i

I

i

J

Á.vi

:ll

Itl

it.

t:l

SUNY Albany University ofPittsburgh

T¡roum.C. Surr¡r-SrenrColegio de México

MESO.AMERICA AS A LINCUISTIC AREALy¡-¡C¿¡npaBLr. T¡nn¡xcrKeuru^lx

MESO.AMERICA AS A LINOUISTIC AREA 53I

Many attribute the formar birth of AL to Trubetzkoy's famous propositiont6, presenred at rhe First Internationar congrewof r.¡"irirt¡|, iisii;íüüi,

'Gruppcn, bcstchcnd áus s-prachcn, dic cinc grossc Ahnrichkcit in ryntaktischer Hinslcht, cinc' Ahnüchkcit in den Grundsdtzcn oei morpt ot-ogisiiin ü'iu, "ur*o¡scn,

und cinc grossc Anz¡hrgcmeinsamcr Kurturwórt* bictcn, ,"nd¡*"r-.r.lirrr.iAhnrichkeit im Bcstandc d* [¡ur.systeme-dabcr abcr kcinc gcmcrns¡mcn Eremcnrarworrii u.r¡tr.n_roili;§;;ñ#;"xerxtx wrn SprAcHEfrNDE., (cmphasis in original)

Trubetzkoy's ler.m .sprachbund, roughly a ,union of tanguages,, came to beused as a technical term-in Engtish. ft" n"r. ilinú¡ñ" ;;;a'' üñ,';r""trans.lation of Sprachbund,-y§j.rt .¡nployuJ úy Vei-ten tgl¡, anj;;';d"w.ell known by Emeneau 1956. Trubetzkoílúií:zll_¿l cárplieJei;;"-dilional .diatect geography, but with ;¡roirürrJ

"r,¡.r,-"ii!"J b;ñ; il.boundaries of a single tanguage. This viJw oil¿,, ,, "i¡n

6 th;i;;ir;;,ch.aracterizing crossJanguage ri-nguistic g.ugruphy it common in.rater riterature(cf. Jakobson 1931, l93g). ¡¡¡.¡qrw¡ ¡¡rwrorur.

tenance-; in this papcr, howcvcr,-altcntion is restrictcy' to AL, wc can thus, we bcricvc, attain ourgoals of examining the rcsurts of ranguage "onr".t

*ii.h .i.ic a ringuistic arca, without gcttiJilost in thc details of rhe mcchanisms-whlch pro¿*"J'iiir" ,.Lftr.. In th.i! conrcxtr cc¡tain rcrcvsnt but rcsr rmporrint rtrJii."i u.,.ntioncd. somc usc rhe rcrm'areal línguisticr'or'arca ringuirticr'in rhc ¡ensc oi¿i"ri"i'g'.og."ptry wirtrin a iiiglc-r.is;a"(cf' Kurath l9?2, Goo¡¡cn¡ t973)i rhir u,ge rr nor *rir.iil-ir,. conccmr ofrhrr prper, A3ain,the ¡telian'nconngurrrrc'rchool i¡¡ ¿ccr"ñ¿ trrciii.ci*ü¡oi o¡-*u¡¡o*.;;r;;;?J;;;ii;"dcrcrrninc, rt has conrriburcd norhing ncw r" rt. é;n1ifi. filii ¿"¿i"",-roi, ro ri;;;iJr. s*;;ilysccms morivarcd bv an extremirr rc-ac.rion alainsr n.oj."nir.rr"n sound lails, ;r,l*iñijiJí"isch-uchardt scc spitzer 1922) andGifliéron

§cc Gilriéñn d noiu.. r9l2). sáe Berroni t9l r, I92j,19-25, Brrtoli rgzs, r92E, 1929, r933a,b, rc¡'9, rnJ Bonl",,r.-icis, tg*licf. arso Hrlr 1946.

'W. do.not wish ro russclr rh.t.rhc arudy of areal phcnole; ü;,;;;.,ri"r. **,considcrations havc bccn wirh ur almost fro.q rhc ¡igiriiis-;i rh. rJ'*rr ,ir¿y oiiig,í.go-(.f.Kopitar 1E57, who m¡dc somc Bark¡n u.at rc"turcii.io*i;,cc "rro

Mikrosich tE6t, sandferdP]^9L_Y,_.-n:ll,ciamploned.rhe vicw! thar rhcre erc io ¡iiig.osopirrcar bounda¡ics bcrwecnIanguages' and ¡hat langusSe m¡xturc occüru; hc antcdrtcd Schmidt lETi as thc ¡uthor of r¡c ;*a""thcory'.(Wctten-hypothcse; scc Spirzer lCZti: ¡eS, a¡ii.

-- --""'. Dcvclopmcnrs in thc srudy ofAmcrican rndian ranjuagcs arso ptaycd en rmport8ni rorc. powc[ .

bccamc ¡o caughr up rn drfrusioni¡m rhrr ¡r-rhrcarc;cdio pirinrii, r-.'t¡riiiig ii'8*;ü"rcrms, causins hrfir ro doubr hr¡ o,wn crascifrcarron (cf. powcli tr¡gll Ixo,iri'iil"d;i;ü,ll::t-o"."b'jily to scp-aratc rhc cfrecr¡ ofgcneric iri,",rt"n".iror difrusion arc echocd in wo¡koy Eoas, Dy Drxon &, Krocbcr, and ro 80me

_cxtcnt by sapir. whire Boas and sapi*pp"r.n,ivhcld similar view¡ ¡bout borrow.cd -strucrurat

r..ir*r ír¿ í...ü,.;#fihril "iH: lffiil,i:;bccamc quite porarizcd toward t920, in what ii

""* r-i.i'"rr ¿¡rput" (p"rni[ & il;;iüir,lo": yr skcpticat abour rhc porsibilitv of disringuishinlrr,.r.i ¡¡i"ir"rii¡., ,r.rrñiiro, ,i*á-tural diflu¡ion from those rcsulting from.gcn.ti.-rcl"tionsl¡p; *hilc Sepir, by .;ñ;i, ;; ;bclicvc that the cffectr of borrowinl, parriirrarty in morp-r,o-l'ogy, *our¿ *";ú.ñioJih, ¡;;r¿vicws prcvailcd in Amcrica' ¡nd ¡uútiqu.nt rruÍi oiA"i.Jiiii'nai"n r"nguas* war charecrcrizrdby much rcductioni¡m ln tho numbcr óf portuler.¡ t *iil;;;. Bo¡¡, rc¡ew¡tronr wcrc rrmolrf]lll fo$ottcn ln Amedca, but ¡ecclv_cd ittcntion ¡n-gr.pc,'wicr. they m¡rkcdlrlnfl;;;*d ñ;Praguc schoor-(s-cc Trubelzkoy r93 t, Jakoblon rp¡a, riaaiífr;iiioi., ¡ni"r.rr ico'rniJ¡" A;;;;(Emcncau [¡9561 I980:t07).

'' _An important part ofthc Amcrican baekgrorrnd it the arcautypological approach charactcrlstic

of Dixon & Kroeber t903, r9r3-practiccd iarry arso br so"s "ia

s"pir-i" *nr"r, ü,0 i.r.Jpii"iiof lndividual languagcs includcd ryporogrcat cómprriáns-with-itho, rrngr"g",

"r " g"á8iii;iJ

region (cf. Kroebcr lgft:t7-tS; pirncli& shcrzir t97l). -

Thet Meso'Amcrics constitutes.e tegirimate ringuistic arca has bccn qucstioncd. Toaddress rhir qucstion, conceprcof '"..it ringuirr'i'J;;-hcre survcycd ¡nd refincd. pro.poscd Mcso'Amcric¡n areal trail¡. a¡c rcconiid.ii¿ "g"¡iir

thcce findrngs, and are com-parcd wíth thosc of other.estabrishcd linguistic "-r"ir.'ü"ro.er"rica prov€, to be aparticularly strong linguistic area, Thcse ñr;lt, ;ñil. borh to thc útudy of Mcso-Arhcrlc¡n lanSuaScr ¡nd ro ¡n unacrctanulnj oi areai' iin-guirt¡., g*iirivl-,

In recent years it has been proposed that Meso_America (henceforth MA)_defined basicaily as a curture.areaexl.n¿ine iroÁ "rntr"l

rtl.i¡.oir,r*rr, "*r,.ern central America-is. a ringuistic ...".Tr," ¡itt attempts at characterizing

i!:ljiri,":*ü,,uffi*ffiHm,rj1,*::,:;H[*iffi l:Io:.lt!t. I98 I ) ;,ndverthel:s^sr

-doubtgÉrr

-

¡I*'.*p."s sed (cf. Hamp I 979,Hol t & -B

ri gF'f 976, s u áre z te§)--{me r,

"u. i r,ouerit t di il l; il r', iíei r,well-defined area in rhe-sensátñ ott ..s,".o!ni'ieJ in the lii.;il;;, ;;h=;,the Balkans bFS6Ííñ*Asia,-uut rattrei maf

-u?".-orpor.o of scvcrar smailcr,regionally defined areas (cf. Hamp I979). pártñ"i,o"ron, ourprimary purposehere.is to investigate MA in detail f.oÁ a""r..iri.*póint. il;*;;;r: ü;;-termine MA's status requires us first to .r.i¡iv-the nature and definition ofringuistic.areas in g.nrár. w.;ii¡';;',hü-i"'ioi-r, and then rerurn to thecharacteristics of MA in §4.

. 1' Drrrxr,oN op An¡el LrNcursrrcs. As broadry conceived, AL dears withthe results of the diffusion of slructural r.rtu.", "ó.r, ¡ingr¡rti. uour¿"ii.r.

As. commonly viewed, ringuistic areas are ctraracierizea by ;ilú;ññ;-guistic featu^res shared by various I"nguages:s;e of wfrici;*,;.ñ;;;are from differenr subgroups.within ;fa;ily_in a geograptri"iriry .i""iigrli,area. The phenomena ofthe ringuisti"

"r." ár" arso icrJrrcü i"

"iirr.r"üviñ.terms 'convergence area', .Spraéhbund', .amnite únguistique,, .diffusion area.,'adstratum' etc.' However, when it comes tá ,orJpr..íru árnnii¡onr, ti,r*is considerable controversy concerning just *f,"ief. ¡r.

' ws wish to tha¡rt wifliam Brighr and sarah G. Thomason for herpfur commcnrs on carriervcrsions of this paper; bur we do nir r."n to ¡rpiv ,h;i il;;';r ncccasar¡ry in agreemenr wirhour usc of rhcir starcmcnrs. wc ¡rso ccknowt.¿i.'ü,i ¡niiit'rto ¿. rnrori¡g"..¡iJiiii"rirliil,univ¿r¡idad Nacional Aurónoma dc Mcxico, for privüi.jlyr'i t",npu", rhc opportuniry to cn8¡scin full'timc ¡c¡earch in rgEr-82, durrng wtrrch timc h; i-r;il;;r..r"h for rhr, pep.r end wrorcup ¡ preliminarv vcr¡ion. Tcrrcncc.Raifm¡n end rl¡oi"iiiiirr"surr r,"* .,,"l,i"tljii" "rigriilñanulcript and m¡dc various additions to lt, Thus the lisi ii"rnoru rcfrectú not onry srphabcticatordcr, bur rcrative inpur ro rhc finar pro¿uct, wc thrce ari-¡oi,

"ii'in .rr.iir"iü;;.;;ü;;;hBthc argumcnts and conclusions.

l.A.reat picnomena erc, ro r greatcr or tcsscr dcgrce, rcratcd to such othcr arcas of study asmultilíngualism, substrara, supcrirrata, tingui«ic giolrariry, i""i*¡.g,.n¿ rrner.girñh oii'.ñ.530

{

*'

Ii

* ;iii'i;i,:lt::¡::"

if: i

ri'-ii,,'':liillirrlil,lll.,

":

5]2 LANCUACE, VOLUME 62, NUMtsER 3 (1986)

^f*,¿:li:lI;i#.':i} ff*lfJ i,;X'. ;ny pertai ni ng to s tud ies or nari ve

'A ¡'rxou¡s¡¡c lnEr is dcfincd.herc .s.an are, in which ssvenrl ringuistic trsirs arc sharcd bythe languagcs of rhc arca.a¡d tin *r,¡cr,¡ iurriir;;;:;"r. is cvidencc (tinguictic and non-linguistic) that contacl bre.cnrion orrhcse ñi, #.l1h"di¿T:T:,]li.,HTffi:;,T[XTf",1l,l}li,rr,,i,,ifli:iIt is imporranr ro r.mcmbcr rt

"r ii"eu"s; i';i.i?r.-ü*r","¿ o, ¿¡ri"ii'üLi'"'r.¿;;;.rywctt and probabty do disagrec wirh.r;s",¿ ao ,;;;;;ü'l,"li"i ,',iliiü.jilil;;:lHl.,[,i"area according to rh€ abovc dcf¡nirion-, since thlsi.i. Jrr.*^. r,"¡r (which one might wantto call diagnostic traits),'

Issues over which opinion has been divided incrude the number ofisogrossesrequired to define a LA, and whether n.y ruri'Lurdte-or whether a singreisogloss is suflicient. For some._schot.rr,'iroglos._U*Otrlt ii"r;§ü,i:f.Trubetzkov r93rt234t sherzer.r973:ioó; ri".ii""lc76tr79i .*atz r975tr2, 16;Holt & Brisht t9?6: Emeneau tgso:zr. ñe;ñi-J.sr, r"* havc insisted on thebundting criterion. Manv view Ai ;;;ñ;;;;irronat diatectotogv, whcreisogtosses frequenrry faiíto grouf-añh;'ü;ñ;]ur are found more concen.trated around somc core witñour;bru;tuorn¿iitr-"nd where rhe éxtensionof individual isoglosses ourward from the;;;;;y vary greatly (cf. Emeneautl965bl re',:r28, 136; Ramanuja" á ü.ri..lsoói3io; w¡r,r, 1973; r40; Masica197 6:6, 170-7 l, I 79; Hendersón ls.osñi ; Jlr.r'ñ', rrO. Moreover, fottowingthe analogy of dialectology, some linguisís trav!'noted that isoglosses of oneLA may cross those oranót!9r (.f. ,;k;ü;;;'ilii,tgt,Becker r948r23, Wein_reich I eSE : 378-e, Winter. tsz 1t i!0, ;;J ii;;;;; §7 6:24).

::ii:t",r,,I#[itlli!Tr[":l*![l,Jtf .il,1[:*;m::j]fiishare any diffused or convcrgent structuial féatures, even a singlc trait. ThusMasica (r72) views a singre-"r."¡ i'áeiorr'i, tti'"i¡"irii, üliñi-¡iiii""i,irl,'Linguistic areas are appárentry pr,.""r."u oi'oin 4e magnitudes, starting1..^"1t !l! limiting case, the 1g-a !é!n9O úy u ,¡nst" toit;«"f. -¡riir,t? §il;,1976:236, Trubetzkoy l93t:345,,1.toU*íllli,liil. xur, makes a singte, syn-chronic isogloss the basis of nis ¿enn¡i¡o

" iiilr'-"'Von cinem Sprachbund ksnn man sprcchcn, wcnn:(a) zu cincr gcgcbcncn Zeit(b) cin zus¡mmcnhángendes geographischq Gcbict, das(c) von minde¡tsnr cíner sprichirci,r.'¿.irr""i.ijrr"(d) von mindc¡iens ciner tjogloric urrp""ri *ñul,'-''

That is' no sharp boundary.can be drawn between LA's which share a singrediffused trait and those wí¡ich rh"r;";;;v:-ó;;;ighr auempt to justify thispoinl of view by considering such anarogies ";i

H; many grains of sand doesit take to make a heao? Hñ.muny tiia'r-ur" ir.ir¿ a constirute a flock? orHow many students áre required ó r"kr;;ülJ-The conclusion thar a I-a migtrt .a"qráiriyG;efineo on the basis ofa singreshared feature is disouted.bv-r"nt r';h;i;irl-iJ*.',r,.r, a LA defined bv asingre isogloss wou td be tr¡rial. ru incim;;;;' #; ;; ;idó:r;#llJ,i";that particular LA's share several t."itr. irii¡*¡it., th"." is no rneaningful

MESO-AMER¡CA AS A LINGUISTIC AREA 5J3

yay !o distinguish LA's defined on the basis of several features from thosebased- on a single shared rrait, if rhe rattei are considered non-triuiui. ilüit

"question should be posed trot in the form, Does some entity quafiff a, " iÁf,

but rather, Horv strong or weak is a particurar LA? That ¡i rir" "u'n

tñ¡nt ái "continuum of LA's from those wgakly defined, on the basis or

" ri"gí" ,'rr"."o

feoture, to-m¡rc.h stronger-areas baséd on many diffuseá .rir""ir]iñir "p-proach to defining LA's arso implics a means of cvaruating it"iirii""sii, io

which we now turn.

2. Evr¡.uer¡ox. one strategy for improving the definition of LA's has beento propose criteria of evaluation. For somc scholars, this amounts to merecounting of the number of shared traits. For others, ii involves ranking themin some evaluative scale according to the varying social, cultural, o. t ir-toii""tcircumstances which gave risc to the arros.it is worth rooking'into ¡oÁc orthese ¡n order to ündor¡tand AL bctter,

--one expliciüy stated approach to evaruatrng the strength of LA's ¡s'that of

Katz (p. 16) which is followcd (at lcasr implicitly) by seíeral ott "ru:--

---- -

'Fs ist zwar klar, dasr durch "ncar.unlvcr¡atr" konstitulcle sprachbündc ¡ts solche nicht, sehr inlerrcssant sind, diercr Mangcl lüsst sich aber eurglcichcn, wcnn wir cinc .,wcrtskala"

rufstcllcn' dic bcsagcn roll: Ein sp*chgcbcit, das von mehr sprachbundisogrorscn urr.Hor.. scn lst' i¡t ¡uf diescr sk¡la h0hcruu bcwcricn rh einc¡ innerhalb voriwcnigcr solchcn. Iroglosrcn,'

This amounts to a 'more-the-merrier' propoial, where the existence of moreisoglosscs is taken as more highly valutd.-

Attemqts to establirh mcans of cvaluating LA's mako us rcalize that differenttypor of LA's indocd cxigt. These diffcráces dcpcnd on the circumrt"n".,that gave rise to them and contributed to their deveropment, il ñáüt,J¡yThomason & Kaufman (lg71:27);

'Thc varlous s¡c¡s so idcntif¡ablc, howcvcr, arc not of ¡ uniform type. In some of the arcasin question, thcrc I¡ cuncnt instltution¡lizcd mulülingualism, cithci multilatcral or unilatcral,

¡ In othcn lhcrc-h¡¡ bcc.n ma¡siv¡ ¡hift in thc p¡!t, vith, howcvcr, rcme spcakcrs of thc lan.' Suaget ¡hlftcd'frcm ¡till ¡round. In ¡tlll otlrcr¡ thcre h¡¡ bccn gndual ¿iiTut¡on of fcaturcrovcr long ccntur¡cri without hlgh dcgrcer of multitingualirm oi m¡¡¡ivs rhift. Ir.mlght bcprof¡sblc to try to scpemtc thcsc typc¡, but rt prc¡cnt ic havc no foolproor ¡¡iÜ,J oi-J.¡ng¡o,'

(Cf. Masica lg76:173, Marrinet 1952:123, 1956.) If distinct typcs of LA's canhave suqh varied historicel backgrounds, thcn it fo[ow¡ ttr*ilii mai o¡neigreatly in-their composltlon and charactcr-and in the way ttratiniii'r¡"ü¿traits are interrelated, both within indiyidual languages and""ross lungu"ges.This brings us to the second mqior approach to defiñing LA's, which ráqüirthistorical evidence.

3. T¡¡s HrsroRrcrsr AppRoAcH. perhaps the most important evaluative at-tempts have been based on a realization ofthe different historical factors whichgo into the creation of LA's, Masica (173) treats as significant the distinciionbetween LA's which are thc relics of past contacts, no lónger activi, ;n¿ ;th;;which are in the process of formatión and extension beóausc or ón-go¡ng in-

ü'

II

i,,l

ll

Ii

Ii,ir

4l

iItiiI

ii':ir

ir,il,

;.j

,1,

fir1

l,'1

iril

iliiiiiliiirl

t$rí

irf+

i,'

iji,;

lfiiIi,it

i;illlr;iiilrlt.\l¡

utliiúr

,lfiiilr1.

iliiiii r'ir

iiiiiiiriil:lti"r!:

;fiiil,i,

ilr ilil\'i:t, l:iiii rilli'll \,i'"i¡Ír

iili

534 LANCUAGE, VOLUME 62, NUMBER 3 (¡986)

teraction and change. Neverthetess, linguists have been divided in their opin_ions about the need for, or value or, histórical i;;il lr;;';;;,¿;iffi:."5r,group's approach has been.merely io cataiog ite simirarities found in a partic_utar area-alowing these simitariíie; t;l"cs#in;rl;il;iffi;i ."r*i",out the research necessarv to demonstraiJ'tt, "-.üi"'""*';:Hin'ilr-ically a reliance on'circumitantiar evidence'. iiü.i..urstantiarist,approach,as we will call ir, can be useful_particularlyln th" pr"l¡mii"iv si"r;.Iii"-vestigarion, or in LA's wtre.e relüuie rrrrl"írá iacts are diflicurt to obtain.Even so, one wourd rike--to be

"u; ,riil;i;ü'iJ*.p"."," rear arcar features-those resulting from diffusion_i.", ;1;;oir1"ñ ...¡o.nts, which may resultfrom undiscovered senetic rr.tionrr,lptlr;;;;"ir, onomatopoeia, paralrel orindependent deveropment, s¡... .t "'ncll'ii" ünronunatery, many circum-stantialisrs have made no *:-o,!t- !o ..rry out thi tristorical program (cf. Haas1969, 197 G, 1978 I Sherzer I cz¡, j szo, §;árJ'd ñ"rrun 1972; Campbefi tgl 7,

i¿íjffiT!;líkoy re28, rs¡r ; Brishi a§;;; D76; Hott¿-iilñi' iíi6;

The sharpest criticism of this type of AL concerns the serection of featuresto be considered arear. since nearif er".yon" "onriiers

LA,s to bc thc productsof diffusion, features designated.as .ri¿ti"" i"i"'la shoutd resurt from bor.1o¡vins, stemming from mt¡tual ¡nnr.n.il a,

"iriady seen, some hold that aLA mav be defined bv any sim¡rai¡ty ilut ná*;;r to be shared arnong con-tiguous tanguages. Hoievár, if the s;le;i;j';ffi; features can be explainedequally well by accident, universars, gen"iir-r".ioü"t"., then such a LA makesno sense as the product of.diffusion; it begíns io-seem rike a mere ringuistictypology, whích might involve

"dj"..nt l";;;;g.", t.uing no relationship.The other.main group of arealists riirlir".ii?.n"¡tion, or ar ,east their re-search practice' more directry to historicai pio-o-fs, maintaining that featuresdesignated as arear shourd g...oir..q,riiaüiy irfri,iii", we cafl this the,historica|approach, foilo-wed by the 'h.isrori"irtt'. ¡í¡r lnrt*-"irr" tálr" ür,v;hilffii-ars insist on historicar evidence, and- to

-.oiriá., their criticisms of thecircumstantialists.

In this respect, Jacobsen (rgg0:205), speaking of§herzer rg76, cails for thehistorical program:

'Thc obvious way of making-furhcr progress in thcsc matters ... i! to 80 beyond a m*ccrtaloging of thc prcscncc oribscncc "i.;t-ürry ir ; üig;rg. to

" ,tuay of rhc actuat mcansused for its cxprcssron End to a rctiancc ,pon r¡,. irii"gi-or historicar linguistics as appricdto the scveral languagcs end families.,

H.1'q ¡?l: also etrarpry criticizes sherzer 1976 and the circumstantiarist ao-proach. His commcnts on thc rclarion "f

At ü;;r;ri;;i;'.-,iffi;;;;:iiii"ii;to thc point:

"" whilc thc comparative mcthod is unqucstionabry an historica¡ srudy, the ficrd of arcatlinguistics is no lcsr so: for ir

unlu;sti. e""il'oii;;il,:';:l;ifl'::ffi:JJi.'*:',rr:l',:T#;1,i,;!;ffi*"",:tru*r*;disciptines-twin faccs of diachront firgrírti.i, ñ v"r'*iill pZSl'[§herzcr'sl mcthodology secm! lo meke far too lilrle provirion for these di!tinction! fAL andcomparative ringuisticsr rhar.I.consider.rr..till.,, íi', iiuiy *orru lie propcrry wirhin rhcrcalm of tvpologv .., for arcal, i.e. urtimatcü spciiñ. iiir,Ji..r, qucsrions ir may be damaging

I

MESO.AMERICA AS A LINGUISTIC AREA 535

in two main ways. The conclusions may rcsult in á listing ofa catalog oftrivia; and thc atartinSparamctcrs may wc¡l havc misscd thc most intcrcsting and crucially tcll-talc charactcrlstics.'(2E r)

'§uch arcal qucstions can bc approachcd mcaningfully and fruiifully only íf thcy arc treatcdin spcclfic tcrm¡ for what they arc-thc rcsults of dcvctopmcnts with historical dcpth andspccificity,' (2E2)

(Cf. Winter 1973t147, and §ilvcrstein 1978 for similar criticisms.) Wc conclude,then-with Bright 1976, llamp 1977, and Winter 1973-that our goal shouldbe to determine the historical facts which explain similarities among languages,regardless of whether they result from common heritage from some proto.language, or from diffusion,

Several other considerations, which we do not take up in detail in the interestof saving space, efe also important in evaluatirig the strength of different LA's.These deal with the weight of individual areal isoglosses; all borrowings arenot equal. Some should count more, given the relative difliculty of borrowing,their degree of integration into the borrowing grammar, etc,

First, highly 'marked', exotic, or unique shared traits welgh more than doesmaterial that is morc easily developcd lndependently, or found widcly in otherlanguages. Ncvertheless, such exotic borrowings tend to reside at a morc su.perficial position in linguistic structure. Given what is known of linguistic uni-Versals, it would be unnatural to expest truly unique or very bizarre borrowedtraits to be found deep inside a grammar. Thus we suspect that, the more deeplyintegrated or interwoven into the basic fabric ofa language a diffused featureis, the greater its areal value-and even greater to the extent that it is bothintegrated and marked.

.Second, it has at times been claimed that a language can borrow featuresoirly when it already has a pre-existing model (cf.losiph, 205). Retated, butin an opposing vein, is the notion that the grammarc ofcertain languages havegaps which somehow reduce their elliciency: when they come into contact withtanguages exhibiting the useful but missing constructions, they incorporatethern.handily-recognizing what they haye been missing, and requiring only .

minimal foreign stimulation to acquire them (cf. Campbell & Mithun l98l). Wedo not argue for either of these claims. However, since such bonowings wouldbe easier to achieve, they should count for less, Such arguments do, in anycase, point out the importance of considering not only what features are bor-rowed, but also whether the borrowing languages are disposed to be receptive.

The integration of diffused traiB inlo bónówing grammars has been called'installation' (Jacobsen 1980) and 'naturalizatioá' (Gair 1980). It obviously takestime or intensive contact to install or naturalizc foreign constructions; thus wemight feel inclined to take thcm as strong areal indicators. However, it is oftenthe case that such features are initially borrowed on a more superficiat level;tho internal forces ofthe grammar then 'snowball'(Joseph, 202) to achicve theiirtegration, regardless of whether areal influences continue.

Third, the 'more-the.merrier' principle for evaluating LA's obviously needsrefinement, given that the weight of individuat traits depends on difliculty ofborrowing. There is, however, another way in which it fails: Some aspects ofgrammar are universally linked, such that the presence of one may imply the

I !.,i

,,, ,,'ir :r

"):

536 L^NCUAOE, VOLUME 62, NUMBER 3 (I9Só)

presence of orhers. ,, :l:! cases, should it prove universatty impossible orhightv unlikerv for a ranguage.ro have o*-g,irrur¡r.¡ ¡;;ü_fiü*i "the same rime, exhibitingihe-orh.rr ¿;;;;;á'üi i,, pr"r"nce-rhen it is hardryvatid ro counr phenomena rhar ..nnor o..rr-ildil;ry

"ffi,;ii;ili;"-glosses' such considerations deserve .trcn1-¡o";'to*ever, passing over themnow will not detract from our generat exposition of AL or of MA.From rhis discussion of AL,-we r.v.án-.-lu]i, firsr, that ráriiir.rt¡g"to.,view it as akin to tradirionar áiarc.i"rágy, üri *ith isogrosses that extend be-yond language boundaries, g:ggng, Let'.r.-.iiities-of diffcring magnitudes,ranging from thc controverslar lim¡tíng case-¿.?ii.o by a singre shared trait_to clearly stronger instance.s,-witt, ,"á"y l..ra ?"utu.a, resurting from diffu-sion' such features are of dit?erent *"]ér,ii, orp*oing on r,"*';,i"iL"i' tt ryare,'and how inteSrated. into lhe_respeJt¡re'gra-mmars. Third, since arear iso-glosses frequenrrv do not bundte «u"o ortrn oirlü1, ¡, i, oa¡iúe use t, "ü"rptto define LA's based on the coincid.r*;¡;ilñrat_traits at some boundary.Neverthetess, when bundring oo"r o""ri, ¡i."i ui-üü" i, ,i;;;;-Jil;:i",the LA invotved. Finailv, siñce it irieieláüylr.*o that meaningfut LA,s arethe historicat product oitinguistic difi"ri;il'íh;:;nger LA,s arc rhose whosesharcd traits can be shown-h¡stor¡cati;io üt ii'nüuo-"nd cannot be ascribcdto a common ance§tor, to chance, oito univ".s"[.

4' MA ¡nre¡,rnr¡rs. studies in the Meso-American LA to date have mostlybeen circumstanriarist in orientation, ihilir';nürstandabre, given that arealstudies in American Indian Iinguisti.t t ""r

tvp¡.uilv been circumstantiarist bothbecause of rradition (cf, Darriel ¿ s¡..*ií'"i;'d.;il.;;ffi;#;il;of adequate historicar evidence r"r áin til,n'ori*¡tr. rn ,"h"i'ilü;;,';.present a compilation of circumstantialist traits that have b"* ;r"p";;l;,;il'ñiti,:üix+:i!'i,llilü,üs¡rl¿"*l;x[kTJ,*íik'xx:fi1971, 1977., l97*a, t979,¡nd. Sniitñ:§h* ,'giilñ, others that have comc toour attention. In this evaluation, neighboring l"ni*eu, to the south and to thenorth are used as conlror cases for-checm,ülr,i

"¿"r *tr." o?-u¡üg"i üitraits' All rerevant ranguages ... tto*n on ü".p r tpp. 53g-9); the accomoanv.ing Key (pp.540-42) indicates generic amtiarions aíá';í;ñffi;á";Xffii

I somc information and cxampres-not othcrwise refcrcnccd arc from campbc[,r record¡ ¡ndficld notcs; thesc includc Tcmhua, C"t.r,iqrii.ó"i.ii, X.i.f,l Nahuarl, pipil, Xincan, [,cnce,Jicaquc,.Cacaopcra, eucchua, "na

aym"r", t"tay;;il;ñ;l.*ísc ¡cfercnccd ¡rc from Kauf.man's f¡les.Il should bc notcd thar manv ofthc dictionaries which w! cite a¡ sourcc! .*o contarn ¡rammrdcarskcrcho. For gencrat lnform¡iion on-thc cl¡¡sinát¡"l.roii*.i,lrc of MA l.nturgcs, rcc Crmpbc[t {, xru{m11 I e74¡,b ; campbct¡ ¿ i"ri.ii--l,iió: ffi :'

*'"eur conrror ranguaSes are, ofcourse, not rikc thc contror casc¡ of, c.g,, biologistr; conccrvabry,an MA areal isogtoss coutd tap

"-"ir,11i ¡"11"1-"¡r'"#;ñ"**scs, Howcvcr, tn thtr inrrancc,scvcral of our conrrols havc no conracr with MA f..g. É.¡tiil Guayml, Tonkrwa, yuman), Inprinciplc, languagcs found ourside an "rc"

cour¿ once-i"auc-üJ.i¡n.iac ¡r, orcourd otherwrsc h¡vcbecn influcnccd throush rransDoflr¿ .ontru, H;.;;';ñ;'.*r, geogrrphicar fcatures makcit highly unlikery that sisnific;nt contsct courd rrrr. ol,.u.rii. mus th*c trnguag* do Indccdprovidc lcgitimatc contro¡s.

MESO.AMERICA AS A LINOUISTIC AREA $7

since the status of MA as ¡ LA is at issue, we will begin our evaluation ofareal.traits by taking the strongest critical stance. That isl we will .onr¡¿r, u,convincing onty fearures which are widety distributed w¡thin MA; wi *iiiiii*¡-nate traits which are also found beyond üA, or are limited in theiia¡rtriurii""to smaller zones within MA. we arso discount traits which ;t.;rtiy;;;;i;pindependently in language. Thus we emphasizc features p"cuii"r to'MÁ,;;dgcneral throughout ¡t, but not beyond.'ive hasten to point out thaiir,ir'ir'i"fact not.a very rearistic view of aréd traits-or of th.¡r i¡rtiiuuiion;;;;;r;interaction one with anothcr-but ir takcn t¡eri on¡y to ¿cmon¡tratc-M;;'"strong LA, able to survive rhe most stringent scruiiny. ¡o r""i. uii1ii"r"lr.erationat constra¡nrs wourd rená to oisquirir/ ñ;i';;i i:Á;;.'rii,J, iilr"i¡unique or highly-marked featurcs are especialiy pi.suas¡r", oni *rrü ii¡r?tI !l to exhibit any abundance of exotic struóturar traits unknow;;il"*h;;.ll-lLr_.*_r-Lr.: fimitar!¡, changes thar can easily take pl".o in¿"p.nálii¡v,rnrougn parauer evo¡ution, can also be triggered by the stimulation oflanguaiecontact. Moreovcr, areal isogrosses often iáil rc bundre,

"n¿ tt o*

"ri*rÁ"rriigpatterns-some beyond the LA's borders, others reitricte¿ witf¡in-the-ii.LA's can be the product of such varied rocat'borrowingr, *¡ttr ¿¡n".";i;;it;;ofdistribution, For this reason, it is only in rare and'iortunate

""riiir,"ir""may expect areal features to meet the constraints employed t "re.

ióirr"-cii.ntlPlllry:.:9s in disptaying areal rraits whicn miit tir"r",tr*i

"onOir¡onr,tnere can be ¡itüe doubt about its validity as a LA. After this stñct scrutiny,we.will reconsider-proposed arear traits óf MA which d""t;;ih;r;;;;-ol¡rons, but nevertheless lend secondary suppol to defining the LA.

4.1. P'oxo¡-oorcA,- rRA¡Ts. The folrowing are some shared phonorogicarphenomena in MA:

(a) F¡xeu DEvo¡crNo oF soNoR^Nrs. A rulc ¡vhich dcvoices finst sonorants(usually I,r y w, but also nagala and o"cn vo*elr ln some l¡nguagcO, ir idntin severalJvfayan languages (cspcclaily euichcan), in ñur,uaii-ñ¡pú: xñ;,Joto1ry, Tepehua, Tarascan, and Siena popoíuca (e.g. Nahuatl

'/no-mi:l/

[nomi:l] 'my field', Quiché laxa:wl [axaiW] .íord')-as -wcll as in thc morc

southerly cacaopera and sumu, while this rulc seems to be borrowed in atleast some of the MA languagcs which contain it, its distributlon is qu¡t, ,"-stricted within MA; it rcaches only a small and discontinuo* po.tioiioi it.languages ofthe area. Moreover, fiñal devoicing ofsonorants is not so peculiarphonetically that it could not have happcned inóependentry ¡n tt.re i"niu"g.s,though.it is suflieiently uncommon to suggesr posiible diffusion. A[ the-sc án-§iderat¡ons make final dcvoicing of sonorants relatively unhelpful in definingMA as a LA.

(b) volcrxc oF oBsrRUENrs AFrER NAs^Ls. This is found in Xincan, Huave,:t":t:J M1:'Zoquean languages, Tarascan, and most Otomanguean úil;ú.;,including Tlapanec-subtiaba-as we[ as in Lenca and Jica{ue;

".g. buiá-

capan-Xinca Pampuki/ [¡amb-riki] ,snake',

Copainalá Zoque ti_tiU tiaif,¡ .,n,house' (Harrison & Garcfa l98l:405). This feature has ai reast t"o proúrc,n',which prevent it from being a diagnostíc trait of thc LA, First, its o¡str¡but¡on

r.zcJqc).E'

ot.c(r,

¡¡zctrE'xaE

2trfOo

tlFl)

v,

t-zoan-,oFlr

€

t

540 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 62, NUMBER 3 (¡986)

KEy (l - cxtinct)Orou,rxourex

OlopamcánOl Chichimcco Jonaz (outsidc Mcso-Amcrica): Dc Angulo t933, Last¡a 19E4,02 Pamc (somc varictics outsidc Mcso-America)O3 Otomf: Echcgoyen ct;1, 1979,04 M¿zahuaO5 Matlazinca06 Ocuiltcco ([tahuica)

Popolocan07 PopolocaOE lxcatcc09 Chocho: Mock 1977.Ol0 M8¿alec: Jamieson l9?E.

MixtccBnOl I Mixtcc: Alcxandcr 1980. Bradley 1970, Daly 1971, lg77t pcnsinger t974,O12 Culc¡tccOl3 Triquc: Good l9iE, Hollcnbach 197J.

ChinantccanOl,l Chinantcc (scveral varictícs): Mc¡riñcld t96g, Robbins 196E, Rupp 19E0.

AmuzgoOl5 Amuzgo

ZapotccanOl6 Zapotcc (several distinct languagcs): Burler 1980, picketr 1974,Ol7 Chatino; Pridc & Pridc 1970.

Chiapanec-MangucOIE tChlapanccOl9 tMangue

r

Tlapancc-SubtiabaO20 Tlapancc: Schultzc 193E, Suárcz l9E3b,O2l fSubtiaba

Azrecex (- Nahuan, of thc Uto-Aztccan family)Al Nahuat(l)A2 tPochutccA3 Pipil (includcs Nicarao)

ToroxrcexTl Totonac: Reid & Bishop 1974.T2 Tcpchua

M¡xe-Zoque,rNMixcan

MZI Veracruz Mixc (includcs sayula popoluca, O¡ura popoluca): Clark l9El, Clark & Clark1960.

MZ2 Oaxacs Mixc: Lyon 1980, Vrn Haitsma 1976, Schocnhals 196j,MZ3 Tapachultcc

ZoqueanMU Yc¡ac¡uzzoque (incrude-s sierra poporuca, Texistepcc poporuca)l Elson 1960, Foster &

Fostcr l94E; Clark & Nordcll 19E4.MZ5 Chiapas Zoquc (Copainatá)MZ6 Ooxaca Zoquc

M,rvexHuasttcan

Ml Hu¡stccM2 fChicomuccltcc

YucatccanM3 Yueatcc (Maya): Tozzcr 1921.M4 Lacandón

Mi ltzáM6 Mopán

Cholan-Tzcltal¡n (Grcatcr Tzcltalan)Cholan

M7 Choh Autic t9?E, Warkcdrin & Scotr t980.M8 Chontat (ofT¡basco)M9 iCholtfMlO Chortf

TzcltalanMtl Tzcltal: Kaufm¡n 197t.Ml2 Tzotzil

KaqiobalanKar¡iobalan proper

Ml3 Kaniob¡lM¡4 JscBlrcc .

MI5 AcarccChqican

Mló ChujMl7 Tojolabal

MotozintlccMl8 Motozintlcc

Mamcan-Quichean (Eastcm Mayan)Mamean

Ml9 Mam: England 19E3.M20 TcsoM2l AguacatccM22 lxil

Grcatcr QuichcanM23 KekchfM24 Usp¡ntccM25 Pokom (Pokomchf, Pokomam)

Quichcan propcr

, M26 SipacapcñoM27 Sacapultec

M28 QuichéM29 CakchiquelM30 Tzutqiil

Uxerr¡u¡rte»I Tara¡can¡ Fostcr 1969, Frlcdrlch 1971.2 tCultlarccl Escsl¡nte t962.

, 3 Tcqu¡stlatcc (Chontal ofOaxaca)t Tumer t971, Watcrhousc 19E0.4 Huavc: §tain l9El,5 xincan (four languages: tYupilitcpcquc, ouazacapán, chiqulmulilla, and Jumaytcpcquc)

Nox.Meso-AurnrclN LANouAoBtt

Yunexr Langdon lnü, D76, Wintcr t976.Yl Dieguclo (Ipai)Y2 KiliwaY3 Paipai

. Y{ TtpaiY5 Yuma (Qucchan)Y6 Cocblmf

, YTCocopaY8 MaricopaY9 Yavripai

Arec¡¡¿rx (Athrbarkan family), API Chiricahua Apachc

MESO.AMERICA AS A LINGUISTIC AREA

1-(-F\

542 LANOUACE, VOLUME 62, NUMBER 3 (1986)

AP2 Mcscalcro ApachcAP3 Jicarilla ApachcAP4 NavajoAP5 Wcstcrn ApachcAP6 Kiowa ApacheAP7 Lipan Apachc

U¡o.^rEc^N: Langackcr 1977.Southcrn

PimanUl PapagoU2 Pima (Uppcr and Lowcr)Ul Northcrn Tcpchuan: Bascom 19g2,U4 Southcrn Tcpchuan

TaracahiticU5 Yaqui: Lindcnfcld 1973.U6 MayoU7 Tarahumar¡U8 Guarihfo

Cora-HuicholU9 Cora: McMahon 19i9, prcuss 1932.Ul0 Huichol

NorthernCupan

Ul I LuiseñoUl2 CahuillaUl3 Cupcño

HopiUl4 Hopi

CHr¡cx,rxCl CunaC2 Guaymf: Alphonsc 1956, paync 1982.C3 BorucaC4 Bribri: Margery 1982,C5 GuatusoC6 RamaC7 Paya: Holr 1974.

Mrsuu,rup¡r¡r (perhaps part of Chibchan)MSI Mfskito: Lchmann 1920, Thaeler n.d.MS2 Sumu: Hcath us, Lchmann 1920.MS3 tMatagalpaM54 tQ¡6¿ep¿¡¡

OrHen xon-Meso-Auenlc¡x L,lxcurc¡sNl Scri: Moscr 1961.N2 tGuaicurianN3 tTonkawa:.Hoiier t933.N4 tKarankawaNi tCotonamcN6 tComccrudoN7 tCoahuiltcco: Swanton 1940. Troikc 1981.NB Eastcrn JicaqucN9 tWcstern Jlcsquc (El Palm¡r)Nlo tHohdursn L¿nca: L¿hmann t920.Nl I tSalv¡dorcan Lcnca (Chitanga): Lchmann 1920.Nl2 Black Carib (Anwakan family)

MESO.AMERICA AS A LTNOUISTIC AREA 543

within MA is quite restricted, and it occurs in non.contiguous rocations withinthe area. second, it is so naturar and comÁon i-t¡at it courd have deveropedindependently.r(c) vower. HARMoNv' some sort of vower harmony occurs in Xincan, Huave,Mayan, Copainalá Z-ooue;Mazahua 1Am.¿"iiéiil, and Tlapanec_as well asin Lenca and Jicasue. i¡¡l r""iri".r;;r;i; i.ir. rrre as a LA, since derairsof the process vary in each indiviJual ür". rr,"'."idence is not sufficient todemonstrate diffusion. exc€pt-po§§ibry in xirrcan and Lenca (see campbe,1978a). The trait is shared ¡i ró* l"ngi,aee;l;;;

"r.",(d) Frxro (predictabre).srness. phoñerñic (contrastive) stress is very rare inMA, though it is known in T"q;ir1i;i;';;l'óii,1.,.". A few ,anguages sharethe specific stress rure in which rú "c*;i'i.ñJi,i tt

" vower before the richt-most consonant (i.e. v - 9 t.: c(v)#), ";: óari;É;;ái,ill-riüi_Jiiji,Totontepec (Oaxaca) Mixe, and X¡ncan, as ftñ;; in Lcnca and Jicaquc. It ísquite possible that this rute is shari¿ b;*;r;;;]frrrt;;;ili'td;ñiñ;il;

is too restricted to meet our §trict ..itri¡u ror i.termining if MA is a LA.Moreover, fixed accent in the mqiority "iit. üei."euages arso does not herp,si11! is very common in languáges;irilr;;;;ea and a, over the world.a(e) Grxrnel srMrLARrr¡Es oF pHoNEMrc tNvENToRrEs in"lr¿, tfre i;ld;l;;;(e,l) Contrastive underlying voiced stops are absent from MA, except for afew languages where they ari of recent--oilgii, ..g. some otomanguean lan-gqages, Huave, Tequistlatec, and TexisrepeJ pápáir." (Zoquean), ip;;;;ili;from voicing after nasars with subseque"f"ri"r"ti." or ,oss ofthe nasars. The

l11e.u.ases just

leyond MA seem t" ih; ""i."j ,t"p, liberally_e.g. Sumu;Mfskito, and Chibchan languages to the south; and papago, Northern andSo.ut!9r1 Tepehuan, and Taiah-u ma.",o tt "-norif,](e'2) contrastivery voiced fricatives oo not-o..ui in MA, with the exceptionof a few Otomanguean languages (e.g. Mixtec and Tríque), where they are ofrecent development.

(e'3) The lateral affricate./tr/ is generalry absent, except in Nahuatr and ro-tonac; Tequistlatec has hl,l, the giottatizei counierpart of/l/.. (e.4) U-vutals (postvetarsj ,uch-as /q/;; i;;;;;ntv ¡n ttre Mayan and To-tonacan families. outside the area to ti¡c north, ih.y

"r. reasonabry common,e'[¡. in Yuman and Northern utr-Áii.""i'iilil';;ly are not originar). To thesouth, they are absent until we get to rh; A;¡;; ""

(e.5) Aspirated stops and affrtates "r"

i"i. in MA, occurring onty in Tar.ascan and in some otomanguean ranguages te.g. óioctro an¿ dtomí ;il;i.cally and phonemicaflv from consonant irusteri with á as a member), and inIicaque (on the southirn frontier of f"fÁ1.--- -

(e.6) Glottalized conson¿nts. ar.e found in Tepehua, Tequistlatec, Mayan,Xincan, and otopamean (historicaily ""Jpr,*r-iiüiry consonant crusters with

, a Actually, 6omc othcr-rangu¡gcr mrght rlt thrr rüre by dcf'urr-by havrn3 onry frner vowcr¡ andpcnultimatc strcrr, or onty finarionsonant¡ and Iiner ri.rqr ;:;., rjri"rte"í,-oo.ir ."i ;;üüir;e consonant' and Quiehcan ranguaScs have finar strcss. soá" óio^"ngr"rn ranguages havc pcn.utiimatc srrcss, and cithe¡ no rinal consonana o, p¿

"tiil'onli p.r.iru.a n.ri ."]r-i""i [..g.Mixtcc and zapot c)i this makcs t¡cm almoir conio;-,;;;1".

I

541 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 62, NUMBER 3 (1986)

P/, Rensch l97E), as well as in Lenca, Jicaque, Coahuilteco, and Tonkawa-which are non-MA languages.

(e.7) Implosives are known only in a few Mayan languages and in TexistepecPopoluca. several Mayan groups have rbt/ as the labial mémber of their gloitalseries. some dialects of some Quichean languages have developed /qsZfromrq'. Tzutujil has furher changed rt' to /dÍ/; diarects of Mamean languaies alsoshow /b§ df gf/ (or /9f0. Texistepec popoluca, in contrast, tras cianieO si-qucnces of nasal * stop to.voiced imploded stops. civen that Texisteiec po-poluca and Mayan are not in contact, and that ihe Texistepec imptosives aieofrecent origin, these languages clearly do not share implosion vü diffusion,

(e'8) Tonal contrasts are known in all the extent otómanguean languages(including Tlapanec), in Huave, and in some Mayan languag.s (Vurrt..,tt ñn_tal, Uspantec, and the San Batolo dialect of Tzótzil). Oiotircontrot t"niuales,some of the uto-Aztecan languages above the northern frontier ol MA ir" árolonal.(e.9,. Northcrn Tepehuan and Cora-Huichol), as arc paya, Guaymf, andBribri of thc Chibchan family.

(e.9) Rctroftexed fricatives (and alTricates) occur in several MA languages:M-amean, Kaqiobal, Jacaltec, Acatec (Mayan); Guazacapán anA Chiqui-muiilla(Xincan-not contrastive); some Mixean languages; chocho, popolóca (wil-liams & Pierson 1950), Mazatec, Trique, yatzáchi and Guetavla áotr. (btó-manguean); and allophonically in Tarascan. Retroflexed consonants are alsofound to the north in Huichol (allophonica[y), and in yuman.

(e.10) A central vowel, /i/ or /a/, appears in Mixe-Zoqucan; in several Oto-manguean languagcs; in Huave, Xincan, proto-Aztecani ¡n somc Mayan lan.guagc¡ (Proto.Yucatccan, Cholan, and dlalccts ofCakchlquel and eulci¡é)¡ andallophonlcally ln TarBscan, such a vowcl also appoared ¡ir proto-üto-eálóanand perslsts in many Northern uto-Aztecan languages; Jicaquc ¡lso has /i/.

In general, given our restrictions, these considerations of phonemic inven-tories do not serve to define a LA. on the one hand, the traits do not havo apan'Meso-American distribution; on the other hand, it is not possible in mostcases to demonstrate that the presence or absence ofsome phoneme or serie¡has resulted from diffusion. possibly Nahuatl acquired /tl/ fiom its Totonacanneighbors (Proto-uto-Aztecan certainly lacked this sound); and the Kaqiobalanretroflexed fricatives and affricates apparently derive from Mamean influencewithin the_Mayan family-but no sucti featuri is widcty enough distributed todclimit a LA. In a less con¡trained view of areat featuics, ofiourso, somc ofthese.similarities might qualify, given that strlctly locat diffuslon cun alto gointo the creation.of LA's,

we have concentrated here on phonemie contrasts, in part becausc of lim-itations on available information. But of course, subphonemic or allophonictraits are.also subject to diffusion. An exampre is tni nnal devoicing ór ron.orants (§4.11); note also the very widespread phonetic aspiration offi-nal stops(cf. Mayan, Mixe'Zoquean, Pipil, Xincan etc. as welr as Lenca and Jicaquc).

4.2. MonrHo¡-ocrclL AND syNTAcrrc rRA¡Ts. The following ar€ somc gram.matical attributes shared among various MA languages:

MESo.AMERICA As A LINGUI§T¡C AREA 545

(a) Nor'rrNel possEss¡oN. The possession of one noun by another typicafiy \has the form in Má languagesof.ñis-nounr (the) noun¡', meáning .(the);;;;;;; I

T.u.nr'-j.g: Quiché u-g,l:? le: aClá .the mais dog;,'lit, .t¡sl¿oi iÁeñ,: )(This order is the more widespread in MA, but thJeguivalent of-.the norn, ,¿ ,¡n -Llir:i"_r::- dr" occurs.) T{re colstllction is iypical of most MA ¡"rSu"ge;,;; I t ' -can be taken as a diagnostic trait of MA.r The isogloss coincides w¡t-t¡ tñc ilmits!l MA.as it has been defined both curturarty and-ringuisticaily. ir," iáii i, ,rtfound in ou¡ controilanguages just beyond MA; ¡,i., srru an¿ rrrrs[iio ió ir*south lack it, as do Coahuilteco, Tonkawa, and the Uto-Aztccan i;ññ;i;the north. uto'Aztecan seems to confirm both the northern boundar! d¡ih.diffr¡sion of the rrait within MA (cf. Rosenthal¡. ihis possesrir" .o*trr.t¡*in Proto'uto'Aztecan had a pronominal .opy orií," possessor prus an accu-

:1tjT.1a1!:l"n the possessCd noun (e.g. ,¡oñn-rcc his-¿oe; io, Iññ";; J;;i,.¡rnough some uto-Aztecan languages have simpre juxtaposition of the pós-

sessed and possessor without plonóuns. (cf. Lingáckerl Roscntt¡a¡: óu'panlanguages in southern carifornra have rhc "ó"rt.iü"r;rLi'hffi;;!'; ñ r,significant rhar Nahuatr has onry the MA cónsi*"rion;ñi;ri'it *í¡'¡,üthrough contact with other trlA ianguages, ¿ip".t¡ns rro, tti u-t*ei-rc""npatfem. It is also interesting that Cora ánd Huichol,'whi"h t;;;;;ó;;act like.transitional ranguages-ourside of MA;ñi cvidencing a i; ;iiltraits-have a construction intermediatc betwecn the originat uúA"d";;;¿ll. YA.p*}._y, e.g. €ora i nana-ra i pari,the boy;s mott cr', Iit. .the mott.i-nrs me Doy' (Langacker, 89-90).

. io) R.p¡,enon^inornr. Anothcr fcaturc sharod by nearry all Me r¡ngu¡ges 1,is that of rolationat nouns*exprerlng locatü an¿-rc¡"ti.i nóiíonr,-üi;;;: l\pored of a noun root and posiossivc lronomiar "rrx.r. r¡i.i;*.;ñil; Jprepositions in English or spanish. Exampres from-pipil, rur"m, "na

Cñoi.."i(l) Epitn¡¡.ry¿¡ ,with me' (nu- ,my')

mu.wan .wilh you'(nu. ,your')

l-wan,withhim/hcr' (l-,his/t¡cr')(2) Mrm (Engtand, Tt)

il-*'ll.a .on mc. (n. ,my')t.wll'onhlm'(l-'his')n"xaq'.a 'bclow mc't-nq' .bclow hlm' I

.' This porscsslvc constructlon lr rot in facr uniquc to MA; but th8a would ha¡dly bc olpccted,glvcn thc llmited numbcr ofposrcgivc typcs in thc'world'r tanguagcr. Nevcrhclcsr. rhc constn¡c.tion l¡ rare,ctscwhcrc, and ri nor found in ¡tm'¡ immi¿i.rc

".ür,u"n. urr¡n ii¡¡i'roun¡;;ri ¡6

hnguagcs ln hir typc B.t, charectcrizcd by pcnoner porserriic marking of ihc porrorrco noun.An c¡¡minationof.his cxamplcr ¡how¡ mósi to bc qúirc distincr from rrrr ue i"ttc., *t.ii i!¡¡lcnt ch¡rsctcristlc ls possqrivc pronomlnal prcfixei on thc pon*sed noun, Foi crrmprc, iurk.l:1Id th.Iono.hevc ¡uffrxcs; cocopr uscs rflixc' on a vcrb'to havc'; Ewc rnd Albanlan cmployindcpendcnt words ('üc anlmal ltr-foot'), yurok, Wiyot, Iierok, and Ácoma (of Ulten,, ,;;i;;¡¡ wcll ¿¡_curan, Dicgucño, Navqio. end Mcnomini iwt¡ich ¡hourd bc addcd L tr," r..pi-li"í.form! cquivslcnt to '(thc) man hls-houre'¡ but thesc do nor rcflcci thc prcdomina¡tt Me i"türn orporrcrscd prcccdlng porsc*or.

LANCUAGE, VOLUME 62. NUMBER 3 (t986)

(3) Chol (Warkcntin & Scott, 27)k-ik'o¡ 'with mc'(t- ,my')

aw-ik'ot 'with you'(aw- .your')y-lk'ot'with him/hcr' (y.,his/hcr,)

This isogloss coincides with that of nominal possession at the traditional bor.ders of MA. The control languages to the south of MA-Sumu, Mfskito, paya,and Guaymf-do not contain relational nouns, nor do the northern borier lán-guages: Coahuilteco, Tonkawa, Seri, yuman, or Uto-Aztecan. Since proto-Uto-Aztecan had postpositions (Langacke¡,92-3), relational nouns wore ap.parently diffused into Nahuatl. Actually, some uto-Aztecan postpositions arppreserved in Nahuatl as locative suflixes; but these function diffirently fromthe relational nouns, which clearly reflect an innovation to the MA pátt..n.That is, in Nahuatl one says the equivalent of 'his-to my-father' rather than'my-father-to', as would be typical in the UA pattern. Cora, again, appears to

\ be intermedíate; it has the basic uto-Aztecan póstpositional pat[ern wiih nouns,

I e.g. mi-kiyé-hete 'u¡der that tree' (rni- 'that', kiye- ,tree,, -áele .under'); but{ it uses possessive pronominal prefixes, e.g, ta-heté ,under us' (!a- .our';' McMahon, xv), much like the MA pattern. It seems clear, however, that Cora's

MA possessivc pronominal type with pronouns is of recont origin, resuttingfrom postposing the locat¡vc to the pronoun. Thls ls clearer ln Northern Tc.pehuán, where nouns have postpositional locatlva cndings-but pronomlnalforms take the same postposed locative endings, with objective ironominalprefixes. since the object and possessive pronominal prefixes are not distinct,the pronominal locatives are clearly in agreement with the Uto-Aztecan post.positional pattern, with object forms of the pronoun aflixes; but they appearalso to resemble the MA pattern (if the pronominal aflixes are taken ai pos.sessive forms, not distinct from the objective forms; cf. Bascom,3lT-18).Mixe-Zoquean languages are similar, in that they too also contain postpositions(see below).

(c) Vrcesrueu NUMERAL sysrer.r. A counting system based on twenty.is pan.Meso-American. While it is found in virtually every MA language, it has alsoreached a few languages just".beyond the conventional borders of MA, e.g.Coahuilteco, Cora, Mayo, and Northern Tepehuán to the north, and Sumu,Mlskito, and Guayml to the south. Still, it does not extend much beyond MA;it is not known in Yuman tanguages, Seri, or Tonkawa; or Northern Uto.Aztecan languages; or in Chibchan languages (e.g. Bribri). We may concludethat this is also a true MA areal trait which was sufliciently strong to reachslightly beyond lhe conventional boundaries. As noted above, isoglosses typi.cally fail to fall precisely into bundles, but often have varying extensions out-ward from an areal core, r

Tequistlatec presents a representative example (Turner, 360):(4) I anuli 20 anusans (aaa- l, -fan.r,man')

2 o6c7 !0 anuíans glmbamat(?0 + l0l3 alanlz 40 ogc2nulans (2 x 20)4 amalbu? 50 ogc? nulant glmbomaz (Z x 20 + l0)5 amagc? ñ qfanc2 nulant (3 x 20)6 agamtt'tis 80 amalbu? nulons (4 x 20)

MESO.AMERICA AS A LINCU¡STIC AREA

7 agaytsÍ 100 omagc? nulans (5 x 20)8 abaygo 400 anu§ans anulant (20 x 20) I

9 obella 8N ogc? nu§ant anusans (2 x 20 x Z0)l0 imbamaz ctc.

(d) B.rsrc wono oRDER. It seems significant that only non-verb-final languages

9lr-t il MA, although the area is surrounded by SOV languages. MA haI ba-sicVSO (Mixtec, Trique, varieties of Chinantec, varieties oi Zipotec, Mam, Na.huatl etc.); VOS (Xincan, many Mayan languages, Copainaü Zoque, O[omf,another variety of chinantec etc.); and svo (Huave, Mazatec, Tequisüateóetc') southern uto-Aztecan languages characteristically exhibii vsb order;but Proto-Uto.Aztecan was an sOV tanguage (Langackei, 24), and ro

"r" rnorí

of the_other languages bordering MA-c.g. Tonkawa, Coahuilteco, yuman,Seri; Lenca, Jicaque, Mfskito, Sumu, Guáymf, and Bribri. Moreover, somÉcases of clear diffusion seem to be documented within the area; ..g., iin.unand-Pipil apparently acquired VOS order from euichean lCampLetitfZAU¡.

The claim that MA contains no sov languages bears comment, since it hasbeen suggested that the Mixean languages may present a potential counter-example (Bartholomew 1983), Actually, Mlxe-Zoquean tanguages conform tothe MA non-vcrb-final pattern in ways that confiim tho nilc. -That

is, Mixo.Zoquean has ceitain cbnstructlons ty'pical of verb.final languagco, u,g, ñáun+ Postpositions, Adjective * Noun ordcr, and possessor i possessód wordorder. However, the order of the main constituents-the verb and its NounPhrase arguments-is not basically sov. some would interpret such incon-sistent word-order typology as reflecting an earlier verb-finaforder; but evenso, the fact that Mixe-Zoquean now departs from that postulated sov orderconfirms the MA trait. Thus the typical Zoquean language (e.g. CopainaláZoque) is VOS; one might suspect departure from supposed earlier (S)OV tothis order under the influence of neighboring VOS Maian languages.

'

More at issue is the basic word order in Mixean languages. Bartholomew 19)sees it this way:

' 'Zoquc[an] languagar tcnd lo hevc the objcct ¡fter.thc verb. Mixc[anl docs not havq the crgativesuflix on thc noun and thcreforc hár to ulc oth¿r stráacglcr toidcntify lhc grammaticai roleofa noun phrasc. Thcrc aeems to bc romcthing ofe prcfircncc ro hav; thc óbjcct bcforc thcverb,'

she actually presents no clear evidence for sov languages; but she believescoatlán (oaxaca) Mixe to have relatively free word ordei, with cases of bothsvo and sov orders. while the limited coatlán data available to us have no§_O-V- examples (Hoogshagen 1984), an inspection of Tlahuitoltepec Mixe (Lyon1980) suggests that the sov interpretation is not accurate. Tlahuitoltepec ien-tences are mainly VSO:

. (5) yíkzompihk mani: ni:., heated Maria water

'Maria heated water.'

SOV occurs only as a marked, non-basic order when the particle ri'already'(perfective) is present. Compare exx. 6a-b with 7a-b:

IL

\,

51S LANOUAGE, VOLUME 62, NUMBER 3 (¡9E6)

(6) a. li kwo:n tihk tpo:pi,already Juan house whitened

'Juan already whitened the house.'b. kwo:n ic n?uk ti syíktohkiyi.

Juan my dog already killed'Juan alrcady killcd my dog.'

(7) a. ylk?atuhk kwo:n tthk.closed Juan house

'Juan closed the door.'b, yikmq?2s?hk maní: ma§2u?nk,

cause,to.sleep Maria baby'Maria put the baby to sleep.'

The (s)ov examples cited by Bartholomew for coatlán Mixe occur with thesame li seen in Tlahuitoltepec:

(8) a. ld jücy?aay adzimbijctdy ma tócy,pEnF tobacco.lcaf wrap.in.bundle uoc mat

'He wrapped tobacco lcavos in a strBw mat,'b, ,i cuhuay mooc mucxy,

prRr horse corn chewed,up'The horse chewed up the corn.'

Hoogshagen (13) cites only two relevant Coattán examples, both SVO:(9) a. he ?u¡deh:ty ti ymo?sy j?yg he li:k.

the father pF gave his.son the toyb. he tatpi:t he pi?k?anap ak he kisy yahmo?oy he l<way.

the older.man the boy to the girl cause.to,give the horse'The older man causcd the boy to give the girt the horse.'

MESO.AMERICA AS A LINOUIST¡C AREA 549

a reflex of MA basic word order more than of areal diffusion (cf. Jacobsen1967), This bears more study.

(Q Ixrmere possEss¡oN. Typically, kinship terms and body parts are inti-mately possessed (either do not occur unpossessed, or require special mor.phological marking when unpossessed) in MA languages. Sincc this feature ischarsctcr¡stie-of many languagcs throughout thc Amoricas, it io not particularlyy9ctul for definlng a LA in MA. Thc tcrm ,inallcnablc' ir wldoly uicd for thisklnd ofpossasslon, but it is semantlcally inapproprlate.

(g) Locenvrs DBRTVED FRoM EoDy penrs. Locative words in many MA lan-guages are derived in a rather dircct and obviou¡ way from body parts, e.g. inMayan, Mixe-Zoquean, Totonac, Tlapanec (schultze,Z4S),Otomanguean, iar-ascan, and Nahuatl:

(10) a, Mixtcc (Alcxandcr, 79)Cfá, 'stomach; ln(¡ide), undcr',ñ, 'hc¡t; ln, insidc'nru 'facc; to, ¡t, from'll¡f 'back; bchind'

b, Cakchlquelpan 'rtomach; ln, ln¡ldo'-él 'mouthi ro, in, rl'.¿¡ 'b¡ck; bchlnd'-\)l 'head.hair; on, on top of,

Actually, it is natural and common for languages to have a relationship betweenbody parts and locative notions, as in Eng. at the head of, at the loot of, atthe mouth of, in back of etc. Nevelheless, Meso.Americanists havEnoted thatMA languages seem to share something beyond these ordinary associations:locative constructions which maintain their nominal character (sec relationalnouns above) but involve semantis associations not usually found in other partsof the world, e,g, 'stomach' for 'in', 'tooth' for .to, at' etc. In spite oi thisfeeling of something pcculiar being shared in MA tanguages, it cannot be shownthat the trait is diffuscd, and it is possible that some óftñese associations resultfrom universal tendencies. Thus, while it coincides in somc ways with otherMA features, it is not sufliciently free of complications to be uscd for defininga LA.

(h) AasolunvB AFF¡xEs. §ome MA languages have a nominal sullix calledthé'absolutive', bornc by nouns that have no other aflix, e.g. Nahuatl ttaskal-Ii 'tortilla-rns' , no-tlaskal 'my-tortilla'; Quiché xolonr-a,x .hJad-ess'

, a-xolo:m'your'head'. The 'absolutive' suflix has no real semantic content, but occurso¡l nouns which are othcrwlse morphologically isolated-i,o. show no otheraffixes. In MA, most Mayan languages have an absolutive, as does N¡huatl.These are not really cquivalent, however: thus, in euiché, the so-cailcd ab-solutive suflix occurs only on a ccrtain class of otherwise intimately possessednouns, but in Nahuatl the absolutive is much more generat, occurring with mostnouns when they bear no other aflixes, In the key languages surrounding MA,arl absolutive is found in Paya and the Misumalpan languágcs on the soúthernborder, and in the Uto-Aztecan languages to úo north. This tmit is not sig.nificant as an areal feature, since its distribution is very limited within MÁ,

We concludc that Mixean is xor a counter-cxample to MA non-verb-finalpattern, since SOV !¡iapfnrently¡.am:ked non-basic ordc! in these languages.None of the Mixe-áquean languages tras sov uasffistituents-the verb and its nominal argument§.

An interesting case in the opposite direction is Chichimeco Jonaz, an Oto-manguean language with SOV order. While all other Otomanguean languagcsare spoken within MA (and have non-verb.final order), Chichlmeco Jonaz isspoken in Guanajuato, outside MA, It may have acquired its SOV order fromneighboring languages beyond the borders of MA; if so, it is the exccptionwhich confirms the rule.

The isogloss temarcating non.vcrb.final languages is thus d¡agnostic of MA,and is valuablc for defining the LA.

(e) Aesexcr op sw¡rcn-REFEne¡¡cs. The languages surrounding MA on bothsides have switch-reference-not found in any MA language, úut known inCoahuilteco (cf, Troike), Seri, Yuman, and Jicaque. The absence of switch-referencc coincides with MA; thus one might conclude that this constitutes anadditional isogloss diagnostic of the LA, However, in view of the hypothesisthat switsh-reference cxists only in SOV tanguages, its absence in MÁmay bc

url!, -lr ! :,u : ! r : L' t wo d e e¡' (' t wo-ani mar deer, )éa?-p'ehl hab, ;two r*.r; «i*"rf,'ir, ,i"'ii

üii::iü:?fi lü:ñr#*fxffih*t*:iiili"iiüi{,;.1:1qy¡.r,,.ffi flTilIíl:?;{üñ;;ii.l',i.Ji}$áñ:ilili:r,ü:."!,i,:Sil,:j,"j",$however, the dis tributio;ti; f; illl'l-tl:Yy:l r"riti,

"i. H"p¡.iil"id;6íll:lyl somc of thcse

""r", *"y

1,"":ifji,T,$:::,,y***,lgii:.i":iÉ1tffi y;,!l#..,flI,iI jí",,1:areal way. Also, noun al, ::"" ¡!"¡ ¡r rvv tlrat¡c to.De §¡gnificant in a pan-seem to deveton ",.,,. .-fill1lion, sv.1reps. borh with ,n¿-*iif,*i ffiJ,;;;;:il: I jff 1"j;":,,f ti]:::i.-1,^:illilr*dJ :Hfl ;illi:T#,ffiÍ:of the world-é.g. in Árri-

"'-v-vv¡¡sv¡rrrv rII tanguage, and exi§t in many partsparts of the Americaq ,,",1?,111'j'sou-theast

Asia' Australia, er.¡.", "ii íü.l.

i?lii,i, r h e A me ricas (i ncr u d i ná' il;ñ ü?,ff ,,JiJilálT.ál, lI *l X,.,i

(k) Noux ¡NcoRpoRAr¡oI:goT..ya languages ha.ve noun incorporation, aconstrucrion by which a nominal object ma;;;;". o,.r.r,y into a verb stem.(12) Nahuatla, ni_k-éi:wa tlaskal-ti._ I-itJ-make tortilla-essb. ni-tlaskat-éí..pa .I make tortillas,.

I+ortilla-make(13) Yucatec

a, bin_é,ak-ah ée2,esp-I.cut-surr wood

b. é,ak-ée?-n-ah_en .I cut wood,., cut-wood-¡xrR_surr-I

MESO.AMERICA AS A LINGUIST¡C AREA 55I

In MA this trait occurs in yucatec, Mam, Mixe-Zoquean, Mixtec, Trique,Totonac, and Nahuatl,It'is possible that the trait is diffused in some cases; probabry yucatec bor-rowed it from Mixe'zoouean..Howev.r, ¡t aoe. not meet our strict criteria forareat considerations. Its distribuiion ;iúii"ü;'i, roo rimited, and it occurswidely in American Indian rargu"g* ouitiJ" üa «"r. Kroeber r910, sapir r9t r)and elsewhere in rhe world tú¡tr,irn iti4)r-

"" "'(l) Boov-rnnr ¡NcoRpoRATrOx. Rerated to noun incorporation is the incor-poration of speciar forms of body-p;;ii;;; ¡n"ti. u"ru-rometimes as directobjells, more frequentty as instrume;ht;:itpt¡;;s many such cases:

(14) tan-lan.to bite'_(fan- ,tooth', -kwa .to eat,)

iksiahsi,!o reach, overtake, (*fr. .f*tl -ri.hri ,to arrive,)ma:-tu:ka ,to touch, feel, (ma_ ,hand,, _ru:ka.to p¡ánt, ü,íry,lmu-yaka-pitsa.to blow one's nose' 1^r_ ^ur,

-yaka ;nosei,,-pirsa, .to blow')

§ome Mixtec examples (Alexander, 49) are:(15) kata-xézé ,will dance' (kata,willsing,, xé2á .foot,),, éunda?á.wiil push' (from éu?un.*iii i,ri,,-E6ilíio"4,¡.

!,ody'p-art incorporation is found in Nahuatr, rotopr", Tarascari, olxaca Mixesigrrl-P.onolyca (and Mixe-7nqr."" e.r.iaüi;-rqüü;;;5#; :'6i::side MA, it is found wiaety in'wesiei;-ñ;;;i'l;.rica, e.g. in yuman, Uto_Aztecan, Maiduan, Washo, S.h1rl1, e"f,"r"*i[i eruer 1976:125); and to thesouth, perhaps in Mfskito and Bribri.This trait has the same limitations as object noun incorporation; it is rimitedwithin MA, and we[-known.¡n raniü"ñáüirá""'tr,. arca. It ic thorcforc oflittlp vatue in MA areal cons¡acraiiinsl

, (m) D¡necr¡oxe¡. Ar.rx¡s. severar MA ranguages have verbar aflixes whichindicate direction, typicafiy,toward, ;;'t;;;H;, the speaker:(16) Nahuatt

neé-wa:l.kwi in tlaskat-ti,me-hither-take the tortilla.eas

'He brings me the tortillas.,(17) Cakchiquel

y-e-b,e-n-kamtsaxesr-thcm-away.I-kill

i 'I'm going there to kil¡ them.,§ome of these are Cakchiquet, euiché, Tequistlatec, Mixe-Zoquean, Totonac,several Otomanguean languages (e.g. Ot"*0,

"rJñahuatl.rnr§ rrart too is found with considerabre frequency in ranguages outsideMA-e.g. Cora, Tonkaw":I?p-p:, wi"i", i""" i§i erzer 1976:tZ6), euechua,and cashinahua (Montag rrtr:izl-s¡-""iiir ,i[iruurion within MA is norgeneral.

(n) vensnL espEcr. AsDect is retativery more important than tense in manyMA 'anguages,

e.g. Mayan, il"p""*, M;'^ü'ililiec, and scverat orher oto-

550 LANcuAoE, VOLUME 62, NUMBER 3 (t9só)

anrr it is arso [ound outsitre the area, Arso, there is no evidence that it is diffused,gr ven.rhat the ranguages "ont"ining

¡t u-.;'"o,"¡,i lor,*,.(i) Assrxcr oF ,pLUnrL, ,^"*r*, o* _;;;;: in ,"n, MA tanguages, the'plural' is either totallv lacking ",

i, ¡¡riüoii";rr"., nouns. But this is notffll"ltill: 1l.areal conside'!,i"".,''i'.i'il"l'J,n*

American rndian ran.

"r9l"I;lÍf Tillli,lff I'- In several MA tanguages,. nouns arter numbers

3:Hj...*"f;r**1,ñ?"'.il:l;T;;':iJli;:i*:*X$Iru.",.lf(ll) a. yucatec (Tozzer, t03)

hun-ku:l ,ée,?,one tree, (,one-plant tree,)ka t - k u : I h 2 as..,.tw o ba;; ;üisl' {

:t*o-plrrt banana, )o § - t ú : I w i n i k,

.,th ree men' i-. tlhñi_o*\^r rn.n, Ikat_t ú :l pé :k.,,.two dogs, i.i*"_^i,""a"g,¡

o§-p, é :t _ ]!*:^lgri-.r,.f ;ir,ir._in^"

house,)b. Tzeltal (Kaufman l97l:100)2os lehé te?,,,three plunis, 1,th."e flat.thing wood,)zos khk te?,three i...r; f ir,.".lilt wooo,)lahun k,as si2 ,ten .trriLr'"i i*,firewood') t'ood' ('ten broken-thing

c, Chol (Aulie)

't552 LANCUACE, VoLuME 62, NUMBER 3 (t986)

iHlf ,'::Xi:::;'"1iT:ilü:tiffi ffi il"i,::,Ifi iil,fl ,,:?ffi:,#;il.":seyell other MA languages ¡"u. .troig't"rl.".vr,"*r,

*l?.j:fit'¿iv§' ExcLUsrvE. The pronomina¡ sy§tems of severat MA tan-nánáez'e6;i,ó;;i;il,1,ti1'il,;lif

tT:¡,,tJ.".".",popoioü'r-*üü.^rr".-:l',"§!,ilii¿;ig"y;::*i;il'ffi ;,"":::r¿,]i,lí.,iliÍilT:JiTili;

(18) g¡o¡ (Warkcntin & scorr, 29)honon la,we. (inclusivi)

.--. _ honon lohon.wc, lexcluiivc)(19) Cop¡inetá.Zo3uc (H¡niion abarcf¡, 4r7)í .our. (lnetu¡ivc) -' -. ,.our' (cxcluslvc)

(20) Huavc (Srair¡, 296)ikora . wc, (subjcct cxclusivc)r&or ,us' (objict cxclusive)iko :1a.. w.c, (subjcct inclusivc)rto;ú .us' (objcct inclusivc)

whire some of these may have acquired the contrast by diffusíon, it is rera-tivety easv for such a distincrion rJ¿;;üffi;endenrry (cf. Robertson r9B3for such an explanation or tr,e rri"yai ;:j:"fi, rrait is both limited withinMA, and common oursiderhe are"i!.ilir',iír,.ü1¡kito_, Bribri, euechua, Ay_mara, and many others have.such,i """t.".ii'¡iiher"fo.e does not meet ourrigid requirements as an areal feature ái ñ:' "

(p) 'Zeno'copul¡. A:qüátionarcoi;ñ;ffi,fi;!.:rr,.,jlJiüff *1,1.fl H,;rffi:r#:::ixQuiché saq te: xa:h.The hou.se i, ilii;itii"üiiü,n" house,), a:x_kar te aéih'The man is a fisherman,.0it. :isrr'eñ")i'ii.

iir,ii,,l. Thc great frequencv ofí'J[J,"ir,il";Lll'.J;írfljl,l",ru".r.,, ¡;'.üil; ffi, A-me.rican rndian tongues,

"r.H.b;;;;;i;;:il:ü,*"-§;Jil,f [",T,,fi..:l:i1Ti,:ía;;ffi ,rX*:;ffi ,

(q) Pnoxor*¡¡xnL copuLAR-CoNsTRUCT¡oNs, A copurar construction with pro.nominal subjects rakes the f"-r-r.;itn.';iil;rcL"#, ,lu, a pronominat affix in:fl#iffi:fii'ff fi [ ::i.' ii*.ni i ñá -i i ii'Iil'

" m1n, (rit., man-r, ), ¡.rq.a,'y"**fl"ii.i,;i;iüJfi X[:]U jJl'lí-*,"Í,,,n,"#,1i,:*m:it:

n-ondá?a,I'm a devit, rjit. r-¿ev¡1,; iu;;., id. Ltr"r"h.r, in MA, this coi]structíon occurs in Mavan, Nahuat,: doci;, cilninr.., Mazarec, otomf, oa.xaca.Mixe, oluta Éopóluca, anu sayuia püü.It is diflicutt ro evaiuate rhe areat íiár;.;;;;;this feature property. Never-rheless' we have insufricient ..r¡¿"nr.-tl-¿";"d;," that it is shared by dif-rusron; and its disrriburion, to tt r .ii"nt ti", ¡iJi,it. o",ermined, is not general

l[".rrr.Tr, MA. Therefore ¡t ¡s saiesi'ioü;ürH:. it significant for defining

(r) Ause¡¡ce oF A ,ERB ,To HAvE,. Absence of a verb of possession .to

have,has been suggesred as an arear r..il;;ü1.',í.rl*,tanguages have a con-

I MEso.AMER¡CA As A LtNcutslc AREA js3

struction equivalcnt to'is',-'there is', or'exists' ptus a possessed noun, as inCakchiquel; k'o xun nu.O,t?.I have a dog. (lit. .litrere] is on",ny-Jog;i,if,i,occurs in Mayan (but not Huastec), Mj¡q?gggjp, Teqlistlatec, X¡r"ir, Cfrii-sntec, ¡\{azatec, and rrique. some languá!-crif,it have a ,.rb'correspón¿iruto 'to.have' are Nahuatl, Huave, Huasteó, and Mixtec. rhc ausenci-oi.6have' is common in the world (e.g. in Finnish, Tamil, Sango,

""á OiJl*f,_

cf' ultan); and its distribution in MA is so incomplete tr,"t-¡t ""n

r,"ray-.o"",as a significant areal trait.

. 4.3.1-§¡¡'rexr¡c cALeuEs oR LoAN TRANsLATtoNs. It has becn obocrvcd, c.g.by-smith-§tark 1982, tiat many compound words, and words t¡av¡n¡ muitiiicreterents' arc shared in MA langua¡es through loan translations, Thcixampieswhich have been noted are givén ¡n taUlo tl

?/L d.*r ?J tt

l. door: mouth ofhousc2, b¡rk: sklnrtack of trce3. knec: hcad oflcg4. wrist: ncck of h¡nd5. calf: cxocmcnt/bclly of lcg6. cyc: fruilsccd/bcan offscc7. bilc: bitrcrE. fingcri qhild of hand9, bo¡ constríctoi: d¿cr.snakc

10. moon: grandmolhcrll, ring: coyol palm-hand12. witch: owl, ¡lcsp(cr)13. cramp: (associatcd in somc way with)

dccrll, ficsta, ccrcmony: (big) day15. root¡ hair of tre¿16. twenly: man17, limc: (stonc.)ash18. cgg: rtonc/bonc of bird

^19. wifcl intimatcly posscsscd'woman'20. porcuplnc: thorn-opposum, thornjion,

thorn.pcccary, thorn.plg21. cougar: rcdJaguar22. antcslcfi honcy sucker, suck honcy

30. bladdcr: housc (of) urlnc31. vcin: roed (ofblood)32, c¡ninc toothi dog-tooth, ¡n¡kc.tooth33. mol¡r: grindstonc (mctatc)3,1, cdge: mouth35. lhumb: mothcr of hand36. mano (ofmctatc): h¡nd/child ofmetatc37, poor: orphan, widow3E. rolnbow: lnakc, cougar, turtlc, ¡quirrel,

or wca¡cl39. ottcr: w¡tcrdog, water-fo¡40. ccdar: god trcc41, mcdicinq: liquo¡, poison,12. to curc¡ to ruck (to lmokc)43. patrxtc (non-domesticeted cacao)l tigcr-

cacro (aguar-cacao)44, town: watcr-mounl¡in \4J. sootr nosdmucus offirc46. to writc: to psint, to stdpe '/.17. to ¡c¡d: to look, to couni, to ¡hout /.18. rlivc: ¡wakc.19. ¡on ¡nd druShtcr: m¡n's ¡rc

d¡rt¡nguishcd, but a rlnglc tcrm forwoman'¡

23, to kis¡: to suck 50. hcad: bottlc gourd (tccom¡tc) ^24. to ¡moke: to suck 51. thirst: watcr.die

25. branch: rrm (of trcc) j2, necd: want, bc wantcd26. tomarry: to join, to find 53, cnter: house-cnter _ r'/

, 27, golürilvcr: axcrcmcnt of sury'god J4. cockroach: contaln¡ thi root for ,house,,

r2E, ccliprc: o¡t thc run/moon; thJ¡u¡y'moon -- ;fu compoundcd with ,ln, or

dies; sun/moon lo rot romcthinjequivalcnt29. corsl ¡nake: mothcrofdrivcr¡nt jj. fc¡thcr: fur

Trs¿¿ t,

smith-stark has shown that many of these calques have a limited distributionwithin MA; somc are found in very few tanguages (e.g, .root: hair of tree;),Ncvertheless, of the 52 cases which he examined lsomJof them arc combinedunder a single number here, and others which he did not consider have been

J54 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 62, NUMBER 3 (1986)

added), he found that rhe foilowing are widety distributed, and coincide withthe borders of MA:

Í") '5n"", !e{ of leg'. one might suspect that this semantic association isnaturat enough for rhis proposed iarque'to trave aeveropir ú, ñ;;lñü;.-theless, the association was ñot found ¡; smirh-c;rk" "o,itior

iJ"gü.g"r:;;i*on the borders of MA or bcyond;this sutg;;tslhat it is indeed a varid arearborrowing.(b) 'Boa constricto* deer-snake'. The association ofdeer with snake seemsarbitrary enough to conclu.de tn"t tt is i.gitira-teilienects Ua areal interaction.(c) 'Lime: ash, stone-ash'. Given tt.iro.r,-i, ,t"t"ai" *"i"iri,h i;;;:r.it is available (e.g. highrands), uut *iirr

"r¡.s'eLeüne.e, to soften it forgrinding,it is not too surprising to find a r¡ngu¡st¡c association between the two. Thiscalque, then, derives from curturar ráctr

"uoui tle.p-reparation of corn in MA,and for that reason is established

", u .trong "i"i f"atrr".(d)'wrist: neck of hand'. Arrhougrr itisiot Jifrññ i; imagine a naturalconnection here, such an associatiorn ir *t ioun¿'¡.

-sritr,:§i"ir.'i.iiiirllanguages. This is then an areal trait.

(e) 'Egg: stone of bird, bone of bird'. This is another carque found onry inMA, and thus an areal feature of MA.(f)'vein: road (of brood)'. It isarso possibre to imagine this semantic con-

lect!9n developing indepen{!ntry, uut *i. "rrá.iation

does not appear in smith-Stark's.controllanguagés.6 This'too, tt.i,l, "

üa areat featurc.(9, 'Molar: gr¡ndstonc (metate)'. Again, it is possible to imagine ihis semantioassociation developing from the natüre óf ttu't* oUr"ir. ñ.r.i;il;;'ü.connection seems specificaily MA, not 6.i.g iouia in smiir,-sü.[tiJii."rlanguages,(h) 'Edge: mouth'. This association is arso found tfrroughout MA and not inthe controt tanguages, though one *rú ;;;; üH l";;ffi ;;ffi.H;,Still, given irs distriburion,'it i, u f.uir;J;i.iví;,-"

. (i) 'Thumb: mother of hand'; 'Finger: .hrh ; hand'. These semantic asso-ciations seem suflicientrv arbitrary ro-rrppárt tñ. üA

"..", given that they arefound throughout MA but not in it".oit?áil;;;;;8.r.,

0) 'Gold or silver: sod-excrement, rrn-.*".i'r"ñt., rnis carque is creartyMA and not the result of accident,(k) 'Alive: awake'. This. sem-antic relatipnship could perhaps result fromchance; but distribution within MA, and

";i;;ir;á", makes it,.áá "

rcgiirr"i,areal feature.(l) 'To1!i water-mountain'. The distribution of this roan transration fits

ó But in south America, cavincña (Kcy 1963) and sirionó (schcrmair t957) appcar to,havc thecquivalent of 'blood-road' for .vein'.

'Comparc South American Cashibo (Shcll 1965), whcrc .mourh, and.edgc,arc rctatcd.I sec rhc discu¡sion rn Brown.&.wrtkowrkr rgEr of 'pcoprc, - ,drgrt, mcr¡phors. Thcy frnd twoof23 North Amcricrn languages lo havc rtrc,t¡umb' - ,"oiilr'in¿,nnger, - ,ch[d,issoclatlon¡itn south America, one of rcn ranguages has tr¡e formii,-r;;;;i ü;"il" r",üi.'wl]üi'¡,i'iiiconrtruction is pcrheps a bit more spccrfic as .'not¡,.rl"r,iri oiian¿', ttresc caiii'";l;;;;;;;in mind in cvaluatíng this calquc.

7.- MESO-AMERICA AS A LINGUISTIC AREA 555

I Smittr-Starf's requirements of occurring in various extremes of the MA geo-

\ sraphical area, found in such languages as Nahuatl, Pochutec (Boas l9l7), 4VOluta Popoluca, Sayula Popoluca, (Sierra) Totonac, and Mazatec.(m)'Porcupine: thorn-opossum', or'thorn' plus some other animal. Although

, this distribution makes it seem areal, we cannot rule out that the semanticconnections derive from the physical character 0fthe animal. Eng. porcupineis ultimately from 'pig' + 'thorn'; Spanish forms such as puerco espín'pigthorn' and zorro espln'fox thorn' attest rec€nt formations, Perhaps, then, thisfeature is to be given less credibility areally, even though its distribution isappropriate for such an interpretation.

Taken as a group, these calques constitute strong evidence ofdlffusion withinand throughout thp MA linguistic arca.

Most of the MA traits listed above are shown in Table 2 (pp. 556-7). A'plus'means the language has the trait, a'minus'indicates its absence. A questionmark means that available evidence suggests the plus or minus given, but doesnot demonstrate it conclusively. Parentheses indicate that the language has thetrait as indicated, but perhaps not in its canonical pattern-i.e. perhaps withoccurence limited to certain constructions or particular dialects. A blankmeans that no information is available in the sources consulted (listed in thekey to Map l).

5. MA ¡N suMMARy. §o far we have considered areal linguistics in general,and some circumstantialist traits that havc been proposed in favor of a LA inMA; We now hopc to com€ to somo conclusions. Many of the circumstantialistfeaturcs have turned out not to meet our tight constraints for defining a LA:they were either too restricted in their distribution, or were amply attestedbeyond the area. In several cases, the historical information available is in-suflicient to demonstrate borrowing; but in other cases, fortunately, the his-torical evidence is clear. For example, Proto-Uto-Aztecan is sufliciently well-known to make clear when Nahuatl has changed to become more MA. Thecomparative evidence for several other language families is also suflicient todetermine borrowing in individual cases, as discussed above.

After careful scrutiny, five features are found to encompass the traditionalMA area so conventionally defined by both linguists and anthropologists. Theseare:

Nominal possession (of the type his-dog the man). '¿Relational nouns. /

Non-verb-final basic word order, to which absence of switch-reference Xis correlated.

(e) Several widespread semantic calques. /ln effoct, these five ieogto¡ses coincidc at the bordcrs of MA-cxcept for

vigesimal numbering, which cxtcnds a bit bcyond, For somc scholarg, a singleshared trait would havc been suflicient to define a LA, ln our study, fiveisoglosses enclose the area and bundle at its borders. This constitutes extremelystrong evidence for, and confirmation of, MA as a LA.

Su?vo ?o'.

(a)(b)(c)(d)

\i"--L-,ii i

o

++

- {+)

T6t¡E - SOV- -

Mfrtib + sov§mhv.GeyolBnt i

:: +§ov

+ SOY

- sov

lrao

tt,Fo

v,

rzor¡-o

T¡¡re 2. Numbc¡cd coluos rtGr to thc foltowing fcaturcs:l. Nominal pocscssioa ('hir-N rhc N')2. Rclational nouns3. Vigcsimat trumcral systces4. Basic word ordcn no SOV ordcrs5. Abscncc of swirch-rcfcrcocc

16. Inalicnablc posscss¡oof body-part and kin tcrms7. I-ocativcs dcrivcd ñoo body partsE. Ab¡olutivc aominal rÍixsc9. Abscncc or limi¿d osrcoe of 'plural' markcs oo nol¡ns

-10. Numcral classific¡stt. Noua iacorporarioa12. Body-paf incorpont¡Ei3. Vcrbal dirccrional afircst4.'Aspcct' morc impoí¿ilrhan'tensc'lJ. I¡clusivc vs. cxclu§vc ¡xmrinal forms16. 'Zcro'copula

17. Pronominal copular coasrrrctions witi a6xcslE. Abscncc ofa vcrü'tot¡yc'19. F¡nal dcvoiciog of soooraats20. Voicing of obstrucnrs .frcr nasals21. Vowcfharmooy22. Prescocc ofthc strrssrxlc: V+ ú/ a(v)*23. Coatrastivc voic€d stopc2,1. Contrastivc voicd fricativcs25. Prcscacc of thc hrcrd rfticatc (rI)26. Prcscocc of uvulao (q ctc.)27. P¡esc¡rcc ofaspir.¡.d sto?s a¡td atr¡icetcs2E. Pr,csc¡cc of gtottalizd consonanr29. Contrastivc tonc¡30. Prcsc¡cc of rctrollc¡ed&icativcs (and affricat6)31. Prcscnc¿ of a ccntral vowcl (tíl ot lC)

{

558 LANGUAOE, VOLUME 62, NUMBER 3 (¡986)

However, if we look at MA in a more conventional way-without the strongdistributional restrictions which we imposed above-then MA has much morisupport as a LA. That is, typical LA's such as south Asia and thg Balkans(considered below) are charactcrized by different sorts ofdiffusion. Some arerestricted locally, and do not extend throughout the area; some reach beyondthe borders of the area; some overlap, or show criss-crossing.isoglosses iromother LA's. Having established the legitimacy of MA as a LA on rhe bases ofstrict criteria, we feel it safe to re-assess certain of the traits discussed, con-sidering them to provide further support for MA as a LA to the extent thatthey have been diffused acroes languagc boundarios. The aggrcgato of guchfeatures in fact corosponds to the situation in other egt¡btiit¡cá LA's. wcsuqgest that the following trait§ l¡§ted in Table 2 lend supplementary supportto MA as a LA, either becausé they appear demonstrably diffused in sómeinstances or because their peculiar character is broadly MAin nature! 7,g,lo,15, t7, lg, 20,22,30.

While we have limited ourselves to structural features, many MA languagesalso share traits that are perhaps better considered part of an ethnography ofcommunication than of a formal grammar-so-called'sprechbund'-featuies.Among these are the particularly MA form of rituat language with paired se-mantic couplets, called, huehuetlatolli in Nahuatl and ¡,ono:x in eulcne (ctOcuilteco, Pipil, Xincari, all Mayan languages, Mixe.Zoquean); whis-tle speech(Mazatec, some Zapotec varietics, Mopán, some Nahuatl dialects, Totonacdialeci.s); reverential or polite vs. familiar contrast for 2nd person address (Na.huatl, Quiché, Sipacapeño, Mam, Aguacatec, Ixil, Mixtei).

Also, since we have taken LA's to be characterized by diffused structuraltraits, as most arealists do (cf. Klagstad 19631180), we have totally neglectedany mention of lexical borrowing. However, the existence of such borrowingis quite natural within LA's. lf we include Trubetzkoy's (1928:18) notion thatLA's offer 'eine grosse Anzahl gemeinsamer Kulturwórter' as part of theirdefining characteristics, then MA fares well. For studies of widispread loanwords in MA, cf Campbell t976, t978b, Campbell & Kaufman 1976, Justesonet al. t985, and Kaufman 1976, 1980. Thus Sprcchbund features and widespreadloan words circumstantially strengthen our faith in MA as a LA.

This conclusion that MA is a 'strong' LA reflects our approach to definingLA's in terms of their strength, determined by the number and weight of sharedtraits. The true strength of MA, with five bundling isoglosses, can be under-stood only when MA is seen in comparison with the best.established LA's inthe literature, i.e. the Balkans and South Asia. Obviously a detailed treatmentof these two areas is far beyond the scope of this paper; nevertheless, someconsideration is important in order to see just how strong MA is as a LA,

6. Coupen¡soN w¡tu THE Bn¡-xeNs aNo Souru As¡e. Thc languages whichbelong to the Balkan area are Rumanian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Albanian,Creek, and perhaps Serbo-Croatian. Turkish, though not a member of the LA,also shares some Balkan areal traits. In Albanian, a member of the LA, theGeg (northern) dialect shares fewer Balkan areal traits than the Tosk (southern)

MESO.AMER¡CA AS A LINGUISTIC AREA 559

dialect. serbo-croatian is controversial, in that some include it here, but othershold it to be a non-member (cf. Joseph, l3l, 147; Comrie l9g¡t'l9g). ThusKlagstad (179) includes serbian (and rurkish), but excrudes croatian. Thi. *u,ryuqfly the position of Weigand (192j:8), who regarded Greek, Serbian, and

lurkis.h as Balkan languages geographically, but not linguistically, simiiarly,oeorgiev (1977:9) recognizes 'core' Balkan languages, w¡th tno same thróervhich'restaient a la périphérie'. schaller (197i:lOi) lists Greek and serbo.croatian not as 'first level', but rather as 'second level' Balkan languages, withTurkish at a third level. Birnbaum (1965:20) includes serbo-croatian oñlyi.on-ditlonally', §cholar¡ gcnerally malntaln that serblan has morc BElkañ char.¡ctcristics than croatlan. A¡cnova (19?7:29) and sarah rhomason tp.c.l ¡ol¿the Torlak dialects of serbian to be genuine .oir s.il

"n. rrr. ioiliit¡ri i..-

tures, usually aicepted as characteristic of the Balkan area, are scruti-nizedlike those of MA:

(a) A ceNrneu vowrl (/i/) or (tal). This is not found in Greek or standard$acedonian, though it is in some Macedonian dialects.

I (b) vowel HARMoNy (or umlaut). This trait's history is clear in Rumanian,Bulgarian, and Greek, where a stressed vower has been influenced uy *re st.ess.less. vo-wel of the following syllable (e,g. Rum. o > o¿ before

" nonln¡gt

"o*.tin the following syllable; othcrwisÉ it stays o; Alb, u ) /l and a > ,-with I inthc post'st¡essed syllable; Bulgarian shows an alternation between ly"l

"no-/e/ under similar conditions). These changes are sufliciently o¡nerent ínineseIanguages, and are natural and widespread enough, to allów independent in-novation to compete with the proposed areal expianation,' (c) svNcnrr¡sM oF DAT¡VE AND o'Nrrrv,. rn Burgarian, Arbanian, Rumanian,

and Greek, the dative and genitive have fused in fórm and function. while thiái§ generally considered a strong areat feature, such syncretism is not unusual.For example,-many languages have possessive constructions where genitiveand locative functions alternate-e.g. 'John's bicycle is' or .To/at lJhn is abicycle' for'John has a bicycle' (cf. últan). As Josiph (241) puts it, .ttre oative/genitive qerqcr... surely must be viewed within the contexi of a general driftwithin-lndo-European away from highly developert synthetic carJ syrt"*r_vie.wed from such a perspective, thé cbnuerg"nce is perhaps roriln"i l.rtslriking.'j 1o¡ r"osrro.rD

^RrrcLE. with the exception of Greek, Barkan languages post.

pose the definite article; this is perhaps the best-known Balkan fiature.-It isnot unique; cf. the Scandinavian tanguages.

(e) PrnrrHusrrc FUruRE. Balkan languages have periphrastic futures withan auxiliary verb corresponding to 'wantt or ihave'. such a feature could evolveindependently without difliculty, as it did in English ('future' from a verb thatmeant 'to want') and Vulgar Latin (from habere.to have').

(f) Penrngnesrrc pERFEcr. Except for Burgarian (and Macedonían?), Barkanlanguages.have a periphrastic perfect with an auxiiiary verb correspánding to'have'. Historical evidence suggests that this is a boriowing in crúr ana-Al-!'anian, probably from Latin. This same construction has diffused throughoutmuch of Europe. superficial similarity between Macedonian and Albaniañ per.

i1

560 LANGUAOE, VOLUME 62, NUMBER 3 (1986)

fects formed wíth the verb.,have'have long been pointed out; however, ,theserorms funcrion in an entirerv díssimirar;;;i; ihe hie;;i;i;.r

".i"ri.r"r,of verbal categories in theii respectíve rangu-uge'systems, with the resurt thatthe forms are superficiary comjarabreuui iñ."rvrt*s are not,(Joseph,24r).(g) No rxrNrrrve. Barkan raniuages .r. r"iá1oi".r infinitives, i,""ri'e il Jü"dconstructions with finite verb_iorms, ".g.

'l *anitt at r go; r"i'i *",it'i" a",.This is considered a strong Barkan arát i.;ü;;. Nevertheress, ,the Barkanlanguages differ rather drañ-atica[y ¡""irri "ii.rito which they show the rossof the.infinitive' (Joseph,242). Maóedonililk; it, "ü;;, éí"ü, ;;ili",a productive remnant in áro-perfects. ln ¡uig"rian, too, it is basicary absent,though the 'short' form.ortt¡e ea¿ierinfilil'h used in restricted contexts(Joseph, 243). The situation in Arbanian, iuruniui, and serbo-croatian is morecomplicared. In Arbanián, the originar i.r,.iti";1;, been repraced; of the twoprincipal diarects-, Geg has an ¡nfin'itive;hi.r,- ¿orr'not orerrap with finite formsat all' while Tosk shows re-emergence of the infinitive-though the categorymay have additional finite functións (¡oseph, li, ¡oo, Z¡1.-n-rr""l*,iii"-grap.hically separated diarects o¡ner, isüo--iüÁuii"n of yugosravia maintainsthe infinitives ,to a wide exrent' (Joseph , iü)íi:O, The dara on Arumanian,spoken in parts of Grecce, Albania,

"nb ¡vr".u'ooni;,;;";;i;;¡ir'tiiüiil"r

infinirive seems to function a: "

;ó;iú¡r;t-i",r"'üri ¡r rr"J -r"il;iiiil;;,

instances (Jo¡eph, t7 4-5, lg6).Th" ¡;filitü;;'a recognizea category in Daco-Rumanian (of Rumania a,nd Motdavial, u"tlüu* iñ;li;;;il:;;á i,¡íü,16l); it.is lacking from {.ee_l-e¡9-numán¡"n,si"ú tn an area of Macedonianand Bulgaria (Joseph, r77). whire ¡t ¡s orten'uroaaiy reported that croatian hasinfinitives, and that serbian racks them,'ihe i;;';r not so simpre, onry theTorlak dialects show comptete ausenc; oilnñnii¡"., r¡vale¿ úi

-Éanut';i ;i;.Yugoslav-Rumanian bordár, Othcrwisc, ."ririn'J¡"rc"ts vary greatly, rangingto comparativcly wide use in rhc standaid L"le.r;gi. Thc wcstcrn diarcct gróuphas thc infinitive to a greater extent. Infiniiive-reptacement is an on-goingpt9::ls, spreading from east to west (cf. Joseph, li}_l),(h) Pleoxesuc usE oF pERsoNAL pnoHouNs. Balkan lánguages employ per.sonal pronouns in sentences with animate ou¡."tr, ttrus iar-[inj-rir-átí,*ttwice; e'g. Rum. I'an s*is rui ton 'l wrii rioilot n', rit. .to.him I wrote himJohn', i- 'dative singular'.

(i) Ipexrrry oF LocArrvE AND D¡REcr¡oNAL ExpREssroNs. Greek, Rurnanian,and Bulgarian do not distinguish- formarty u"i*rin stationary rocativcs anddirectionals (with motion), "f. Ol.: ,,¡i iídli:intio) Greece,, r¡i ,y"...tiriis. clear in Greek at reast, wh-erc historicafly1r,.tiruo* distinct. The rack ofdistinction berüeen cases of location ur.' áot¡on p"rh"pr;;;iü];;;ft;.pendent development; cf, png. He went ¡n thi-ltolse vs. He is in the house,or fn, 9n meaning ,in', eitheiwith or withoui-motion (similarly Eú: ,;;;and without motion)' Moreover,_to quote Joseph (2qr), 'ihc querí¡*,iiüiir.llo.cative merger among Barkan lanjuages.rrirg!t'*tr" it is viewed in termsof the morphosyntactic alternationi ,.1"t o* i.r.l there is-such ;;;;üi;Greek, at another rever the dative and i"""iiri

"." kept distinct from oneanother,'

: MESO.AMERICA AS A LINOUISTIC AREA 56I

(i) Nur'rBens ll-19. Except for Greek, the Balkan languages count il to I9with a construction corresponding to 'one over/on ten,, ,two over/on ten' etc.,t'9. l!r. unsprezece 'ereven' ftom+unu-supre-dcce, whire this reatuie is oir-fused, it seems almost rexicar in character and therefore not ¿iricutt to É;;*,:,1!_:l plryutar. impacr on rhe grammatical raUi¡c of the laneuae!. iiñi'üevrge§rma¡ §ystem is much.more profound; it required ewitchin! rróm itc uasc-five or base-ten svstems that hisioricafiv i"v u"ir¡no tr¡c numüirinJ,viilñiir,many of these languages.)

' In summary, few Balkan isoglosses bundle at the LA,s borders; some failto reach all the Barkan tanguages, whire orhers extena beyond. oiiñl -iir"e*tPIklI f..",.rl":, the postposCd articte is not in Greek;

"nd th"

"Ur.n.r oi'tt,

¡nrrnltrve is highly varied in ¡t§ distribution within the dialects of the languugrr_:::Jiill:r_,,l1 cg1n_le,letr with fufi absence, anJ s.uera¡ faiting categoricaily(ueg Arbanlan' Istro-Rumanian etc.) Depending on serbo-croátian's- Balkanstatus, loss either cxtends beyond the LÁ ro se-verar seruian o¡aiecir; ;l;il,to reach other diarccrs wrthin the LA. The concepi of an ari"i

"ói, ñrii" "iiitisoglossls expand outward (Masica, IZO-Zi; lorlpn, ZlSl u."rnrlnap;;;il;i,

,for the Balkans. The ranguage witi the grá"tusiirrud. or "*"i-i.iirl", i,'Rumanian, on rhe norrhein üor¿"ióriir.-"ü;;i Macedonian, rhe tan¡uareconsidered mol! typica[y Balkan (Hamp tez;28,r; h.ü;;lü ir,J.**rIralls' rn sum,'I'raits (a)-(c) are strong areal indicators, but are not shared byall Batkan languages. Traits (d)-(f) r¡iay be gooJlr.uir."turrr, uui"."l.r,persuasive; and are not distributed throughoit the area in every

"ur"l-ioii,(Bt(j) seem weak. MA cglglnl¡/ "omp"i",

*elt io these data. fioi s"iü"i{_o_r1n9!lon, sec Asenova-t972, áernstéj¡r iioa, ñ¡rnU"u* lgos, rIeá, ó;ñ.l9El:197-.20t, Georglev t9?7, G-oteb.t959, riar'pliZz, H""ianoi.-r-qü, il;;;;:t983, p_ol6k 1923, §endfeld 1930, §chattci llZJ, rc¡ginU tg2ü),. The §outh Asian LA is far too comptex for ajeluate treatment here. Never-theless,even a vague characterizatioi ¡r rum.iiniio compare it to MA. F¡rst,

the isoglosses do not bundle, or center around some definable .";r.ilü;;;distributed much like Balkan or MA traits: ,or"

"ii.n¿ far beyond South Asia,while others hardly cross the boundaries or n.ilnúori"g r.d*g." T"'ñü

Masica (170-7t), '--'e-Éovvr 'v Yuv¡r

'The "tr¡it corc- area" may or m.y not bc crcar, but thcrc is typicaly a graduar ettrition atthc pcriph?rv of rhc distdburion.,., one- crassic cxamplc of thii ir rr,, g,"á¡.ni i., poripo.sitions to. prcpo¡ition¡ ,., (found, c.8,, bctwren Indía and-rran, in eth-iopia, anli;'chr;rj.Anothcr ls thc grsdicnt bcrwccn prcporcd an¡ posrpo¡i¿irtrlUurr"c

"4¡.irt"x iiff;:,in Europe and thc Meditqrrsnean, and ag"in ln'Bu;.), A rf,¡rA ln"otrll itrl ;iliü;;-;;phenomcnon .'. changrng as we movc ñrough rqiik "nJu.urr

to r¡ngu"gcslo.c'icmoicfrom India, or caslward lo Burma.'

Henderson shows overtapping of isogrosses from the south Asian and south-east Asian LA's, while Masica's map (lSO_Sl) of diagnostic areat traits-iorSouth Asia shows varied distributioni. fo, c*u*iir, retroflex consonants arefound not o¡ly in India, but arso in Iranian i"ngr"g.r, in severar srno.riueianlllt_l*::"t,rytuding. Chinese), and in some Sóuiñu"rt nsian tanluag;. lh;aosence of prefixes does not characterize the Munda famiry (withiñ In-dia); but

562 LANCUACE, VOLUME 62, NUMBER 3 (t966)

it lakes in Altaic, many Tibeto-llurman languages, Eastern lranian, and someothers outside the lndian subcontinent (Masica,-r gg). pouble roots iá, p*rrr"lpronoun§ are also absent in-Munda, but are quite general in Indo-Europeanlanguages outside India. .Morphorogicar cauiativei are found r"i urirnaIndia-e.g. in Uralic, Altaic, and Iranian (Masica, lg9). The coqiunctire pai-ticiple is also found in Uralic, Altaic, and Russian. The clitic part-icle -oi¡i.i^'still, also, and, definite' is.in Indo-Aryan and Dravidian, but

"6t ülr¿"iÉrr-

noau 1974). The dative subject constructlon occurs also in l"neu"g., oiiisi.*Europe, Georgian, etc. Thi absence of a verb

jháve'(cf. r"ui"i, rr"trr!-iirtcharacterizes Altaic, uraric, Russian, Arabic, Eastern lranian etó. irre sóvbasic word order is arso found in many ranguages to the east

"n¿ *crt oitn¿iu

(e.g. most Uralic, fibeto-Burman etc.) Conierñing other featuri;, ";¡ñ.;;;-bundling of isoglosses in India, Emeneau has saiá:

'ln thc carlicr work on thc Indian linguistic arca a numbcr of typological fcaturcs wcrc ruggesledas fulfilling rhr firsr rcquircm€nr, viz. that thcy wcrc pan-tnúic aná at rr,.,"r" tir. ioi".i1Á-Indlc ... sornc, as it rurncd out, worÉ ferrurcs rhet wcrc found onry rn romc p"rt oitr,c'li¿jinaree¡ c.9., thc fcaturc of a complcx rct of numcrrl clas¡illcr¡ was found tá rne in¿*Áry¡nlanguagco of rhc casrcrn end of thc oanges vrfley (c.g. Bcngerí, Asram*c) rnJ in-r.rir"rDravidian.end Munda ranguagcs incruded gcograpiicatly ¡n rtr-at p".t rr*,i rnJo.¡ry*

".""(c.g. Dravidian Kurux and Marro, Munda santali and rórwa), bui r¡,. rrngur8.. wiiíth" b.itparallcls ... arc the ranguagcs of southcast Asia, of scverar famirics, and-thc-.urr.*ó"igi,v&llcy is i'tcrprctcd as marginal to southe¡st Asia ,.. Another nrrrginal rcgion in *rr¡.ñltturncd out that somc Indian ranguagcs showed features connccting dcm witi *

"rto.in¿¡"linguistic arca is rhc northwcstern bordc¡ bctween tndo.Aryan and lranlan, which containsalso thc Dravidian Brahui languagc and the ísolatc Burushaiki ,.., (t9S0:3j)'unfortunately, I know of no demonstration of such a bundling of isoglosscs. In fact, whcnin [Emcneau r9i6] I trcsted lndia as a tinguistíc arc¡, I madc-no attcinpt to ¿cmonsinic

"bundling of lsoglosrcs, but t rethcr di¡cus¡rd i numbcr of tr¡it! thet cros; f"mlfi ¡oul¿"J.,in India and I wag conccrncd ,., to d.monrrráro thÉ ,.tndlanlzatron'; o¡in¿olrili,l,c.'iodemonstr6tc thst Indo-Aryan et varlou! pcrlodr rhowr trrht that orlgln¡to¿ tn pnvu"n ¡n¿rprcad ovff morc or lcs¡ wldc Indo.Aryan tcrritorics. Thc aftrlcatc-pronunciation;4.;ril"palatals is a case of ress widc disrribution, sincc it conccrns ctricny úarattrt, ñii; dr;,Tclugu, and norhcm Kannada, and probabry somc minor ranguagir ofccntrar Indi¡; i.c. tlhi¡isogloss dclimirs a ccntral lndian linguistic arca involving.eri'"in'iy two, 8nd pr*rüiiirii.,tamilics. Muóh wirler distribution .,, ir scen ln the lsogloicr lhat icprcsent lhc occuricnce ofrctroflexcs and thc occurrcncc of non-finitc vcrb forms ... wh¡t ii of pr*cnt int.rcsr ,,. tthc furthcr cxrcnsion of this isogloss .,. to includc somc of the lranian languagcr,'(tl96ibl1980:128)

'Thc sccond pan-Indic ísogloss ... is ... non-finitc verb forms (gcrunds, abrotutivcs, or what¿vcrthcy arc callcd) ,.. lt is ccrrainly almoet pan.lndic, alttrougñ it may alro bc elmo¡i unlvcrs¡lin Eurasia ..,' (tl965bl t980:130)'Anothcr isoglol*,.., wa! concerncd wlth classificrs or quantiliers, Thl¡ ümc thc iloSlocs llnrincludés pañ ofnorthcrn and northéestern Iñd,a but failsio coincldc with rt c artorn 6ounaaryof thc lndlan subcontincnt ,,. In fect, though this isoglors is an cxccllert one to usc in dcm-onstratíng that a trait ir shared by perts of thc mqior familics of tndia, it faih lamcntably lndcmonstrating that India is a linguistic arca and may bc intcrprcrcd ar ihowing thrt thcrc arclinguistic traits that occur in common in lndia and ihc rcst oi A¡ia.' (l965bl'i9E0:l3l)

while few would doubt India's status as a LA, these quotes make it clearthat its isoglosses fail to bundle. They are distributed widely beyond southAsia in some cases, and narrowly within it in others; they fail to havá a common

MESO-AMERICA AS A LINGUISTIC AREA 563

core area, and they overlap thosc ofother LA's, In many ofthese cases, how.ever, thc historical evidence is suflicient to confirm borrowing and its direction(see Emeneau 1980), thereby establishing the areal value oflhe diffused traits(for details, see Emeneau 1956, 1962a,b,c, 1965a,b, lg].l, 1974,197g, l9g0;Kuiper 1967).

, In summary, MA as a LA fares very well in a comparison with India andthe Balkans-the clcarest LA's in the literature-with réspect to number, kind,and distribution of areal featurcs. Furthermore, the MA área displays five ex.clusive features which bundle approximatety at its traditional boiders. Theconclusion is that MA is indeed established as a valid LA; in fact, it turns outto be among the very strongest that are known.

. REFERENCE§

Alexexoen, Rurx Mrnfr. 1980. G_ramática mixtccadc Atatlahuca. (scric de gramáticasde lenggas indfgenas,dc Méxlco, 2.) Mcxico: Instituto Ling0lsiico ¿c V-eranJ.

--A*uoxsz, Ep¡r.eru §. lg56..Guaymlerqmmar and dictionaryíith somo cthloióeical. notcs. (Smith¡onlan Institut¡on, BAE Bulletin 162.) WasÁington, DCI GpO.

- -

Au,rpon HBnxÁxonz, Mlnrsceu. 1976. Gramática del niazahua di san-entJnio it¡cutoNuevo. México: E¡cucla Nacionar dc hntroporogra c uistoria, iiccniiitJ;s itiriJ.

Asexorr, ParvA', 1977. La notion dc I'intcrfércncc ei I'union lingúistique uatianique.Linguistique Balkaniquc ZO.23-31.

Aulte,II' w-l¡-¡tn, and EvBr.vxlil, o¿Auure. 1978. Diccionarioch'ol-español, cspañol-ch'ol. (serie dc vocabularios y diccionarios indfgenas 'Mariano sirva i aievei', y2l')México:InstitutoLingüfsticodeVerano.\

Bemrolouew, Don¡s. 1983. §yntactic contrasts between otomangucan and Mixe- )o/ §-.., YZoqucan- Paper prcsented at thc annual mceting of thc Americañ Anthroporogical iB. "

^\ - ^ef

,^-'*li:il1*31.' t925. Introduzione aila nconnguisrica. (Bibtiotcca dcll,Archivum Ro- ' .p-

manicum, serio II, Llnguistlca, 12.) Gcncva-: Olschki.

-. 1928. Brcvarlo de noollngulstlc¡, 2l Crltcri tccnlel. Modcna: socletA Tlpograflca

Modcne¡o.

-, 1929, La norma neolinguistica dell'area maggiore. Revista dc Filologia c di Is-

truzione Classica 57,313-45,

-. 1933a. Le norme ncolinguistichc c lá loro utilitü per la storia dei tinguaggi e dei

costumi. Atti della sociera Iraliana per il progressó dclle scienzc 1933-.15i:65.

-. t933b. La norma dcllc arcc latcrali. Bollctiino dcfl'Atlante Llnguistico ltaliano

1.28-45.

-. ¡939. Der italicnische §prachatlas und die Arealnormen. (Zeitschrift ftlr volks-

kunde, fasc. l.) Stuttgart: Vcrband dcr Vcreine filr Volkskundc.Bescou, Bunrox, 1982. Northcrn Tcpchuan. studics in uto.Aztec&n grammar, IIIi uto-

Aztccan,Sramm¡ticál skc-tchca,cd. by_Ronald W, Langackcr, {et-§1, (sU" puU.lication 57.) Arlington: Unlvcrsity of Tcxa¡,

Brcxrn, HBNRrk, 1948. Dcr Sprachbund. Leipzigt HumboldhBücherei Gerhard Mindt.Benx§rerx, s. B. 196E. Lcs langues tu¡qucs de lá péninsul¡ des Balkans ct .l'union dei

langucs balkaniqucs'. Actci des Étüdes Balkaniques l96g:73-9.Brnroxr, Grur¡o. l9l l. A proposito di gcografia linguiitica. (Atti e Mcmorie della Reale

Dcpu-tazione di Storia Pil{q p.. lé provincie Modcncsi scric 5, vol. Z.) Modcna.

-. 1923. La geografia linguistica. La Cultura 3.404-4j,

-. 1925. Brcviario di neolinguistica, t: Principi gcnerali. Modcna: Socicti Tipografica

Mgdenese.Brnxretru, Hexn¡x. 1965. Balkanslawisch und südslawisch. Zcitschrift für Barkanologic

3.12-61.

564 LANCUAOE, VOLUME 62, NUMBER 3 (1986)

Y

-;rl,3i1;3:, i\:oi:*, arlinitv and Balkan tinsuisrics. Zbornik za Fitotog[iu i Lin-Boes, Fnexz, 1917. El ai1!ec!o mexicano de pochutla, Oaxaca, IJAL l.g_44,'"'ii;l"uio,rr¡rxo. 1e45. o;;ü;:ñJñ#.,ii'ii,ier¡r,¡c method. word r.83_e4,

-;l?il;*i neotinguisric position (a repty ro Hall,s criticism of neolinsuistics). Ls.

'*?!:il3;,,1||:üi. l 9]r', A linguistic skctch or Jicattepec' Mixtcc. (srl pubrication

o-,"Í,"1dffi :i,i¿.Tfl }:l,lHlxf s:liiiT:lf ü"..,",;;,.1;;;:;';,,,.];,iii1"1$Í;:i,*,,,;|lT;l,;1,;i,*,[ft,,J§;,8:,1n, Mouron,

v;;;r¡;;-;?i:ift l¡"r;;;;ü;;ü,iü:"É;ñi:!rf l.,T.Sill?Í5?,ülil,j:lf üBnowx, cecrl, and sr,rxler w¡rxowsxr. I9gr. Figurative ranguage in a universarist-

perspecriv_e, American Ethnologisi a.s96_ll j.'"-'"DUTLER' rNEz M' rgg0. Gramática zapoteca: Zapoteco de yatzachi er B4io, (serie de

ffgÍX:"r de lenguas indfgenas'd; M¿;tr;:.j üéxico: rnstituro Lingüfstico de

Crup¡eur, Lyw. 1971. H§!grl:-"f linguistics and euichean ,inguisric prehistory. LosAngeres: universitv "r cariráinia"J¡isffi;;;.jffi¡r;ürJ'iiJi"'ü,iírllljii,iiiX-.

films, Ann Arbor, ir{l.l

-' 1976, Thc ringuistic niehistory of the sourhern Mesoamerícan perrphcry. Frontcras

1".,ffi:::fá:'a' t 4; M e s a ú¿;á;; ; i;r:'s;:'üe,¡iói- §áíüááü Mii ¡li'i'i'ü.

-' 1977' Quichean ringuistic prehistory. (ucpL, gr.) Berkcrey & Los Angeres: uni.versity of California press.

-' r97Ea' Distant seneric rerationship and diffusion: A Mesoamerican perspective.PI9::golel of thl rnternatiof.i c;Iü;;;r;i-,iñ]i."n,r,r, paris, 52.5e5_605,

-' r97Eb, Quíchcan orehistory:

_l_inguíir,=. Jórü'¡brii"i.._papers in Mayan tinguistics,ioo;,roJr§:.

c. Eñgtand, zi_sj. Zür,irüi.,'ijlpil"ár erthropotogy, unívirsity orMiddle American-languages..The languages of Native Amcrica: Historicaland compararive assessment,-ed.by Lyle C",ñpUiii¿ ¡rluriannc Mithun,902_1000.Austin: University of Texas pre..] -''- Y-!'rrvv'r I

-;,i|,llflii!l§.K^,'"^n. 1e76. A linguistlc look at rha otmccs. American An.

-, -, 1980, On Mesoamerican linguistics. American Anthropologist g2,gj0_57.1983' Mesoamerican historí-car-iñg;irii;;;; distanr genetic rerarionship:Getring jr srraishr. American ñtñ;óp"ióiiri"is.¡áilz.

-' and MenrrNxr Mrrrur¡. rsst. svniaciñ-i.*írtru.i¡o", príorities and pitfars.

^ Foli_a Linguisrica Historica f .if_Cd."--"'-LL^RK, LAwRENce E. l9gl.. Diccionario popoluca de Oluta. (Serie de vocabularios v

i:.V:ffi:t indfgenas ,r,rrri"ro §iír.íiil.i"i,iisliMéxico: rnstituto Lineur,-sticá

-, and Nonu¡x Nonper_r. 19g4. Texistepec vocabulary. To appear, México: InstitutoLing{lfstico dc Vcrano.

-, and Nexcy Drvro o¿ Cuenr..l960. popoluca_castellano, castellano_Dopoluca:Diatecro de sayuta. veracruz. {scri; Jc ;;;;-üut;;ü;'ilfü;;;.-.üH;#""5Ti;;1;

Accves', 4.) México: tnsrituro Li"gurrr¡"oááüiüi". Icounrr' Be¡xrno. t98r. Language *¡rlii"iiáür¡.iüJi¡" rvporogy: svntax and mor.

^. - ?hgtoey.Shicago; Unive'rs¡ü "i

ct ¡""eó i;;;. ""'"'r.r^Lyr JoHN p, 1973, A qencrativc syntax of peñóles Mixfec. (SIL publication 42,)Norman, oK: Summér lnstirutc ói i-insüri¡;]'""

.'

MESO.AMER¡CA AS A LINOU¡ST¡C AREA 565

-: ]97.7, Mixteco: Sanf a Marfa peñoles, Oaxaca. t/

^ uex¡co, Lj'üiiiIo,'b.nro de rnv_e_srigación ,d.t['l'#-*Jg.n8uas indlgenas de

DenNeLr, Recxr, and Jo¡u Su_enzrn. lS7l,-Areai l¡nsuirt¡. studies in North America:,, *,g1::fi¡,T'iffi :':e'

u Ál ii .íd :;s." Ye' ¡' ¡ ¡" !

ffi ti,"{".i ll'ü ;:íÍ:i, #:}:T:ü,,iTH:fl Íf; :i:nl#;iJ:?,¿lif"',1;1i*j;

-iS"O¿Z;lll3, New linguistic families in California. American Anthropologist

Ecxeoov¡¡ or'¿lsor' AnrEursr, !r-Ér.. rg7g, Luccs contemporanca¡ dcr otomr¡ Gr¡.,"ü:ffi ,Í"i,lllTí,tiltil'ül'.Tf; li",lti:l,iiÉlti#:[.],H,.,:f,.]]:"#;,,,,,ii{l$!"ti_il:llr,:lt*rj,,,f Í¡tii*i}"nm:1il",*;ffi

"neau 1980:105_25,I

:;,,""f.ir.li{{i:t1,"!,:l$:i{ürJ,H,'J:yl.É;1lx."T1lt%1iJ_,}iAmerican phi,.

-. r962b. The position.or_srat¡üi i'n'-tü orlrÍiir"'r.r¡ry. Brahui and Dr¿vidian

_¿?[ff llii§ifrliÁx.:ik'J¡fi;fi i,i'Iii;i,t'ff ;ffi :r:rti",íH'i'Jt'

-' t962c' Iranian and in¿o'ew"n innuin"i .iñiii"i. Brahui and Dravidian com-

ffift,,;,r"'5il1:ar.(ucpL, 2ií, ¡i:i,¡: r;;ri.'i"y"áto, e,iiiii,. iiió;ñ;ff; #".

-. 1965a, Diffusion'and

grammar_(Depariililo;'I'iHli3,¡'*,Tfr',flffii1; linguistics. India and historical

-;lr:llr r¡,!ñiiilii'p'i"rá ¡"'i;,i,í,iáii;üt,;á'-llJ24' Annamarainagar: An'

-' rvoJo' rndla and rínouislis-¡¡e.s. tndia and tristoricaiirammar (Department ofLinguistics, pubticatio-n J), zi-zl. Áiriiiriiiliffi: annamatai Universiry. [Re.pll¡.!:d in Emeneau I ggo; i iO-66.1-'

-"ir-!!re'sr'¡sés¡

-;'.ill'.11?;l'"',',:":1lltlifJJil, ¡lij,Jttil !lt,l,ii:i,x,::ffiffiit#,p,xin Emeneau I9g0:i67_9

-, 1974, The Indian lincuisiic area¡evisited. International Journar of Dravidian Lin_

-;:!iilf."',;1,*,11',4,[l¿1,?:ffi ü,5r,'i:;,,,*1ffi ,,;":::#"ducrion ¡nd conttnuation, ¡; ñ;;;;;'ióéo l"- I ti'-'

1980' Language and ringuístic "r"".

sünro.¿,'úírvcrsrry press.u*:?tL)r"ii.c.. te83. A grammar or uam, a r,rava; Éilils;;rsrin: UniversityEscr¿rx* Henx^xoez. Ro¡snro, 1962, Ercuitlateco. México: Instituto Nacionar deAntropologfa e Historia.Fenx^xoezpeMrn¡xo^. MenfaTenese. Ig6t. Diccionario ixcateco. (Dirección de In-

ffi:lfffi:*' entróporóliiai, il Mil;;iñ'iiíiiii' N".¡onur dc Anrroporogra e

Fosren, Menv L. t969. Thc Tarascan l¡no[ooo ftttlDr <t \ b--r--tuniversiry or c"riro.¡"Blx§rfan

language. (ucPL, 56.) Berkeley & Los Angcles:

*ri1fl,?i:?"r"":Í;,Hlflr,i,:b,:'trr1|;,'fl53.;::.ri;J,."Ti,[';3,:" rnstitution, {

Fnreonrcu, prur. t97t. Tt¡c.iarasian s,;fr":;_iffó#;e spacc: Meaning and mor-.^,"',}^ff :tlffi :nñm*:,n:rr,ll,,,:#ffi *llltfi lii.#i,,;GeonorEv, Vuo¡urn I. 1977

cherches. Lineuistiquc ira,t'.T¿fl I;.Hi!i:* balkaniqucr L'ét¡t acluel dcs re'

t

t

,6ó L^NOUAOE, voLUME 62, NUMBER 3 (t986)

Crr_lrÉnox, Jules, and M

**v*#}ü*#g*r*r*$-rn,ü'ro¡ffi:"'ii',i}Íi.;'¿,i';rr",{',;,,i'i,,Íli#*;*tiu*ijir*H,;m::.i['1.fil:,S1::fl;#Ji:'A-ff[i.der

A.reartvporogie: Die Probrcmatik der curo-H^^s, M^Ry R. 1969, Th

57) T¡e u"gu", pro,lio|rehistory of languages. (Janua Linguarum, scrils minor,

liiillt'"YJir'rf,r:1':?íj" ringuistic area' In Langdon & s,ver, 347-ie. rRe.

t*,'ilL'.-ffiá;s#,ttili!:'i!ri|;ffi i",$H::.¿iy,:ü:,=*A,t*f*q1;*;[.*iriÉ#:i'i'ffi

ff ffi í{lifu m:,^rr"*l'jt¿§ffi,x^¿slrilffix},,,il'"r,",1';:.*rlx":liI;,j3ll;?iixliÍii,".i?l.i-_ Aceves', 23.) México: r,f¡t,!!; it;,,;üfiiJotl"ffil"nr.u^sLER, Juex A. t959, Una lingufstica;is;-;"";.;;;

vísta de la universidal ü;;;;;;"--''i:,:cncana.-La_parabra y el Hombre (Re.

'^itü,ü,:;#,ffi #H?,##f:J.:Ji"{'ip,ni.:ffi ü:ilffi :;':,netic sciences,if-ir-.]l"ed"i; ¡[:ñ',11jÍJJi,i,lXl,lternational coneress of Pho.

"*fl,"k 'f. 3l: Sltl'.;;.'r*:'i'::Tr,r."i; !üil'iJIcs.rl' ed' bv Eric P' Hamp

genorirÑl Éuá;ü j"X.Y'-YyInu srammar' BIuelields,. Nicaragua.

;,,:i:fi:,_"*,j,ñf i::*3i:ili:?,i"',1",?lJ.::i:üiH!:Í#l".lnd morpho,ogica,

#i:"#ü,#,i;';,ii:::5;fl j1,,,ÉlJ3:i:ii",:[fi

f ü,T:IÍHI$"t"H:X:

* j,tfli,:,T#$j,f,,1*i'iif ,¡¡¡,r,"".,i,,'trtif ,l¡,:¡5x,'"':.:'imii¿:l

-:id:t{::¡*miü!,^"*,,;u:l.r:t:¿ff r;r::T,1ll-i.¿:,fi :i,:;,H:-_ cícdad Mexicana dc AntropologfaHooosu,loer, Se¡rnl-¡. t9g4

l"*l:i **1,_,ilii":,Hlit, H:;; itríl:Ti#Jl:"I,"tjHi,:l#,$*l,"ttitd

}l.ri:!:r. 1970. Numcral ctassifiers in Tzeltal, Jacaltcc, and Chuj (Mayan).Jecoasex, WrL¡_l¡rr.r H. 1967. Switch.rcference in Hokan_C,

rn',':l ;*ulii'u í'ii .',' ¿' u v oii i' ii v,i,., u "*:fi ijH"§:tlf::'fi i rrf:+'l;

-. 1980. Inclusive/exclusir

fl ffi n: jün'"I""r:üiá:t§§ilff

[r',:§#iisixffi iil:;:]:T,,T:x]

ME§O.AMER¡CA A§ A LTNCUISTIC AREA 567

'^-Tiiü,ütllt. ?l!ry rirdie Phonorosisc h en sprachbü nde. rravaux d u cercre

-i,'3i: 3:ti:JJff.T,1:,'"lT !li,,,:it lT[ ffi ..:t[;i.fitili;:Lt1

iilif:iflas Appcndix to princi«¡¡"ii.-ii"iilüiir;'üilfl',rjl,",ff,ri?l,liaY,il:*,it".r

rr phonorogicar associations

_iffi ,[:1",i'=8.*:r'*,tiltlllliaf, if :ffi ffi liii,ilil,il'f; i:i'i,']"0ii1,",

*;,'j^f ^iflI1:.

!;¡' ir.:.t ,"¡il;iJliiiil'io.iiii:óit ' .'"i-

;S*¡[¡iri*+fdü;; li,ll]"::,'ff -{hiülffi ]:i{iJusresox, Joux; Wruuru I

;ltil¡;*h;lÉ1ittjfl*$i{;ifiIÉ'trjiilffi :x:l;r:*:;;;;$ii$Ift$tp'tritlHilll,:;tif

fi #:::Í'r;::tHl;.:;

-riifil't!;:Xi:'i','.:¡!i-'ir1H:'li"m:',[¡'-óurrent

trends in ringuistics, ed, bv

-i,irri:iycsodmerican i;¡ü;i;üü;, l"d,lli.rrr.¿ia Brirannica, r 5rh cdn.,

-;tliíiilt#"fi:i¿iiflH:iférica' (seminario de Integración sociar Guatemarreca,

Ii ili;tX**::'ül*li'If,:':ffi;r:,iAl:l;. in Mavarand and associared areas

-. .t 980. pre-Corumbian uo...o*¡nis'i,iJoiri"ii iüIr,,

- 3¡;i::ti-'lll'fii',tffJt'il[ii;i:iffiiir'Í,'31",';"tT:'1f."[,i'l.l11il"11,Í"'Lll;

). ]üliüq:nni,['ii,liilllilil ;:*t*' (vocabu rarios borivianos, 4.) co-

Ífiryfft*+;t'fir*frHq-ffi;*'*I(RoEBER, Alrneo L. 1910. Iaes r e. jn.teña1ffiü,Jl"J:;H:fl:[,iiJ,[*gfl;:lr,;:t]:f:.""Hhand rungen

ffi¡i,::'iiri mfir :ri;'i*iru*tfií** ffi;,,3,, *r?i

r*,"fr h,td}:4*rslf*.É:#;'#[x,lrl;ü+:[,*:,,**ill;-_,ul{s"i"i'"'§,*i*'ñ?,f1.[:5:üiiiniih.';I,fff.*r.:HilJrAJ,%"nference,#;[i]l:;,:F"r#jiiJi:¿.;]ilü,.r.ff

hn,iff .xiñ:.i,y":.,,,:tiAustin: untvcrs¡,y or r"ilrt pll".LínBuistics' ed' bv Müirro s' Éáió]rtáitl'io:i"i

568 LANGUAGE, VoLUME 62. NUMBER I (t986)

trr6|ü"fi:1fl;1920. Zentrat_America, t: Die Sprachen Zentrat-Arnerikls. Bertin:

, t'n',3x1;:.?,ffi¿'"ll¿:;,?3;.1:o''svntax' (ucPL,76.) Berkerev & Los Angeres:

("""r:i'i!o';,1**fr,.il'i;frl,fi{i$Jü'{!lt'${.;{"}}dü,,:il:::;;McMnuox, Aunnosro. ,

de vocabularios ln- gülstico de Verano.Me¡ceny prñe, Exnro

;^.ifr[1 j-iti*Thd,Trf:ffi i:'i,i:{:.iil:i*:i-::ffi :,

-. 1956. Are rhere areas.or allinité grammaticareas wefl er of nrfi¡ttt ^L^-^r- ,curting acioss-iJri'tic rangiágc.r"ñ¡ii.,ii;i"i..á.H,]lii,i:!Íflfl1j# !fg!;rt7.

I^',Hr',ill,!:1:'üi'd.'3;lI,* l;,,1,'*lr,;i*uth Asia. chicago: university of

MeRnlrrelo, W¡¡.t¡¡¡r R,

ü,.',"'i,:#[:ffii¿Ttf ilüff{jlÉiJil{,isiUii,ü',Tdcrachinan'[ra'der philosophisch-n¡sriij*1.-ir"."":'"'¿:,::i:l'Js rm numán¡schen, Denkschriften

-t[ffi ,,#üT:il*,'*;$$,"ffi,'t*,**il;,;ffisocial, ,!, ¡,¡s^rev; \,cn(ro oe tnvestigación para la Integraiión

Moxreo, Susrx, l9gl. D

;+fg:i,IfiiiiyHilir:,í;:rJi;ái:Bl;:::"*'^'icaperuana,e)yarina'¿ c-."uu,iá'.¡á,-.üá,¡.no.slü;;;"";,.","!;'i,1;i,JJ,"i,:li,t jf fi ;;iti,!r".r;:

Pevxe, Trouas E. 19g2. Subject in Guaymf. Estudios ,¿. co.t" ñ¡Já iiiirc¿,-e,r,á¡"J.í."iii,e'írüiJ;:ürili:::fi11)fr§#1;:t:.3::._. _parrameiro de Lingüfsri:a. d. t" úr¡r.irj¿ri.il üort. ni...rENs¡NoER, Bnexor J. Isz¿. Diccionaii;r-l_üil;;ñol, español_mixteco, (Serie de

^ L,,'f,:'fffi ;,1,,1f 'J :,,i:Hl il rñ;' :il;;ia;

tir ", v Á".,i, ;,' ii.i ü¿ ¡lli ¡,-

'''.i"Tü.u,lltt f,1í.118ffi,,1:,il:;,1::ilÍili,?."1i'i;,,!1i[lii,:"r:,,;[,,H:- ción.Social del Esrado de Oaxaia.,'

i"'1i;J;i'"riü;r131'r.fllif,:cdanken übsr dic Entstohun¡ dc¡ b¡rkani¡chen sprach.*-rihÍ:ir#i:i"ÁJ:,1'tL,lT*i::It"'üp,.:"fl,f,iiFJ:{::,[Hlrd*:.f;

fldian lXneuaees, ed.

rf i':.i':ffi 3i,[fi i',,,#:ji!q',f í,',lffi l,,íüliii{rr.n:i,,*.,,,*,,:;

Reuexu.rlH, A. K., and C

;,{,*j'fr §#i,*;,*'tlfl*i*i¡,tHfff -ii:",,:,::**.,":Xy

MESO-AMERICA AS A LINOU¡§TIC AREA 569

Juárez, puebta. (serie dc vocaburarios y diccionarios indfgenas .Mariano sirva y

" -..1::":!" I 7. ) Méxicu lnstituto iinguLú";;;"v;.",o.KENScH' L:^LV¡N' Ig7g. Typorogical and genetic .onsiJ.ütionr in the otoman¡uean, tansuases. Intcrnarionai 9o-"g.;..

-óf i;;;";"ilü 42 :4.623_33, paris.

llii"lii:Ul'*S'¡.***m-óJ'*ir',:'-r:r*l*í"u:¡Íil"ór,in"nu",,,¡(oBE-RrsoN, Jonx. 1993. From symbol ,"].;;;il;;,;from Common Mavan i"'i'.,i.-J" v-,,'.;::-'j*":"::'i".:1"1:ne Pronomrnal systcm

n",r*iii^i,iiiiJu.:mi:Ii,irti;ffi ::'ff ii,i;f ,,,,;Jdil;il;,:Ji:,, ies in memory of Fernando ¡r"r.iiñ'.iüri.i'iiili

- : xarrtunin,-ióz-zli. iu,6, ü;rñ;;,';ii:;;:":§:,;,1"#ti"Ltliil;1, FrancesRuee, JouH. 19E0, Chinantcco: S.n ¡u"n [.álü. b;;:,

de México, 9.) México: c..rii il'¡"Jl"i*:,:'::'l'li"juw sE rc.nguas rmlgenass*"*i*iiii#":.,'fi ili"ijti"?inu¡ui#'}[,,*i.,i$§1Hi,l',§iliii3"",^,,I':ÉH|¡;:iiif,iir"t Liigui,ritu" dfi;l}l, iiip"¡i;-ch;ñH."'\vv¡rev,¡r

- I ican Anrhropologist ,d:t$:fr:t'o'n incorporatión in e'iit'íli'"iuages. Amer'

]"'ili;Tl,tÍl[lloY;,'i7,'"',3ic Balkansprachen: Eine Einrohruns in die Batkanphl.

§cHERMATR' Axseluo. r957. V-ocaburario sirionó-castcilano, Innsbruck; sprachwissen-^

schaftliches Seminar der Univcrsiilt,§cHMrDr' J'HANNE'' r972,._rie Vcrwandtschaftverhártnisse der indogermanischcn_ Sprachcn. Leipzig: Wermar,§.HoENHALS' Ar'vlx, and Lo.ur¡e Q. scxosxueLs, rg65. vocabulario mixe dc Totor. fiffiftr1'iffsiiil;li$ii:j;iüffiiTi'"'1#J"""', Aceves',,r.r ¡,,¿iill, (ücHULrzEJexe, Leoxeno' tg3g._Indiana ItI: Bei den Aztcken, Mixtcken und Tlapa.q,uJlitl,Í:'fll;SryÉ:í: ¿crsur-,on r"riiiiJ. iJi'"1c,'rav'r¡icr¡ci.-"

e'¡e '¡s.,'

il#*{:liiij,J,l§*I"Tii,ffi ?ti,:1i"5,1,ü"ffi :iy":,H:tX11,#t:fl mÍ,1l3t;,

:ü:i',.fi lffi !ruiüt:li::i".,,',;lühiflil:#ffi :irn"iñ:,i;""-;;-'

and Rrcxenp Bruurx, ^rszz.

e¡ifu riurñ;; ;ritd-iJrir.r. sourhwestern^ Journal of AnthropologV ZE,t3l_-Si,i,-'

31,"i:il1il,T',,"JJ^'.1,,iJi'^li,::H.?L:1.J,',..',,[7.6.^Ls.54.737-40.onl*lesoameii"ii.áí..rl.r"r"g.¡;.'"q'lüd;1tiJI,:'ff..fil[Í,x1*;;Y3J,1}:*>

. i of American-ists, Manchestei England,'--'- "'-'"',

§ilñi1k[!;ile'.t;"oJ ÍI*'tchuchirdt'Brcvier. Hallc,: Niemcycr. [2nd cdn., r e2E.l

cronar¡ór¡üaiJ;;s;;fx.liT.rEü'J',"..F!1iit""",iüffi *rtl,"t,l'i"*1,"#:r*"oJllffX"l'^'l,Tr"r§ilv¡v Aeivii;, ?4,i'ü;;'ü;Ií,,liqut" [inlirirtr-'i;iii'ülii?,i'j

:-,ii3ú.ü]üüffi#:9.#iliilÍ5¿f#,ffi ,..:ltl?,,I;;tqiffi :ii;'.hl,tónoma de México.swexrox' Josx R' 1g40. Lingui§tic.materiar from the tribes of southcrn Tcxas and_ Northeastern Mexico. tsÁE rtu¡üii, i'ii.j'ürriin'ei"n, apo.t*!l1l¿.u4;.?. n.d. Miskito srammar. Blu;fietds, ñicaragua: Board of ChrisrianTuoursox, Srnex Gney. and T¡nrexce S.. Kruruex, 1975. Toward an adequate dcfi-, ll,l"S,::il:lirjlli1i,r."o.'presenred "r

ti,. ini",l"t¡onat conferencc ón pidgins

Tozzen, Alrneo M. lg2l- A-May_a Srammar. (papcrs of peabody Museum, 9.) Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard Unrvcrsrty.

-. I93r. Phonologi.e_und.sprachgeographie. Travaux du cercle Linguistiquc dcprasue 4,228-34. [French iransrárion: Fhonoro_gie ct ec"g*p-húrir;r]Jiüi,l] e'rpendix ro his principes de phonorogie, 343-i. ñaris: rit,r-Jr.í¡Ji,r.,'lí¿9.1 '--P Tunxrn, paur, and s'rnr-ev Tunxen. iszi, Drct¡onrii, ffi;ril'i;'iip;"Áir-engish,

Spanish to Chontal. Tucson: University of Arizonl prcss.ulrex, Russpr-u 1979, Toward a typorogy or suustaniivál póssession, universals ofhuman language, cd. bv JosepÉ

-Greénberg et ar., 4. t r:¡t: sü;6.*"uniriii¡ii

Prcss,

--_F v^n"Ij:Tii,,jg"-,lPl:T.1!^,1,:n!,w1-r41o v-ex Hrns¡,¡._1e76. A hie¡archic¡I,

s70 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 62, NUMBER 3 (te86)

Tnorre, Ru,olru c. r98r. subjecr-object concord in coahuirtec. Lg.57.65g-73.Tnuprrzrov, N¡xor-¡¡ s. lgzE.lrropoiition 16l. Acts ori¡elii-rnt.r'nai¡"iáiclrgr."of Linguistics, t7-18. Lciden.

sk_etch of Mixc as. spoken in sa.n José er parafso. iSri-puulicatión«.j iró*.r,,:OK: Summer Institute of Linguistics.

I

,iTHE ORDERINC OF AUXTLIARY NOTTONS IN CUYANESE CREOLEl

Kr¡x G¡ssox

University of the West Indies, Barbados, Bickclon 1974, 1981, primarily in hir work on Ouyancsc Crcole, taker the position

thrt an ordcring Tcnsc-Modal-Aspcct ls obligatory in crcolc languages. This papcrshow¡ that thc situation is much more complcx¡ reanalysis indicatcs that an ordering

' Modal-Tcnse-Aspccl ¡s morc corrcct.'i, Crcole languages are noted for their high degree of linguistic variation, es-pcbially in communities where they are in contact with superstrate languages,c.g. Guyana and Jamaica. It is generally accepted that, in such iommunities,tbcrc is a basilect which is the most extreme and archaic creote; the acrolect¡ppro¡¡mates the standard language and represents nearly complete decreo-

the mesolect is the intermediate variety. The levels I am describingrrc the basilect and mesolect; and unlike DeCamp 1971 and Bickerton 1975, I¡rsume that both varieties are generated by the same grammar. Formal dif.fcrcnces are surface manifestations. I

Thompson 1961, Taylor 1971, and Bickerton 1974, l98l posit an orderingTIense-lMlodal-lAtspectl for the auxiliary notions in creole languages. Muys.lcn l98l atso accepts the TMA ordering for grcotes-and, following Woi-sctschlaeger 1977, says that a principle ofuniversal grammar specifies that as.pect is interpreted before mood, and mood before tense. Bickerton's analysisotGuyanese discusses only one item ga-which he considers to be a modal,rnd which indeed occurs after the past tense category. But the situation isEuch more complex than he indicates, since some forms with modal meaningctur before and after tense, and some aspectuals occur before certain modalitcms. I will illustrate here the complexity of the situation, and will show thattÍme of the forms are best classified as copula verbs, complementizers, andrdvcós. I conclude that an MTA ordering is superior to TMA.

l. Pnost-eus. One difficulty concerns whether Guyanese hns two aspectualomorphemes, orjust one. Bickerton 1975 recognizes a single aspectual a whichoüligatorily follows modal items, But it is possible for an aspectual a to occurbcfore some modal items, while another a follows these modal forms.

Bickerton claims there is only one aspectual a: the continuative/iterative arhich occurs before non-stative verbs. He says (1975:34-5)t

t This analysis ofthe Guyanesc auxiliary notions is revised from a scction ofmy 1982 dissertation,TLc formr classlfled as 'auxiliary vcrb¡' and thc ordcring of thc notions in thc dissertation arc the

src u in this papcr; but becausc of insightful criticisms by Lan3nage rcvicwers, thc critcria usedbt thc clsssificetion of thc forms havc bccn ¡eviscd, I would likc to thank my collcague Stevc

' lobr¡on for commcntlng on a draft of this paper.

Thir work on Guyancrc is bascd on daia collccted ¡nd transcribcd by Waltcr F, Edwards, on'ryrtscarch in Guyana, and on my intuition¡ as a native speakcr,

I ln Gibson 1982, I proposc I grammar for Ouyancsc tcnsc/aspcct in which thc basilect andrrolcct arc shown to usc the samc undcrlying catcgorics, A similar position is tákcn by Mufwencl9tl (cf. also Gibson & Johnson l9E4).

S,t

vrrreru, H. v. r943. Thc Ncz pcrce verb, pacific Northwcst ouartcrly 34.27r.wenxexrrN,.vrorr, and Ruov scorr. 1980. Gramátic¡ ch'o¡. fñ;;¿ ei"-;áti.", d.- --. lenguas indrgenas d_c_lr{é¡!co, 3.) México: Insrituto tirwtit¡"d ai-v?üiá]-'--§ w,rrrnuouse, vrour, 1980. chontal de la sierra de oaxaci, (Archivo ¿c Jincuas ¡r

--. dfgcnas de México, 7,) Méxicor centro de Investigacíón p"i" ia intigi*¡ér"§..¡rr.Weroexo, Gusrev. 1925. programm des Balkan-Arcñvs. tgilian-Á;;úñ;].til;rú

Rumánisches Institut.werxrerc,, unrru. t958. on_the-compatibirity of genetic relationship and convcrgcor

development. Word 14,374-9.Wu-ueus, Axx, and Esrsen Pr¿nsox. 1950. Diccionario cspañol_popoloca, popoloca--_- español, Méxicol Instituto Ling0fstico dc Vcrano.wlNtrn, wrnxrn. 1973, Areal linguisrics: some gcneial consldcrations. currcnt trcndr

in.lingulstics,-ed._by ThomaJScbeok, lt:t35-47. The Hagui: M;uro;.--------

-, 1976, Switch-refcrencc in yuman languages- tn Langdoñ & Siiver.iOS-ZO,

[Received 2 April l9g4;revision received 8 February lggj:accepred I July l98j.I

. " ú.:iL