8/3/2019 Me So American a Proposed Language Phyllum

1/4

Mesoamerican: A proposed Language Phylum

Author(s): Stanley R. Witkowski and Cecil H. BrownSource: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 80, No. 4 (Dec., 1978), pp. 942-944Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/675524 .

Accessed: 31/03/2011 18:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing andAmerican Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access toAmerican Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthrohttp://www.jstor.org/stable/675524?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/675524?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthrohttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

8/3/2019 Me So American a Proposed Language Phyllum

2/4

942 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [80, 1978]Steward,JulianH., and LouisC. Faron1959 Native Peoples of South America.New York:McGraw-Hill.Submitted16 March 1977Accepted 18June 1977Final revision received 5July 1977

Mesoamerican: A ProposedLanguage PhylumSTANLEY R. WITKOWSKI

CECIL H. BROWNNorthern Illinois University

This report describes the preliminary findingsof our research into the relationships of severalgroups of languages spoken in a large and rela-tively continuous zone of Mesoamerica. Theseinclude (1) the Mayan family of Guatemala,Belize, eastern Honduras, southern Mexico,and the Yucatan Peninsula (including Huastecspoken in northern Veracruz and eastern SanLuis Potosi, Mexico); (2) the Zoquean family ofsouthern Mexico (primarily the Mexican statesof Chiapas, Oaxaca, and Veracruz); (3) thelanguage isolate, Huave, spoken on the Pacificcoast of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in southernMexico; (4) the Totonacan family of north-central Veracruz and parts of the Mexicanstates of Hidalgo and Puebla; (5) the Lencanfamily of south-central Honduras and eastern ElSalvador; (6) the Jicaque family of northwesternHonduras; and (7) the Otomanguean stock,which is widely distributed through southern,central, and east-central Mexico. Our researchindicates that (1)-(7) constitute parts of a largelanguage phylum located exclusively inMesoamerica.

This grouping unites most of the languages ofMesoamerica into one geographically con-tinuous phylum descended from a proto-language spoken some seven to nine thousandyears ago. Plausibly, plant domestication,which was beginning about the time Proto-Mesoamerican was spoken, triggered a vastpopulation increase leading to the linguisticdiversity that presently characterizes theselanguages.The proposal of Mesoamerican is based uponobservation of systematic phonological cor-respondences. We have documented corres-pondences in the velar stop series for theMayan-Zoquean relationship (Brown and Wit-

kowski 1979). Preliminary investigation showsthat these correspondences extend as well intoHuave, Lencan, Jicaque, Totonacan, andZapotecan, a branch of Otomanguean. Becauseof the time-consuming nature of this kind ofresearch, we hope this interim note willstimulate others to join us in working on thedocumentation of this new phylum.Many of the relationships pertinent toMesoamerican have been proposed before. In1942 McQuown suggested the genetic unity ofMayan, Zoquean, and Totonacan, arguing for a"Macro-Mayan" grouping. Other proposalshave linked Huave with Mayan, Zoquean, andOtomanguean (Radin 1916, 1924; Rensch1973; Sudirez 1975), and Lencan with Mayan(Andrews 1970). While investigation of thesesuggested connections has not always beensystematic and fully documented, our pre-liminary study of Mesoamerican sound corres-pondences supports them all.

Much of the comparative work involvinglanguages treated in this report has focusedupon possible connections that are external tothe Mesoamerican area. Wider affinities forMayan-Zoquean, for example, have beensought in South America by Schuller (1920),Olson (1964, 1965), and Stark(1970, 1972), andin North America by Freeland (1931) andWhorf (1935). In addition, Greenberg andSwadesh (1953) and Oltrogge (1977) have at-tempted to relate Jicaque to the Hokan phylumof North America. Close examination of theseproposals shows them to be unconvincing; see,for example, Campbell's (1973) detailed cri-tique of Olson's South American proposal. Amore promising avenue is exploration of con-nections within Mesoamerica. These connec-tions are considerably more likely than any sug-gested with languages outside the area.

The fact that Mesoamerican languagefamilies are contiguously located means thatareal influences have been extensive. Thiscreates special problems in investigating geneticrelationships. Recent loans are usually detec-table, but since borrowing has occurred forthousands of years, it is sometimes difficult toseparate cognate lexical items from very earlyloans. Thorough sifting of the phonological,semantic, and distributional nuances of forms,however, can usually go far toward solving thisproblem (e.g., Brown 1977, 1979 for intra-Mayan examples, and Campbell 1972, 1977 andBrown and Witkowski 1979 for extra-Mayan ex-amples). Identification of loanwords, of course,can provide important information for docu-

8/3/2019 Me So American a Proposed Language Phyllum

3/4

REPORTS AND COMMENTS 943menting cultural contact at different timeperiods, and for tracing diffusion of culturalinnovations (e.g., Campbell and Kaufman1976).

Divisions of Mesoamerican. We tentativelyrecognize two major divisions of Mesoamerican:Northern Mesoamnerican includes the eightlanguage families of Otomanguean (Tla-panecan, Otopamean, Popolocan, Amuzgo,Manguean, Chinantecan, Mixtecan, andZapotecan); Southern Mesoamnerican includesMayan, Zoquean, Huave, Lencan, Jicaque, andTotonacan. For detailed information on these14 language families - e.g., individual languagenames, approximate linguistic time depths forfamilies, approximate number of speakers,etc. -see Kaufman (1974). For recent work onOtomanguean relationships, see Rensch (1973,1976, 1977).

These divisions are convenient geographicgroupings, not valid genetic subgroups. Theplacement of Zapotecan in the Northernbranch, for example, takes into account thetraditional recognition of its close affiliationwith the Otomanguean stock. Our investiga-tion, however, indicates that Zapotecan is alsoclosely related to Southern Mesoamerican.

Several small language families and languageisolates on the northern (Tarascan and Cuit-latec) and southern (Payan, Misumalpan, andXincan) fringes of Mesoamerica are potentialcandidates for inclusion within the Meso-american phylum, but research at present is in-conclusive. The remaining language groups inMesoamerica are definitely not related to theproposed phylum, e.g., the Aztec-Tanoan lan-guages such as Nahuatl and Pipil which havetheir origin to the north in the Great Basin areaof the United States. Also intrusive from thenorth is the Tequistlatecan family in southernOaxaca, a distant, 5,000-year offshoot of theHokan related Yuman family of the south-western United States and Baja California(Waterhouse 1976).

Mesoamerican and the Linguistic Identity ofthe Olmec. Campbell and Kaufman (1976)have proposed that the archaeological Olmecliving in southern Veracruz and westernTabasco, the presumed Olmec heartland, werespeakers of Zoquean languages. Speakers ofmodern Zoquean languages occupy part of thisarea today, and Proto-Zoquean was spokenabout the time (1000-1500 B.C.) Olmec civiliza-tion was crystallizing. In support of their argu-ment, Campbell and Kaufman identify Zo-quean loanwords in other languages naming

things diagnostic of early Mesoamericancultural developments, things which may havebeen spread throughout Mesoamerica by thehighly influential Olmec.The genetic relationship of Mayan and Zo-quean and the proposal of a larger Mesoamer-ican phylum suggest the need for closely re-examining the lexical evidence provided byCampbell and Kaufman. Certainly geographicand temporal correlations provide strong cir-cumstantial support for the hypothesis that theheartland Olmec were Zoquean speakers. Onthe other hand, not all of Campbell and Kauf-man's proposed loanwords for things typicallyMesoamerican are necessarily borrowingsfromZoquean. Several of the lexical items listed bythem as Zoquean loanwords in Mayan lan-guages may as plausibly be construed as Mayancognates of Zoquean words traced to Proto-Mayan-Zoquean. Similarly, other proposed Zo-quean loans in other Mesoamerican languagesmay in fact be linked to common parent wordsof a Proto-Mesoamerican exicon. Furthermore,

the proposed direction of borrowing in Camp-bell and Kaufman's treatment, invariably fromZoquean into other languages, is not alwaysconvincing. The unravelingof detailed relation-ships between archaeological cultures andethnic-linguistic groups that existed thousandsof years ago in Mesoamerica will undoubtedlybe a very complex undertaking, but one whichshould prove rewarding as indicated by Camp-bell and Kaufman's promising beginning (seealso Kaufman 1976).

Acknowledgments. A number of scholarshave contributed to our ongoing project by of-fering critical comments on manuscripts or inother important ways, and we wish to thankthem here. These include E. Wyllys Andrews,5th, Glenn Ayres, Victoria R. Bricker, LindaKay Brown, ChristopherDay, MarshallDurbin,Thomas E. Durbin, Ray Elliot, Lawrence H.Feldman, J. L. Fischer, James Fox, David C.Grove, Eric Hamp, Barbara E. Hollenbach,Dell Hymes, Rob MacLaury, Richard Reimer,Michael Salovesh, Brian Stross,JorgeA. Su.rez,Norman D. Thomas, Gregory Truex, StephenA. Tyler, Viola Warkentin, Eric R. Wolf, andRichard B. Woodbury. Needless to say, none ofthe above should be held responsible for ourheresies.References CitedAndrews, E. Wyllys, 5th1970 Correspondencias Fonol6gicas Entre

8/3/2019 Me So American a Proposed Language Phyllum

4/4

944 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [80, 1978]El Lenca y Una Lengua Mayance. Estudiosde Cultura Maya 8:341-387.Brown, Cecil H.1977 Ethnoanatomyand Language Change.

Manuscript, Department of Anthropol-ogy, Northern Illinois University.1979 Growth and Development of FolkBotanical Life-Forms in the Mayan Lan-guage Family. In press, American Ethnolo-gist.Brown, Cecil H., and Stanley R. Witkowski1979 Aspects of the Phonological Historyof Mayan-Zoquean. International Journalof American Linguistics 45(1).Campbell, Lyle

1972 Mayan Loan Words in Xinca. Inter-national Journal of American Linguistics38:187-190.1973 Distant Genetic Relationships and theMaya-Chipaya Hypothesis. Anthro-pological Linguistics 13:113-135.1977 Quichean Linguistic Prehistory. Uni-versity of California Publications,Linguistics 81.Campbell, Lyle, and Terrence Kaufman1976 A Linguistic Look at the Olmec.American Antiquity 41:80-89.Freeland, L. S.1931 The Relationship of Mixe to thePenutian Family. InternationalJournal ofAmerican Linguistics 6:28-33.

Greenberg,Joseph H., and MorrisSwadesh1953 Jicaque as a Hokan Language. Inter-national Journal of American Linguistics19:216-222.Kaufman, Terrence1974 Mesoamerican Indian Languages.

Encyclopaedia Britannica.1976 Archaeological and Linguistic Cor-relations in Mayaland and AssociatedAreas of Meso-America. World Archaeol-ogy 8:101-118.

McQuown, Norman A.1942 Una Posible Sintesis LingiiisticaMacro-Mayance.In Mayas y Olmecas. Pp.37-38. Tuxtla Guti(rrez: Sociedad Mex-icana de Antropologia.Olson, Ronald D.1964 Mayan Affinities with Chipaya ofBolivia, I: Correspondences. InternationalJournal of American Linguistics 30:313-324.1965 Mayan Affinities with Chipaya ofBolivia, II: Cognates. International Jour-nal of American Linguistics 31:29-38.

Oltrogge, David1977 Proto Jicaque-Subtiaba-Tequistla-teco: A Comparative Reconstruction. InTwo Studies in Middle American Com-parative Linguistics, by David Oltroggeand CalvinRensch. Pp. 1-52. Dallas:Sum-mer Institute of Linguistics.Radin, Paul1916 On the Relationship of Huave andMixe. American Anthropologist 18:411-421.

1924 The Relationship of Maya to Zoque-Huave. Journal de la Societe desAm(ricanistes n.s. 16:317-324.Rensch, Calvin R.1973 Otomanguean Isoglosses. In CurrentTrends in Linguistics, Vol. 11. ThomasSebeok, ed. Pp. 295-316. The Hague:Mouton.

1976 Comparative Otomanguean Phonol-ogy. Language Science Monograph, No.14. Indiana University.1977 Classification of the OtomangueanLanguages and the Position of Tlapanec.In Two Studies in Middle American Com-parative Linguistics, by David Oltroggeand Calvin Rensch. Pp. 53-108. Dallas:Summer Institute of Linguistics.Schuller, Rudolf.1920 Zur Sprachlichen Verwandtschaft derMaya-Qu'it6 mit den Carib-Aruac. An-thropos 14/15:465-491.Stark, Louisa R.1970 Mayan Affinities with Araucanian. InPapers from the 6th Regional Meeting ofthe Chicago LinguisticsSociety. Pp. 57-69.Chicago LinguisticsSociety.1972 Maya-Yunga-Chipayan: A New Lin-guistic Alignment. InternationalJournal ofAmerican Linguistics38:119-135.

Sutrez, Jorge A.1975 Estudios Huaves. Colecci6n CientificaLingiiistica No. 22. Instituto Nacional deAntropologia e Historia, Mexico.Waterhouse, Viola G.1976 Another Look at Chontal and Hokan.In Hokan Studies. Margaret Langdon andShirley Silver, eds. Pp. 325-343. TheHague: Mouton.Whorf, Benjamin L.1935 The Comparative Linguistics of Uto-Aztecan. American Anthropologist 37:600-608.Submitted 21January 1977Accepted 1 March 1977Revised version received 24 February 1978