expands through migration and may include languageswhich strictly speaking, are not co-territorial with the rest of themembers of the linguistics area? If so, the notion of area would lose itsgeographical implications because discontinuous, non-contiguousconstellations would count as areas as well.

The considerations in this section indicate that geographical proximity isnot absolutely necessary for borrowing of structural traits acrosslanguages. If the limiting case for having a linguistic area is structuralborrowing across language boundaries, then in some instances it maywell be that such borrowing, while not common, takes place among non-adjacent or even distant languages. What is crucial is the contact, not thegeography.


3.8.2 Geographical (non-)determinism

The relevance of the preceding discussion about geography and borrowingbecomes more apparent when considered in light of the claim made here thatit is the diffusion that is of prime importance, and that the geographical aspectof putative ‘linguistic areas’ is derivative. The shared linguistic traits are notbrought into existence by, nor somehow explained by, the geographical region,in spite of the fact that the notion of ‘linguistic area’ is often presented, at leastimplicitly, as some entity where the geography is prime and the linguistic traitsthemselves are just reflections of some sort of vague geographical determinism.There is no geographical determinism; the linguistic borrowings are prime, andthe geographical areas are only a reflection of these, with no significant causalforce of their own. Koptjevskaja-Tamm’s (2002: 209) reading of the Balticlinguistic area leads her essentially to the same conclusion:

Intensive micro-contacts superimposed on each other sometimes createthe impression of an overall macro-contact among the languages in anarea, which has not necessarily been there. Therefore the notion ofSprachbund is not satisfactory for describing the linguistic situation in theCB [Circum-Baltic] area.

I do not wish to imply that the geographical patterns that can arise as by-products of the borrowings, those contingent historical events, cannotcontribute to historical understanding – they can and do. However, it isnecessary to combat the notion that the geography is prime and the borrow-ings are in some way secondary to and determined by the geography. There isnothing about the geography itself that forces the linguistic behaviour, thatin some way causes languages of a region to become more alike. Rather, thereare simply a number of individual events of diffusion involving in the mainlocal dyads of languages (in fact, of speakers of the languages); some traitsonce borrowed may then be borrowed further in other dyadic interactionsinvolving other languages, in this way giving the trait a larger geographictrajectory. Koptjevskaja-Tamm’s (2002: 219) finding for the Circum-Balticlanguages is true generally: ‘Convergence that comprises more than two orthree languages, it seems, is always the result of the overlapping and superpo-sition of different language contacts’; ‘intensive micro-contacts superimposedon each other sometimes create an impression of an overall macro-contactamong the language, which has not necessarily been there’.

3.9 Other questions

There are a number of other issues involved in attempts to define linguisticareas, which come up with some frequency in the literature, but which I donot discuss here, in the interest of space, though they deserve mention.Some follow (see Stolz, 2002: 263–4 for others).

Lyle Campbell 17

(1) The nature of the areal traits For traits to qualify as areal or to carrymuch weight in defining an area it has been proposed that they shouldbe ‘reasonably distinctive’, marked, and not too natural, unique orunusual in the region, low on hierarchies of borrowability (that is, hardto borrow), or typologically not commonplace.

(2) Trait weights Some borrowed traits are deemed to carry more weightfor defining a linguistic area than others (in particular typologicallycomplex features, traits that are more difficult to borrow), and variousscales, hierarchies and rankings have been proposed to account for thedifferent roles that different kinds of diffused traits are assumed to play.Weight, borrowability and some notion of typological compatibilitybetween borrowed traits and the existing structures of the borrowinglanguage are often mentioned. (For a discussion, see Katz, 1975; Heath,1978: 104–7; Campbell, 1985, 1996a, 1996b, 2002: 732; Campbell et al.,1986: 535–6; van der Auwera, 1998a; Aikhenvald and Dixon, 2001;Curnow, 2001; Haig, 2001: 218–22; Giannini and Scaglione, 2002; Stolz,2002: 264–5 and so on). In particular, the fact that different traits countdifferently for defining a linguistic area because of their differentweights/ranks makes isopleth maps (such as van der Auwera’s (1998a))less useful and less revealing. The isopleth marked on such mapsrepresents languages sharing the same number of traits, but this ismisleading. It appears to give as much areal credit to languages sharingfeatures that diffuse easily as it does to languages sharing traits that aremuch more difficult to borrow, so long as the numbers (though not theweights) are relatively similar.

(3) Age The matter of the time depth involved has impinged on somescholars’ notions of how linguistic areas are defined (see Aikhenvaldand Dixon 2001: 12). Some believe considerable time is required for alinguistic area to emerge – on the order of millennia – while for others itmay be as little as a couple of hundred years (see Haspelmath, 1998;Aikhenvald and Dixon, 2001: 9–10, 13; Thomason, 2001: 102; Watkins,2001: 49, 55).

(4) Parallel innovation, accidental similarity How can traits that are theresult of independent but parallel development be distinguished fromtraits that involve areal diffusion? How can we distinguish traits foundin an area that are only accidentally similar from those that havediffused? (Several of the chapters in Ramat and Stolz (2002), forexample, grapple with these questions.)

3.10 Conclusion on definitions

This survey leads to a similar conclusion to that made by Stolz (2002: 259) –that ‘the search for clearcut definitions [of ‘Sprachbund, linguistics area andareal type’] has been largely futile and will probably never come to a really


satisfying conclusion’.15 Every ‘linguistic area’, to the extent that the notionhas any meaning at all, arises from an accumulation of individual cases of‘localized diffusion’; it is the investigation of these specific instances ofdiffusion, and not the pursuit of defining properties for linguistic areas, thatwill increase our understanding and will explain the historical facts. Withthe focus rather on specific instances of borrowing, many of the unresolvedissues and indeterminacies that have dogged areal linguistics from theoutset cease to be relevant questions.

4 Areal excesses and the attack on family trees

While it is not possible to deal with them in detail here, it should bementioned that areal linguistic notions figure in some recent proposalsthat see themselves as going beyond basic historical linguistic methods(see Nichols, 1992, 1995, 1997, 1998; Aikhenvald and Dixon, 2001;Dixon, 1997). I have argued that the use of areal-linguistic-like conceptsin these works are mistaken and misleading (for details, see Campbell2003, forthcoming). However, one aspect of this work does bear closerexamination here: the recent attacks on the concept of the family tree inlinguistics. Some scholars have recently taken a sceptical view of thevalidity of family tree diagrams, stemming from beliefs about the degreeof convergence or confounding possible in language contact situations.It is important to clarify this debate – the scepticism towards family treesis misplaced.

Jakobson (1938) offered a solution to the old debate about the possib-ility of multiple origins for a single language – that is, to the questionabout the utility of the family tree model in situations of areal diffusion:‘La similitude de structure ne s’oppose donc pas, mais se superpose a la“parenté originaire” des langues’ (Jakobson, 1938: 353). He called foradequate description of shared traits without premature generalizationsabout whether they owe their explanation to a genetic relationship, amixture or to diffusion (Jakobson, 1938: 365). This remains soundadvice. Mainstream historical linguists realize that it is not possible tounderstand diffusion fully without knowing the genetic affiliation of thelanguages involved, and vice versa, it is not possible to account fully forwhat is inherited without proper attention to what is diffused. That is, itis not two distinct, opposed and antagonistic points of view that areinvolved, but rather both are needed and they work in concert: ‘both thecomparative method and areal linguistics are historical disciplines – twinfaces of diachronic linguistics’ (Hamp, 1977: 27). Both are necessary if weare to answer the question, ‘What happened?’, the historical linguist’sgoal.

The following are some citations that question the family tree model andfavour areal linguistic alternatives:

Lyle Campbell 19

Areal linguistics was originally inspired by the insufficiency of geneticrelationships as an explanation for similarities between languages, inparticular, by the recognition of grammatical and phonological similari-ties which were due to language contact. (Dahl, 2001: 1457)

The original motivation of both [areal linguistics and language typology]was the insufficiency of the genetic Stammbaum model for the study ofrelationships among languages. (Dahl, 2001: 1456)

A family-tree-like diagram does not adequately demonstrate the manykinds of historical and current relationships between [among] languages.(Aikhenvald and Dixon, 2001: 6)

There are a number of misconceptions in these citations. The goal of thehistorical linguist is to determine the history of the languages involved,whether that has to do with inheritance, diffusion or a combination ofboth. Indeed, both the inherited and the diffused are necessary at thesame time. The matter of the burden of proof requires this. To test anyhypothesis of genetic inheritance, it is necessary to demonstrate that itfits the facts better than alternative possible explanations, borrowingbeing principal among alternatives (though accident, universals andothers must also be considered). Similarly, for any hypothesis ofborrowing, it is necessary to demonstrate that other possible explana-tions do not provide a better answer, and the possibility of inheritancefrom a common ancestor is crucial among those that must be eliminatedfor the hypothesis of diffusion to stand. That is, it is not a question ofdriving the genetic explanations as far as possible and then (and onlythen) turning to areal diffusion as a last resort. Rather, it is a matter ofseeking the whole history and testing any hypothesis against otherpossible explanations. In fact, many of the errors and excesses seen todayin both proposals of distant genetic relationships and in proposals ofdiffusion stem from not considering other possible explanations suffi-ciently before reaching conclusions in particular cases.

Some, in the zeal for areal explanations as presumed challenges to thecomparative method, call for alternative models and methods:

A main thesis of this essay [Dixon, 1997] is that the family tree model,while appropriate and useful in many circumstances, is not applicableeverywhere and cannot explain every type of relationship betweenlanguages. We need a more inclusive model, which integrates togetherthe ideas of the family tree and of diffusion area. (Dixon, 1997: 28)

To reconstruct the history of a language adequately, a model is neededwhich is significantly more sophisticated than the family tree based on


the use of the comparative method. It needs to incorporate the diffusionand layering process as well as other language-contact phenomena suchas convergence, metatypy and hybridization. The desideratum is asynthesis of all the processes that affect language formation and develop-ment. (Chappell, 2001: 354)

Though these citations suggest otherwise, mainstream historical linguistsagree that the family tree is not everything and does not explain all thekinds of historical relationships that can affect languages. They agree –insist – that attention must be paid to diffusion. Historical linguistics hasnever been limited to only the family tree – borrowing, wave theory, andlater areal linguistics, are all taken into account (see Garrett, 1999).Moreover, a consequence of Dixon’s (1997: 11) ‘assumption 4’, that ‘inthe normal course of linguistic evolution, each language has a singleparent’, is that the family tree model is always relevant, regardless ofwhether the application of methods to determine the family tree ingiven instances is complicated by changes – for example, of an areallinguistic nature – that require the use of other historical linguistic tech-niques for a full understanding. Therefore, most historical linguistswould say that we do not need the more inclusive integrative model thatDixon, Aikhenvald and Chappell have called for – we already have one.As Watkins explains, ‘the resilience and the power of the comparativemethod lies in its sensitivity to similarity due both to genetic filiationand areal diffusion alike. Both are historical models, and the goal ofcomparison is history’. Hübschmann (1875) demonstrated this ‘when heproved that Armenian was a separate branch of Indo-European, and nota dialect of Iranian as previously thought’ (Watkins, 2001: 59). Armenianexhibits a huge influence from Iranian, but it was the application of thecomparative method which revealed this as diffusion and not inherit-ance (see Campbell and Poser, forthcoming, for details).

Scholars claiming that diffusion has called the comparative method intoquestion seem to have lost sight of this. For example, Aikhenvald and Dixon(2001: 4, 6) claim the family tree is merely a bad ‘metaphor’ that othersassume to be a reality:

The family-tree metaphor [developed for Indo-European] has been takenover for other parts of the world in stark form, often as the sole model forrelationships between [among] languages . . . Rather than asking whethera form of family tree is appropriate to the language situation in somenewly studied region, it has often been simply assumed that it is. Whatbegan as a metaphor has been ascribed reality, and has acted to constrainenquiry along narrow lines. This can lead at best to a partial and at worstto a mistaken statement of language relationships. (Aikhenvald andDixon, 2001: 6–7)

Lyle Campbell 21

Aikhenvald and Dixon appear to hold the view that traditional historicallinguists believe that a mere diagram, used to reflect linguistic lines ofdescent, is the whole story, and they do not address the rest. This rhetoricabout ‘metaphor’ is misleading, as there are identifiable historical facts – theobjective reality that in language families languages can indeed be related toone another as a result of descent from a common ancestor – this is notmerely a metaphor. But this was never considered to be the whole story. AsSebeok (1950: 101) makes clear, if some scholars limit their vision to onlywhat is inherited, too bad for them, but this is not an accurate characteriza-tion of what historical linguists generally do, nor of the history of the field,as the Armenian case and many others show. The diagram, which attemptsto depict the family tree, is just one part of the larger story, and the hand-books on the history of languages always give attention to borrowing.

Family trees are not the targets, not the bad guys. It is never a question ofdiffusion or convergence versus the family tree; rather it is always a questionof both. We want to answer the question, ‘What happened?’, and for thatwe need both inheritance and diffusion.

True, there are cases where it is difficult or even impossible to figure outwhether shared traits are a result of inheritance, diffusion, independentparallel development or accident. The difficulty or impossibility of distin-guishing what is inherited from what is diffused in some cases is readilyacknowledged by mainstream historical linguists; however, this is routinelycited by those who wish to place the comparative method or genetic rela-tionships among languages in a bad light (see Aikhenvald, 2001: 190–1;Aikhenvald and Dixon, 2001: 1; Chappell, 2001: 335, 353–4; Dahl, 2001:1456; LaPolla, 2001). All retrospective sciences are faced with the sameproblem: we do our best to recover the past from the evidence on hand,which sometimes is insufficiently well preserved to allow clear answers.However, fortunately in linguistics our methods have proved successfulrepeatedly in distinguishing specific instances of inheritance fromborrowing. Because the methods have been successful in so many cases, wedo not abandon them just because the extant evidence in some specificinstance is insufficient, just as we do not conclude that an vehicle can nevertake us anywhere just because on one occasion the petrol ran out.

It is definitely not a question of exclusive domains – areal versus genetic –but rather of both working in concert to determine the full history.

5 Conclusions

Some of the conclusions in this chapter may appear dreary: (1) we shouldabandon the search for a definitive definition of ‘linguistic area’; (2) areallinguistics is not distinct from borrowing/diffusion in general; and (3) theconcept ‘linguistic area’ is not significant in itself. Instead of pursuing defi-nitions of linguistic areas, we should attempt to account for the history of


individual borrowings and diffusion, together with language change ingeneral, in order to answer the question, ‘What happened?’ Still, I believethe overall conclusion is a positive one. There is something liberating andsatisfying about being able to abandon the fruitless search for an acceptabledefinition of ‘linguistic area’ and the attempts to establish specific linguisticareas around the world, and to be able to get on with the task of trying toanswer the question, ‘What happened?’ If we succeed in determining whatchanges have taken place, and how, when and why they took place, we willhave succeeded in providing all the information underlying traditionalnotions of linguistic areas. We will know which changes are a result ofborrowing and which to inheritance, and will know their distribution acrosslanguages. The geographical patterning to instances of diffusion will be anatural consequence of this fuller historical account, read directly off theaccumulation of history changes in the languages involved.

Notes

1 The terms ‘language contact’, ‘borrowing’, ‘diffusion’, ‘interference’ and ‘contact-induced change’ are widely used and generally understood, though someconfusion occasionally occurs, and finer-grained definitions have at times beenoffered (see Thomason and Kaufman, 1988, Thomason, 2001). I use ‘borrowing’ tomean broadly anything that was not formerly in a language but comes to be therebecause of contact with another language. I use ‘interference’ to mean things thatwere already native in the language but have come to be modified in some waythrough contact with another language. I use ‘diffusion’ as a cover term for theborrowing of any sort of linguistic feature. While it is useful, I do not employThomason’s (2001: 129) distinction between shift-induced interference withimperfect learning and native speakers borrowing from another language. In alanguage contact situation, even within a linguistic area, some speakers can beinvolved in shifting languages (possibly with imperfect learning) while at thesame time other speakers are borrowing, as native speakers; both can influencejointly change in the languages involved. Since in many situations it is, on theone hand, difficult to separate out the effects of the two, and on the other, thenecessary information for making the distinction is often not available, I do notmake use of the distinction here. Thomason (2001: 129) sees the ‘distinction intheir typical linguistic results’, which she believes to be ‘less transferred vocabu-lary and more structure in shift-induced interference vs. more transferred vocabu-lary and less structure in borrowing’. In many linguistic areas, of course, there willbe a certain amount of both. Thus, for example, I do not see, as Thomason (2001:111) does, that the Ethiopian highlands linguistic area is solely ‘a result of shift-induced interference from Cushitic speakers who adopted the languages of themore recently arrived Semitic speakers’. Native speakers of Semitic languages prob-ably also accepted the incoming traits that owe their origins to Cushitic languages –that is, acts of borrowing. Thomason (2001: 130) acknowledges that thedichotomy between these two does not fit mechanisms of change very precisely.

2 My translation; original: ‘Gruppen, bestehend aus Sprachen, die eine grosseÄhnlichkeit in syntaktischer Hinsicht, eine Ähnlichkeit in der Grundsätzen desmorphologischen Baus aufweisen, und eine grosse Anzahl gemeinsamer Kulturwörter

Lyle Campbell 23

bieten, manchmal auch äussere Ähnlichkeit im Bestande der Lautsysteme, – dabeiaber keine systematische Lautentsprechungen, keine Übereinstimmung in derlautlichen Gestalt der morphologischen Elemente und keine gemeinsamenElementarwörter besitzen, – solche Sprachgruppen nennen wir Sprachbünde’(Trubetzkoy, 1928: 18). (See also Stolz, 2002: 260.)

3 Emeneau (1956: 124) mentions his use of Velten’s translation, but points toother sources which brought it to his attention (for example, Voegelin, 1945; seeSebeok, 1950: 101).

4 Jakobson (1938: 353) mainly just repeated Trubetzkoy’s Proposition 16:‘Les “alliance” (Sprachbünde) possédant des resemblances remarquables dansleur structure syntaxique, morphologique ou phonologoque et les “familles”(Sprachfamilien) caractérisées avant tout par un fond commun de morphemesgrammaticaux et de mot usuels.’

5 Unter einem Sprachbund verstehen wir eine Gruppe von Sprachen, die durchgemeinsame Schicksale im gleichen Kulturraum und durch wechselseitigeBeeinflussung einander so stark angenähert wurden, daß man in jeder von ihnenungefähr das gleiche auf ungefähr die gleiche Art sagen kann.

6 Von einem Sprachbund kann man sprechen, wenn:

(a) zu einer gegebenen Zeit (b) ein zusammenhängendes geographisches Gebiet, das (c) von mindestens einer Sprachgrenze durchzogen ist, (d) von mindenstens einer Isoglosse umspannt wird.

7 Bei den Mitgliedern eines Sprachbundes handelt es sich zumindest bei einem Teilder Sprachen um solche, die nicht zu einer Familie gehören, die geographischbenachbart sind und auf grund gegenseitiger Beeinflussung eine Reihe vongemeinsamen Merkmalen aufweisen, die sich auf den lautlichen, morphologischenoder syntaktischen Bereich der betreffenden Sprachen beziehen. Ein Sprachbundweist mindestens zwei gemeinsame Merkmale auf, die sich auf mindestens dreinicht zur gleichen Familie gehörende Sprachen erstrecken, um gennetischbedingten Ursprung oder einseitige Beeinflussung im Definitionsbereich desSprachbundes auszuschließen.

8 Alan Dench points out (personal communication) that perhaps to a certaindegree this ‘requirement’ is simply an artefact of the discovery procedure. Since itis much easier to discover borrowing against a background of typological orgenetic difference than where languages are more alike, the presence of distinctlanguage families may simply make it easier to recognize diffusion, and thuseasier to defend, thereby giving the genetic distance an assumed specialimportance in studies of linguistic areas.

9 As Stolz (2002: 261) points out, some have argued for ‘two’ as the appropriateminimum number of shared traits to define a linguistic area (see Haarmann,1976: 23; Schaller, 1975: 58; Wintschalek, 1993: 6).

10 A single-trait area may also enter the picture via another route. As Thomason(2001: 101) notes, it is possible that in a former linguistic area evidence of earliercontact-induced changes could have eroded, leaving only one still visible.

11 Directionality is sometimes made an issue in defining linguistic areas (see Stolz, 2002:264). It has to do, for example, with whether the diffusion is largely unidirectional,say from some dominant language to many of its neighbours, or multilateral,crossing several language boundaries, with uncertain origins (see Thomason and


Kaufman, 1988: 96; Aikhenvald and Dixon, 2001: 11). The distinction, however,as pointed out by Matisoff (2001: 300) becomes ‘quite artificial’ in many contactsituations (see also arguments against this in Dahl, 2001; Stolz, 2002).

12 There are several other proposed areal notions that I do not take up here for lackof time; these include, for example, Bellwood’s (2001) friction zones, and upwellingor starburst zones; Renfrew’s (2000: 27) mosaic-zones; contact superposition zones(Koptjevskaja-Tamm and Wälchli, 2001: 624–6, etc.; Koptjevskaja-Tamm, 2002;see Campbell (2003) for a discussion of some of these).

13 Matisoff (2001: 300), in a separate vein, talks of different but what we might callvertical linguistic areas in the same region characterized by social differences:

I would even claim that South-East Asia comprises two linguistic areas at once:one ‘vertical’, distinguishing the languages of the hard-scrabble minoritypopulations of the hills from those of the major languages of the plains (oneimportant difference is the lack of elaborate honorific language or status-basedpronominal systems in the languages of the humble hill-dwellers); and one‘horizontal’, cutting across the entire region.

14 Here, I follow up what I argued in Campbell (1985: 25): ‘linguistic diffusion andAL [areal linguistics] are to be equated and cannot profitably be separated; i.e.I will argue that there is no sharp boundary between the two’. However, I nowsee this lack of distinction a greater challenge to the notion of linguistic areagenerally. In recent years some others have also taken similar stances whicheither challenge the concept ‘linguistic area’ or advocate abandoning it (see Dahl,2001; Koptjevskaja-Tamm, 2002; Koptjevskaja-Tamm and Wälchli, 2001; Stolz,2002: 266; Reiter, 1991; van der Auwera, 1998b).

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2001) ‘Areal Diffusion, Genetic Inheritance, and Problemsof Subgrouping: A North Arawak Case Study’, in Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald andR. M. W. Dixon (eds), Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Compara-tive Linguistics (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 167–94.

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and R. M. W. Dixon (1998) ‘Evidentials and Areal Typology:A Case Study from Amazonia’, Language Sciences, vol. 20, pp. 241–57.

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and R. M. W. Dixon (2001) ‘Introduction’, in Alexandra Y.Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon (eds), Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance:Problems in Comparative Linguistics (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 1–26.

Aoki, Haruo (1975) ‘East Plateau Linguistic Diffusion Area’, International Journal ofAmerican Linguistics, vol. 41, pp. 183–99.

Becker, Henrick (1948) Der Sprachbund. Leipzig: Humboldt Bücherei Gerhard Mindt. Bellwood, Peter (2001) ‘Early Agriculturalist Population Diasporas? Farming,

Languages and Genes’, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 30, pp. 181–207. Birnbaum, Henrik (1965) ‘Balkanslawisch Und Südslawisch’, Zeitschrift für Balkanol-

ogie, vol. 3, pp. 13–63. Bloch, Jules (1919) ‘La formation de la langue marathe’, Bibliothèque de l’École des

Haute Études. Sciences Historiques et Philologiques, 215 (Paris: Champion). Bloch, Jules (1925) ‘Sanskrit et dravidien’, Bulltetin de la Société Linguistique de Paris,

vol. 25, pp. 1–21.

Lyle Campbell 25

Bloch, Jules (1930) ‘Some Problems of Indo-Aryan Philology’, Bulletin of the School ofOriental Studies, vol. 5, pp. 719–56.

Bloch, Jules (1934) L’Indo-aryen du Véda aux temps modernes; revised English trans. byAlfred Master (1965) Indo-Aryan from the Vedas to Modern Times (Paris: Maissonneuve).

Bloomfield, Leonard (1933) Language (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston). Boas, Franz (1917) Introduction. International Journal of American Linguistics.

(Reprinted: Franz Boas (1940) Race, Language, and Culture (New York: The FreePress), pp. 199–210.)

Boas, Franz (1920) ‘The Classification of American Languages’, American Anthropolo-gist vol. 22, pp. 367–76. (Reprinted: Franz Boas (1940) Race, Language, and Culture(New York: The Free Press), pp. 211–8.)

Boas, Franz (1929) ‘The Classification of American Indian Languages’, Language, vol. 5,pp. 1–7.

Bright, William and Joel Sherzer (1978) ‘Areal Features in North American IndianLanguages’, Variation and Change in Language: Essays by William Bright (Stanford:Stanford University Press), pp. 228–68.

Campbell, Lyle (1985) ‘Areal Linguistics and Its Implications for Historical LinguisticTheory’, in Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference ofHistorical Linguistics (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), pp. 25–56.

Campbell, Lyle (1992) ‘The Meso-American Language Area’, in William Bright andBernard Comrie (eds), International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, vol. 2 (Oxford:Oxford University Press), pp. 415–17.

Campbell, Lyle (1994) ‘Grammar: Typological and Areal Issues’, in R. E. Asher andJ. M. Y. Simpson Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 3 (London: PergamonPress), pp. 1471–4.

Campbell, Lyle (1996a) ‘Typological and Areal Issues’, in Keith Brown and Jim Miller(eds), Concise Encyclopedia of Syntactic Theories (Oxford: Pergamon Press), pp. 339–43.[Reprint of 1994, in Encyclopedia of language and linguistics].

Campbell, Lyle (1996b) ‘Phonetics and Phonology’, in Hans Goebl, Peter H. Nelde,Zdenek Stary, and Wolgang Wölck (eds), Contact Linguistics, International Hand-book of Contemporary Research, 14 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter), pp. 98–103.

Campbell, Lyle (1997a) American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of NativeAmerica. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Campbell, Lyle (1997b) ‘Typological and Areal Issues in Reconstruction’, in Jacek Fisiak(ed.), Linguistic Reconstruction and Typology (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 49–72.

Campbell, Lyle (1997c) ‘Genetic Classification, Typology, Areal Linguistics, LanguageEndangerment, and Languages of the North Pacific Rim’, in Osahito Miyaoka andMinoru Oshima (eds), Languages of the North Pacific Rim, vol. 2 (Kyoto: KyotoUniversity), pp. 179–242.

Campbell, Lyle (1998) Historical Linguistics: An Introduction (Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversity Press). (1999 American rights edition, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press).

Campbell, Lyle (2001) ‘Beyond the Comparative Method?’, in Barry Blake and KateBurridge (eds), Historical Linguistics 2001 (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), pp. 33–57

Campbell, Lyle (2002) ‘Areal Linguistics’, in Bernard Comrie (ed.), InternationalEncyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences (Oxford: Pergamon), pp. 729–33.

Campbell, Lyle (2003) ‘What Drives Linguistic Diversity?’, in Colin Renfrew and PeterBellwood (eds), Language-Farming Dispersals. (Cambridge: McDonald Institute forArchaeological Research).

Campbell, Lyle, Terrence Kaufman, and Thomas Smith-Stark (1986). ‘Mesoamerica asa Linguistic Area’, Language, vol. 62, pp. 530–70.


Campbell, Lyle and Marianne Mithun (1979) ‘North American Indian HistoricalLinguistics in Current Perspective’, in L. Campbell and Marianne Mithun (eds), TheLanguages of Native America: An Historical and Comparative Assessment (Austin, TX:University of Texas Press), pp. 3–69.

Campbell, Lyle and William Poser (forthcoming) How to Show That Languages AreRelated.

Chappell, Hilary (2001) ‘Language Contact and Areal Diffusion in Sinitic Languages’,in Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon (eds), Areal Diffusion and GeneticInheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics (Oxford: Oxford University Press),pp. 328–57.

Curnow, Timothy Jowan (2001) ‘What Language Features Can Be “borrowed”?’, inAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon (eds), Areal Diffusion and GeneticInheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics (Oxford: Oxford University Press),pp. 412–36.

Dahl, Östen (2001) ‘Principles of Areal Typology’, in Martin Haspelmath, EkkehardKönig, Wulf Oesterreicher, and Wolfgang Raible (eds), Language Typology andLanguage Universals: An International Handbook, vol. 2 (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter),pp. 1456–70.

Darnell, Regna and Joel Sherzer (1971) ‘Areal Linguistic Studies in North America:A Historical Perspective’, International Journal of American Linguistics, vol. 37,pp. 20–8.

Décsy, G (1973) Die linguistische Struktur Europas: Verganenheit, Gegenwart, Zukunft.Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Diakonof, I. M. (1990). ‘Language Contacts in the Caucasus and the Near East’, inThomas Markey and John Greppin (eds), When Worlds Collide (Ann Arbor, MI:Karoma), pp. 53–65.

Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. (2001) ‘Areal Diffusion Versus Genetic Inheritance: An AfricanPerspective’, in Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon (eds), Areal Diffusionand Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics (Oxford: Oxford Univer-sity Press), pp. 358–92.

Dixon, R. M. W. (1997). The Rise and Fall of Languages (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press).

Dryer, Matthew (1989) ‘Large Linguistic Areas and Language Sampling’, Studies inLanguage, vol. 13, pp. 257–92.

Ebel, Hermann (1856) Über die Lehnwörter der deutsche Sprache (Berlin: ProgrammLehr- und Erziehungs-Institut auf Ostrowo bei Filehre).

Emeneau, Murray B. (1956) ‘India as a Linguistic Area’, Language, vol. 32, pp. 3–16;reprinted in Language and Linguistic Area, Essays by Murray B. Emeneau, selected andintroduced by Anwar S. Dil (Stanford: Stanford University Press), pp. 38–65.

Emeneau, Murray B. (1965) ‘India and Linguistic Areas’, India and Historical Grammar.Ammamalai University, Department of Linguistics, Pub. No. 5, 25–75; reprinted:Language and Linguistic Area, Essays by Murray B. Emeneau, selected and introducedby Anwar S. Dil (Stanford: Stanford University Press), pp. 126–66.

Emeneau, Murray B. (1971) ‘Dravidian and Indo-Aryan: The Indian Linguistic Area’,in André F. Sjoberg (ed.), Symposium on Dravidian civilization (New York: JenkinsPublishing Co, Pemberton Press); reprinted in Language and Linguistic Area, Essaysby Murray B. Emeneau, selected and introduced by Anwar S. Dil (Stanford: StanfordUniversity Press), pp. 167–96.

Emeneau, Murray B. (1974) ‘The Indian Linguistic Area Revisited’, InternationalJournal of Dravidian Linguistics, vol. 3, pp. 92–134; reprinted in Language and

Lyle Campbell 27

linguistic area, essays by Murray B. Emeneau, selected and introduced by Anwar S. Dil(Stanford: Stanford University Press), pp. 197–249.

Emeneau, Murray B. (1978). ‘Review of Defining a Linguistic Area, by ColinP. Masica’. Language, vol. 54, pp. 201–10; reprinted with additions in Language andLinguistic Area, Essays by Murray B. Emeneau, selected and introduced by AnwarS. Dil (Stanford: Stanford University Press), pp. 1–18.

Friedrich, Paul (1975) Proto-Indo-European Syntax: The Order of Meaningful Elements.Journal of Indo-European Studies, Memoir 1 (Butte, Montana: College of MineralScience).

Garrett, Andrew (1999) ‘A New Model of Indo-European Subgrouping and Dispersal’,Berkeley Linguistics Society, vol. 25, pp. 146–56.

Giannini, Stefania and Stefania Scaglione (2002) ‘On Defining the Notion of ArealityCoefficient: The Diagnostic Value of Quantitative Criteria’, in Paolo Ramat andThomas Stolz (eds), Mediterranean Languages: Papers from the MEDTYP Workshop,Tirrenia, June 2000 (Bochum: Brockmeyer), pp. 151–70.

Girard, (abbé) Gabriel (1747) Les vrais principes de la langue française ou la parole réduiteen méthode conformément aux loix de l’usage en seize discours (Paris: Le Breton).

Gumperz, John J. and Robert Wilson (1971). ‘Convergence and Creolization: A Casefrom the Indo-Aryan/Dravidian Border in India’, in Dell Hymes (ed.), Pidginizationand Creolization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 151–67.

Haarmann, Harald (1976) Aspekte der Areal-typologie: die Problematik der europäischenSprachbünde (Tübingen: Gunter Narr).

Haas, Mary R. (1978) Language, Culture, and History, Essays by Mary R. Haas, selectedand introduced by Anwar S. Dil (Stanford: Stanford University Press).

Haig, Jeffrey (2001) ‘Linguistic Diffusion in Present-Day East Anatolia: From Top toBottom’, in Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon (eds), Areal Diffusion andGenetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress), pp. 195–224.

Hamp, Eric (1977) ‘On Some Questions of Areal Linguistics’, Berkeley LinguisticsSociety, vol. 3, pp. 279–82.

Haspelmath, Martin (1998) ‘How Young Is Standard Average European’, LanguageSciences, vol. 20, pp. 271–87.

Heath, Jeffrey (1978) Linguistic Diffusion in Arnhem Land (Canberra: Australian Instituteof Aboriginal Studies).

Heath, Jeffrey (1997) ‘Lost Wax: Abrupt Replacement of Key Morphemes in AustralianAgreement Complexes’, Diachronica, vol. 14, pp. 197–232.

Heine, Bernd (1994) ‘Areal Influence on Grammaticalization’, in M. Pütz (ed.),Language Contact and Language Conflict (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), pp. 55–68.

Heine, Bernd and Tania Kuteva (2001) ‘Convergence and Divergence in the Develop-ment of African Languages’, in Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon (eds),Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics (Oxford:Oxford University Press), pp. 393–411.

Henderson, Eugénie J. A. (1965) ‘The Topography of Certain Phonetic andMorphological Characteristics of South East Asian Language’, Lingua, vol. 15,pp. 400–34.

Hickey, Raymond (1999) ‘Ireland as a Linguistic Area’, in J. P. Mallory (ed.), Languagein Ulster/Ulster Folklife (Ulster Folklife, vol. 45) (Hollywood, Co. Down, NorthernIreland: Ulster Folklife), pp. 36–53.

Hill, Jane (1978) ‘Language Contact Systems and Human Adaptations’, Journal ofAnthropological Research, vol. 34, pp. 1–26.


Holt, Dennis and William Bright (1976) ‘La Lengua Paya Y Las Fronteras Lingüísticasde Mesoamérica’, Fronteras de Mesoamérica, 14a Mesa Redonda, 1, Sociedad Mexicanade Antropología, México, pp. 149–56.

Hübschmann, Heinrich (1875) ‘Über die Stellung des Armenischen im Kreise derindogermanischen Sprachen’, Zeitschrift für vergliechende Sprachforschung, vol. 23,pp. 5–49.

Jacobs, Melville (1954) ‘The Areal Spread of Sound Features in the Languages North ofCalifornia’, Papers from the Symposium on American Indian Linguistics Held At Berkeley,July 7, 1951, pp. 46–56. University of California Publications in Linguistics, vol. 10,pp. 1–68. (Berkeley).

Jakobson, Roman (1931) ‘Über die Phonologischen Sprachbünde’, Travaux du CercleLinguistique de Prague, vol. 4, pp. 234–40 (Réunion phonologique internationaletenue a Prague, 18–21/XII, 1930); reprinted 1971 in Roman Jakobson. SelectedWritings, vol. 1 (The Hague: Mouton), pp. 137–43.

Jakobson, Roman (1938) ‘Sur la théorie des affinités phonologiques entre les langues’,Actes du quatrieme congres international de linguists (tenu a Copenhague du 27 août1er septembre, 1936), 48–58; reprinted, 1949, as an appendix to Principes de phonologie,by N. S. Troubetzkoy (Paris: Klincksieck), pp. 351–65.

Jakobson, Roman (1944) ‘Franz Boas’ Approach to Language’, International Journal ofAmerican Linguistics, vol. 10, pp. 188–95.

Johanson, Lars (1998) ‘Code-Copying in Irano-Turkic’, Language Sciences, vol. 20,pp. 325–37.

Katz, Harmut (1975) Generative Phonologie und phonologische Sprachbünde des Ostjakischenun Samojedischen (Munich: Wilhelm Fink).

Konow, Sten (ed.) (1906) Linguistic Survey of India. Calcutta: Superintendent, Govern-ment Printing. (Reprint 1967, 1973 (New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass))

Kopitar, Jeernej (1829)[1857] ‘Albanische, walachische und bulgarische Sprache’,Jahrbüchern der Literatur, vol. 46, pp. 59–106. Vienna. (Reprinted 1857: KleinereSchriften sprachwissenschaftlichen, geshichtlichen, ethnograpischen, und rechtshistorischenInhalts, in Fr. Miklosich, Theil 1 (Vienna: F. Beck).)

Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria (2002) ‘The Circum-Baltic Languages – a Contact-Superpo-sition Zone in the European Periphery’, in Paolo Ramat and Thomas Stolz (ed.),Mediterranean Languages: Papers from the MEDTYP Workshop, Tirrenia, June 2000(Bochum: Brockmeyer), pp. 209–22.

Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria and Bernhard Wälchli (2001) ‘The Circum-BalticLanguages: An Areal-Typological Approach’, in Östen Dahl and Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds), Circum-Baltic Languages (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), pp. 615–750.

Kroskrity, Paul V. (1993) Language, History, and Identity: Ethnolinguistic Studies of theArizona Tewa (Tucson: University of Arizona Press).

Kuhn, Adelbert (1861) Beiträge zur vergleichendem Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete derarischen, celtischen und slawischen Sprachen (Berlin: Dummler).

Kuteva, Tania (1998) ‘Large Linguistic Areas in Grammaticalization: Auxiliation inEurope’, Language Sciences, vol. 20, pp. 289–311.

LaPolla, Randy (2001) ‘The Role of Migration and Language Contact in the Develop-ment of the Sino-Tibetan Language Family’, in Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald andR. M. W. Dixon (eds), Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in ComparativeLinguistics, (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 225–4.

Lehiste, Ilse (1988) Lectures on Language Contact (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press). Martinet, André (1956) ‘Diffusion of Languages and Structural Linguistics’, Romance

Philology, vol. 6, pp. 5–13.

Lyle Campbell 29

Masica, Colin P. (1976) Defining a Linguistic Area: South Asia (Chicago: University ofChicago Press).

Masica, Colin P. (1992) ‘Areal Linguistics’, in William Bright (ed.), InternationalEncyclopedia of Linguistics (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 108–12.

Matisoff, James A. (2001) ‘Genetic Versus Contact Relationship: Prosodic Diffusibilityin South-Easte Asian Languages’, in Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon(eds), Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics(Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 291–327.

Matthews, Peter (1997) The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press).

Meillet, Antoine (1921) Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, Collectionlinguistique publiée par la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 8 (Paris: Champion)(new edition 1975).

Meillet, Antoine (1967) The Comparative Method in Historical Linguistics (Paris: Cham-pion) (English translatin 1925: La méthode comparative en linguistique historique,Institutet for Sammenlingende Kulturforskning, Publikationer, A, 2, Oslo).

Miklosich, Franz von (1861) ‘Die slavischen Elemente im Rumanischen’, Denkschriftender philosophisch-historische Classe Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaft, Wien,Commission, vol. 20, pp. 1–88 (Vienna: K. Gerolds Sohn).

Müller, Max (1861) Lectures on the Science of Language (London: Longmans, Green,and Co).

Nadkarni, M (1975) ‘Bilingualism and Syntactic Change in Konkani’, Language, vol. 51,pp. 672–83.

Nichols, Johanna (1992) Linguistic Diversity in Time and Space (Chicago: University ofChicago Press).

Nichols, Johanna (1995) ‘Diachronically Stable Structural Features’, in HenningAndersen (ed.), Historical Linguistics 1993: Selected Papers from the 11th InternationalConference on Historical Linguistics (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), pp. 337–56.

Nichols, Johanna (1997) ‘Modeling Ancient Population Structures and Movement inLinguistics’, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 26, pp. 359–84.

Nichols, Johanna (1998) ‘The Eurasian Spread Zone and the Indo-EuropeanDispersal’, in Roger Blench and Matthew Spriggs (eds), Archaeology andLanguage II: Archaeological Data and Linguistic Hypotheses (London: Routledge),pp. 220–66.

Powell, John Wesley (1891) Indian Linguistic Families of America North of Mexico.Seventh annual report, Bureau of American Ethnology, 1–142 (Washington,DC: Government Printing Office); reprinted 1966 in Franz Boas: Introduction toHandbook of American Indian Languages; J. W. Powell: Indian Linguistic Families ofAmerica North of Mexico, in Preston Holder (Lincoln, Neb.: University ofNebraska Press.)

Ramanujan, A. K. and Colin Masica (1969). ‘Toward a Phonological Typology of theIndian Linguistic Area’, in Thomas Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. 5(The Hague: Mouton), pp. 543–77.

Ramat, Paolo (2002) ‘Introduction’, in Paolo Ramat and Thomas Stolz (eds.), Mediter-ranean Languages: Papers from the MEDTYP Workshop, Tirrenia, June 2000 (Bochum:Brockmeyer), pp. ix–xv.

Ramat, Paolo and Thomas Stolz (eds) (2002) Mediterranean Languages: Papers from theMEDTYP Workshop, Tirrenia, June 2000 (Bochum: Brockmeyer).

Reiter, Norbert (1991) ‘Ist der Sprachbund ein Werk des Satans?’, Zeitschrift fürBalkanologie, vol. 26, pp. 43–62.


Renfrew, Colin (2000) ‘At the Edge of Knowability: Towards a Prehistory ofLanguages’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 7–34.

Sandfeld, Kristian (1902) ‘Der Schwand des Infinitivs im Rumänischen und denBalkansprachen’, Jahresbericht des Instituts für rumänische Sprache zu Leipzig, vol. 9,pp. 75–131.

Sandfeld, Kristian (1912) ‘Notes sur les calques linguistiques’, Festschrift VilhelmThomsen (Leipzig), pp. 166–73.

Sandfeld, Kristian (1930) Linguistique balkanique: Problemes et resultants, CollectionLinguistique, Publication par la Société de Linguistique de Paris, 31 (Paris: Champion).

Sandfeld, Kristian (1934) ‘Notes de syntaxe comparée des langues balkaniques’, RevueInternationale des Études Balkaniques, vol. 1, pp. 100–9.

Sandfeld, Kristian (1938) ‘Les interférences linguistiques’, Actes du quatrieme congresinternational de linguists (held in Copenhagen 27 August–1 September 1936)(Copenhagen), pp. 60–5.

Sarhimaa, Anneli (1991) ‘Karelian Sprachbund? Theoretical Basis of the Study ofRussian/Baltic-Finnic contacts’, Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen, vol. 50, pp. 209–19.

Schaller, Helmut Wilhelm (1975) Die Balkansprachen: Eine Einführung in die Balkanphi-lologie (Heidelberg: Winter).

Schleicher, August (1850) Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Übersicht: linguistischeUntersuchungen (Bonn: H. B. König).

Schmidt, Johannes (1872) Die Verwandtschaftverhältnisse der indogermanischen Sprachen(Weimar).

Schuchart, Hugo Ernst Mario (1866–8) Der Vokalismus des Vulgärlateins. vols. 1–2,1866–77; vol. 3, 1868 (Leipzig: Teubner).

Sebeok, Thomas (1950) ‘The Importance of Areal Linguistics in Uralic Studies’,Memoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne, vol. 98, pp. 99–106.

Seidel, Eugen (1965) ‘Zur Problematik des Sprachbundes’, Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft,Volkskunde und Literaturforschung, W. Steinitz zum 60. Geburtstag (Berlin), pp. 372–81.

Sherzer, Joel (1973) ‘Areal linguistics in North America’, in Thomas Sebeok (ed.),Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. 10 (The Hague: Mouton), pp. 749–95.

Sherzer, Joel (1976) An Areal-Typological Study of American Indian Languages North ofMexico (Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Co.)

Stanford, C. B. (1998) ‘The Social Behavior of Chimpanzees and Bonobos’, CurrentAnthropology, vol. 39, pp. 399–407.

Stolz, Thomas (2002) ‘No Sprachbund Beyond this Line! On the Age-Old Discussionof How to Define a Linguistic Area’, in Paolo Ramat and Thomas Stolz (eds),Mediterranean Languages: Papers from the MEDTYP Workshop, Tirrenia, June 2000(Bochum: Brockmeyer), pp. 259–81.

Thomason, Sarah G. (2001) Language Contact: An Introduction (Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversity Press).

Thomason, Sarah G. and Terrence Kaufman (1988) Language Contact, Creolization, andGenetic Linguistics (Berkeley: University of California Press).

Toman, Jindrich (1995) The Magic of a Common Language (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press). Tosco, M (2000) ‘Is There An Ethiopian Language Area?’, Anthropological Linguistics,

vol. 42, pp. 329–65. Trask, R. L. (2000) The Dictionary of Historical and Comparative Linguistics (Edinburgh:

Edinburgh University Press). Trubetzkoy, Nikolai Sergeevich (1923) ‘Vavilonskaja bashnja I smeshenie jazykov’

[The Tower of Babel and the confusion of languages], Evrazijskij vremennik, vol. 3,pp. 107–24. [Cited in Toman 1995.]

Lyle Campbell 31

Trubetzkoy, Nikolai Sergeevich (1928) [Proposition 16]. Acts of the First InternationalCongress of Linguists, 17–18. (Leiden).

Trubetzkoy, Nikolai Sergeevich (1931) ‘Phonologie und Sprachgeographie’, Travaux deCircle Linguistique de Prague, vol. 4, pp. 228–34. (French translation, 1949, reprinted1970: appendix to Principes de Phonologie (Paris: Klincksieck), pp. 343–50.)

Trubetzkoy, Nikolai Sergeevich (1939) ‘Gedanken über das Indogermanenproblem’,Acta Linguistica, vol. 1, pp. 81–9.

Trudgill, Peter (1983) On Dialect: Social and Geographic Perspectives (New York: NewYork University Press).

van der Auwera, Johan (1998a) ‘Revisiting the Balkan and Meso-American LinguisticAreas’, Language Sciences, vol. 20, pp. 259–70.

van der Auwera, Johan (1998b) ‘Conclusions’, in Johan van der Auwera (ed.), AdverbialConstructions in the Languages of Europe (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 813–36.

Velten, H. V. (1943) ‘The Nez Perce Verb’, Pacific Northwest Quarterly, vol. 34, p. 271. Vendryes, Joseph (1968)[1921] Le langage: Introduction linguistique à l’histoire (Paris:

Albin Michel). Voegelin, Carl F. (1945) ‘Influence of Area in American Indian Linguistics’, Word, vol.

1, pp. 54–8. Voegelin, Carl F. (1961) ‘Culture Area: Parallel With Typological Homogeneity and

Heterogeneity to North American Language Families’, Kroeber Anthropological SocietyPapers, vol. 25, pp. 163–80.

Wagner, H. (1964) ‘Nordeuropäische Lautgeographie’, Zeitschrift für celtische Philol-ogie, vol. 29, pp. 225–98.

Watkins, Calvert (2001) ‘An Indo-European Linguistic Area and Its Characteristics:Ancient Anatolia. Areal Diffusion as a Challenge to the Comparative Method?, inAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon (eds), Areal Diffusion and GeneticInheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics (Oxford: Oxford University Press),pp. 44–63.

Weinreich, Uriel (1953) Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems (New York:Linguistic Circle of New York).

Whitney, William Dwight (1868) Language and the Study of Language (New York:Scribner & Co.).

Whitney, William Dwight (1875) The Life and Growth of Language (New York:D. Appleton & Co.) (Reprinted 1979: New York: Dover).

Winter, Werner (1973) ‘Areal Linguistics: Some General Considerations’, in ThomasSebeok (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics, vol. 11 (The Hague: Mouton), pp. 135–47.

Wintschalek, Walter (1993) Die Areallinguistik am Beispiel syntaktischer Übereinstim-mungen im Wolga-Kama-Areal, Studia Uralica, 7 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz).

Wolff, Hans (1959) ‘Subsystem Typologies and Areal Linguistics’, AnthropologicalLinguistics, vol. 1, no. 7, pp. 1–8.

Zeps, Valdis (1962) Latvian and Finnic Linguistic Convergences, Uralic and Altaic series,9 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press).

301

Index of Authors

Abaev, V. I., 168 Adelaar, K. A., 139, 140, 143, 144,

146, 147 Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., 6, 8–10, 13,

14, 17–21, 24, 78, 85, 172, 191 Akbaev, E. X., 170 Aklif, G., 262 Alekseev, M. E., 167 Alpher, B., 68, 255 Amborn, H., 81 Anderson, G. D. S., 267, 268, 271, 272,

275, 276, 282, 283 Anttila, Raimo, 248 Aoki, Haruo, 7 Appaev, A. M., 161 Appleyard, D., 83, 84 Artawa, Ketut, 228 Artini, Put, 228 Auer, P., 39

Bakker, Peter, 135, 149, 151 Balode, L., 194 Bandelt, Hans-Jürgen, 60 Banti, G., 90 Baskakov, N. A., 270 Baxter, William, 58 Beach, Douglas M., 109, 117 Bechert, J., 39 Becker, Henrick, 4, 9–11, 37 Bekker, È. G., 289, 290 Bellwood, Peter, 24, 245 Bender, M. L., 81, 93 Benzing, J., 160 Berta, Á., 175 Besten, Hans den, 129 Bhaskararao, Peri, 145 Bichsler-Stettler, A., 139, 140, 145, 147 Birnbaum, Henrik, 7 Bisang, W., 76, 78, 81, 82, 88, 90–2 Black, Paul, 58, 59, 62, 63, 66, 160, 163,

165, 166 Blake, Barry J., 228 Bleek, Dorothea F., 15, 109, 121, 131 Bleek, Wilhelm H. I., 4, 114, 118, 121 Bloch, Jules, 2 Bloomfield, Leonard, 2 Blust, Robert A., 232 Boas, Franz, 2, 4 Boeder, W., 173, 174

Bogoraz, W., 295 Bolinger, Dwight, 68 Boretzky, Norbert, 106 Börjars, K., 48, 214, 215 Bowern, Claire, 68, 258, 259, 261, 262 Bright, William, 5, 7, 9, 10 Bruce, G., 198 Bryant, D., 66, 67 Budack, K. F. R., 102 Bulatova, N. Ja., 272, 278, 280, 284

Cafer2lu, A., 160 Campbell, Lyle, xv, xvi, xviii, 2, 6–10, 14,

17, 18, 20, 24, 33, 36, 37, 47, 65, 75, 81, 87, 193, 218, 245, 247, 249, 256

Castrén, M. A., 278 Eekmonas, V., 208 Chambers, J. K., 256 Chappell, Hilary, 20, 21 Cheremisina, M. A., 282 Cheremisina, M. I., 274 Chirikba, V., 174 Chomsky, N., 76, 85, 86, 92 Christophe, B., 171, 172 Cincius, V. I., 271, 280, 285 Comrie, B., 168 Crass, J., 76, 78, 80, 81 Croft, W. A., 85, 86 Crowley, T., 245 Csúcs, Sándor, 290 Curnow, Timothy Jowan, 17

Dahl, Östen, 11, 13, 14, 19, 21, 24, 47, 86, 182, 185, 201, 202, 204, 216–18

Darbeeva, A. A., 269, 273 Darnell, Regna, 2 Décsy, G., 7, 37, 185 de Haan, F., 191, 220 Delsing, L.-O., 211–15 Dempwolff, Otto, 119, 120, 122 Dench, Alan, 23, 261 de Reuse, W., 231, 295 De Silva, M. W. Sugathapala, 136,

149–51 de Vries, Lourens, 229 Dharmadasa, K. N. O., 136, 150 Dickens, Patrick J., 115 Dimmendaal, Gerrit J., 10, 91

302 Index of Authors

Dixon, R. M. W., xviii, 6, 8–10, 13, 14, 17–21, 24, 68, 78, 85, 244–54, 257, 259–62

Dmitriev, N. K., 170 Doerfer, G., 160 Dogil, G., 194, 195 Dolgopolsky, A., 93 Donabédian, A., 173 Donegan, Patricia, 151 Donohue, Mark, 241 Dryer, Matthew, 9, 81, 94, 208–10, 221 Dunning, T., 239 Durie, Mark, 228 Dyen, Isidore, 58, 59, 62, 63, 66 D}idalaev, N. N., 167

Ebel, Hermann, 2 Eccles, J. C., 35 Echols, John M., 232 Ehret, Ch., 80, 93 Eiseb, E., 130 Elderkin, Edward D., 100 Eldredge, Niles, 245, 246 Embleton, Sheila, 53, 54, 57–9, 62 Evans, Nicholas D., 68, 231, 255

Fähnrich, H., 44 Falkenhahn, V., 185 Felsenstein, J., 59 Ferguson, C. A., 76, 77, 79 Ferraz, Luiz Ivens, 148 Fleming, H., 93 Foley, William A., 118, 150, 155, 229 Forster, Peter, 60 Foster, A., 60 Fraser, Bruce, 58 Friedman, V. A., 174

Gad}ieva, N. Z., 178 Gair, James W., 136 Gårding, E., 203 Garrett, Andrew, 20 Gecadze, I. O., 166 Geeraerts, Dirk, 228, 236 Geiger, B., 166 Geniušien<, E., 191 Geraghty, Paul, 260 Giannini, Stefania, 12, 17 Girard, (abbé) Gabriel, 2 Golden, P. B., 163, 165, 166, 168, 169,

174, 176 Gould, Stephen Jay, 245, 246 Gravelle, Gilles, 229 Greenberg, Joseph H., 76, 77, 79, 90, 91,

94, 99 Grenoble, L., 272, 278, 280, 284

Grišina, N. M., 277 Grjunberg, A., 172, 173 Grondelaers, Stefan, 228, 236 Gruzdeva, Ekaterina, 268, 271, 273,

275, 283 Gukasjan, V. L., 175 Güldemann, Tom, 99, 100, 105, 109,

111–13, 117, 118, 120, 121, 123, 128 Gumperz, John J., 38, 154 Gussenhoven, C., 198

Haacke, Wilfrid H. G., 111, 115, 116, 118, 120, 123, 130

Haarmann, Harald, 2, 10, 23, 37, 86,87, 185

Haas, Mary R., 7 Hagman, Roy S., 113–15, 119, 120,

123, 131 Hahn, Theophilus, 125 Haig, Jeffrey, 17 Hale, Kenneth, 251 Hammarberg, B., 218 Hamp, Eric, 18 Harris, A. C., 173 Harris, D. R., 248 Harrison, K. David, 272, 275, 283 Haspelmath, Martin, 17, 39, 47, 48, 82,

168, 172, 191, 216 Hausenberg, Anu-Reet, 290 Hawkins, J. A., 88, 90, 94 Heath, Jeffrey, 17 Heggarty, Paul, 57, 65, 67 Heijmans, L., 199 Heine, Bernd, xvi–xviii, 1, 48, 113, 115 Henderson, Eugénie J. A., 9, 10 Hercus, Luise, 250, 257, 258, 260 Hetzron, R., 77, 82 Hickey, Raymond, 9 Hill, Jane, 7 Hock, Hans Henrich, 256 Hoenigswald, Henry M., 248 Holt, Dennis, 7, 10 Holvoet, A., 194 Honti, László., 288 Hopper, P., 188 Hosokawa, K., 262 Hualde, J. I., 48 Huang, Shuanfan, 232 Hübschmann, Heinrich, 20 Huson, D., 68 Hussainmiya, B. A., 139, 140,

151, 152

Jackson, Keith, 136 Jacobs, Melville, 4 Jaggar, Philip J., 231


Jakobson, Roman, 2, 4, 9, 10, 18, 23, 185, 193, 199

Jayasuriya, Shihan de Silva, 136–8, 148, 151

Jenkins, Trefor, 130 Jespersen, O., 221 Johannesen, J. B., 215 Johanson, Lars, 34, 86, 162, 167, 171–5,

177, 178 Jones, Rhys, 262 Joseph, Brian D., 39, 245 Juvonen, P., 47

Källskog, M., 212 Kamminga, J., 253, 257 Kämpfe, H. R., 273, 275, 281, 287 Kangasmaa-Minn, Eeva, 290 Kapeliuk, O., 82 Karakoç, B., 174 Karunatillake, W. S., 136 Katz, Harmut, 4, 5, 8–10, 17, 86 Kaufman, Terrence, 1, 7, 11, 14, 17, 22,

24, 33, 37, 77, 80, 81, 127, 128,247, 255

Keller, R., 35, 83 Kemmer, S., 191 Kerimov, I. A., 170 Kessler, Brett, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 62, 65 Kilian-Hatz, Christa, 113 Kiparsky, V., 44 Klamer, Marian, 227–9, 231, 233–5, 241 Klokeid, T., 254 Koch, Harold, 68, 251, 258, 261, 262 Kodzasov, S., 207 Koerner, Konrad, 51 Köhler, Oswin, 109 König, Christa, 82 König, Ekkehard, 82 Konow, Sten, 2 Kopitar, Jeernej, 2 Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria, 4, 8–10, 16,

24, 33, 88, 182, 185, 187, 188, 192, 193, 198, 206, 211–14, 216–19

Korkina, E. I., 271 Kostjakov, M. M., 277 Kozintseva, N., 173 Krejnovich, È. A., 268, 272, 273,

279, 288 Kristophson, J., 87 Kroch, Anthony, 241 Kruskal, Joseph B., 58, 59, 62, 63, 66 Kuhn, Adelbert, 2 Künnap, Ago, 274, 275, 290 Kuper, Sh, C., 281 Kuteva, Tania, xvi–xviii, 1, 13, 48,

245, 256

Labov, William, 83, 247 Lahiri, A., 197, 198 Lamberti, M., 93 Lane, A. B., 130 LaPolla, Randy, 21 Larsson, S., 211 Lass, R., 247 Lebedeva, E.P., 280 Lee-Smith, Mei W., 151 Lehiste, Ilse, 7, 193, 197, 198 Leisiö, L., 208 Leslau, W., 77, 78, 80–2 Levin, Beth, 58, 59, 62, 63, 66 Li, Charles N., 151 Lichtenberk, Frantisek, 115 Lloyd, Lucy C., 114, 118, 121, 123, 124 Lohr, Marisa, 58 Lorentz, F., 199 Lorentz, O., 201 Lötzsch, R., 47

Magomedov, A. G., 175 Maingard, Louis F., 117, 130 Manaster-Ramer, Alexis, 58 Manhire, Anthony, 103 Margetts, Anna, 233 Martinet, André, 4 Masica, Colin P., 4, 8–10, 12, 33, 39,

88, 145 Maslova, E., 76, 90, 92, 275 Matisoff, James A., 10, 24 Matras, Yaron, 83, 89, 142 Matthews, Peter, 7, 8 McBryde, Isobel, 257, 258 McConvell, Patrick, 253, 255 McKelson, K., 262 McMahon, April, 55, 58, 66, 67, 72 McMahon, Robert, 55, 58, 65–7, 72 McWhorter, J. H., 218 Meillet, Antoine, 2 Meinhof, Carl, 115, 116, 120 Menges, K. H., 167, 176 Menovshchikov, G. A., 278 Meriggi, Piero, 114 Meyer, R., 83 Miklosich, Franz von, 2 Milroy, J., 83 Milroy, L., 83 Minker, G., 81 Mira, W., 228 Mitchell, B., 221 Mithun, Marianne, 2 Morpurgo Davies, Anna, 72 Moulton, V., 66, 67 Mudrak, O. A., 270 Müller, Max, 2

304 Index of Authors

Mulvaney, John, 253, 257, 262 Musgrave, Simon, 234, 241

Næss, Å., 188 Nakagawa, Hirosi, 99 Namaseb, L., 130 Nanayakkara, A. G. W., 135 Nash, David, 68, 69, 255 Nasidze, I., 177 Nau, N., 39, 47, 192, 193 Nedjalkov, Igor V., 274 Nedjalkov, V. P., 82, 178 Nettle, D., 245, 248, 262 Nichols, Johanna, 18 Nikolaeva, Irina, 272, 280, 285 Norde, M., 211, 215, 217 Novikova, A. I., 284 Nurse, George T., 130

O’Connor, Sue, 253 Odé, Cecilia, 229 Oftedal, M., 197 O’Grady, G. N., 251, 254 Orel, V. E., 80 Orlovskaja, M. N., 290

Paauw, Scott, 138, 139, 141, 143, 147, 151–3

Pagel, M. D., 248 Pakendorf, B., 177, 221 Panfilov, V. Z., 268, 273 Parkington, John, 103 Petrov, N. E., 291 Plank, F., 47 Poppe, N., 290 Popper, K. R., 35 Poser, William, 20 Powell, John Wesley, 2 Praetorius, F., 82, 93 Prentice, D. J., 139, 146, 147 Pritsak, Omeljan, 161, 165, 168, 169, 279 Prokof’ev, G. N., 278

Quirk, Randolph, 68

Ramanujan, A. K., 4, 10 Ramat, Paolo, 7, 14, 17, 32 Rassadin, V. I., 273 Reesink, Ger P., 227–9, 234–7, 241 Reiter, Norbert, 24, 32 Renfrew, Colin, 24, 60 Riad, T., 196, 197, 201, 203, 204 Richards, Martin, 60 Richter, R., 83 Riese, Timothy, 289, 290 Ringe, Donald, 54, 55, 241

Roberts, Richard, 262 Robuchon, Gérard, 136, 139, 140, 142,

143, 145 Röhl, A., 60 Rombandeeva, E. I., 274, 296 Roos, J., 198 Ross, Malcolm, 35, 137, 150, 154,

255, 260 Rosser, Z., 221 Russian, 65

Šagirov, A. K., 167 Salmons, J., 206 Sammallahti, Pekka, 290 Sandfeld, Kristian, 2, 88 Sansò, A., 47 Sarhimaa, Anneli, 9, 185 Sasse, H.-J., 81 Say, S., 210 Scaglione, Stefania, 12, 17 Schaller, Helmut Wilhelm, 2, 4, 5, 7–9,

23, 86 Schapera, Isaac, 125 Schleicher, August, 2, 51 Schmalstieg, W., 210 Schmidt, Johannes, 2, 51 Schuchart, Hugo Ernst Mario, 2 Schultze, Leonhard, 109, 130 Schulze, Wolfgang, 245 Sebeok, Thomas, 21, 23 Seidel, Eugen, 7 Šejxov, E. M., 167 Sem, L. I., 280, 284 Shadily, Hassan, 232 Shamina, L. A., 282 Shcherbak, A. M., 282 Sherzer, Joel, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 38, 87 Sihler, A., 247 Silva-Corvalán, C., 86 Simoncsics, Péter, 290 Skorik, P. Ya, 269, 271, 278, 281, 285,

286, 295 Slaska, Natalia, 65, 67 Slomanson, Peter, 139, 140, 143 Smith, Ian R., 136–8, 140, 142, 143, 145,

151–3, 253, 262 Smith, Michael, 262n.8Smith, Moya, 253 Smith-Stark, Thomas, 7, 14, 17, 33, 37 Soodyall, Himla, 130 Speelman, Dirk, 228, 236, 237, 239, 241 Staden, Miriam van, 227, 228 Stampe, Davis, 151 Stankiewicz, E., 199 Starostin, S. A., 58, 269 Stassen, L., 189, 190


Stebnitskij, S. N., 281, 285 Steinitz, Wolfgang, 296 Stilo, D., 168, 170, 174–6 Stolbova, O. V., 80 Stolz, Christel, 37, 47, 84, 85, 88, 148 Stolz, Thomas, 2, 8–10, 13–17, 23, 24,

32–4, 37, 38, 47, 48, 84, 85, 88, 137, 142, 148, 184, 185, 192

Stoneking, M., 177 Subbarao, Karumuri Venkata, 145 Sumbatova, N., 174 Swadesh, Morris, 53, 54, 57, 65,

68, 253 Sykes, Bryan, 60

Tambets, K., 221 Taylor, Ann, 54, 55, 241 Tenishev, È. R., 291 Tereshchenko, N. M., 268 Tereshkin, N. I., 268, 271 Terrill, Angela, 262 Thananjayarajasingham, S., 136 Thomason, Sarah Grey, 1, 6–15, 17, 22,

23, 52, 56, 76–81, 83, 84, 86, 93, 127, 128, 151, 154, 247, 255

Thompson, S. A., 188 Timberlake, A., 189 Todaeva, B. X., 290 Tolskaja, Maria, 272, 280, 285 Toman, Jindrich, 3 Torp, A., 212 Torroni, Antonio, 60 Tosco, M, 1, 8, 11, 76, 78, 80, 81, 90,

93, 94 Traill, Anthony, 99, 108, 109, 113,

116, 130 Trask, R. L., xv, xvi, 7 Trubetzkoy, Nikolai Sergeevich, 1–4, 9,

10, 23, 75, 84, 93 Trudgill, Peter, 15

Ubrjatova, E. I., 271, 291 Ureland, P. S., 192

van den Berg, René, 229 van der Auwera, Johan, 8, 17, 24 van Klinken, Catharina Lumien, 229 Van Valin, Robert D., 118 van Staden, Miriam, 227, 228 Vedder, Heinrich, 102, 116, 121, 129 Velten, H. V., 3, 23 Vendryes, Joseph, 2 Veth, Peter, 253 Viitso, Tiit-Rein, 206, 290 Visser, Hessel, 130 Voegelin, Carl F., 7, 23 Volodin, A. P., 273, 275, 281, 287 Vossen, Rainer, 99, 100, 117, 123

Wagner, H., 9 Wälchli, Bernhard, 24 Wallmann, J. C., 120 Wang, Feng, 57 Wang, William S.-Y., 57 Warnow, Tandy, 54, 55 Watkins, Calvert, 17, 20, 247 Webley, Lita, 103 Weinreich, Uriel, 2, 4, 9 Werner, H. K., 276, 279 Whitney, William Dwight, 2 Wiemer, B., 185 Wiik, K., 7, 193 Wilson, Robert, 38, 154 Winter, Werner, 9, 10, 208 Wintschalek, Walter, 10, 23, 86 Wolff, Hans, 7 Wurm, Stephen A., 151, 251

Xabifev, M. A., 175

Yaktonova, N. S., 290 Yates, Royden, 103

Zaborski, A., 76, 77, 79 Zeps, Valdis, 7 Zerjal, T., 221 Zhukova, A. N., 272, 282, 286, 287

306

Index of Language Families, Languages and Dialects

Abaza, 166 Abkhaz, 165, 166, 170

Proto-Abkhaz, 174 Abkhaz-Circassian, 162, 165, 166,

170, 171, 174 Acehnese, 228 Adnyamathanha, 260 Adyghe, 166 African languages, 100, 106, 129, 148 Afrikaans, 60, 128, 129, 247 Afro-Asiatic, 77, 78, 80, 81, 91, 93, 231

Proto-Afro-Asiatic, 78, 80, 81 Alans, 165, 166 Albanian, 48, 57, 176, 209 Altai, 266, 269–70, 272, 278, 282 Alune, 229 Al’utor, 269, 271, 281, 284, 285 Amerindian, 47 Amharic, 77, 78, 81–4 Andean languages, 67 Angloromani, 137 Arabana-Wangkangurru, 258, 259, 260 Arabic, 47 Aralo-Caspian, 161 Aramaic, 161, 171, 176 Arandic, 260, 262 Arin, 269 Armenian, 20, 21, 40, 151, 161, 162,

166, 170, 171, 173–6 Aryan, 38, 135–6, 142, 145, 182 Asian languages, 135, 145–9 Asiatic, 77–8, 80–1, 91, 93, 231 Assan, 269 Aukštaitian, 194–5 Australian languages, 68, 70, 71, 244,

245, 248, 250, 251, 253–5, 261, 262 Proto-Australian, 250, 251, 259

Austronesian, 47, 135, 139, 150, 155–6, 227–9, 232, 239

Avars, 165, 166, 171, 173, 207 Azerbaijan, 160, 164, 166, 176 Azeri, 160–1, 166–77

Baexem, 199 Baku, 170 Balinese, 228

Balkan, 8, 35, 39, 44, 48, 77, 79, 88, 154, 164, 172, 174, 177–8, 241

Balkanic, 35, 48 Balkan–Pontic–Caucasus–Caspian, 174, 178 Balkar, 160, 161, 165, 166, 168–71, 175,

176, 178 Baltic, 9, 16, 42, 44, 77, 79, 88, 182, 185,

187–91, 193–4, 198–9, 201, 203, 205–10, 213, 219–21

Bantu, 111, 125, 128–30 Bardi, 253, 254, 262 Basque, 42, 44, 48, 178, 188, 216 Bayso, 90 Bengali, 67 Birka, 202 Bulgar, 161, 163–5, 177, 178

Old Bulgar, 177 Bulgarian, 44, 48, 174, 177, 178 Burman, 135 Buru, 229, 233 Buryat, 269, 273, 274, 290

Calo, 137 Caspian, 161, 163–5, 168, 174, 178 Caucasian, 37, 162–72, 175–7 Celtic, 42, 54, 185, 205, 206, 209, 250 Chechen, 173, 175 Chinese, 57, 150–1, 281, 283

Hokkien Chinese, 139 Chukchi, 269, 271, 273, 275, 281, 284,

285, 286, 287 Proto-Chukchi-Koryak, 281, 285

Chukotko-Kamchatkan, 266, 269, 271–3, 275, 276, 278, 281, 283–7, 292

Proto-Chukotko-Kamchatkan, 286, 292 Circassian, 162, 165, 166, 170, 171, 174–6

Proto-Circassian, 174 Circum-Baltic languages, 16, 88, 182,

194, 199, 207, 209, 213, 221 Copper Island Aleut, 277 Curonian, 182 Cushitic, 22, 47, 77–83, 90, 93, 104, 129

Daghestanian, 162–4, 166, 168, 170–5, 207 Dalecarlian, 184, 196, 202, 203, 212,

215, 217, 220


Damara, 102, 116, 121, 128, 129, 130 Old Damara, 116

Danish, 48, 54, 59, 183, 184, 193–8, 201–3, 208, 210, 214–15, 217–21

Old Danish, 218, 219 Western Jutish, 204, 211, 212,

214, 220 Dargi, 160, 166, 170, 175 Didinga, 91 Digor, 165–6, 168 Diyari, 260 Dolgan, 270, 271, 290, 291 Dravidian, 38, 135–6, 139, 142, 145,

151, 153–5 Dutch, 44, 45, 54, 59, 60, 129, 198, 199,

217, 236 Limburgian dialects, 198–9

East !Xõo, 109, 110, 113, 116, 117, 123, 124

Eini, 103, 108, 111 Elfdalian, 203, 217 Enets, 268, 275, 278 English, 3, 15, 40, 44, 45, 54, 57, 59–61,

63–5, 91, 137, 152, 172, 213–21, 231, 241

Old English, 218, 219, 241 Estonian, 47, 182–5, 191–4, 196–200,

204, 206–8, 219–21, 290 Hiiumaa dialect, 200 Saaremaa dialect, 200

Ethio-Semitic, 77–83, 93 Ethiopian, 22, 76–81, 83–4, 88, 90 Eurasian, 145, 162, 185, 192, 209–10 European languages, 4, 8, 20, 32, 39,

44, 47, 54, 58, 59, 65, 67, 68, 103, 136, 137, 154, 161, 178, 182, 185, 187, 190–2, 194, 196, 205–7, 209–10, 221, 231, 246–7, 249, 251, 262

Even, 3, 32, 37, 75, 87, 88, 92, 125, 138, 142, 149, 151, 153, 167, 170, 232, 266, 273, 278, 280, 284, 285, 294

Evenki, 270, 271, 272, 274, 278, 280, 283, 284, 285, 294

Faroese, 54, 196, 204, 205 Finnic, 182, 184–5, 187–90, 195, 197,

199–201, 206, 208–10, 220 Finnish, 47, 184, 188, 192, 196, 200,

201, 204, 210, 219 Finno-Ugric, 177, 182, 192, 205–6,

208, 210, 213, 221 Proto-Finno-Ugric, 206

Flemish, 60 Formosan, 232, 234

French, 15, 54, 57, 60, 65, 178, 188 Old French, 178

Frisian, 44, 45, 54, 59

Galindian, 182 Genje, 170 Georgian, 46, 163, 166, 168,

172–5, 191 Old Georgian, 44, 172, 175

German, 39, 44, 45, 57, 60, 93, 119, 184, 191, 193, 194, 201, 217, 219, 250

Central Franconian dialects, 198 Low German, 184, 193, 194, 201,

212, 219 Germanic, 44, 45, 47, 48, 53–5, 59–64,

182, 192, 198, 206, 207, 210, 212, 216, 219, 250

Proto-Germanic, 206, 250 Gilyak, see Nivkh Greek, 44, 151, 184, 194, 209,

210, 249 Gumuz, 81 Gurage, 77, 82–3 Gypsy Telugu, see Kuravar G || ana, 105

Halmahera, 227, 235, 237 Hatam, 229, 233, 236, 237 Hausa, 231 Hebrew, 47 Hedeby-Birka, 202 Hindi, 67 c Hõa, 100 Hungarian, 44 Hunnic, 162–4

Icelandic, 42, 196, 201, 204–5, 213 Inanwatan, 229, 237 Indian, 93, 135, 145, 147, 149 Indic, 15, 135, 136, 142, 154, 247 Indo-Aryan, 38, 135–6, 142,

145, 182 Indo-European, 4, 8, 20, 54, 58, 59, 65,

67, 68, 136, 154, 182, 187, 190, 192, 194, 196, 205–7, 209, 210, 247, 249, 251, 262

Old Indo-European, 210 Proto-Indo-European, 206, 251

Indo-Iranian, 65–7 Indonesian, 227, 228, 231–2, 234,

237, 241 Iranian, 20, 161, 162, 165, 166, 168–77 Italian, 15, 60 Italo-Celtic, 54 Itel’men, 269, 281, 284, 285, 286

308 Index of Language Families, Languages and Dialects

Jatvingian, 182 Ju, 100, 105, 115, 130

Kabardino-Balkaria, 161 Kalam, 229 Kalmyk, 166, 269 Kamassian, 189 Kambera, 228, 233 Kamchatkan, 266, 269, 271–3, 275,

276, 278, 281, 283–7, 292 Kannada, 154 Karachay-Balkar, 160, 161, 165–6,

168–71, 175–6, 178 Karaim, 182, 184 Karajarri, 253, 254, 262 Karnic, 257–60

Proto-Karnic, 258 Kartvelian, 161, 162, 165, 166,

168, 171–3 Kashubian, 185, 193, 194, 199 Kayardild, 231 Kerek, 269, 271, 281, 284, 285 Ket, 177, 269, 277, 279, 281 Khaidaq, 160, 166, 169, 170 Khanty, 271, 288, 289, 292, 293, 295 Khazars, 163, 177 Khoe, 99, 100, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108,

110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 130, 131

Kalahari Khoe, 99, 105, 106, 110, 113, 115, 116, 117, 119, 123, 130

Proto-Khoe, 111, 112, 116, 117 Khoe-Kwadi, 100, 131 Khoekhoe, 99, 100, 102, 103, 104,

105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131

Khoi, 247 Khoisan, 99–101, 103, 105, 108–9,

124–6, 129–31 c Khomani, 101, 109 Khoy, 170 Kipchak, 161, 163–5, 174, 175, 178 Komi, 190, 208, 209, 221, 290, 295 Konkani, 149 Koryak, 4, 269, 271, 272, 278, 281, 282,

284, 285, 286, 287 Kott, 269 Kumans, 163, 164, 177 Kumyk, 160, 161, 164–70, 175 Kuravar, 4, 136 Kurdic, 166, 176

Lak, 166, 170 Lakota, 231 Latgalian, 183, 195 Latin, 15, 210, 250 Latvian, 40, 42, 47, 183, 184, 185, 189,

190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 198, 199, 200, 206, 210, 219, 220

Low Latvian, 194, 195, 198, 199, 200

Laz, 173 Lezghian, 168, 170, 171, 175 Lezghic, 166, 169, 170 Lithuanian, 41, 42, 185, 189–95, 200,

208, 210, 219–21 Old Lithuanian, 210

Livonian, 184, 185, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 197, 198, 199, 200, 207, 219

Maale, 91 Macedonian, 44 Malay, 135, 136, 139, 140, 141, 142,

143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 227, 232

Sri Lanka Malay, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 145, 146, 147, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154

Malayalam, 149 Malayo-Polynesian, 228, 232 Maltese, 42 Mansi, 274, 288, 289, 292 Marathi, 67, 142, 154 Marr, 176 Ma’a, 137 Media Lengua, 137 Meyah, 229 Mingrelian, 166, 173, 174 Mongolic, 162, 164, 266, 269, 273,

274, 290, 292 Old Mongol, 269 Proto-Mongolic, 292

Mordvin, 40, 190, 208, 209, 221

Motu, 155 Mpur, 229 Muna, 229, 237

Nakh-Daghestanian, 160, 162, 164, 166, 168, 170, 171, 173–5

Nakhichevan, 160 Nama, 100, 101, 102, 103, 108,

109, 116, 118, 120, 121, 129, 130


Nanai, 271, 280 Naro, 105, 113, 130 Naukan, 270 Negidal, 280, 285 Nenets, 189, 268, 278, 289 Ngamini, 260 Nganasan, 268, 271, 278, 290 Nguni, 128 Nilo-Saharan, 77, 81, 83, 91 Nilotic, 91

Proto-Nilotic, 91 Nivkh, 266, 268, 271, 273,

275, 283 Noghay, 160, 161, 165–7,

174, 175 Nordic, Proto-, 197, 201 Norrbotten, 201, 212–13 Norwegian, 48, 193, 194, 196, 201,

203–5, 208, 210–21 Bokmål, 183, 212–14 Nynorsk, 183, 212,214

Nostratic, Proto-, 251 Nukha, 169, 170 Nyungan, 189, 244, 250–3, 256–61 Nhuki, 101, 114, 118, 122 N || ng, 100, 101, 104, 109, 114,

122, 131

Ob-Ugric, 266, 268, 274, 278, 288, 290, 292–3

Proto-Ob-Ugric, 288, 292 Oceanic, 233, 234 Odul, 268, 272, 273, 275, 279,

287, 288 Oghuz, 161, 163–6, 168, 174,

176, 178 Old Prussian, 182 Omo-Tana, 90 Omotic, 77, 78, 83, 91, 93 !Ora, 99–103, 106, 108–9, 111, 115–22,

124, 130 Orok, 271, 284, 285 Ossetic, 165, 166, 168–9,

171, 175–6

Pama-Nyungan, 189, 244, 250–3, 256–61 Proto-Pama-Nyungan, 251, 252,

258, 259 Papuan, 150, 155–6 Parthian, 176 Persian, 162, 166, 168, 170, 176 Pitta-Pitta, 259, 260 Polabian, 184, 185, 187, 190,

192, 208 Polish, 184, 185, 187, 190, 192, 208 Polynesian, 228, 232

Ponto-Caspian, 161, 164, 165, 168 Portuguese, 135–43, 145, 147–54

Asian Portuguese creoles, 148 Baticcaloa Portuguese, 152 Creole Portuguese, 136, 137, 151 Old Portuguese, 148 Sri Lanka Creole Portuguese, 136–43,

145, 147, 149–55 Punjabi, 67

Romance, 44, 53, 54, 60–2, 135, 209, 212

Romani, 182 Rumanian, 44, 48 Russian, 39, 44, 46, 161, 165, 167, 177,

185, 187–92, 205–6, 219, 274, 276–7, 296

Kyyrölä Russian, 208 Northern Russian, 184, 188

Saami, 182, 183, 185, 190, 192, 196, 205, 208, 209, 213, 221, 290

Saharan, 77, 81, 83, 91 Saliba, 233 Samoyedic, 189, 266, 268, 274–6,

278–9, 281, 289–90, 292 Sanskrit, 15, 250 Scandinavian, 44, 48, 184–5, 191, 196,

198, 201–8, 210, 212–13, 215–21 Proto-Scandinavian, 201

Seljuk, 164, 166, 176 Seljuks, 163 Sel’kup, 268, 272, 281, 283, 289, 290,

292, 293 Semitic, 22, 77–83, 93

Proto-Semitic, 93 Serbo-Croatian, 42, 44, 46, 194, 207 Sicilian, 15 Sinhala, 135–46, 149–51, 153, 154 Sinitic, 232 Sireniki, 269, 270 Slavic, 44, 46, 47, 60, 162, 177, 182,

184–5, 187–91, 194, 208–10, 220–1 Slovene, 194 Slovincian, 199 Sougb, 229, 234, 241 Sourashtra, 142, 153 South-Semitic, 81 Spanish, 15, 47, 137, 247 Stavropol’ Turkmen, 161, 165, 166 Surmic, 91 Svan, 165, 166, 173, 174 Swedish, 48, 184–5, 191, 193, 194, 196,

201–4, 208, 210–12, 214–15, 217–21 Överkalix, 201, 212 Västerbotten, 211, 212, 213

310 Index of Language Families, Languages and Dialects

Taba, 237 Talysh, 166, 171, 172 Tamian, 184, 195 Tamil, 135–46, 150–5

Sri Lanka Tamil, 138–42 Tana, 90 Tat, 166, 168, 172, 173 Tatar, 47, 182 Tatic, 166, 168, 170, 176 Tetun, 229, 237 Tetun Fehan, 237 Thura-Yura, 260 Tibeto-Burman, 135 Tocharian, 54 Tofa, 269, 273, 279, 291 Tolai, 155 Tsakhur, 169, 170 Tsou, 232 Tuba, 270 Tukng Besi, 237 Tungusic, 177, 266, 268, 271–4, 278,

280–1, 283–5, 291–4 Proto-Tungus, 268, 280 Proto-Tungusic, 280, 281, 283,

285, 291 Turkic, 47, 151, 160–78, 182, 266,

269–74, 276–9, 282, 283, 290–2, 296

Old Turkic, 282, 283 Proto-Turkic, 291

Turkish, 8, 40, 57, 151, 160, 161, 169, 171, 173, 174, 191, 291

Tuu, 99–100, 102, 104–14, 116–19, 121–30

Proto-Tuu, 110, 112, 114 Tuvan, 272, 275, 282, 283

Udi, 166, 170, 175 Udihe, 272, 280, 284, 285

Ugric, 177, 182, 192, 205–6, 208, 210, 213, 221, 266, 268, 274, 278, 288, 290, 292–3

!Ui, 99–100, 103–10, 112, 114–18, 121–5, 127–31

Proto-!Ui, 110 c Ungkue, 100, 115, 131 Uralic, 182, 189–90, 205, 209, 221,

281, 290, 292 Proto-Uralic, 290

Urdu, 154

Vedda, 136, 145, 149–50 Veps, 184, 200 Võru, 183

Wadul, 268, 272, 273, 279, 287, 288

Western Türk, 163, 164, 178

Xakas, 276, 277, 279, 282, 291 |Xam, 100, 106, 108, 109, 112,

114–19, 121, 123, 124, 127, 130, 131

Yakut, 177, 270, 271, 291 Yandruwandha, 259, 260 Yawuru, 253, 254, 262 Yeniseic, 266, 269, 271, 274,

276–7, 279 Yindjibarndi, 189 Yugh, 269, 276, 279 Yukaghiric, 266, 268, 271–3, 275,

276, 279, 287–8, 292 Proto-Yukaghir, 268 Proto-Yukaghiric, 287

Yura, 260

\emaitia, 194, 195

311

Index of Subjects

acculturation, 2 adoption, 167, 169 adpositions, 79, 80, 118, 155 adstratum, 167–70, 176 archaeological evidence, 257, 259 aspect, 16, 18, 60, 71, 117, 125,

136, 146, 171, 187, 188, 191 aspiration, 106, 108, 109, 130, 169

basic code, 167 basic vocabulary, 3, 53, 55, 57, 65,

84, 246, 253, 254 Black Bulgaria, 163 bootstrapping, 69 borrowing, 1–23, 47, 51–68, 71, 73,

75, 76, 104, 105, 109, 111, 112, 122, 124, 126–8, 131, 142, 168, 196, 219, 231–3, 241, 245–8, 254, 255, 257, 260, 262, 269, 294

borrowed traits, 6, 14, 17 hierarchies of borrowability, 17

Bund, 33, 39 Peipus-Bund, 185 Rokytno-Bund, 185 Wikinger-Bund, 185

calquing, 47, 118, 260 case marking, 136, 137, 143, 146,

171, 174, 175, 184, 199–201, 203, 208, 210, 215, 216, 218–20, 274, 276

ablative, 142 accusative, 188, 189 allative, 267, 279–83, 292, 294 associative, 129, 131, 142 comitative, 192, 267, 279, 284–92 dative, 142, 146, 149, 190, 211, 212,

258, 259, 267, 277, 279–83, 292, 294

ergative, 170, 175, 258, 259, 287 garpe genitive, 212 genitive, 90, 142, 187, 188, 190, 208,

210–18, 220, 289 instrumental, 142, 167, 189, 190, 192,

267, 279, 284–92 locative, 142, 147, 259, 287 nominative, 188, 189 partitive, 187, 188 similative, 123, 124 sociative, 285–7, 290

causative, 116, 118, 147, 191 Chechens, 165 cladistic approach, 72 classification, 36, 48, 52, 72, 77, 100,

102, 244, 251, 255, 260 code shift, 162, 167, 168, 176 code-copying, 167 cognates, 56–63, 68, 109, 116, 120, 254,

284, 285, 289–91 common ancestry, 6, 19, 21, 51, 56, 60,

65, 70, 72, 93, 100, 126, 259, 292 comparative linguistics, 2, 51–3 comparative method, 18–21, 245,

248–50, 262 complementizer, 123, 124 complex predicates, 117, 118, 127, 227,

228, 233, 234, 236, 237, 241 compound verb, 117 consonant inventory, 107, 108, 130 constituent order, see word order contact, 5–7, 12–24, 32, 33, 36, 37, 42–7,

51–6, 61, 65, 67–70, 72, 75–93, 99, 100, 103–5, 108, 113, 116, 118, 125–31, 136, 138, 145–50, 153–5, 160, 162, 166–75, 182–5, 191–3, 196, 199–201, 205, 206, 209, 218–20, 227, 228, 233–42, 246–9, 253, 255–6, 258–61, 276

converbs, 82 convergence, 4, 18, 20, 21, 33–5, 38, 44,

45, 51, 64, 65, 71, 72, 75, 76, 79–85, 87–90, 92, 128, 135, 150, 153, 155, 156, 162, 171, 174–6, 184, 185, 192, 193, 219, 240, 244, 246, 247, 251, 257, 260, 276

long-distance convergence, 47 core–periphery pattern, 11 creole, 55, 106, 136–40, 142, 147–9,

151–3 creolization, 147

Daghestan, 160, 165–7, 169 declarative, 119–22 definiteness, 39, 40, 42, 44, 46,

47, 216 defocalization, 171–3 derivation, 113, 114, 116, 117, 126 diachronic evidence, 14 dialect continuum, 61, 87

312 Index of Subjects

dialects, 55, 58, 68, 83, 150, 161, 187–9, 206, 214, 215, 220, 221, 250, 256, 257, 260, 266, 292, 295, 296

dialect continuum, 61, 75, 87, 88, 102, 256

dialect convergence, 150 dialect epicentre, 256 dialect geography, 3, 11, 100, 256 dialect variation, 140, 184, 202, 220,

288, 290 prestige dialects, 202

diffusion, 1–24, 35–9, 45, 75, 78, 80–8, 103, 155, 172, 175, 227, 245–7, 250, 251, 257–61, 276, 294

diglossia, 151–3 diminutive, 113, 114, 129, 130 directionality, 65, 71 discontinuous transmission, 55 discourse particles, 142 distance, 205, 209, 210

composite, 66, 72 genetic, 8, 23, 47 linguistic, 203

diversity, 8, 11, 37, 46, 148, 166, 176, 192, 202, 210, 217, 220, 221, 248, 266, 292

ejectives, 109, 169 emotion predicates, 228, 234 equilibrium, 78, 244–7, 249–51, 254,

255, 257, 261 evidentiality, 140, 172–4, 220 exclusive, 21, 111, 112, 116, 127, 129

family trees, 18–21, 51, 52, 55, 60, 126, 161, 244–6, 255, 256, 260–2

focus, 8, 10, 12, 13, 18, 47, 54, 65, 82, 99, 100, 105, 129, 135, 136, 193, 219

focal postterminals, 172 frequential copying, 171, 172, 175

gender, 111, 113, 128 gene flow, 126 genetic impact, 177 genetic relatedness, 79, 84, 219, 251,

254, 255, 257 genetic subgroup, 257 geographic closeness, 76 global copying, 86 glottal stop, 169 glottalized consonants, 4, 79–81 glottochronology, 249 Golden Horde, 163, 165 grammaticalization, 122, 124, 127,

130, 131, 172, 173, 191, 192, 216, 282

imperfect learning, 22, 55, 77, 83, 84 imperfective, 117, 130 imposition, 167, 169 inclusive, 19, 20, 111, 112, 127 increase in complexity, 128 indirectivity, 172 interference, 9, 22, 79, 99, 104, 105, 111,

115, 123, 124, 126, 127, 129, 155 interrogative, 119–22 intertwined languages, 137 intraterminal, 171 isogloss, 3, 9–11, 36, 39–43, 45–7, 104–6,

109, 111, 125, 127, 185, 187, 191–3, 219, 244, 251, 256–8, 260, 261

bundles, 11, 192 dialects, 4, 11

iterative, 116

Kabardians, 165 Kulturbund, 37

language death, 151, 247, 248, 262 language family, 99 language shift, 77, 83, 104, 176, 202, 247 lexical, 3, 51–6, 60, 65, 67, 68, 71, 72,

104, 109–11, 117, 130, 137, 167, 168, 193, 194, 199, 201, 204, 207, 213, 214, 227, 236, 246, 251, 255

lexicostatistics, 251, 253 lingua franca, 139, 149, 151, 153, 164,

165, 167, 176, 177, 227 loanwords, 167–9, 175, 185, 260, 262

metatypy, 20, 35, 135, 137, 140, 153–5, 260

mixed languages, 2, 52, 56, 277 model code, 167, 171 morphology, 89, 111, 154, 241, 247,

257, 272, 274, 278, 290, 292 multi-lingualism, 14, 154, 166, 244, 260

nasals, 260, 268, 271 negation, 227 Neighbour Joining, 68 NeighbourNet, 66, 67, 70–2 Neogrammarians, 51 networks, 13, 67, 83, 86, 257, 258

network programs, 69 noun , 123, 124, 141, 148 number, 111, 140, 149 numeral, 190

object, 113, 118–20, 122, 145, 148, 187–90, 234

oblique, 123, 189, 191, 233 origin myths, 250, 252

Index of Subjects 313

parallel innovation, 17, 247, 261 particles, 116, 117, 122, 136, 137, 140,

142, 171, 192 pastoralists, 103, 104, 126, 131 perfect, 172–4 perfective, 117, 148 person, 83, 111–14, 121, 123, 131, 143,

146, 173, 174, 217, 251, 258–60 pharyngalized vowels, 169 pharyngeal fricatives, 79, 81 phonetic comparison, 65 phonology, 105, 140, 144, 145, 247,

249, 268, 271, 292 pidgin, 139 polar question, 120 polytonicity, 193–207, 219, 221 possessive NP, 216 postfield, 119, 122 postpositions, 81, 91, 93, 136, 139,

141–3, 155, 171, 216 postterminality, 172 prefield, 119–21, 127, 130 primary code, 167, 168, 176, 177 profile, 105, 117, 120, 128, 236, 237,

239, 241, 244 prolative, 278, 279, 282 pronoun, 47, 111, 112, 114, 115,

121, 124, 127, 192, 212, 215, 217, 251, 287

proposition, 4, 16, 3, 23

quantitative methods, 52, 56, 58, 72, 73

reconstruction, 52, 110, 125, 130, 232, 244, 249–51, 257, 261, 288

reduplication, 116, 137 regularity hypothesis, 51 relation, 33, 94, 104, 127, 216, 250,

262, 279 relative chronology, 260 relative clauses, 136, 137, 175, 209 relevance, 16, 55, 66, 76, 79, 80, 82, 87,

89, 100, 103, 111, 117, 187, 194, 218 reported discourse, 123, 124 resultative, 117, 172 reticulations, 60–2, 66, 67, 69, 70

sentence type, 119, 121, 122, 127 several-traits view, 9 similarity, 3, 17, 20, 33–5, 42, 56, 68, 72,

84, 85, 89, 99, 106, 111, 124, 126, 142, 219, 221, 237, 239

single-trait view, 8 sound change, 72, 247, 248, 250 sound harmony, 170

speech community, 39, 89 Splitstree, 68–70 spread, 9, 12, 13, 15, 39, 77, 78, 111,

147, 162–4, 175, 184, 188, 201, 202, 204, 212, 218, 221, 232, 245, 246, 252, 257, 294

Standard Average European, 39, 185, 191

stative, 117 structural features, 6, 7, 78, 93 subareas, 77, 84, 175, 177 subgroups, 6, 60, 164, 244, 251, 257,

259, 261 subject, 45, 104, 110, 118–22, 126,

127, 130, 136, 149, 176, 187–9, 205, 235

sublists, 58–60, 62, 67 subsistence, 103, 125, 126 substrata, 170, 176, 177, 279 substrate, 99, 104, 105, 109–11,

118, 125, 126, 128, 129, 148, 152, 167–70, 174, 176, 184, 205, 206

substratum, see substrate superstrate, 47 Swadesh list, 54, 57, 65, 68, 253

tense, 117, 136, 143, 169, 171, 191 topic, 47, 76, 90, 119, 122, 127, 218 Transcaucasia, 161, 164, 176 transitivity, 187, 192 tree-drawing programs, 59, 61, 62, 68, 71 Turkicization, 166, 167, 176 typological change, 139 typological independence, 87 typology, 19, 32, 45, 90, 94, 203,

213, 219

unidirectionality, 154 uniformity, 5, 237, 239–41

verb serialization, 117–19 vigesimal counting, 168

Wackernagel position, 127 wave model, 51 word accent, 194 word order, 84, 91–3, 127, 139,

144–52, 155, 192, 207–17, 221, 227, 241, 273

basic word order, 136, 209 comparatives, 137 verb-final, 80–1, 91, 119, 126, 155,

174–5 verb-first, 90–1

Documents

1403 996571 02 previ - University of Hawai»i