The languages of the Americas often can be grouped together into linguistic areas or Sprachbunds (also known as convergence areas). The linguistic areas identified so far deserve more research to determine their validity. Knowing about Sprachbunds helps historical linguists differentiate between shared areal traits and true genetic relationship. The pioneering work on American areal linguistics was a dissertation by Joel Sherzer, which was published as Sherzer (1976).
Lyle Campbell (1997) lists over 20 linguistic areas,[1] many of which are still hypothetical.
Note: Some linguistic areas may overlap with others.
Pache, et al. (2016)[10] note that the word ‘dog’[11] is shared across various unrelated language families of the Americas, and use this word as a case study of lexical diffusion due to trade and contact.
Costanoan (Mutsun xučekniṣ, Chalon xučekniṣ, and Rumsen xučːiys), Esselenhučumas (term borrowed from Costanoan; native terms are šošo and šanašo), Salinan (Antoniaño Salinan xuč (pl. xostén) and Migueleño Salinan xučaːi), Chumash (Ineseño Chumash huču, likely borrowed from Salinan)
In South America, a root for ‘dog’ is shared by Uru-Chipayan (paku or paqu) and several unrelated neighboring languages of lowland Bolivia (Movimapako, Itonamau-paʔu, and Trinitariopaku), as well as Guaicuruan (Mocoví, Toba, and Pilagápioq). An identical root for ‘dog’ is also shared by Huastec (*sul) and Atakapa (šul), which are very geographically distant from each other although both are located along the Gulf of Mexico coast.[10] Areal words for ‘dog’ are also shared across the U.S. Southeast (Karankawakeš ~ kes, Chitimachakiš, Cotonamekissa ‘fox’, Huavean *kisɨ), as well as across Mesoamerica. Mesoamerican areal words for ‘dog’ diffused unidirectionally from certain language families to others, and are listed below:[10]
This linguistic area was proposed by Jeff Leer (1991), and may be a subarea of the Northwest Coast Linguistic Area. This sprachbund contains languages that have strict head-final (XSOV) syntax. Languages are Aleut, Haida, Eyak, and Tlingit.
Leer (1991) considers the strong areal traits to be:
numeral classifiers (shared by Salishan and Sahaptian languages)
locative-directional markers in verbs
different roots of the singular and the plural for various actions, such as 'sit', 'stand', 'take' (except in Kutenai and Lillooet, uncertain in Cayuse and Molala)
quinary-decimal numerical system (Haruo Aoki 1975)
Features of this linguistic area have been described by Mary Haas. They include:
rarity of uvular consonants: they occur in Klamath, Wintu, Chimariko, and Pomoan
retroflexed stops
rarity of a distinct series of voiced stops except in the east–west strip of languages including Kashaya Pomo, Wintu-Patwin, and Maidu (this series contains implosion in Maidu)
consonant sound symbolism: in Yurok, Wiyot, Hupa, Tolowa, Karuk, and Yana
Washo, spoken in the Great Basin area, shares some traits common to the Northern California linguistic area.
pronominal dual
quinary/decimal numeral system
absence of vowel-initial syllables
free stress
Northwest California
Northwest California is a subarea of the Northern California linguistic area. It includes Wiyot (Algic), Yurok (Algic), Hupa (Athabaskan), and Karuk (language isolate).[13]
Central California
Golla (2011: 247–248) notes that Esselen shares typological features with Utian, Miwok, Costanoan, such as "the absence of a glottalized series, and ... a relatively analytic morphosyntax", which are also similar to typological features found in Northern Uto-Aztecan languages. He suggests that there was a linguistic area that stretched from the Sierra Nevada through Sacramento, and from the San Joaquin Delta to the San Francisco Bay.[14]
Languages in Sherzer's (1976) "Yokuts-Salinan-Chumash" area (also known as the "South Coast Range" linguistic area[13]), which includes Chumash, Esselen, and Salinan, share the following traits.
3 series of stops - also in the Clear Lake area
retroflexed sounds - also in the Clear Lake area
glottalized resonants (sonorants)
prefixation of verbal subject markers)
presence of /h, ɨ, c, ŋ/ in the Greater South Coast Range area
t/ṭ (retroflex/non-retroflex) contrast in the Greater South Coast Range area, as well as other parts of California
In an expanded version, the Greater South Coast Range linguistic area also includes Yokutsan and several Northern Uto-Aztecan languages.[13]
Great Basin
This linguistic area is defined by Sherzer (1973, 1976) and Jacobsen (1980). Languages are Numic (Uto-Aztecan) and Washo. Shared traits include:
k/kʷ contrast
bilabial fricatives /ɸ, β/
presence of /xʷ, ŋ, ɨ/
overtly marked nominal system
inclusive/exclusive pronominal distinction
However, the validity of this linguistic area is doubtful, as pointed out by Jacobsen (1986), since many traits of the Great Basin area are also common to California languages. It may be an extension of the Northern California linguistic area.
Southern California–Western Arizona
This linguistic area has been demonstrated in Hinton (1991). Languages are Yuman, Cupan (Uto-Aztecan), less extensively Takic and (Uto-Aztecan). Shared traits include:
k/q distinction
presence of /kʷ, tʃ, x/
The Yuman and Cupan languages share the most areal features, such as:
kʷ/qʷ contrast
s/ʂ contrast
r/l contrast
presence of /xʷ, ɲ, lʲ/
small vowel inventory
sound symbolism
The influence is strongly unidirectional from Yuman to Cupan, since the features considered divergent within the Takic subgroup. According to Sherzer (1976), many of these traits are also common to Southern California languages.
Shaul and Andresen (1989) have proposed a Southwestern Arizona ("Hohokam") linguistic area as well, where speakers of Piman languages are hypothesized to have interacted with speakers of Yuman languages as part of the Hohokam archaeological culture. The single trait defining this area is the presence of retroflex stops (/ʈ/ in Yuman, /ɖ/ in Piman).
The Plains Linguistic Area, according to Sherzer (1973:773), is the "most recently constituted of the culture areas of North America (late eighteenth and nineteenth century)." Languages are Athabaskan, Algonquian, Siouan, Tanoan, Uto-Aztecan, and Tonkawa. The following areal traits are characteristic of this linguistic area, though they are also common in other parts of North America.
prefixation of subject person markers in verbs
pronominal plurals
Frequent traits, which are not shared by all languages, include:
inclusive/exclusive opposition (in first person plural pronouns)
nominal diminutive suffix
animate/inanimate gender
evidential markers in verbs
lack of labiovelars (other than Comanche and the languages of the Southern Plains subregion)
presence of /ð/ (eastern Plains subregion only)
Southern Plains areal traits include:
phonemic pitch
presence of /kʷ, r/
voiced/voiceless fricatives
Northeast
The Northeast linguistic area consists of Winnebago (Siouan), Northern Iroquoian, and Eastern Algonquian. Central areal traits of the Northeast Linguistic Area include the following (Sherzer 1976).
a single series of stops (especially characteristic of the Northeast)
nasalized vowels (best-known feature); for instance, Proto-Eastern Algonquian *a- is nasalized due to influence from Iroquioan languages, which have two nasalized vowels in its proto-language, *ɛ̃ and *õ.
pronominal dual
The boundary between the Northeast and Southeast linguistic areas is not clearly determined, since features often extend over to territories belonging to both linguistic areas.
Bilabial or labial fricatives (/ɸ/, sometimes /f/) are considered by Sherzer (1976) to be the most characteristic trait of the Southeast Linguistic Area. Various other shared traits have been found by Robert L. Rankin (1986, 1988) and T. Dale Nicklas (1994).
Some languages formerly considered to be part of the Mesoamerican sprachbund, but are now considered to lack main diagnostic traits of Mesoamerican area languages, include Cora, Huichol, Lenca, Jicaquean, and Misumalpan.
The Mayan Linguistic Area is considered by most scholars to be part of the Mesoamerican area. However, Holt & Bright (1976) distinguish it as a separate area, and include the Mayan, Xincan, Lencan, and Jicaquean families as part of the Mayan Linguistic Area. Shared traits include:
presence of glottalized consonants and alveolar affricates
This linguistic area is characterized by SOV word order and postpositions. This stands in contrast to the Mesoamerican Linguistic Area, where languages do not have SOV word order.
Holt & Bright (1976) define a Central American Linguistic Area as having the following areal traits. Note that these stand in direct opposition to the traits defined in their Mayan Linguistic Area.
presence of voiced obstruents and labiovelar stops (absent in the Mayan area)
absence of glottalized consonants and alveolar affricates (present in the Mayan area)
Constenla's (1991) Colombian–Central American area consists primarily of Chibchan languages, but also include Lencan, Jicaquean, Misumalpan, Chocoan, and Betoi (Constenla 1992:103). This area consists of the following areal traits.
voicing opposition in stops and fricatives
exclusive SOV word order
postpositions
mostly Genitive-Noun order
Noun-Adjective order
Noun-Numeral order
clause-initial question words
suffixation or postposed particle for negatives (in most languages)
absence of gender opposition in pronouns and inflection
absence of possessed/nonpossessed and alienable/inalienable possession oppositions
"morpholexical economy" - presence of lexical compounds rather than independent roots. This is similar to calques found in Mesoamerica, but with a more limited number of compounding elements. For instance, in Guatuso (as in Athabaskan languages), there is one compounding element of liquid substances, one compounding element for pointed extremities, one for flat surfaces, and so on.
Venezuelan–Antillean
A linguistic map of South America
This linguistic area, consisting of Arawakan, Cariban, Guamo, Otomaco, Yaruro, and Warao, is characterized by VO word order (instead of SOV), and is described by Constenla (1991). Shared traits are:
exclusive VO word order, and absence of SOV word order
absence of voicing opposition in obstruents
Numeral-Noun order
Noun-Genitive order
presence of prepositions
The Venezuelan–Antillean could also extend to the western part of the Amazon Culture Area (Amazonia), where there are many Arawakan languages with VO word order (Constenla 1991).
This linguistic area, consisting of Quechuan, Aymaran, Callahuaya, and Chipaya, is characterized by SOV word order and elaborate suffixing.
Quechuan and Aymaran languages both have:
SOV basic word order
suffixing morphology; other similar morphological structures
Büttner's (1983:179) includes Quechuan, Aymaran, Callahuaya, and Chipaya. Puquina, an extinct but significant language in this area, appears to not share these phonological features. Shared phonological traits are:
glottalized stops and affricates (not found in all varieties of Quechuan)
aspirated stops and affricates (not found in Chipaya)
uvular stops
presence of /ɲ, lʲ/
retroflexed affricates (retroflexed /ʃ/ and /t͡ʃ/) - more limited in distribution
absence of glottal stop /ʔ/
limited vowel systems with /i, a, u/ (not in Chipaya)
Constenla (1991) defines a broader Andean area including the languages of highland Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia, and possibly also some lowland languages east of that Andes that have features typical of the Andean area. This area has the following areal traits.
absence of the high-mid opposition in back vowels
absence of the opposition of voiced/voiceless affricates
Quantitative studies on the Andes and overlapping areas have found the following traits to be characteristic of these areas in a statistically significant way.
Morphosyntactic features
A statistical study of argument marking features in languages of South America found that both the Andes and Western South America constitute linguistic areas, with some traits showing a statistically significant relationship to both areas. The unique and shared traits of the two areas are shown in the following table.[17] (The wordings of the traits are directly from the source.)
Andes only
Both Andes and Western South America
Western South America only
Subject-object-verb constituent order
Use of both case and indexation as argument marking strategies
Marked neutral case marking patterns in ditransitive constructions
Suffixes as verbal person markers
Verbally marked applicative constructions
The R argument role can be indexed in ditransitive constructions
Accusative case alignment for NP arguments
Phonological features
Phonologically, the following segments and segmental features are areal for the Andes:[18]
Derbyshire & Pullum (1986) and Derbyshire (1987) describe the characteristics of this linguistic area in detail. Traits include:
objects preceding subjects, such as VOS, OVS, and OSV; word order in OVS and OSV languages tends to be highly flexible
verb agreement with both subject and object (additionally, null realization of subject and object nominals or free pronouns, which means that sentences frequently lack full noun-phrase subjects or objects)
predictability of when subjects and objects will be full noun phrases or when they will be signalled by verbal affixes (depending on whether they represent "new" or "given" information)
use of nominalizations for relative clauses and other subordinate clauses (in many cases, there are no true subordinate clauses at all)
nominal modifiers following their head nouns
no agentive passive constructions (except Palikur)
indirect-speech forms are nonexistent in most languages and rare in the languages that do have them; thus, they rely on direct speech constructions
absence of coordinating conjunctions (juxtaposition is used to express coordination instead)
extensive use of right-dislocated paratactic constructions (sequences of noun phrases, adverbials, or postpositional phrases, in which the whole sequence has only one grammatical relation in the sentence)
extensive use of particles that are phrasal subconstituents syntactically and phonologically, but are sentence operators or modifiers semantically
tendency toward ergative subject marking
highly complex morphology
Noun-classifier systems are also common across Amazonian languages. Derbyshire & Payne (1990) list three basic types of classifier systems.
Numeral: lexico-syntactic forms, which are often obligatory in expressions of quantity and normally are separate words.
Concordial: a closed grammatical system, consisting of morphological affixes or clitics and expressing class agreement with some head noun. However, they may also occur on nouns or verbs.
Verb incorporation: lexical items are incorporated into the verb stem, signalling some classifying entity of the associated noun phrase.
Derbyshire (1987) also notes that Amazonian languages tend to have:
ergatively organized systems (in whole or in part)
evidence of historical drift from ergative to accusative marking
certain types of split systems
Mason (1950) has found that in many languages of central and eastern Brazil, words end in vowels, and stress is ultimate (i.e., falls on the final syllable).
Lucy Seki (1999) has also proposed an Upper Xingu Linguistic Area in northern Brazil.
Validity
The validity of Amazonia as a linguistic area has been called into question by recent research, including quantitative studies. A study of argument marking parameters in 74 South American languages by Joshua Birchall found that “not a single feature showed an areal distribution for Amazonia as a macroregion. This suggests that Amazonia is not a good candidate for a linguistic area based on the features examined in this study.” Instead, Birchall finds evidence for three “macroregions” in South America: the Andes, Western South America, and Eastern South America, with some overlap in features between the Andes and Western South America.[19]
Based on that study and similar findings, Patience Epps and Lev Michael claim that “an emerging consensus points to Amazonia not forming a linguistic area sensu strictu [sic?].”[20]
Epps (2015)[21] shows that Wanderwörter are spread across the languages of Amazonia. Morphosyntax is also heavily borrowed across neighboring unrelated Amazonian languages.
The Orinoco–Amazon Linguistic Area, or the Northern Amazon Culture Area, is identified by Migliazza (1985 [1982]). Languages include Yanomaman, Piaroa (Sálivan), Arawakan/Maipurean, Cariban, Jotí, Uruak/Ahuaqué, Sapé (Kaliana), and Máku. Common areal traits are:
a shared pattern of discourse redundancy (Derbyshire 1977)
According to Carlin (2007), the Arawakan language Mawayana has borrowed many grammatical features from Cariban languages, particularly Tiriyó [Trió] and Waiwai. On the other hand, Wapishana, an Arawakan language that is closely related Mawayana, lacks these features.[23]
Shared grammatical features (also noted by Epps (2020),[24] Epps and Michael (2017: 948–949),[25] and Lüpke et al. (2020: 19–21)[26]) include:
first-person plural exclusive distinction (borrowing from Waiwai)
nominal tense marking
marking on nouns or verbs to express ‘pity’ or ‘recognition of unfortunate circumstance’
frustrative marker on verbs
‘similative’ marker on nominals
Tocantins–Mearim Interfluvium
The Tocantins–Mearim Interfluvium linguistic area includes several Tupí–Guaranían and Jêan languages.[13]
loss of first-person plural inclusive-exclusive contrast
argumentative case
Upper Xingu
The Upper Xingu linguistic area includes more than a dozen languages belonging to the Cariban, Arawakan, Jêan, and Tupían families, as well as the language isolate Trumai.[13]
Lucy Seki (1999, 2011) Xingu is an "incipient" linguistic area, since many of the languages had arrived in the Upper Xingu area after the arrival of the Portuguese.[29][30] Shared linguistic traits include:[13]
loss of a masculine-feminine gender distinction in the Arawakan languages of the region
diffusion of /ɨ/ into Xingu Arawakan languages from their Cariban or Tupí-Guaranían neighbors (Chang and Michael 2014)[31]
p > h shift in Cariban and Tupí-Guaranían
change to CV syllable structure in Cariban
diffusion of /ts/ into the Xingu Cariban languages from Arawakan
diffusion of nasal vowels into the Xingu Arawakan and Cariban languages from neighboring Tupí-Guaranían languages
Influence is multidirectional, as noted by Epps and Michael (2017: 947).[25]
According to Campbell (2024), the Mamoré–Guaporé or Guaporé–Mamoré linguistic area includes over 50 languages from 17 different families (Arawakan, Chapacuran, Jabutían, Nambikwaran, Pano-Takanan, Tupían, 11 language isolates, 12 unclassified languages, and one pidgin).[13] Language families and branches in the linguistic area include Arawakan, Chapacuran, Jabuti, Rikbaktsá, Nambikwaran, Pano-Tacanan, and Tupian (Guarayo, Kawahib, Arikem, Tupari, Monde, and Ramarama) languages. Language isolates in the linguistic area are Cayuvava, Itonama, Movima, Chimane/Mosetén, Canichana, Yuracaré, Leco, Mure, Aikanã, Kanoê, and Kwazá, Irantxe, and Chiquitano. Areal features include:[32]
a high incidence of prefixes
evidentials
directionals
verbal number
lack of nominal number
lack of classifiers
inclusive/exclusive distinction
Muysken et al. (2014) also performed a detailed statistical analysis of the Mamoré–Guaporé linguistic area.[33]
gender that is not overtly marked on nouns, but is present in demonstratives, depending on the gender of the nouns modified
genitive classifiers for possessed domestic animals
SVO word order
active-stative verb alignment
large set of directional verbal affixes
demonstrative system with rich contrasts including visible vs. not visible
some adjectives as polar negatives
resistance to borrowing foreign words
South Cone
The languages of the South Cone area, including Mapudungun (Araucanian), Guaycuruan, and Chon, share the following traits (Klein 1992):
Semantic notions of position signaled morphologically by means of "many devices to situate the visual location of the noun subject or object relative to the speaker; tense, aspect and number are expressed as part of the morphology of location, direction, and motion" (Klein 1992:25).
Adelaar and Muysken (2004: 578–582) note that the languages of the Tierra del Fuego, namely Chonan, Kawesqaran, Chono (isolate), and Yahgan (isolate), share areal traits relating to encliticization, suffixation, compounding, and reduplication, as well as object-initial (OV) word order.[35][13]
^Campbell, Lyle (1997). American Indian languages: the historical linguistics of Native America. Ch. 9 Linguistic Areas of the Americas, pp. 330–352. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN0-19-509427-1.
^May be a subarea of the Northern Northwest Coast Linguistic Area. This sprachbund contains languages that have strict head-final syntax.
^Characterized by SOV word order and elaborate suffixing
^ abcdPache, Matthias, Søren Wichmann, and Mikhail Zhivlov. 2016. Words for ‘dog’ as a diagnostic of language contact in the Americas. In: Berez-Kroeker, Andrea L., Diane M. Hintz and Carmen Jany (eds.), Language Contact and Change in the Americas: Studies in Honor of Marianne Mithun, 385-409. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
^Key, Mary Ritchie & Comrie, Bernard (eds.) 2015.
The Intercontinental Dictionary Series. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Entry: dog.
^Note: Forms marked preceded by asterisks are proto-language reconstructions.
^Wojtylak, Katarzyna Izabela (2017). A Witotoan Language of Northwest Amazonia. PhD dissertation, James Cook University, Australia.
^Carlin, Eithne. 2007. Feeling the need: The borrowing of Cariban functional categories into Mawayana (Arawak). Grammars in Contact: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, ed. by Alexandra Aikhenvald and Robert M. W. Dixon, 313–332. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
^Epps, Patience. 2020. Amazonian linguistic diversity and its sociocultural correlates. Language Dispersal, Diversification, and Contact: A Global Perspective, ed. by Mily Crevels and Pieter Muysken, 275–290. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
^ abEpps, Patience and Lev Michael. 2017. The areal linguistics of Amazonia. The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics, ed. by Raymond Hickey, 934–963. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
^Lüpke, Friederike, Kristine Stenzel, Flora Dias Cabalzar, Thiago Chacon, Aline da Cruz, Bruna Franchetto, Antonio Guerreiro, Sérgio Meira, Glauber Romling da Silva, Wilson Silva, and Luciana Storto. 2020. Comparing rural multilingualism in Lowland South America and Western Africa. Anthropological Linguistics 62.3–57.
^Braga, Alzerinda, Ana Suelly Arruda Câmara Cabral, Aryon DallʼIgna Rodrigues, and Betty Mindlin. 2011. Línguas entrelaçadas: uma situação sui generis de línguas em contato [Intertwined languages: a sui generis situation of languages contact]. PAPIA-Revista Brasileira de Estudos do Contato Linguístico [PAPIA-Brazilian Journal of Language Contact Studies] 21.221–230.
^Cabral, Ana Suelly Arruda Câmara, Ana B. Corrêa da Silva, Marina M. S. Magalhães, and Maria R. S. Julião. 2007. Linguistic diffusion in the Tocantins-Mearim area. Línguas e Culturas Tupí [Tupían Languages and Cultures] 1.357–374.
^Seki, Lucy. 1999. The Upper Xingu as an incipient linguistic area. The Amazonian Languages, ed. by Robert M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Aikhenvald, 417–430. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
^Seki, Lucy. 2011. Alto Xingu: Uma sociedade multilíngue? Alto Xingu: uma Sociedade Multilíngue, ed. by Bruna Franchetto, 57– 86. Rio de Janeiro: Museu do Indio/Funai.
^Chang, Will and Lev Michael. 2014. A relaxed admixture model of language contact. Language Dynamics and Change 4.1–26.
^Crevels, Mily; van der Voort, Hein (2008). "4. The Guaporé-Mamoré region as a linguistic area". From Linguistic Areas to Areal Linguistics. Studies in Language Companion Series. Vol. 90. pp. 151–179. doi:10.1075/slcs.90.04cre. ISBN978-90-272-3100-0. ISSN0165-7763.
^Campbell, Lyle; Grondona, Verónica (2012). "Languages of the Chaco and Southern Cone". In Grondona, Verónica; Campbell, Lyle (eds.). The Indigenous Languages of South America. The World of Linguistics. Vol. 2. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 625–668. ISBN9783110255133.
^Adelaar, Willem F. H. and Pieter C. Muysken. 2004. The Languages of the Andes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
References
Birchall, Joshua. 2015. Argument marking patterns in South American languages. Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen: PhD Dissertation.
Campbell, Lyle. 1997. American Indian languages: the historical linguistics of Native America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Epps, Patience and Lev Michael. To appear. "The areal linguistics of Amazonia."
Constenla Umaña, Adolfo. 1991. Las lenguas del área intermedia: introducción a su estudio areal. San José: Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica.
Holt, Dennis and William Bright. 1976. "La lengua paya y las fronteras lingüística de Mesoamérica." Las fronteras de Mesoamérica. La 14a mesa redonda, Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología 1:149-156.
Sherzer, Joel. 1973. "Areal linguistics in North America." In Linguistics in North America, ed. Thomas A. Sebeok, 749–795. (CTL, vol. 10.) The Hague: Mouton.
Sherzer, Joel. 1976. An areal-typological study of American Indian languages north of Mexico. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
