Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Figures
Introduction
Background
Methodology
Analysis
Summary of the Findings
Patterns Related to Semantic Coding
Percentage of Reliable vs. Questionable Cognates
Conclusions
References
All Topics
Languages and Linguistics
Historical Linguistics

Re-evaluating the reconstruction of Proto-Eskimo-Aleut

Profile image of Anna BergeAnna Berge

2018, Journal of Historical Linguistics

https://doi.org/10.1075/JHL.17017.BER
visibility

…

description

43 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

The relationship between Unangam Tunuu (Aleut) and Eskimo was established in the early 19th century, and the 20th century especially saw a number of efforts on the reconstruction of Proto-Eskimo-Aleut (PEA). Reconstruction has supported assumptions of a largely genealogical relationship between the EA languages, assumptions which include a long history of independent development in isolation from other languages and language families. The reconstruction of PEA, however, is incomplete; many apparent cognates have irregular or imperfectly understood sound correspondences. Furthermore, advances in archaeology and genetics have called into question many assumptions about EA prehistory and about the isolation or lack thereof of Unangam Tunuu. In this study, I reexamine the proposed cognates and evaluate them based on the strength of their correspondences and their distribution within the lexicon, with reference to new findings regarding technological innovations and periods of cultural contact. Several patterns emerge, including a large group of proposed cognates with overly-specific semantic correlations relating to technologies or cultural practices postdating the split of EA languages, a gender-based difference in the number of cognates relating to cultural activities, and a correlation between known borrowings and high levels of cognates in certain semantic domains. Results suggest extensive language contact, especially in the past millennium.

Figures (5)
Table 1. PE sounds 4
Table 1. PE sounds 4
Table 2. UT phonemic inventory a. Bergsland (1994:xvii), with minor simplifications, e.g. dialectal elaborations are not noted. Under- lined phonemes are found in Russian or English loanwords; orthographic conventions are given in brackets.
Table 2. UT phonemic inventory a. Bergsland (1994:xvii), with minor simplifications, e.g. dialectal elaborations are not noted. Under- lined phonemes are found in Russian or English loanwords; orthographic conventions are given in brackets.
Table 3. PE and UT regular sound correspondences Nevertheless, there are still many questions and uncertainties in the recon- struction of PEA, some of which have been explicitly acknowledged and others of which have not. The following descriptions, given as (i)-(iv), give overviews of
Table 3. PE and UT regular sound correspondences Nevertheless, there are still many questions and uncertainties in the recon- struction of PEA, some of which have been explicitly acknowledged and others of which have not. The following descriptions, given as (i)-(iv), give overviews of
fable 4. Proposed distribution of PEA, PE, and PUT fricatives A detailed examination and exp lanation of the less well-understood aspects. historical reconstruction in EA is beyond the scope of this work, as are studies | other aspects of historical reconstruction, including reconstruction of the gran mar (Bergsland 1989, 1997b; Fortescue 1998, 2002, inter alia, Berge 2016b); so tc is searching for connections between Eskimo-Aleut and other language familie most famously Indo-European (Uhlenbeck 1935), Wakashan (Swadesh 1962; Hol 2004; Fortescue forthcoming), Chukotko-Kamchatkan (Swadesh 1962; Fortesct 1998) and Uralo-Altaic (Fortescue 1998). In the discussion that follows, I focus ¢ the problems of assumed cognates, here regarding sound changes and t and do not focus on the issues I have rais« he reconstruction of PEA. The high degree of lexical divergence in UT paired with the low level of bo rowings from other languages has ancient split. But findings in other been one of the main reasons for positing < fields suggest a more recent EA split; lexic studies suggest more borrowing than previously assumed (Berge 2016a, 201 forthcoming), and some words thought to be good cognates refer to technol gies that postdate the EA split and therefore cannot have been directly inherited ilictrate thece nninte with twa evamnlec
fable 4. Proposed distribution of PEA, PE, and PUT fricatives A detailed examination and exp lanation of the less well-understood aspects. historical reconstruction in EA is beyond the scope of this work, as are studies | other aspects of historical reconstruction, including reconstruction of the gran mar (Bergsland 1989, 1997b; Fortescue 1998, 2002, inter alia, Berge 2016b); so tc is searching for connections between Eskimo-Aleut and other language familie most famously Indo-European (Uhlenbeck 1935), Wakashan (Swadesh 1962; Hol 2004; Fortescue forthcoming), Chukotko-Kamchatkan (Swadesh 1962; Fortesct 1998) and Uralo-Altaic (Fortescue 1998). In the discussion that follows, I focus ¢ the problems of assumed cognates, here regarding sound changes and t and do not focus on the issues I have rais« he reconstruction of PEA. The high degree of lexical divergence in UT paired with the low level of bo rowings from other languages has ancient split. But findings in other been one of the main reasons for positing < fields suggest a more recent EA split; lexic studies suggest more borrowing than previously assumed (Berge 2016a, 201 forthcoming), and some words thought to be good cognates refer to technol gies that postdate the EA split and therefore cannot have been directly inherited ilictrate thece nninte with twa evamnlec
While percentages for groups 2-3 are unsurprising, the percentage of ques- tionable ‘exact cognates’ is noteworthy, as many of these cognates have been con- sidered among the most illustrative of an old EA relationship. Cognates with no phonological or semantic differentiation seem improbable over the course of 3000-4000 years. The lack of phonological variation is striking when we con- sider the typologically unusual nature of the “regular” sound correspondences as against the otherwise complex morphophonological rules in both UT and Eskimo languages resulting from their extreme polysynthesis. Lack of semantic variation is especially noteworthy given the different geographical and climatic environ- ments of the different groups, the different technological advances, and the differ- ent experiences the respective groups were subject to during this extended period of time. In fact, this category is complex and probably includes both inherited and borrowed words. Thus, despite a lack of phonological variation, the semantic vari- ation in group 4.1.1 suggests long independent development, as does the frequency of use and commonality of the words in group 4.1.2 and they may reflect an old stratum of EA; group 4.1.3, however, may not.
While percentages for groups 2-3 are unsurprising, the percentage of ques- tionable ‘exact cognates’ is noteworthy, as many of these cognates have been con- sidered among the most illustrative of an old EA relationship. Cognates with no phonological or semantic differentiation seem improbable over the course of 3000-4000 years. The lack of phonological variation is striking when we con- sider the typologically unusual nature of the “regular” sound correspondences as against the otherwise complex morphophonological rules in both UT and Eskimo languages resulting from their extreme polysynthesis. Lack of semantic variation is especially noteworthy given the different geographical and climatic environ- ments of the different groups, the different technological advances, and the differ- ent experiences the respective groups were subject to during this extended period of time. In fact, this category is complex and probably includes both inherited and borrowed words. Thus, despite a lack of phonological variation, the semantic vari- ation in group 4.1.1 suggests long independent development, as does the frequency of use and commonality of the words in group 4.1.2 and they may reflect an old stratum of EA; group 4.1.3, however, may not.

Related papers

Proto-Eskimo-Aleut */ə/ and the Origin of Aleut Pre-Aspirated Consonants
José Andrés Alonso de la Fuente

The aim of this paper is to analyze several points of the Aleut historical phonology which up till now had not received enough attention. The programmed agenda comprises: (I) Proto-Eskimo-Aleut */ə/; (II) the pre-aspiration; (III) the Proto-Eskimo-Aleut sequences */-nə-/ and */-ŋə-/, and (IV) Aleut lexicon containing x̣- (γ.-). An ideal understanding of these processes shall help to the reconstruction of the Proto-Aleut language, an issue totally rejected in the specialized literature.

View PDFchevron_right
Lexical Differentiation in Aleut (Unangam Tunuu)
Anna Berge

A re-examination of the genesis and development of the Eskimo-Aleut language family, starting with an in investigation into the distribution of Eskimo cognates to non-cognates in Aleut (Unangam Tunuu); Eventual goal: Understanding migration and language contact in the Aleutians and Pacific Coast of Alaska.

View PDFchevron_right
Subsistence Terms in Unangam Tunuu (Aleut)
Anna Berge

Language Dispersal Beyond Farming, 2017

This paper is available to read online at https://benjamins.com/#catalog/books/z.215/toc. The Eskimo-Aleut are arctic and subarctic hunter-gatherers known for their geographic spread and successful adaptation to a harsh climate; they are one of the canonical examples of a people that spread without agriculture. One of the most prehistoric recent spreads in this language family occurred about 1000 years ago, with effects felt throughout coastal Alaska. One area of language contact and possible spread was in Southeast Alaska, between the Pacific Coast Yupik language Alutiiq and the Aleutian language Unangam Tunuu. In this paper, I look at the distribution of cognates and borrowings of subsistence terminology in Unangam Tunuu, and I show that Alutiiq must have spread into a previously Unangax! area as a result of warfare rather than subsistence activities.

View PDFchevron_right
The contribution of C.C. Uhlenbeck to Eskimo-Aleut linguistics
Hein van der Voort

Études/Inuit/Studies, 2000

C.C. Uhlenbeck was a Dutch linguist especially known for his work on comparative Indo-European linguistics, Basque and the Blackfoot Algonquian language. However, he also made some groundbreaking contributions to the comparative linguistic study of the Eskimo-Aleut family. Uhlenbeck was the first to suggest that the Eskimo language family and the Aleut language represent daughter branches of a common ancestor. Also, he was the first who approached the possible relationships between the Eskimo-Aleut language family and the Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic language families in a systematic manner in publications. His work attracted the attention of Eskimologists like Bergsland, Fortescue, Hammerich and Thalbitzer, and it put these long-distance comparative issues on the research agenda. Uhlenbeck never did any fieldwork on Eskimo-Aleut and his work is based entirely on sources written by others. His Eskimo-Aleut work is not generally known, since, being written mainly in Dutch, it is ...

View PDFchevron_right
Reconstruction of the Proto-Uralic-Eskimo possessive suffix paradigm
Geoffrey Caveney

This paper presents a reconstruction of the Proto-Uralic-Eskimo possessive suffix paradigm for singular, plural, and dual possessors of a singular possessum. It is explained that the validity of such a reconstruction must be considered conditional upon the validity of the regular sound correspondences between Uralic and Eskimo, which the author considers to be the primary and fundamental criterion upon which to establish the genetic relationship of the two language families in the first place. The introduction reviews and discusses the scholarly debate in recent decades about whether regular sound correspondences or shared idiosyncratic morphological paradigms are the primary criterion to establish such a relationship. The paper then surveys Georg & Seefloth’s 2001 paper which first reconstructed a common “Uralo-Eskimo” possessive suffix paradigm (for singular and plural possessors only) from which they derived the corresponding Samoyed (Uralic) and Yupik (Eskimo) paradigms. The central section of the paper is devoted to the reconstruction of the Proto-Uralic-Eskimo possessive suffix paradigm for singular, plural, and dual possessors. The first main challenge is to demonstrate the validity of the derivation of the Proto-Eskimo paradigm for singular and plural possessors. Once that is established, building on the work of Georg & Seefloth, then the remaining challenge is to explain the origin of the highly divergent Proto-Uralic paradigm for dual number possessors. The paper presents a detailed argument for the hypothesis that the Proto-Eskimo 3rd person reflexive singular possessor endings for dual possessed objects *-ɣni may be related to the final element *-n of the Proto-Uralic dual possessor suffixes and other related Proto-Uralic dual number markers, as well as the parallel hypothesis that the general Proto-Eskimo 3rd person reflexive singular possessor suffix *-ni may be related to the Proto-Uralic 1.sg. possessor suffix for a genitive singular possessum *-ni and/or the Proto-Uralic genitive suffix *-n.

View PDFchevron_right
Uralic-Eskimo intervocalic consonant correspondences and first vowel correspondences (revised and expanded)
Geoffrey Caveney

This paper presents sets of lexical comparisons between Proto-Uralic and Proto-Eskimo forms exhibiting regular sound correspondences between Uralic and Eskimo intervocalic consonants and clusters as well as between Uralic and Eskimo first vowels. The paper presents comparisons exhibiting the intervocalic correspondences Uralic *-δ-/*-δ’- ~ Eskimo *-l-/*-t (10 examples), Uralic *-(n/ń)č/ć- ~ Eskimo *-k/q- (18 examples), Uralic *-l- ~ Eskimo *-t / *-l- (7 examples), Uralic *-(C)k- ~ Eskimo *-k/q- (17 examples), Uralic *-n-/*-ŋ- ~ Eskimo *-n-/*-ŋ- (9 examples), Uralic *-m-/*-p- ~ Eskimo *-m- (12 examples), Uralic *-(C)t- ~ Eskimo *-t- / *-c- (6 examples), Uralic *-w- ~ Eskimo *-v- (3 examples), Uralic *-r- ~ Eskimo *-ł-/-l- (9 examples), and Uralic *-j- ~ Eskimo *-y- (2 examples). Significantly, Section 11 of the paper demonstrates that these lexical comparisons also exhibit strikingly consistent regular first vowel correspondences: PU *e ~ PEsk *ə (11 examples); PU *e̮ ~ PEsk *a (10 examples); PU *u ~ PEsk *i before PU 2nd vowel *a, except before PEsk-Al nasal (7 examples), PU *u ~ PEsk *a before PEsk-Al nasal and PU 2nd vowel *a (3 examples), or PU *u ~ PEsk *u elsewhere (10 examples); PU *ü ~ PEsk *i before PU 2nd vowel *ä (5 examples) or PU *ü ~ PEsk *u elsewhere (5 examples); PU *ä ~ PEsk *i in PU closed syllables or before any obstruent (7 examples) or PU *ä ~ PEsk *a elsewhere (3 examples); PU *a ~ PEsk *i in PU closed syllables or before any obstruent, where the PU 2nd vowel is *i (3 examples) or PU *a ~ PEsk *a elsewhere (10 examples); PU *o ~ PEsk *u (11 examples); PU *i ~ PEsk *i (5 examples). This analysis leaves only a pair of exceptional examples (PU *e ~ PEsk *a and PU *näki- ~ PEsk *nyaku-) and a comparison of derivational suffixes without first vowels, otherwise accounting for all 93 examples of the intervocalic consonant correspondences. At the conclusion of the paper, a provisional set of Uralic-Eskimo first vowel correspondence sound laws with specific conditions is proposed and concisely stated.

View PDFchevron_right
The Paleo-Aleut to Neo-Aleut transition revisited ARTICLE in JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL ARCHAEOLOGY · MARCH 2015
Herbert Maschner

Recent genetic and isotopic analyses of human remains from the Aleutian Islands have revived a defining debate of 20th century northern research in the Americas; that of population continuation versus replacement $1000 years ago in the Aleutian region. According to original analyses a particular cranial shape (Neo-Aleut) appears only in the eastern and central Aleutians after $1000 BP. Recent genetic data seem to suggest that a closely related population (Neo-Aleut) did move into the region but co-existed with the previous population (Paleo-Aleut). Isotope data reveal that the Neo-Aleut had a larger proportion of sea mammals in their diet than Paleo-Aleut people, interpreted as further evidence that the Neo-Aleut migrated to the area with a different set of skills, developed to obtain higher trophic level resources. Using marine isotopic data, archaeological evidence, and X-ray fluorescence provenience data of raw materials, we propose an alternative hypothesis that supports both the genetic and isotopic data, but does not contradict the known regional prehistory. We suggest the genetic and isotopic differences found are based not on population movements but on the beginnings of social complexity, differential access to higher status foods, and the acquisition of wives from the Kodiak region to the east.

View PDFchevron_right
Contact-induced lexical development in Yupik and Inuit languages
Lawrence Kaplan

Études/Inuit/Studies, 2000

Montréal. Il a pour mission la promotion et la valorisation de la recherche. Érudit offre des services d'édition numérique de documents scientifiques depuis 1998. Note : les règles d'écriture des références bibliographiques peuvent varier selon les différents domaines du savoir.

View PDFchevron_right
Archaeology and the Evidence for the Prehistoric Development of Eskimo Culture: An Assessment
Douglas Anderson

Arctic Anthropology, 1979

Differing views of scholars concerning Eskimo origins and the prehistoric development of Eskimo culture are presented, and an attempt is made to assess the degree to which the artifactural evidence fits each particular view. With this aim, an outline of the archaeological complexes in question is given and the interrelations of various arctic traditions discussed. Population and linguistic interpretations are differentiated from technological ones and indications given as to what kind of inferences justly can be drawn from the evidence we have.

View PDFchevron_right
Yup'ik Loanword Etymologies for the Yukaghir Languages and Dialects
Peter S Piispanen

Études Inuit Studies, 2022

In this paper, up to twenty-eight new Yukaghir etymologies are described as Eskimo borrowings into the Yukaghir languages and dialects of far northeastern Siberia, with phonological and semantic considerations for each suggestion. These findings provide new insights into the historical phonology of these ancient borrowings as well as fairly clear etymologies for a number of isolated Yukaghir words. The chronology of the borrowings is also considered, and various factors reveal two different competing hypotheses: the Yukaghir correspondences have either resulted from chronologically different borrowing layers through the ages, or the correspondences actually represent the remnants of an ancient genetic language affiliation between the two, a hypothesis supported by the very divergent phonological shapes and semantics of the correspondences. It is argued that the Eskimo correspondences are invariably of the Yup'ik variety (instead of the Inuit variety), and that Yup'ik language(s) were spoken in much earlier times around the Kolyma River, where Yukaghir is still spoken, and in particular close to the Tundra Yukaghirs. The semantic categorization of the borrowings places most of them as elementary phenomena, actions, and perceptions, and if not actually describing an actual genetic language relationship, this at least suggests very intense linguistic contacts between Yup'ik and Yukaghir under bi-or multilingual conditions, such as through tribal marriages and where code-switching was the norm for generations. [Published in: Études Inuit Studies, 2022, 46(1), p. 193-220].

View PDFchevron_right

References (63)

  1. a. UT adgux-six 'to rebuke, forbid (the wind and waves)' b. PE *aðɣuʀ- 'to go against wind or current'
  2. In Eskimo languages, there are also derivatives meaning 'to be stubborn, unwill- ing, to not believe, to quarrel with' , and so forth, and there is some minor phono- logical variation (ayɣuʀ-, asxuʀ-, azɣuʀ-, …)
  3. a. UT algu-lix, aglu-lix 'to be jealous' b. PY-S *alɣu- 'to covet'
  4. UT and Eskimo:
  5. In Yupik, words cognate to those in (28) to 'close in (hole in ice), close in, lace up (clothing), pull head down and shoulders up'; in Inuit, they can mean 'to close in, make narrower, shrink, get angry' .
  6. 2 Cognates with regular sound changes and good semantic correlates Cognates with regular sound changes (see Table 4 for commonly assumed sound changes) comprise the largest category of cognates, with 280 members, of which References Alonso de la Fuente, José Andrés. 2008. Etymological Notes on Aleut (I). Linguistic and Oriental Studies from Póznan 8.105-115.
  7. Alonso de la Fuente, José Andrés. 2010. Proto-Eskimo-Aleut */ǝ/ and the Origin of Aleut Pre-Aspirated Consonants. Revista Española de Antropología Americana 40:1.139-159.
  8. Andersen, Henning. 2003. Language Contact in Prehistory: Studies in Stratigraphy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.239
  9. Anichtchenko, Evguenia. 2012. Open Skin Boats of the Aleutians, Kodiak Island, and Prince William Sound. Études/Inuit/Studies, 36:1.157-181. https://doi.org/10.7202/1015958ar
  10. Bauer, William J., Jr. 2016. California Through Native Eyes: Reclaiming History. Seattle: University of Washington.
  11. Berge, Anna. 2010. Origins of Linguistic Diversity in the Aleutian Islands. Human Biology 82:5-6.557-582. (= Special Issue on the Origins of the Populations of the Aleutian Islands .) https://doi.org/10.3378/027.082.0505
  12. Berge, Anna. 2016a. Lexical Differentiation in Aleut (Unangam Tunuu). Paper presented at Frontiers of Early Human Expansion in Asia: Linguistic Perspectives on Ainu, Japan, and the North Pacific Rim, Zurich, 13-14 March 2016. Handout available at https://www.aca demia.edu/30870719/Lexical_Differentiation_in_Aleut_Unangam_Tunuu_
  13. Berge, Anna. 2016b. Polysynthesis in Aleut (Unangam Tunuu). Linguistic Typology of the North, Vol. 3 ed. by Tokusu Kurebito. Tokyo: ILCAA.
  14. Berge, Anna. 2016c. Pribilof Anĝaĝin Tunungin: The Way We Talk in the Pribilofs. Fairbanks: ANLC.
  15. Berge, Anna. 2017. Subsistence Terminology in Unangam Tunuu (Aleut). Language Dispersal Beyond Farming ed. by Martine Robeets and Sander Savelyev, 47-73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.215.03ber
  16. Berge, Anna. 2018. Reexamining the Linguistic Prehistory of Aleut (Unangam Tunuu). Digging For Words: Archaeolinguistic Case Studies from the XV Nordic TAG Conference Held at the University of Copenhagen, 16-18 April, 2015 ed. by Rune Iversen and Guus Kroonen, 31-38. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (BAR).
  17. Berge, Anna. Forthcoming. Language Contact in Aleut. Handbook of Language Contact ed. by Anthony Grant. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  18. Berge, Anna & Gary Holton. 2015. Toward a History of the Aleut Language (Unangam Tunuu). Paper presented at Societas Linguistica Europaea (SLE), Leiden, 2-5 September 2015.
  19. Bergsland, Knut. 1986. Comparative Eskimo-Aleut Phonology and Lexicon. Journal de la Société Finno-ougrienne 80.63-137.
  20. Bergsland, Knut. 1989. Comparative Aspects of Aleut Syntax. Journal de la Société Finno-ougrienne 82.7-80.
  21. Bergsland, Knut. 1994. Aleut Dictionary: Unangam Tunudgusii. Fairbanks: ANLC. Bergsland, Knut. 1997a. Aleut Grammar. Fairbanks: ANLC.
  22. Bergsland, Knut. 1997b. How Did the Aleut Language Become Different from the Eskimo Languages? Languages of the North Pacific Rim 2 ed. by Osahito Miyaoka & Minoru Oshima. Sakyo-ku: Kyoto University, Graduate School of Letters, 1-17.
  23. Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary Phonology: The Emergence of Sound Patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486357
  24. Byers, David A., David R. Yesner, Jack M. Broughton & Joan Brenner Coltrain. 2011. Stable Isotope Chemistry, Population Histories, and Late Prehistoric Subsistence Change in the Aleutian Islands. Journal of Archaeological Science 38.183-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.09.005
  25. Crawford, Michael H., Rohina C. Rubicz & Mark Zlojutro. 2010. Origins of Aleuts and the Genetic Structure of Populations of the Archipelago: Molecular and Archaeological Perspectives. Human Biology 82:5-6.695-717. (= Special Issue on the Origins of the Populations of the Aleutian Islands .) https://doi.org/10.3378/027.082.0306
  26. Croft, William, Clayton Beckner, Logan Sutton, Jon Wilkins, Tanmoy Bhattacharya & Daniel Hruschka. 2009. Quantifying semantic shift for reconstructing language families. Paper presented at 83rd Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Francisco, 8-11 January 2009. Available at https://www.unm.edu/~wcroft/Papers/Polysemy-LSA-HO.pdf.
  27. Davis, Richard S. & Richard A. Knecht. 2010. Continuity and Change in the Eastern Aleutian Archaeological Sequence. Human Biology 82.507-524. (= Special Issue on the Origins of the Populations of the Aleutian Islands .) https://doi.org/10.3378/027.082.0503
  28. Dorais, Louis-Jacques. 1993. From Magic Words to Word Processing: A History of the Inuit Language. Iqaluit, Canada: Arctic College Nunatta Campus.
  29. Dorais, Louis-Jacques. 2010. The Language of the Inuit: Syntax, Semantics, and Society in the Arctic. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.
  30. Dumond, Don E. 2001. Toward a (Yet) Newer View of the (Pre)history of the Aleutians. Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska, Some Recent Research ed. by Don E. Dumond, 298-309. (= University of Oregon Anthropological Papers, 58.) Eugene: University of Oregon Press.
  31. Fitzhugh, Ben. 2003. The Evolution of Complex Hunter-Gatherers: Archaeological Evidence from the North Pacific. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0137-4
  32. Fitzhugh, Ben. 2016. The Origins and Development of Arctic Maritime Adaptations in the Subarctic and Arctic Pacific. In T. Max Friesen & Owen K. Mason, eds., 323-348.
  33. Fortescue, Michael. 1985. The Degree of Interrelatedness between Inuit Dialects as Reflected by Percentages of Shared Affixes. International Journal of American Linguistics 51:2.188-221. https://doi.org/10.1086/465866
  34. Fortescue, Michael. 1998. Language Relations Across The Bering Strait: Reappraising the Archaeological and Linguistic Evidence. London: Cassell.
  35. Fortescue, Michael. 2002. The Rise and Fall of Eskimo-Aleut Polysynthesis. Problems of Polysynthesis ed. by Nicholas Evans & Hans-Jürgen Sasse, 257-276. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
  36. Fortescue, Michael. Forthcoming. Aleut Bases Not Found in Eskimo: Could They Reflect a Substratum? Festschrift for Yevgeniy Golovko.
  37. Fortescue, Michael, Steven Jacobson & Lawrence Kaplan. 2010. Comparative Eskimo Dictionary with Aleut Cognates (Second Edition). Fairbanks: ANLC.
  38. François, Alexandre. 2008. Semantic Maps and the Typology of Colexification: Intertwining Polysemous Networks Across Languages. Polysemy and Semantic Change ed. by Martine Vanhove, 163-215. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.106.09fra
  39. Friesen, T. Max & Owen K. Mason, eds. 2016. The Oxford Handbook of the Prehistoric Arctic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199766956.001.0001
  40. Henri, Victor. 1879. Esquisse d'une grammaire raisonnée de la langue aléoute. Paris: Maisonneuve et Cie.
  41. Holst, Jan H. 2004. Einführung in die eskimo-aleutischen Sprachen. Hamburg: Buske.
  42. Jetté, Jules & Eliza Jones. 2000. Koyukon Athabaskan Dictionary. Fairbanks: ANLC.
  43. Jochelson, Waldemar. 1912. The Aleut Language and its Relation to the Eskimo Dialects. International Congress of Americanists, London, Part 1, 96-104.
  44. Johnson-Laird, Phillip Nicholas & Kenneth Oatley. 1989. The Language of Emotions: An Analysis of a Semantic Field. Cognition & Emotion 3:2.81-123. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699938908408075
  45. Kari, James. 2013. Dena'ina Topical Dictionary. Fairbanks: ANLC.
  46. Krauss, Michael. 2012. Eyak Dictionary. Available at http://www.uafanlc.arsc.edu/data/Online/EY961K2011/Eyak_Dictionary_2012-05-01.pdf. Last accessed 8 February 2017.
  47. Leer, Jeff. 1991. Evidence for a Northwest Coast Language Area: Promiscuous Number Marking and Periphrastic Possessive Constructions in Haida, Eyak, and Aleut. International Journal of American Linguistics 57:2.158-193. https://doi.org/10.1086/ijal.57.2.3519765
  48. Marsh, Gordon & Morris Swadesh. 1951. Kleinschmidt Centennial V: Eskimo Aleut Correspondences. International Journal of American Linguistics 17:4.209-216. https://doi.org/10.1086/464131
  49. Maschner, Herbert D. G. 2016. Archaeology of the Eastern Aleut Region. In T. Max Friesen & Owen K. Mason, eds., 323-348.
  50. Maschner, Herbert & Owen K. Mason. 2013. The Bow and Arrow in Northern North America. Evolutionary Anthropology 22.133-138. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.21357
  51. Maschner, Herbert D. G. & Katherine L. Reedy-Maschner. 1999. Raid, Retreat, Defend (Repeat): The Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Warfare on the North Pacific Rim. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 17.19-51. https://doi.org/10.1006/jaar.1997.0315
  52. Mason, Owen K. 2016. Thule Origins in the Old Bering Sea Culture. In T. Max Friesen & Owen K. Mason, eds., 489-512.
  53. Newman, John. 2009. The Linguistics of Eating and Drinking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.84
  54. Potter, Brian, Matthew Gordon, John Dawson, Willem de Reuse & Peter Ladefoged. 2000. Phonetic Structures of Western Apache. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 98.10-38.
  55. Smith, Silvia E., M. Geoffrey Hayes, Graciela S. Cabana, Chad Huff, Joan Brenner Coltrain & Dennis H. O'Rourke. 2009. Inferring Population Continuity Versus Replacement with aDNA: A Cautionary Tale from the Aleutian Islands. Human Biology 3:4.407-426. https://doi.org/10.3378/027.081.0402
  56. Steffian, Amy, Patrick Saltonstall & Linda Finn Yarborough. 2016. Maritime Economies of the Central Gulf of Alaska after 4000 B.P. In T. Max Friesen & Owen K. Mason, eds., 303-322.
  57. Swadesh, Morris. 1962. Linguistic Relations Across the Bering Strait. American Anthropologist 64.1262-1291. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1962.64.6.02a00090
  58. Thalbitzer, William. 1921. The Aleutian Language Compared with Greenlandic: A Manuscript by Rasmus Rask, Dating from 1820, Now in the Royal Library at Copenhagen. International Journal of American Linguistics, 2:1/2.40-57. https://doi.org/10.1086/463733
  59. Tuttle, Siri. 2005. Duration, Intonation, and Prominence in Apache. Athabaskan Prosody ed. by Sharon Hargus & Keren Rice, 319-344. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.269.19tut
  60. Uhlenbeck, C. C. 1907. Ontwerp van eene vergelijkende vormleer der Eskimotalen. Amsterdam: Verhandelungen der Koninklijke Akadamievan Wetenschapen te Amsterdam, Afdeeling Letterkunde N.R. 8(3).
  61. Uhlenbeck, C. C. 1935. Eskimo en Oer-Indogermaansch. Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akadamie van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde, Deel 77, Ser. A.6 , 179-196.
  62. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1992. Semantics, Culture, and Cognition: Universal Human Concepts in Culture-Specific Configurations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  63. Woodbury, Anthony. 1984. Eskimo and Aleut Languages. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 5: Arctic ed. by David Damas, 49-63. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Related papers

Prehistoric connections between Eskimo-Aleut and Austronesian languages: Eskimo-Austronesian Comparative Word List (Part I)
Natalia Pimenova

2020

See also: Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 45, 978-3-96769-171-9 -- Natalia Pimenova: Prähistorische Kontakte der Eskimo-Aleutischen und austronesischen Sprachen: sprachliche Zeugnisse im „altaischen“ und „uralo-sibirischen“ Kontext The Eskimo–Aleut languages are believed to represent a separate prehistoric migration of people from Asia. The more credible proposals on the external relations and prehistoric contacts of Eskimo–Aleut concern one or more of the language families of northern Eurasia. The two serious genetic hypotheses are (1) 'Uralo-Siberian'/'Altaic' or more inclusively (2) 'Nostratic' ('Eurasiatic'). The comparative word list below provides data for connections between Eskimo- Aleut and Austronesian languages. It consists of comparisons of Proto-Eskimo (PE) or Proto-Eskimo-Aleut (PEA) and Proto-Austronesian (PAN) or Proto- Malayo-Polynesian (PMP) words. The Part I contains canonical comparisons: those with one-to-one sound correspondences/with one other final sound in PE (only in words with the uncontroversial PAN stops and sonants *p, *t, *k, *q, *m, *n + *l, *ŋ) or with regular sound correspondences (PAN *S – PE *c, PAN *s – PE *c, PAN CeC > Yupik CeC, Inupik CiC) and identical or close semantics. Examples: PAN *sekel 'bend, bow' - PE *cikə- 'to bend down, to lower', PAN *sukud 'walking stick, cane, staff' - PE *cuka- 'post, pole', PMP *akaR 'root' - PE *aku 'root of a plant'

View PDFchevron_right
Prehistoric connections between Eskimo-Aleut and Austronesian languages: Eskimo-Austronesian Comparative Word-List (Part II) - Revisited 17 Dec
Natalia Pimenova

2020

See also: Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 45, 978-3-96769-171-9 -- Natalia Pimenova: Prähistorische Kontakte der Eskimo-Aleutischen und austronesischen Sprachen: sprachliche Zeugnisse im „altaischen“ und „uralo-sibirischen“ Kontext The Eskimo–Aleut languages are believed to represent a separate prehistoric migration of people from Asia. The more credible proposals on the external relations and prehistoric contacts of Eskimo–Aleut concern one or more of the language families of northern Eurasia. The two serious genetic hypotheses are (1) 'Uralo-Siberian'/'Altaic' or more inclusively (2) 'Nostratic' ('Eurasiatic'). The comparative word list provides data for connections between Eskimo- Aleut and Austronesian languages. The Part I contains canonical comparisons: those with one-to-one sound correspondences/with one other final sound in PE (only in words with the uncontroversial PAN stops and sonants *p, *t, *k, *q, *m, *n + *l, *ŋ) or with regular sound correspondences (PAN *S – PE *c, PAN *s – PE *c, PAN CeC > Yupik CeC, Inupik CiC) and identical or close semantics. Examples: PAN *sekel 'bend, bow' - PE *cikə- 'to bend down, to lower', PAN *sukud 'walking stick, cane, staff' - PE *cuka- 'post, pole', PMP *akaR 'root' - PE *aku 'root of a plant’. The Part II contains canonical comparisons: those with one-to-one sound correspondences (or with regular sound correspondences) in initial clusters CVC(V) (in words with AN *p, *t, *k, *q-, *m, *n, *S , *c + *-l-, *-ŋ- + *b, *-y-) and identical or close semantics. We can explain the lexical similarities as a result of language convergence (convergence of proto-languages or convergence with peripheral prehistoric Austronesian subgroups with PAN *S > *s or before PAN *S > PMP *h). Revisited version: + №62

View PDFchevron_right
Prehistory of Eskimo-Aleut and Austronesian languages (5000-3000 B.C.): Eskimo- Austronesian Comparative Word List (Part III)
Natalia Pimenova

2021

See also: Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 45, 978-3-96769-171-9 -- Natalia Pimenova: Prähistorische Kontakte der Eskimo-Aleutischen und austronesischen Sprachen: sprachliche Zeugnisse im „altaischen“ und „uralo-sibirischen“ Kontext The Eskimo–Aleut languages are believed to represent a separate prehistoric migration of people from Asia. The more credible proposals on the external relations and prehistoric contacts of Eskimo–Aleut concern one or more of the language families of northern Eurasia. The two serious genetic hypotheses are (1) 'Uralo-Siberian'/'Altaic' or more inclusively (2) 'Nostratic' ('Eurasiatic'). The comparative word-list provides data for connections between Eskimo-Aleut and Austronesian languages. The Part I contains canonical comparisons: those with one-to-one sound correspondences/with one other final sound in PE (only in words with the uncontroversial PAN stops and sonants *p, *t, *k, *q, *m, *n + *l, *ŋ) or with regular sound correspondences (PAN *S – PE *c, PAN *s – PE *c, PAN CeC > Yupik CeC, Inupik CiC) and identical or close semantics. Examples: PAN *sekel 'bend, bow' - PE *cikə- 'to bend down, to lower', PAN *sukud 'walking stick, cane, staff' - PE *cuka- 'post, pole', PMP *akaR 'root' - PE *aku 'root of a plant’. The Part II contains canonical comparisons: those with one-to-one sound correspondences (or with regular sound correspondences) in initial clusters CVC(V) (in words with AN *p, *t, *k, *q-, *m, *n, *S , *c + *-l-, *-ŋ- + *b, *-y-) and identical or close semantics. We can explain the lexical similarities as a result of language convergence (convergence of proto- languages or convergence with peripheral prehistoric Austronesian subgroups with PAN *S > *s or before PAN *S > PMP *h, ~ between Eastern China and Amur).

View PDFchevron_right
Reexamining the Linguistic Prehistory of Aleut
Anna Berge

Aleut is the only language in its branch of the Eskimo-Aleut language family. It is quite divergent from Eskimo languages and is traditionally considered to have developed in isolation, both from Eskimo and neighboring languages, until the Russians colonized the Aleutians in the 18th century (Bergsland 1986). Many assumptions concerning, e.g. the time and place of the proposed split between the two branches of the language family, features present in the proto-language, and subsequent independent developments, have in the past been used to support interpretations of archaeological findings (e.g. Dumond 1965, 1979, 1984). These assumptions, based primarily on rather few and far from finished comparative studies, have not yet been adequately reexamined in decades, despite the subsequent broadening of the field of historical linguistics. Meanwhile, recent advances in the archaeology and genetic investigations of the Aleut and a growing body of linguistic research all increasingly suggest extensive contact with neighboring groups (Crawford, M.H. et al. 2010, inter alia, Leer 1991, Fortescue 1998, 2002, Berge 2012, 2014). In this paper, I argue for the need for a comprehensive reexamination of the linguistic prehistory of Aleut.

View PDFchevron_right
Etymological notes on Aleut (III). With methodological notes on (Eskimo-Aleut) historical linguistics
José Andrés Alonso de la Fuente

The goal of this contribution is twofold: on the one hand, to review two relatively recent contributions in the field of Eskimo-Aleut historical linguistics in which it is proposed that Eskimo-Aleut languages are related genealogically to Wakashan (Holst 2004) and?/or Nostratic (Krougly-Enke 2008). These contributions can be characterized by saying that their authors have taken little care to be diligent and responsible in the application of the comparative method, and that their familiarity with the languages involved is insufficient. Eskimo-Aleut languages belong to a very exclusive group of language families that have been (and still are) used, sometimes compulsively, in the business of so-called “long-range comparisons”. Those carrying out such studies are very often unaware of the most basic facts regarding the philological and linguistic traditions of those languages, as a result of what mountains of very low quality works with almost no-relevancy for the specialist grow every year to the desperation of the scientific community, whose attitude toward them ranges from the most profound indifference to the toughest (and most explicit) critical tone. Since Basque also belongs to this group of “compare-with-everything-you-come- across” languages, it is my intention to provide the Basque readership with a sort of “pedagogical case” to show that little known languages, far from underrepresented in the field, already have a very long tradition in historical and comparative linguistics, i.e. nobody can approach them without previous acquaintance with the materials.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Historical Linguistics
  • Eskimo-Aleut Linguistics
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved