i

I
i
J
.
vi
:ll
I
tl
it.
t:l
SUNY Albany
University of
Pittsburgh
Troum.C.
Surrr-Srenr
Colegio de Mxico
MESO.AMERICA
AS A LINCUISTIC
AREA
Ly-CnpaBLr.
TnnxcrKeuru^lx
MESO.AMERICA AS A LINOUISTIC AREA
53I
Many attribute the formar birth of AL to Trubetzkoy's famous proposition
t6, presenred
at rhe First Internationar congrewof r."irirt|,
iisii;i,
'Gruppcn, bcstchcnd us s-prachcn, dic cinc grossc
Ahnrichkcit in ryntaktischer Hinslcht, cinc
' Ahnchkcit in den Grundsdtzcn oei morpt ot-ogisiiin 'iu,
"ur*oscn,
und cinc grossc Anzhr
gcmeinsamcr
Kurturwrt* bictcn, ,"nd*"r-.r.lirrr.iAhnrichkeit
im Bcstandc d* [ur.
systeme-dabcr abcr kcinc gcmcrnsmcn
Eremcnrarworrii u.rtr.n_roili;;;#;"
xerxtx wrn SprAcHEfrNDE., (cmphasis
in original)
Trubetzkoy's
ler.m
.sprachbund,
roughly a
,union
of tanguages,, came to be
used as a technical term-in Engtish. ft" n"r.
ilin"
;;;a''
,';r""
trans.lation
of Sprachbund,-yj.rt
.nployuJ y Vei-ten tgl, anj;;';d"
w.ell known by Emeneau 1956. Trubetzkoli:zll_l
crplieJei;;"-
dilional
.diatect
geography,
but with
;roirrrJ
"r,.r,-"ii!"J
b;; il.
boundaries of a single tanguage. This viJw oil,, ,,
"in
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 our
goals of examining the rcsurts of ranguage
"onr".t
*ii.h .i.ic a ringuistic arca, without gcttiJi
lost in thc details of rhe mcchanisms-whlch pro*"J'iiir"
,.Lftr.
.
In th.i! conrcxtr cctain rcrcvsnt but rcsr rmporrint rtrJii."i u.,.ntioncd. somc usc rhe rcrm
'areal lnguisticr'or'arca ringuirticr'in rhc ensc oii"ri"i'g'.og."ptry wirtrin a iiiglc-r.is;a"
(cf' Kurath l9?2, Goocn t973)i rhir u,ge rr nor *rir.iil-ir,. conccmr ofrhrr prper, A3ain,
the telian'nconngurrrrc'rchool
i ccr" trrciii.ci*oi o-*uo*.;;r;;;?J;;;ii;"
dcrcrrninc, rt has conrriburcd norhing ncw r" rt. ;n1ifi.
filii
"i"",-roi, ro ri;;;iJr.
s*;;ily
sccms morivarcd bv an extremirr rc-ac.rion alainsr n.oj."nir.rr"n sound lails, ;r,l*iijiJ"i
sch-uchardt
scc
spitzer 1922) andGifliron
cc
Gilrin d noiu.. r9l2). se 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;
;,;;;.,ri"r. **,
considcrations havc bccn wirh ur almost fro.q rhc igiriiis-;i rh. rJ'*rr ,iry oiiig,.go-(.f.
Kopitar 1E57, who mdc somc Barkn u.at rc"turcii.io*i;,cc
"rro
Mikrosich tE6t, sandferd
P]^9L_Y,_.-n:ll,ciamploned.rhe
vicw! thar rhcre erc io iiig.osopirrcar boundaics bcrwecn
Ianguages' and hat langusSe mxturc occru; hc antcdrtcd Schmidt lETi as thc uthor of rc
;*a""
thcory'.(Wctten-hypothcse;
scc Spirzer lCZti: eS, aii.
-- --""'
.
Dcvclopmcnrs in thc srudy ofAmcrican rndian ranjuagcs arso ptaycd en rmport8ni rorc.
powc[
.
bccamc o caughr up rn drfrusionim rhrr r-rhrcarc;cdio pirinrii, r-.'triiiig ii'8*;"
rcrms, causins hrfir ro doubr hr o,wn crascifrcarron (cf. powcli
trgll Ixo,iri'iil"d;i;,
ll::t-o"."b'jily
to scp-aratc rhc cfrecr ofgcneric iri,",rt"n".iror difrusion arc echocd in wok
oy Eoas, Dy Drxon &, Krocbcr, and ro 80me
_cxtcnt
by sapir. whire Boas and sapi*pp"r.n,iv
hcld similar view bout borrow.cd
-strucrurat
r..ir*r r
...,.;#fihril
"iH:
lffiil,i:;
bccamc quite porarizcd
toward t920, in what ii
""*
r-i.i'"rr rput" (p"rni[ & il;;iir,
lo":
yr skcpticat abour rhc porsibilitv
of disringuishinlrr,.r.i
i"ir"rii., ,r.rriiro, ,i*-
tural difluion from those rcsulting from.gcn.ti.-rcl"tionslp;
*hilc Sepir, by .;;i, ;; ;
bclicvc that the cffectr of borrowinl, parriirrarty
in morp-r,o-l'ogy, *our *";.ioJih, ;;r
vicws prcvailcd in Amcrica' nd utiqu.nt rrui oiA"i.Jiiii'nai"n r"nguas* war charecrcrizrd
by much rcductionim ln tho numbcr f portuler.
t *iil;;;. Bo, rcewtronr wcrc rrmolr
f]lll fo$ottcn ln Amedca, but ecclv_cd ittcntion n-gr.pc,'wicr. they mrkcdlrlnfl;;;*d ;
Praguc schoor-(s-cc Trubelzkoy r93 t, Jakoblon rpa, riaaifr;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, ,0 i.r.Jpii"ii
of lndividual languagcs includcd ryporogrcat cmprrins-with-itho,
rrngr"g",
"r "
g"8iii;iJ
region (cf. Kroebcr lgft:t7-tS; pirncli&
shcrzir t97l).
-
Thet Meso'Amcrics constitutes.e tegirimate ringuistic arca has bccn qucstioncd.
To
address rhir qucstion,
conceprcof
'"..it ringuirr'i'J;;-hcre
survcycd nd refincd. pro.
poscd Mcso'Amcricn areal trail. ac rcconiid.ii
"g"iir
thcce findrngs, and are com-
parcd wth thosc of other.estabrishcd linguistic
"-r"ir.'"ro.er"rica
prov, to be a particularly
strong linguistic area, Thcse r;lt, ;il. borh to thc tudy of Mcso-
Arhcrlcn 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.nine
iro
"rntr"l
rtl.i.oir,r*rr,
"*r,.
ern central America-is. a ringuistic ...".Tr," itt attempts at characterizing
i!:ljiri,":*,,uffi*ffiHm,rj1,*::,:;H[*iffi l:
Io:.lt!t.
I98 I
) ;,ndverthel:s^sr
-doubtgrr
-
I*'.*p."s sed (cf.
Hamp I 979,
Hol t &
-B
ri gF'f 976, s u re z te)--{me r,
"u.
i r,ouerit t di il l; il r', iei r,
well-defined
area in rhe-senst
ott ..s,".o!ni'ieJ
in the lii.;il;;, ;;h=;,
the Balkans bFS6*Asia,-uut
rattrei maf
-u?".-orpor.o
of scvcrar smailcr,
regionally defined areas (cf. Hamp I979).
prt"i,o"ron,
ourprimary purpose
here.is to investigate MA in detail f.o a""r..iri.*pint.
il;*;;;r: ;;-
termine MA's status requires us first to .r.iiv-the nature and definition of
ringuistic.areas
in g.nrr.
w.;ii';;',h-i"'ioi-r,
and then rerurn to the
characteristics
of MA in 4.
.
1' Drrrxr,oN
op Anel LrNcursrrcs.
As broadry conceived, AL dears with
the results of the diffusion of slructural r.rtu.",
".r,
ingrrti. uour"ii.r.
As. commonly viewed, ringuistic areas are ctraracierizea
by ;il;;-
guistic
featu^res shared by various I"nguages:s;e
of wfrici;*,;.;;;
are from differenr subgroups.within ;fa;ily_in a geograptri"iriry
.i""iigrli,
area. The phenomena
ofthe ringuisti"
"r."
r" arso icrJrrc i"
"iirr.r"vi.
terms 'convergence area',
.Sprahbund', .amnite
nguistique,,
.diffusion
area.,
'adstratum' etc.' However, when it comes t ,orJpr..ru rnniionr, ti,r*
is considerable
controversy concerning just
*f,"ief. r.
'
ws wish to thart wifliam Brighr and sarah G. Thomason for herpfur commcnrs on carrier
vcrsions of this paper; bur we do nir r."n to rpiv ,h;i il;;';r ncccasarry in agreemenr wirh
our usc of rhcir starcmcnrs. wc rso ccknowt.i.',i
niiit'rto . rnrorig"..iJiiii"rirliil,
univridad Nacional Aurnoma dc Mcxico, for privi.jlyr'i
t",npu", rhc opportuniry to cn8sc
in full'timc cearch in rgEr-82, durrng wtrrch timc h; i-r;il;;r..r"h for rhr, pep.r end wrorc
up preliminarv vcrion. Tcrrcncc.Raifmn end rloi"iiiiirr"surr
r,"* .,,"l,i"tljii"
"rigriil
anulcript and mdc various additions to lt, Thus the lisi ii"rnoru rcfrect not onry srphabcticat
ordcr, bur rcrative inpur ro rhc finar prouct, wc thrce ari-oi,
"ii'in
.rr.iir"i;;.;;;;;hB
thc argumcnts and conclusions.
l.A.reat
picnomena
erc, ro r greatcr or tcsscr dcgrce, rcratcd to such othcr arcas of study as
multilngualism, substrara, supcrirrata, tinguiic giolrariry,
i""i*.g,.n rrner.girh oii'..
530
{
*'
I
i
*
;ii
i'i;
i,:l
t::::"
if: i
ri'-
ii,,''
:liilli
rrlil
,ll
l.,
":
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 'rxousc lnEr is dcfincd.herc .s.an are, in which ssvenrl ringuistic trsirs arc sharcd by the languagcs
of rhc arca.ad
tin *r,cr, iurriir;;;:;"r.
is cvidencc (tinguictic
and non- linguistic) that contacl b
re.cnrion orrhcse i, #.l1h"diT:T:,]li.,HTffi:;,T[XTf",1l,l}li,rr,,i,,ifli:i
It is imporranr ro r.mcmbcr rt
"r
ii"eu"s; i';i.i?r.-*r","
o, ri"ii'Li'"'r.;;;.ry
wctt and probabty
do disagrec wirh.r;s", ao ,;;;;;'l,"li"i
,',ilii.jilil;;:lHl.,[,i"
area according to rh abovc dcfnirion-, since thlsi.i. Jrr.*^. r,"r (which
one might want
to call diagnostic traits),'
Issues over which opinion has been divided incrude the number ofisogrosses
required to define a LA, and whether n.y ruri'Lurdte-or
whether a singre
isogloss is suflicient. For some._schot.rr,'iroglos._U*Otrlt
ii"r;,i:f.
Trubetzkov
r93rt234t sherzer.r973:io;
ri".ii""lc76tr79i
.*atz r975tr2, 16;
Holt & Brisht t9?6: Emeneau tgso:zr. e;i-J.sr, r"* havc insisted on the
bundting criterion. Manv view Ai ;;;;;;;irronat
diatectotogv,
whcre
isogtosses
frequenrry faito grouf-ah;';;]ur
are found more concen.
trated around somc core witour;bru;tuorniitr-"nd
where rhe xtension
of individual isoglosses
ourward from the;;;;;y
vary greatly (cf.
Emeneau
tl965bl re',:r28, 136; Ramanuja" .ri..lsoi3io;
wr,r, 1973; r40; Masica
197 6:6, 170-7 l, I 79; Hendersn ls.osi
; Jlr.r'', rrO. Moreover, fottowing
the analogy of dialectology,
some linguiss trav!'noted
that isoglosses of one
LA may cross those orant!9r (.f.
,;k;;;;'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]fii
share any diffused or convcrgent structuial fatures, even a singlc trait. Thus
Masica (r72) views a singre-"r."
i'eiorr'i, tti'"i"irii,
lii-iiii""i,irl,
'Linguistic
areas are apprentry pr,.""r."u
oi'oin
4e
magnitudes, starting
1..^"1t
!l!
limiting case, the
1g-a !!n9O
y u ,nst" toit;"f.
-riir,t?
il;,
1976:236, Trubetzkoy l93t:345,,1.toU*llli,liil.
xur, makes a singte, syn-
chronic isogloss the basis of nis ennio
"
iiilr'-"
'Von cinem Sprachbund ksnn man sprcchcn, wcnn:
(a) zu cincr gcgcbcncn
Zeit
(b) cin zusmmcnhngendes geographischq
Gcbict, das
(c) von mindetsnr cner sprichirci,r.'.irr""i.ijrr"
(d) von mindciens ciner tjogloric urrp""ri *ul,'-''
That is' no sharp boundary.can
be drawn between LA's which share a singre
diffused trait and those wich rh"r;";;;v:-;;;ighr
auempt to justify
this
poinl of view by considering
such anarogies
";i
H; many grains
of sand does
it take to make a heao? H.muny tiia'r-ur" ir.ir a constirute a flock? or
How many students re required
r"kr;;lJ-
The conclusion thar a I-a migtrt .a"qririyG;efineo
on the basis ofa singre
shared feature is disouted.bv-r"nt
r';h;i;irl-iJ*.',r,.r,
a LA defined bv a
singre isogloss wou td be trrial. ru incim;;;;' #; ;; ;id:r;#llJ,i";
that particular
LA's share several t."itr. irii*it.,
th"." is no rneaningful
MESO-AMERCA AS A LINGUISTIC AREA
5J3
yay
!o
distinguish LA's defined on the basis of several features from those
based- on a single shared rrait, if rhe rattei are considered non-triuiui. ilit
"
question
should be posed trot in the form, Does some entity quafiff a,
"
if,
but rather, Horv strong or weak is a particurar LA? That i rir"
"u'n
tnt i
"
continuum of LA's from those wgakly defined, on the basis or
"
ri"g" ,'rr"."o
feoture, to-mrc.h stronger-areas basd on many diffuse .rir""ir]iir
"p-
proach to defining LA's arso implics a means of cvaruating it"iirii""sii, io
which we now turn.
2. Evr.uerox. one strategy for improving the definition of LA's has been
to propose criteria of evaluation. For somc scholars, this amounts to mere
counting of the number of shared traits. For others, ii involves ranking them
in some evaluative scale according to the varying social, cultural, o. t ir-toii""t
circumstances which gave risc to the arros.it is worth rooking'into oc or
these n order to ndortand AL bctter,
--one
expliciy stated approach to evaruatrng the strength of LA's s'that of
Katz (p. 16) which is followcd (at lcasr implicitly) by seeral ott
"ru:--
---- -
'Fs ist zwar klar, dasr durch "ncar.unlvcratr" konstitulcle sprachbndc ts solche nicht
,
sehr inlerrcssant sind, diercr Mangcl lsst sich aber eurglcichcn, wcnn wir cinc
.,wcrtskala"
rufstcllcn' dic bcsagcn roll: Ein sp*chgcbcit, das von mehr sprachbundisogrorscn urr.Hor.
. scn lst' it uf diescr skla h0hcruu bcwcricn rh einc innerhalb voriwcnigcr solchcn
. Iroglosrcn,'
This amounts to a 'more-the-merrier' propoial, where the existence of more
isoglosscs is taken as more highly valutd.-
Attemqts to establirh mcans of cvaluating LA's mako us rcalize that different
typor of LA's indocd cxigt. These diffcrces dcpcnd on the circumrt"n".,
that gave rise to them and contributed to their deveropment, il t,Jy
Thomason & Kaufman (lg71:27);
'Thc varlous scs so idcntifablc, howcvcr, arc not of uniform type. In some of the arcas
in question, thcrc I cuncnt instltutionlizcd mullingualism, cithci multilatcral or unilatcral,

In othcn lhcrc-h bcc.n masiv hift in thc p!t, vith, howcvcr, rcme spcakcrs of thc lan.
' Suaget hlftcd'frcm till round. In tlll otlrcr thcre h bccn gndual iiTuton of fcaturcr
ovcr long ccnturcri without hlgh dcgrcer of multitingualirm oi mivs rhift. Ir.mlght bc
profsblc to try to scpemtc thcsc typc, but rt prccnt ic havc no foolproor i,J oi-J.ng
o,'
(Cf.
Masica lg76:173, Marrinet 1952:123, 1956.) If distinct typcs of LA's can
have suqh varied historicel backgrounds, thcn it fo[ow ttr*ilii mai onei
greatly in-their composltlon and charactcr-and in the way ttratiniii'r"
traits are interrelated, both within indiyidual languages and""ross lungu"ges.
This brings us to the second mqior approach to defiing LA's, which rqirt
historical evidence.
3. Ts HrsroRrcrsr AppRoAcH.
perhaps
the most important evaluative at-
tempts have been based on a realization ofthe different historical factors which
go into the creation of LA's, Masica (173) treats as significant the distinciion
between LA's which are thc relics of past contacts, no lnger activi, ;n ;th;;
which are in the process of formatin and extension beausc or n-gong in-
'
I
I
i,
,l
ll
Ii
Ii
,ir
4l
iI
ti
iI
ii':
ir
ir
,il,
;.j
,1,
fi
r1
l,'1
iril
ili
iii
ili
iirl
t$
r
irf
+
i,'
iji,;
lfi
iI
i,it
i;i
lllr
;iiilrl
t.\l
ut
liir
,lfi
iil
r1.
ilii
ii
i r'ir
iii
iiii
riil:
lti"r!:
;fii
il,i,
il
r ili
l\'i:
t, l:
iii
i ril
li'll \,
i'"ir
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, histrical i;;il lr;;';;;,;iffi:."5r,
group's
approach has been.merely io cataiog ite simirarities found in a partic_
utar area-alowing
these simitariie; t;l"cs#in;rl;il;iffi;i
."r*i",
out the research necessarv to demonstraiJ'tt,
"-.i"'""*';:Hin'ilr-
ically a reliance on'circumitantiar
evidence'. ii.i..urstantiarist,approach,
as we will call ir, can be useful_particularlyln
th" pr"lmii"iv
si"r;.Iii"-
vestigarion,
or in LA's wtre.e reluie rrrrl"r iacts are diflicurt to obtain.
Even so, one wourd rike--to be
"u;
,riil;i;'iJ*.p".","
rear arcar features-
those resulting from diffusion_i.",
;1;;oir1" ...o.nts, which may result
from undiscovered
senetic rr.tionrr,lptlr;;;;"ir,
onomatopoeia, paralrel
or independent
deveropment,
s... .t
"'ncll'ii"
nronunatery,
many circum-
stantialisrs
have made no
*:-o,!t- !o
..rry out thi tristorical program (cf. Haas
1969, 197 G, 1978
I Sherzer I cz,
j
szo, ;rJ'd "rrun 1972; Campbefi tgl 7,
ijffiT!;lkoy
re28, rsr
; Brishi a;;;
D76; Hott-iili'
ii6;
The sharpest criticism of this type of AL concerns the serection of features
to be considered arear. since nearif er".yon"
"onriiers
LA,s to bc thc products
of diffusion, features designated.as
.riti"" i"i"'la shoutd resurt from bor.
1ovins,
stemming from mttual nnr.n.il a,
"iriady
seen, some hold that a
LA mav be defined bv any simraity ilut n*;;r to be shared arnong con-
tiguous tanguages.
Hoievr, if the s;le;i;j';ffi;
features can be explained
equally well by accident, universars, gen"iir-r".io"t".,
then such a LA makes
no sense as the product
of.diffusion; it begns io-seem rike a mere ringuistic
typology, whch 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 features
designated as arear shourd g...oir..q,riiaiy irfri,iii", we cafl this the,historica|
approach, foilo-wed by the 'h.isrori"irtt'. r lnrt*-"irr" tlr" r,v;hilffii-
ars insist on historicar evidence, and- to
-.oiri.,
their criticisms of the
circumstantialists.
In this respect, Jacobsen (rgg0:205),
speaking ofherzer rg76, cails for the
historical program:
'Thc obvious way of making-furhcr progress
in thcsc matters ... i! to
80 beyond a m*c
crtaloging of thc prcscncc
oribscncc
"i.;t-rry
ir ; ig;rg. to
"
,tuay of rhc actuat mcans
used for its cxprcssron End to a rctiancc ,pon r,. irii"gi-or historicar linguistics as appricd
to 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 ;;r;ri;;i;'.-,iffi;;;;:iiii"ii;
to thc point:
""
whilc thc comparative mcthod is unqucstionabry
an historica srudy, the ficrd of arcat linguistics 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 firgrrti.i, v"r'*iill
pZSl
'[herzcr'sl mcthodology
secm! lo meke far too lilrle provirion
for these di!tinction!
fAL and
comparative ringuisticsr rhar.I.consider.rr..till.,,
i', iiuiy *orru lie propcrry wirhin rhc
rcalm of tvpologv .., for arcal, i.e. urtimatc spcii. 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 listing ofa catalog oftrivia; and thc atartinS
paramctcrs may wcl havc misscd thc most intcrcsting and crucially tcll-talc charactcrlstics.'
(2E r)
'uch arcal qucstions can bc approachcd mcaningfully and fruiifully only f thcy arc treatcd
in spcclfic tcrm for what they arc-thc rcsults of dcvctopmcnts with historical dcpth and
spccificity,' (2E2)
(Cf. Winter 1973t147, and ilvcrstein 1978 for similar criticisms.) Wc conclude,
then-with Bright 1976, llamp 1977, and Winter 1973-that our goal should
be 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 interest
of saving space, efe also important in evaluatirig the strength of different LA's.
These deal with the weight of individual areal isoglosses; all borrowings are
not 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 does
material that is morc easily developcd lndependently, or found widcly in other
languages. 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 borrowed
traits to be found deep inside a grammar. Thus we suspect that, the more deeply
integrated or interwoven into the basic fabric ofa language a diffused feature
is, the greater its areal value-and even greater to the extent that it is both
integrated and marked.
.Second,
it has at times been claimed that a language can borrow features
oirly when it already has a pre-existing model (cf.losiph, 205). Retated, but
in an opposing vein, is the notion that the grammarc ofcertain languages have
gaps which somehow reduce their elliciency: when they come into contact with
tanguages exhibiting the useful but missing constructions, they incorporate
thern.handily-recognizing what they haye been missing, and requiring only .
minimal foreign stimulation to acquire them (cf. Campbell & Mithun l98l). We
do not argue for either of these claims. However, since such bonowings would
be easier to achieve, they should count for less, Such arguments do, in any
case, 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 bnwing grammars has been called
'installation' (Jacobsen 1980) and 'naturalizatio' (Gair 1980). It obviously takes
time or intensive contact to install or naturalizc foreign constructions; thus we
might feel inclined to take thcm as strong areal indicators. However, it is often
the case that such features are initially borrowed on a more superficiat level;
tho internal forces ofthe grammar then 'snowball'(Joseph, 202) to achicve the
iirtegration, regardless of whether areal influences continue.
Third, the 'more-the.merrier' principle for evaluating LA's obviously needs
refinement, given that the weight of individuat traits depends on difliculty of
borrowing. There is, however, another way in which it fails: Some aspects of
grammar are universally linked, such that the presence of one may imply the
I !.,
i
,,, ,,'
ir :r
"):
536
L^NCUAOE, VOLUME 62, NUMBER 3 (I9S)
presence
of orhers. ,,
:l:!
cases, should it prove universatty impossible
or
hightv unlikerv for a ranguage.ro
have o*-g,irrurr.
;;_fi*i
"
the same rime, exhibitingihe-orh.rr
;;;;;'i
i,, pr"r"nce-rhen
it is hardry
vatid ro counr phenomena
rhar ..nnor o..rr-ildil;ry
"ffi,;ii;ili;"-
glosses'
such considerations
deserve .trcn1-o";'to*ever,
passing
over them
now will not detract from our generat
exposition of AL or of MA.
From rhis discussion of AL,-we r.v.n-.-lu]i,
firsr, that rriiir.rtg"to.,
view it as akin to tradirionar iarc.i"rgy,
ri *ith isogrosses that extend be- yond language boundaries,
g:ggng, Let'.r.-.iiities-of
diffcring magnitudes,
ranging from thc controverslar limtng case-.?ii.o
by a singre shared trait_
to clearly stronger instance.s,-witt,
,""y l..ra ?"utu.a, resurting from diffu-
sion' such features are of dit?erent *"]r,ii, orp*oing
on r,"*';,i"iL"i'
tt ry
are,'and how inteSrated. into lhe_respeJtre'gra-mmars.
Third, since arear iso-
glosses
frequenrrv do not bundte
u"o ortrn oirl1, , i, oaie use t,
""rpt
to define LA's based on the coincid.r*;;ilrat_traits
at some boundary.
Neverthetess,
when bundring oo"r o""ri, i."i ui-" i, ,i;;;;-Jil;:i",
the LA invotved. Finailv, sice it irieielylr.*o
that meaningfut LA,s are
the historicat product
oitinguistic difi"ri;il'h;:;nger
LA,s arc rhose whose
sharcd traits can be shown-hstorcati;io
t ii'nuo-"nd
cannot be ascribcd
to a common ancetor, to chance, oito univ".s"[.
4' MA nre,rnrrs.
studies in the Meso-American
LA to date have mostly
been circumstanriarist
in orientation, ihilir';nrstandabre,
given that areal
studies in American Indian Iinguisti.t t
""r
tvp.uilv been circumstantiarist
both
because of rradition (cf, Darriel s..*i'"i;'d.;il.;;ffi;#;il;
of adequate
historicar evidence r"r in til,n'ori*tr.
rn ,"h"i'il;;,';.
present
a compilation
of circumstantialist
traits that have b"*
;r"p";;l;,
;il'iti,:ix+:i!'i,llil,srl"*l;x[kTJ,*ik'xx:fi
1971, 1977., l97*a, t979,nd. Sniit:h*
,'giil, others that have comc to
our attention. In this evaluation,
neighboring l"ni*eu, to the south and to the
north are used as conlror cases for-checm,lr,i
""r
*tr." o?-ug"i i
traits' All rerevant ranguages ... tto*n on ".p r tpp. 53g-9); the accomoanv.
ing Key (pp.540-42)
indicates generic
amtiarions a';;ffi;";Xffii
I
somc information and cxampres-not othcrwise refcrcnccd arc from campbc[,r record nd ficld notcs; thesc includc Tcmhua, C"t.r,iqrii."i.ii,
X.i.f,l Nahuarl,
pipil,
Xincan, [,cnce,
Jicaquc,.Cacaopcra,
eucchua,
"na
aym"r", t"tay;;il;;l.*sc
cfercnccd rc from Kauf.
man's fles.
Il should bc notcd thar manv ofthc dictionaries which w! cite a sourcc! .*o contarn
rammrdcar skcrcho. For gencrat lnformiion
on-thc clsint"l.roii*.i,lrc
of MA l.nturgcs, rcc Crmpbc[
t
{,
xru{m11 I e74,b ; campbct i"ri.ii--l,ii:
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'"#;"**scs,
Howcvcr, tn thtr inrrancc,
scvcral of our conrrols havc no conracr with MA f..g. .tiil Guayml, Tonkrwa, yuman),
In principlc,
languagcs found ourside an
"rc"
cour once-i"auc-J.in.iac
r, orcourd otherwrsc hvc becn influcnccd throush rransDoflr .ontru, H;.;;';;'.*r, geogrrphicar
fcatures makc it highly unlikery that sisnific;nt contsct courd rrrr. ol,.u.rii. mus th*c trnguag* do Indccd providc
lcgitimatc contros.
MESO.AMERICA AS A LINOUISTIC AREA
$7
since the status of MA as LA is at issue, we will begin our evaluation of
areal.traits by taking the strongest critical stance. That isl we will .onrr, u,
convincing onty fearures which are widety distributed wthin MA; wi *iiiiii*-
nate traits which are also found beyond A, or are limited in theiiartriurii""
to smaller zones within MA. we arso discount traits which ;t.;rtiy;;;;i;p
independently in language. Thus we emphasizc features p"cuii"r to'M,;;d
gcneral throughout t, but not beyond.'ive hasten to point out thaiir,ir'ir'i"
fact not.a very rearistic view of ard traits-or of th.r irtiiuuiion;;;;;r;
interaction one with anothcr-but ir takcn teri ony to cmontratc-M;;'"
strong LA, able to survive rhe most stringent scruiiny. o r""i. uii1ii"r"lr.
erationat constranrs wourd ren to oisquirir/ ;i';;i i:;;.'rii,J, iilr"i
unique or highly-marked featurcs are especialiy pi.suasr",
oni *rr iir?t
I !l
to exhibit any abundance of exotic struturar traits unknow;;il"*h;;.
ll-lLr_.*_r-Lr.: fimitar!,
changes thar can easily take pl".o in"p.nliiv,
rnrougn parauer
evoution, can also be triggered by the stimulation oflanguaie
contact. Moreovcr, areal isogrosses often iil rc bundre,
"n
tt o*
"ri*r"rriig
patterns-some
beyond the LA's borders, others reitricte witfin-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.
iirr"-cii.nt
lPlllry:.:9s
in disptaying areal rraits whicn miit tir"r",tr*i
"onOironr,
tnere can be ite doubt about its validity as a LA. After this stct scrutiny,
we.will reconsider-proposed
arear traits f MA which d""t;;ih;r;;;;-
olrons, but nevertheless lend secondary suppol to defining the LA.
4.1. P'oxo-oorcA,- rRATs. The folrowing are some shared phonorogicar
phenomena
in MA:
(a) Fxeu DEvocrNo oF soNoR^Nrs. A rulc
vhich
dcvoices finst sonorants
(usually
I,r y w, but also nagala and o"cn vo*elr ln some lnguagcO, ir idnt
in severalJvfayan languages (cspcclaily
euichcan), in ur,uaii-p: x;,
Joto1ry,
Tepehua, Tarascan, and Siena
popouca
(e.g. Nahuatl
'/no-mi:l/
[nomi:l] 'my field',
Quich
laxa:wl
[axaiW]
.ord')-as -wcll
as in thc morc
southerly cacaopera and sumu, while this rulc seems to be borrowed in at
least some of the MA languagcs which contain it, its distributlon is qut, ,"-
stricted within MA; it rcaches only a small and discontinuo* po.tioiioi it.
languages ofthe area. Moreover, fial devoicing ofsonorants is not so peculiar
phonetically
that it could not have happcned inependentry n tt.re i"niu"g.s,
though.it is suflieiently uncommon to suggesr posiible diffusion. A[ the-sc n-
ideratons make final dcvoicing of sonorants relatively unhelpful in defining
MA 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 il;.;,
including Tlapanec-subtiaba-as we[ as in Lenca and Jica{ue;
".g.
bui-
capan-Xinca Pampuki/
[amb-riki]
,snake',
Copainal Zoque ti_tiU
tiaif,
.,n,
house' (Harrison
& Garcfa l98l:405). This feature has ai reast t"o prorc,n',
which prevent
it from being a diagnostc trait of thc LA, First, its ostrbuton
r.
z
cJ
q
c)
.E'
o
t.
c
(r,

z
c
tr
E'
x
a
E
2
trf
O
o
tl
F
l)
v,
t-
z
o
an
-,
o
F
lr

t
540 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 62, NUMBER 3 (986)
KEy (l
- cxtinct)
Orou,rxourex
Olopamcn
Ol Chichimcco Jonaz (outsidc Mcso-Amcrica): Dc Angulo t933, Lasta 19E4,
02 Pamc (somc varictics outsidc Mcso-America)
O3 Otomf: Echcgoyen ct;1, 1979,
04 Mzahua
O5 Matlazinca
06 Ocuiltcco ([tahuica)
Popolocan
07 Popoloca
OE lxcatcc
09 Chocho: Mock 1977.
Ol0 M8alec: Jamieson l9?E.
MixtccBn
Ol I Mixtcc: Alcxandcr 1980. Bradley 1970, Daly 1971, lg77t
pcnsinger
t974,
O12 Culctcc
Ol3 Triquc: Good l9iE, Hollcnbach 197J.
Chinantccan
Ol,l Chinantcc (scveral varictcs): Mcricld t96g, Robbins 196E, Rupp 19E0.
Amuzgo
Ol5 Amuzgo
Zapotccan
Ol6 Zapotcc (several distinct languagcs): Burler 1980,
picketr
1974,
Ol7 Chatino; Pridc & Pridc 1970.
Chiapanec-Manguc
OIE tChlapancc
Ol9 tMangue
r
Tlapancc-Subtiaba
O20 Tlapancc: Schultzc 193E, Surcz l9E3b,
O2l fSubtiaba
Azrecex (- Nahuan, of thc Uto-Aztccan family)
Al Nahuat(l)
A2 tPochutcc
A3 Pipil (includcs Nicarao)
Toroxrcex
Tl Totonac: Reid & Bishop 1974.
T2 Tcpchua
Mxe-Zoque,rN
Mixcan
MZI Veracruz Mixc (includcs
sayula
popoluca,
Oura
popoluca):
Clark l9El, Clark & Clark
1960.
MZ2 Oaxacs Mixc: Lyon 1980, Vrn Haitsma 1976, Schocnhals 196j,
MZ3 Tapachultcc
Zoquean
MU Ycacuzzoque (incrude-s
sierra
poporuca,
Texistepcc
poporuca)l
Elson 1960, Foster &
Fostcr l94E; Clark & Nordcll 19E4.
MZ5 Chiapas Zoquc (Copainat)
MZ6 Ooxaca Zoquc
M,rvex
Huasttcan
Ml Hustcc
M2 fChicomuccltcc
Yucatccan
M3 Yueatcc (Maya): Tozzcr 1921.
M4 Lacandn
Mi ltz
M6 Mopn
Cholan-Tzcltaln (Grcatcr Tzcltalan)
Cholan
M7 Choh Autic t9?E, Warkcdrin & Scotr t980.
M8 Chontat (ofTbasco)
M9 iCholtf
MlO Chortf
Tzcltalan
Mtl Tzcltal: Kaufmn 197t.
Ml2 Tzotzil
Kaqiobalan
Kariobalan proper
Ml3 Kaniobl
M4 JscBlrcc .
MI5 Acarcc
Chqican
Ml Chuj
Ml7 Tojolabal
Motozintlcc
Ml8 Motozintlcc
Mamcan-Quichean (Eastcm Mayan)
Mamean
Ml9 Mam: England 19E3.
M20 Tcso
M2l Aguacatcc
M22 lxil
Grcatcr
Quichcan
M23 Kekchf
M24 Uspntcc
M25 Pokom (Pokomchf, Pokomam)
Quichcan
propcr
, M26 Sipacapco
M27 Sacapultec
M28 Quich
M29 Cakchiquel
M30 Tzutqiil
Uxerrurte
I Taracan Fostcr 1969, Frlcdrlch 1971.
2 tCultlarccl Escslnte t962.
, 3 Tcqustlatcc (Chontal ofOaxaca)t Tumer t971, Watcrhousc 19E0.
4 Huavc: tain l9El,
5 xincan (four languages: tYupilitcpcquc, ouazacapn, chiqulmulilla, and Jumaytcpcquc)
Nox.Meso-AurnrclN LANouAoBtt
Yunexr Langdon ln, D76, Wintcr t976.
Yl Dieguclo (Ipai)
Y2 Kiliwa
Y3 Paipai
. Y{ Ttpai
Y5 Yuma (Qucchan)
Y6 Cocblmf
, YTCocopa
Y8 Maricopa
Y9 Yavripai
Arecrx (Athrbarkan family)
, API Chiricahua Apachc
MESO.AMERICA AS A LINGUISTIC AREA
1-(-F
\
542
LANOUACE, VOLUME 62, NUMBER 3 (1986)
AP2 Mcscalcro Apachc
AP3 Jicarilla Apachc
AP4 Navajo
AP5 Wcstcrn Apachc
AP6 Kiowa Apache
AP7 Lipan Apachc
Uo.^rEc^N: Langackcr 1977.
Southcrn
Piman
Ul Papago
U2 Pima (Uppcr and Lowcr)
Ul Northcrn Tcpchuan: Bascom 19g2,
U4 Southcrn Tcpchuan
Taracahitic
U5 Yaqui: Lindcnfcld 1973.
U6 Mayo
U7 Tarahumar
U8 Guarihfo
Cora-Huichol
U9 Cora: McMahon 19i9,
prcuss
1932.
Ul0 Huichol
Northern
Cupan
Ul I Luiseo
Ul2 Cahuilla
Ul3 Cupco
Hopi
Ul4 Hopi
CHrcx,rx
Cl Cuna
C2 Guaymf: Alphonsc 1956,
paync
1982.
C3 Boruca
C4 Bribri: Margery 1982,
C5 Guatuso
C6 Rama
C7 Paya: Holr 1974.
Mrsuu,ruprr (perhaps part of Chibchan)
MSI Mfskito: Lchmann 1920, Thaeler n.d.
MS2 Sumu: Hcath us, Lchmann 1920.
MS3 tMatagalpa
M54 tQ6ep
OrHen xon-Meso-Auenlcx
L,lxcurcs
Nl Scri: Moscr 1961.
N2 tGuaicurian
N3 tTonkawa:.Hoiier t933.
N4 tKarankawa
Ni tCotonamc
N6 tComccrudo
N7 tCoahuiltcco: Swanton 1940. Troikc 1981.
NB Eastcrn Jicaquc
N9 tWcstern Jlcsquc (El Palmr)
Nlo tHohdursn Lnca: Lhmann t920.
Nl I tSalvdorcan 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 within
the area. second, it is so naturar and comon i-tat it courd have deveroped
independently.
r(c) vower. HARMoNv' some sort of vower harmony occurs in Xincan, Huave,
Mayan, Copainal Z-ooue;Mazahua
1Am."iiiil, and Tlapanec_as well as
in Lenca and Jicasue. il r""iri".r;;r;i;
i.ir. rrre as a LA, since derairs
of the process vary in each indiviJual r". rr,"'."idence is not sufficient to
demonstrate
diffusion. excpt-poibry
in xirrcan and Lenca (see
campbe,
1978a). The trait is shared i r* l"ngi,aee;l;;;
"r.",
(d) Frxro (predictabre).srness. phoeric
(contrastive)
stress is very rare in
MA, though it is known in T"q;ir1i;i;';;l'ii,1.,.".
A few ,anguages share
the specific stress rure in which r
"c*;i'i.Ji,i
tt
"
vower before the richt-
most consonant (i.e.
v
-
9 t.: c(v)#),
";:
ari;;;i,ill-rii_Jiiji,
Totontepec (Oaxaca)
Mixe, and Xncan, as ft;; in Lcnca and Jicaquc. It s quite possible
that this rute is shari b;*;r;;;]frrrt;;;ili'td;i;il;
is too restricted to meet our trict ..itriu ror i.termining if MA is a LA.
Moreover, fixed accent in the mqiority
"iit.
ei."euages arso does not herp,
si11! is very common in languges;irilr;;;;ea
and a, over the world.a
(e)
Grxrnel srMrLARrrEs
oF
pHoNEMrc
tNvENToRrEs in"lr, tfre i;ld;l;;;
(e,l)
Contrastive underlying voiced stops are absent from MA, except for a
few languages where they ari of recent--oilgii,
..g. some otomanguean lan-
gqages,
Huave, Tequistlatec, and TexisrepeJ ppir."
(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 and
So.ut!9r1 Tepehuan, and Taiah-u ma.",o tt
"-norif,]
(e'2)
contrastivery
voiced fricatives oo not-o..ui in MA, with the exception
of a few Otomanguean
languages (e.g. Mixtec and Trque), where they are of
recent 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 tic north, ih.y
"r.
reasonabry common,
e'[. in Yuman and Northern utr-ii.""i'iilil';;ly
are not originar). To the
south, 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. ioctro an dtom ;il;i.
cally and phonemicaflv
from consonant irusteri with as a member), and in
Iicaque (on
the southirn frontier of f"f1.---
-
(e.6)
Glottalized consonnts. ar.e found in Tepehua, Tequistlatec, Mayan,
Xincan, and otopamean (historicaily
""Jpr,*r-iiiry
consonant crusters with
,
a
Actually, 6omc othcr-rangugcr mrght rlt thrr rre by dcf'urr-by havrn3 onry frner vowcr and pcnultimatc
strcrr, or onty finarionsonant and Iiner ri.rqr ;:;., rjri"rte",-oo.ir ."i ;;ir;
e consonant' and
Quiehcan ranguaScs have finar strcss. so" io^"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 tcm 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 Texistepec
Popoluca. several Mayan groups have rbt/ as the labial mmber of their gloital
series. some dialects of some
Quichean languages have developed /qsZfrom
rq'.
Tzutujil has furher changed
rt'
to /d/; diarects of Mamean languaies also
show /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 aie
ofrecent origin, these languages clearly do not share implosion v diffusion,
(e'8) Tonal contrasts are known in all the extent otmanguean languages
(including
Tlapanec), in Huave, and in some Mayan languag.s (Vurrt..,tt
n_
tal, Uspantec, and the San Batolo dialect of Tztzil). Oiotircontrot t"niuales,
some of the uto-Aztecan languages above the northern frontier ol MA ir" ro
lonal.(e.9,.
Northcrn Tepehuan and Cora-Huichol), as arc
paya,
Guaymf, and
Bribri of thc Chibchan family.
(e.9)
Rctroftexed fricatives (and alTricates) occur in several MA languages:
M-amean, Kaqiobal, Jacaltec, Acatec (Mayan);
Guazacapn anA Chiqui-muiilla
(Xincan-not
contrastive); some Mixean languages; chocho,
popolca
(wil-
liams & Pierson 1950), Mazatec, Trique,
yatzchi
and Guetavla
otr.
(bt-
manguean); and allophonically in Tarascan. Retroflexed consonants are also
found 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)
and
allophonlcally ln TarBscan, such a vowcl also appoared ir
proto-to-elan
and 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 a
pan'Meso-American
distribution; on the other hand, it is not possible in most
cases to demonstrate that the presence or absence ofsome phoneme or serie
has resulted from diffusion.
possibly
Nahuatl acquired /tl/ fiom its Totonacan
neighbors (Proto-uto-Aztecan
certainly lacked this sound); and the Kaqiobalan
retroflexed fricatives and affricates apparently derive from Mamean influence
within the_Mayan family-but no sucti featuri is widcty enough distributed to
dclimit a LA. In a less contrained view of areat featuics, ofiourso, somc of
these.similarities might qualify, given that strlctly locat diffuslon cun alto go
into 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 allophonic
traits are.also subject to diffusion. An exampre is tni nnal devoicing r 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 rRATs. The following ar somc gram.
matical attributes shared among various MA languages:
MESo.AMERICA As A LINGUITC AREA
545
(a) Nor'rrNel possEssoN.
The possession
of one noun by another typicafiy
\
has the form in M languagesof.is-nounr (the)
noun', mening
.(the);;;;;;;
I
T.u.nr'-j.g:
Quich u-g,l:? le: aCl
.the
mais dog;,'lit,
.tsloi
ie,:
)
(This
order is the more widespread in MA, but thJeguivalent of-.the norn,
,
,n
-L
lir: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 wt-t tc ilmits
!l
MA.as it has been defined both curturarty and-ringuisticaily.
ir," iii i, ,rt
found in ou controilanguages just
beyond MA; ,i., srru an rrrrs[iio i ir*
south lack it, as do Coahuilteco, Tonkawa, and the Uto-Aztccan i;;i;
the north. uto'Aztecan seems to confirm both the northern boundar! dih.
diffrsion of the rrait within MA (cf. Rosenthal. ihis possesrir"
.o*trr.t*
in Proto'uto'Aztecan
had a pronominal
.opy ori," possessor prus an accu-
:1tjT.1a1!:l"n
the possessCd
noun (e.g.
,on-rcc
his-oe; io,
I";;
J;;i,
.rnough some uto-Aztecan languages have simpre juxtaposition
of the ps-
sessed and possessor
without plonuns. (cf. Lingckerl Roscntta: u'pan
languages in southern carifornra have rhc
""rt.i"r;rLi'hffi;;!';
r,
significant rhar Nahuatr has onry the MA cnsi*"rion;i;ri'it
*',
through contact with other trlA ianguages, ip".tns rro, tti u-t*ei-rc""n
patfem.
It is also interesting that Cora nd Huichol,'whi"h t;;;;;;;
act like.transitional ranguages-ourside
of MA;i cvidencing a i; ;iil
traits-have a construction intermediatc betwecn the originat uA"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 rnguges 1,
is that of rolationat nouns*exprerlng locat an-rc"ti.i nionr,-i;;;:
l\
pored of a noun root and posiossivc
lronomiar
"rrx.r.
ri.i;*.;il;
J
prepositions
in English or spanish. Exampres from-pipil, rur"m,
"na
Coi.."i
(l) Epit
n.ry
,with
me' (nu-
,my')
mu.wan
.wilh
you'(nu.
,your')
l-wan,withhim/hcr' (l-,his/tcr')
(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 hadly bc olpccted,
glvcn thc llmited numbcr ofposrcgivc typcs in thc'world'r tanguagcr. Nevcrhclcsr. rhc constnc.
tion l rare,ctscwhcrc, and ri nor found in tm' immii.rc
".r,u"n.
urrn
iii'roun;;ri 6
hnguagcs ln hir typc B.t, charectcrizcd by pcnoner porserriic marking of ihc porrorrco noun.
An cminationof.his cxamplcr how msi to bc qirc distincr from rrrr ue i"ttc., *t.ii i
!lcnt chrsctcristlc 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 cmploy
indcpendcnt words ('c anlmal ltr-foot'),
yurok,
Wiyot, Iierok, and coma (of Ulten,, ,;;i;;
wcll _curan, Dicguco, Navqio. end Mcnomini iwtich hourd bc addcd L tr," r..pi-li".
form! cquivslcnt to '(thc) man hls-houre' but thesc do nor rcflcci thc prcdominatt Me i"trn or
porrcrscd 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 ln-
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 arp
preserved in Nahuatl as locative suflixes; but these function diffirently from
the relational nouns, which clearly reflect an innovation to the MA ptt..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 intermedate; it has the basic uto-Aztecan pstpositional pat[ern wiih nouns,
I
e.g. mi-kiy-hete 'uder that tree' (rni- 'that', kiye-
,tree,,
-ele
.under');
but
{
it uses possessive pronominal prefixes, e.g, ta-het
,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, resutting
from postposing the locatvc to the pronoun. Thls ls clearer ln Northern Tc.
pehun, where nouns have postpositional locatlva cndings-but pronomlnal
forms take the same postposed locative endings, with objective
ironominal
prefixes. 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 appear
also 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 also
reached a few languages just".beyond
the conventional borders of MA, e.g.
Coahuilteco, Cora, Mayo, and Northern Tepehun 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 conclude
that this is also a true MA areal trait which was sufliciently strong to reach
slightly 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 anuans glmbamat(?0 + l0l
3 alanlz 40 ogc2nulans (2 x 20)
4 amalbu? 50 ogc? nulant glmbomaz (Z x 20 + l0)
5 amagc? qfanc2 nulant (3 x 20)
6 agamtt'tis 80 amalbu? nulons (4 x 20)
MESO.AMERICA AS A LINCUSTIC AREA
7 agayts 100 omagc? nulans (5 x 20)
8 abaygo 400 anuans anulant (20 x 20)
I
9 obella 8N ogc? nuant 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-sic
VSO (Mixtec,
Trique, varieties of Chinantec, varieties oi Zipotec, Mam, Na.
huatl etc.); VOS (Xincan,
many Mayan languages, Copaina Zoque, O[omf,
another variety of chinantec etc.); and svo (Huave, Mazatec, Tequisate
etc') southern uto-Aztecan languages characteristically exhibii vsb order;
but Proto-Uto.Aztecan was an sOV tanguage (Langackei, 24), and ro
"r"
rnor
of the_other languages bordering MA-c.g. Tonkawa, Coahuilteco,
yuman,
Seri; Lenca, Jicaque, Mfskito, Sumu, Guymf, and Bribri. Moreover, som
cases of clear diffusion seem to be documented within the area; ..g., iin.un
and-Pipil apparently acquired VOS order from
euichean lCampLetitfZAU.
The claim that MA contains no sov languages bears comment, since it has
been suggested that the Mixean languages may present a potential counter-
example (Bartholomew
1983), Actually, Mlxe-Zoquean tanguages conform to
the 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, un
+ Postpositions, Adjective * Noun ordcr, and
possessor
i
possessd
word
order. However, the order of the main constituents-the verb and its Noun
Phrase arguments-is not basically sov. some would interpret such incon-
sistent word-order typology as reflecting an earlier verb-finaforder; but even
so, the fact that Mixe-Zoquean now departs from that postulated sov order
confirms the MA trait. Thus the typical Zoquean language (e.g. Copainal
Zoque) is VOS; one might suspect departure from supposed earlier (S)OV to
this 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 crgative
suflix on thc noun and thcreforc hr to ulc othr stracglcr toidcntify lhc grammaticai role
ofa noun phrasc. Thcrc aeems to bc romcthing ofe prcfircncc ro hav; thc bjcct bcforc thc
verb,'
she actually presents no clear evidence for sov languages; but she believes
coatln (oaxaca) Mixe to have relatively free word ordei, with cases of both
svo and sov orders. while the limited coatln data available to us have no
_O-V- examples (Hoogshagen
1984), an inspection of Tlahuitoltepec Mixe (Lyon
1980) suggests that the sov interpretation is not accurate. Tlahuitoltepec ien-
tences are mainly VSO:
.
(5) ykzompihk 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:
I
L
\,
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 syktohkiyi.
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
man: ma2u?nk,
cause,to.sleep Maria baby
'Maria put the baby to sleep.'
The (s)ov examples cited by Bartholomew for coatln Mixe occur with the
same li seen in Tlahuitoltepec:
(8) a. ld jcy?aay
adzimbijctdy ma tcy,
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 Coattn examples, both SVO:
(9) a. he
?udeh:ty
ti ymo?sy j?yg
he
li:k.
the father pF gave his.son the toy
b. 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 LINOUISTC AREA 549
a reflex of MA basic word order more than of areal diffusion (cf. Jacobsen
1967), This bears more study.
(Q Ixrmere
possEssoN.
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 is
charsctcrstie-of many languagcs throughout thc Amoricas, it io not particularly
y9ctul for definlng a LA in MA. Thc tcrm
,inallcnablc'
ir wldoly uicd for this
klnd 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. in
Mayan, Mixe-Zoquean, Totonac, Tlapanec (schultze,Z4S),Otomanguean,
iar-
ascan, and Nahuatl:
(10) a, Mixtcc (Alcxandcr, 79)
Cf, 'stomach; ln(ide), undcr'
,, 'hct; ln, insidc'
nru 'facc; to, t, from'
llf 'back; bchind'
b, Cakchlquel
pan 'rtomach; ln, lnldo'
-l 'mouthi ro, in, rl'
.
'bck; bchlnd'
-\)l
'head.hair; on, on top of,
Actually, it is natural and common for languages to have a relationship between
body parts and locative notions, as in Eng. at the head of, at the
loot
of, at
the mouth of, in back of etc. Nevelheless, Meso.Americanists havEnoted that
MA languages seem to share something beyond these ordinary associations:
locative constructions which maintain their nominal character (sec relational
nouns above) but involve semantis associations not usually found in other parts
of the world, e,g, 'stomach' for 'in', 'tooth' for
.to,
at' etc. In spite oi this
feeling of something pcculiar being shared in MA tanguages, it cannot be shown
that the trait is diffuscd, and it is possible that some ftese associations result
from universal tendencies. Thus, while it coincides in somc ways with other
MA features, it is not sufliciently free of complications to be uscd for defining
a LA.
(h) AasolunvB AFFxEs. ome MA languages have a nominal sullix called
th'absolutive', bornc by nouns that have no other aflix, e.g. Nahuatl ttaskal-
Ii 'tortilla-rns'
, no-tlaskal 'my-tortilla';
Quich xolonr-a,x
.hJad-ess'
, a-xolo:m
'your'head'. The 'absolutive' suflix has no real semantic content, but occurs
ol nouns which are othcrwlse morphologically isolated-i,o. show no other
affixes. In MA, most Mayan languages have an absolutive, as does Nhuatl.
These are not really cquivalent, however: thus, in
euich,
the so-cailcd ab-
solutive suflix occurs only on a ccrtain class of otherwise intimately possessed
nouns, but in Nahuatl the absolutive is much more generat, occurring with most
nouns when they bear no other aflixes, In the key languages surrounding MA,
arl absolutive is found in Paya and the Misumalpan langugcs on the sothern
border, and in the Uto-Aztecan languages to o north. This tmit is not sig.
nificant as an areal feature, since its distribution is very limited within M,
We concludc that Mixean is xor a counter-cxample to MA non-verb-final
pattern, since SOV
!iapfnrently.am:ked
non-basic ordc! in these languages.
None of the Mixe-quean languages tras sov uasffi
stituents-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 languagcs
are spoken within MA (and have non-verb.final order), Chichlmeco Jonaz is
spoken in Guanajuato, outside MA, It may have acquired its SOV order from
neighboring languages beyond the borders of MA; if so, it is the exccption
which confirms the rule.
The isogloss temarcating non.vcrb.final languages is thus dagnostic of MA,
and is valuablc for defining the LA.
(e) Aesexcr op swrcn-REFEnecs. The languages surrounding MA on both
sides have switch-reference-not found in any MA language, ut known in
Coahuilteco (cf, Troike), Seri, Yuman, and Jicaque. The absence of switch-
referencc coincides with MA; thus one might conclude that this constitutes an
additional isogloss diagnostic of the LA, However, in view of the hypothesis
that switsh-reference cxists only in SOV tanguages, its absence in Mmay bc
url!,
-lr
! :,u : ! r : L'
t wo d e e' (' t wo-ani
mar deer,
)
a?-p'ehl
hab,
;two
r*.r; i*"rf,'ir,
,i"'ii
ii::i:?fi l:r#*fxffih*t*:iiili"iii{,;.1:1qy.r,,.
ffi flTilIl:?;{;;ii.l',i.Ji}$:ilili:r,:."!,i,:Sil,:j,"j",$
however,
the dis tributio;ti; f; illl'l-tl:Yy:l
r"riti,
"i.
H"p.iil"id;6
ll:lyl
somc of thcse
""r",
*"y
1,"":ifji,T,$:::,,y***,lgii:.i":i1tffi
y;,!l#..,flI,iI
j",,1:
areal way. Also, noun al,
::""
!" r rvv tlratc 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#,ffi: of the world-.g.
in rri-
"'-v-vvsvrrrv rII tanguage,
and exit in many parts
parts
of the Americaq ,,",1?,111'j'sou-theast
Asia' Australia,
er..",
"ii
.l.
i?lii,i,
r h e A me ricas (i ncr u d i n' il;
?,ff ,,JiJillT.l,
lI *l X,.,i
(k)
Noux NcoRpoRAroI:goT..ya
languages
ha.ve noun incorporation,
a
construcrion
by which a nominal object ma;;;;".
o,.r.r,y into a verb stem. (12)
Nahuatl
a, ni_k-i:wa
tlaskal-ti.
_
I-itJ-make
tortilla-ess
b. ni-tlaskat-..pa
.I
make tortillas,.
I+ortilla-make
(13)
Yucatec
a, bin_,ak-ah
e2,
esp-I.cut-surr
wood
b. ,ak-e?-n-ah_en .I
cut wood,.
,
cut-wood-xrR_surr-I
MESO.AMERICA
AS A LINGUISTC 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 for
areat considerations.
Its distribuiion ;iii";'i,
roo rimited, and it occurs
widely in American Indian rargu"g* ouitiJ" a
"r. Kroeber r910, sapir r9t r)
and elsewhere
in rhe world
ttr,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 direct
objells, 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
pnt, ,ry,l
mu-yaka-pitsa.to
blow one's nose'
1^r_
^ur,
-yaka
;nosei,,-pirsa
,
.to
blow')
ome Mixtec examples (Alexander,
49) are:
(15) kata-xz
,will
dance' (kata,willsing,,
x2
.foot,),
, unda?.wiil push' (from
u?un.*iii
i,ri,,-E6ilio"4,.
!,ody'p-art
incorporation
is found in Nahuatr, rotopr", Tarascari, olxaca Mixe
sigrrl-P.onolyca (and
Mixe-7nqr.""
e.r.iai;-rq;;;5#;
:'6i::
side MA, it is found wiaety in'wesiei;-;;;i'l;.rica,
e.g. in
yuman,
Uto_
Aztecan, Maiduan, Washo, S.h1rl1, e"f,"r"*i[i eruer 1976:125); and to the
south, perhaps
in Mfskito and Bribri.
This trait has the same limitations as object noun incorporation;
it is rimited
within MA, and we[-known.n
rani"ir""'tr,.
arca. It ic thorcforc of
littlp vatue in MA areal consacraiiinsl
,
(m)
Dnecroxe.
Ar.rxs. severar MA ranguages have verbar aflixes which
indicate direction, typicafiy,toward,
;;'t;;;H;,
the speaker:
(16)
Nahuatt
ne-wa:l.kwi
in tlaskat-ti,
me-hither-take
the tortilla.eas
'He brings me the tortillas.,
(17)
Cakchiquel
y-e-b,e-n-kamtsax
esr-thcm-away.I-kill
i 'I'm going
there to kil them.,
ome of these are Cakchiquet,
euich, Tequistlatec,
Mixe-Zoquean, Totonac,
several Otomanguean languages (e.g.
Ot"*0,
"rJahuatl.
rnr rrart too is found with considerabre frequency in ranguages outside
MA-e.g. Cora, Tonkaw":I?p-p:,
wi"i", i"""
ii erzer 1976:tZ6),
euechua,
and cashinahua (Montag
rrtr:izl-s-""iiir
,i[iruurion within MA is nor
general.
(n) vensnL espEcr. AsDect is retativery more important than tense in many
MA
'anguages,
e.g. Mayan, il"p""*, M;'^'ililiec,
and scverat orher oto-
550
LANcuAoE,
VOLUME
62, NUMBER
3 (t9s)
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, rioii";rr".,
nouns. But this is not
ffll"ltill: 1l.areal
conside'!,i"".,''i'.i'il"l'J,n*
American
rndian ran.
"r9l"I;lf
Tillli,lff I'-
In several
MA tanguages,.
nouns arter numbers
3:Hj...*"f;r**1,?"'.il:l;T;;':iJli;:i*:*X$Iru.",.lf
(ll)
a.
yucatec
(Tozzer,
t03)
hun-ku:l
,e,?,one tree, (,one-plant
tree,)
ka t - k u : I h 2
as..,.tw
o ba;;
;isl' {
:t*o-plrrt
banana,
) o - t : I w i n i k,
.,th
ree men'
i-. tlhi_o*\^r
rn.n,
I
kat_t :l p :k.,,.two dogs,
i.i*"_^i,""a"g,
o-p, :t _
]!*:^lgri-.r,.f
;ir,ir._in^"
house,)
b. Tzeltal (Kaufman
l97l:100)
2os
leh 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)
't
552
LANCUACE,
VoLuME
62, NUMBER
3 (t986)
iHlf ,'::Xi:::;'"1iT:il: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
sytems
of severat MA tan-
nnez'e6;i,;;i;il,1,ti1'il,;lif
tT:,,tJ.".".",popoio'r-*.^rr".-
:l',"!,ilii;ig"y;::*i;il'ffi
;,"":::r,]i,l.,iliilT:JiTili;
(18) go
(Warkcntin
& scorr, 29)
honon la,we. (inclusivi)
.--. _
honon lohon.wc,
lexcluiivc)
(19)
Copinet.Zo3uc (Hniion
abarcf, 4r7)

.our.
(lnetuivc)
-' -. ,
.our'
(cxcluslvc)
(20)
Huavc (Srair,
296)
ikora
.
wc, (subjcct
cxclusivc)
r&or
,us'
(objict
cxclusive)
iko :1a.. w.c, (subjcct
inclusivc)
rto;
.us'
(objcct
inclusivc)
whire some of these may have acquired
the contrast
by diffuson,
it is rera- tivety easv for such a distincrion
rJ;;ffi;endenrry
(cf.
Robertson
r9B3 for such an explanation
or tr,e rri"yai
;:j:"fi,
rrait is both limited within MA, and common
oursiderhe
are"i!.ilir',ir,.1kito_,
Bribri,
euechua, Ay_ mara, and many others have.such,i
"""t.".ii'iiher"fo.e
does not meet our
rigid requirements
as an areal feature i :'
"
(p)
'Zeno'copul.
A
:qtionarcoi;;ffi,fi;!.:rr,.,jlJiff
*1,1.fl
H,;rffi:r#:::ix
Quich saq te: xa:h.The
hou.se i, ilii;itii"ii,n"
house,), a:x_kar te aih
'The
man is a fisherman,.0it.
:isrr'e")i'ii.
iir,ii,,l. Thc great
frequencv
of
'J[J,"ir,il";Lll'.J;rfljl,l",ru".r.,,
;'.il;
ffi, A-me.rican
rndian tongues,
"r.H.b;;;;;i;;:il:,*"-;Jil,f [",T,,fi..:l:i1Ti,:a;;ffi
,rX*:;ffi
,
(q)
Pnoxor*xnL
copuLAR-CoNsTRUCToNs,
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 -i i
ii'Iil'
"
m1n, (rit.,
man-r,
), .rq.a,
'y"**fl"ii.i,;i;iJfi
X[:]U
jJl'l-*,",,,n,"#,1i,:*m:it:
n-ond?a,I'm
a devit, rjit. r-ev1,;
iu;;.,
id. Ltr"r"h.r,
in MA, this coi] structon
occurs in Mavan, Nahuat,:
doci;, cilninr..,
Mazarec,
otomf, oa.
xaca.Mixe,
oluta opluca,
anu sayuia
p.
It is diflicutt
ro evaiuate
rhe areat
ir;.;;;;;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'io;rH:.
it significant
for defining
(r) Ausece
oF A ,ERB
,To
HAvE,. Absence
of a verb of possession
.to
have, has been suggesred
as an arear r..il;;1.',.rl*,tanguages
have a con-
I
MEso.AMERCA As A LtNcutslc AREA js3
struction equivalcnt to'is',-'there is', or'exists' ptus a possessed noun, as in
Cakchiquel; 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),
Mjq?gggjp, Teqlistlatec, Xr"ir, Cfrii-
sntec, \{azatec, and rrique. some langu!-crif,it have a ,.rb'correspniru
to 'to.have' are Nahuatl, Huave, Huaste, and Mixtec. rhc ausenci-oi.6
have' is common in the world (e.g. in Finnish, Tamil, Sango,
""
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-'rexrc cALeuEs oR LoAN TRANsLATtoNs. It has becn obocrvcd, c.g.
by-smith-tark 1982, tiat many compound words, and words tavn muitiiic
reterents' arc shared in MA languaes through loan translations, Thcixampies
which have been noted are givn
n taUlo tl
?/
L d.*r
?J tt
l. door: mouth ofhousc
2, brk: sklnrtack of trce
3. knec: hcad oflcg
4. wrist: ncck of hnd
5. calf: cxocmcnt/bclly of lcg
6. cyc: fruilsccd/bcan offscc
7. bilc: bitrcr
E. fingcri qhild of hand
9, bo constrctoi: dcr.snakc
10. moon: grandmolhcr
ll, ring: coyol palm-hand
12. witch: owl, lcsp(cr)
13. cramp: (associatcd in somc way with)
dccr
ll, ficsta, ccrcmony: (big) day
15. root hair of tre
16. twenly: man
17, limc: (stonc.)ash
18. cgg: rtonc/bonc of bird
^
19. wifcl intimatcly posscsscd'woman'
20. porcuplnc: thorn-opposum, thornjion,
thorn.pcccary, thorn.plg
21. cougar: rcdJaguar
22. antcslcfi honcy sucker, suck honcy
30. bladdcr: housc (of) urlnc
31. vcin: roed (ofblood)
32, cninc toothi dog-tooth, nkc.tooth
33. molr: grindstonc (mctatc)
3,1, cdge: mouth
35. lhumb: mothcr of hand
36. mano (ofmctatc): hnd/child ofmetatc
37, poor: orphan, widow
3E. rolnbow: lnakc, cougar, turtlc, quirrel,
or wcacl
39. ottcr: wtcrdog, water-fo
40. ccdar: god trcc
41, mcdicinq: liquo, poison
,12.
to curc to ruck (to lmokc)
43. patrxtc (non-domesticeted
cacao)l tigcr-
cacro (aguar-cacao)
44, town: watcr-mounlin \
4J. sootr nosdmucus offirc
46. to writc: to psint, to stdpe
'/
.17.
to cd: to look, to couni, to hout /
.18. rlivc: wakc
.19.
on nd druShtcr: mn's rc
drtnguishcd, but a rlnglc tcrm for
woman'
23, to kis: to suck 50. hcad: bottlc gourd (tccomtc)
^ 24. to moke: to suck 51. thirst: watcr.die
25. branch: rrm (of trcc) j2,
necd: want, bc wantcd
26. tomarry: to join,
to find 53, cnter: house-cnter
_
r'/
,
27, golrilvcr: axcrcmcnt of sury'god J4. cockroach: contaln thi root for
,house,,
r2E,
ccliprc: ot thc run/moon; thJuy'moon
--
;fu compoundcd with
,ln,
or
dies; sun/moon lo rot
romcthinjequivalcnt
29. corsl nake: mothcrofdrivcrnt jj.
fcthcr: fur
Trs t,
smith-stark has shown that many of these calques have a limited distribution
within 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 combined
under 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 with
the borders of MA:
")
'5n"",
!e{
of leg'. one might suspect that this semantic association
is
naturat enough for rhis proposed
iarque'to trave aeveropir , ;;l;.-
theless, the association was ot found ; smirh-c;rk"
"o,itior
iJ"g.g"r:;;i*
on the borders of MA or bcyond;this
sutg;;tslhat
it is indeed a varid arear
borrowing.
(b)
'Boa constricto* deer-snake'. The association
ofdeer with snake seems
arbitrary 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'eLene.e,
to soften it forgrinding,
it is not too surprising to find a rngustc association between the two. This
calque, then, derives from curturar rctr
"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 Jifr i; imagine a natural
connection here, such an associatiorn
ir *t ioun'.
-sritr,:i"ir.'i.iiiirl
languages. This is then an areal trait.
(e)
'Egg: stone of bird, bone of bird'. This is another carque found onry in
MA, 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.
"rr.iation
does not appear in smith-
Stark's.controllanguags.6
This'too, tt.i,l,
"
a areat featurc.
(9,
'Molar:
grndstonc (metate)'.
Again, it is possible to imagine ihis semantio
association
developing from the natre f ttu't* oUr"ir. .r.i;il;;'.
connection seems specificaily MA, not 6.i.g iouia in smiir,-s.[tiJii."r
languages,
(h) 'Edge: mouth'. This association is arso found tfrroughout MA and not in
the controt tanguages, though one *r
;;;; H l";;ffi ;;ffi.H;,
Still, given
irs distriburion,'it
i, u f.uir;J;i.iv;,-"
.
(i) 'Thumb:
mother of hand'; 'Finger: .hrh ; hand'. These semantic asso-
ciations seem suflicientrv arbitrary ro-rrpprt t. A
"..",
given that they are
found throughout MA but not in it".oit?il;;;;;8.r.,
0) 'Gold or silver: sod-excrement, rrn-.*".i'r"t., rnis carque is crearty
MA and not the result of accident,
(k)
'Alive: awake'. This. sem-antic relatipnship
could perhaps result from
chance; but distribution within MA, and
";i;;ir;",
makes it,.
"
rcgiirr"i,
areal feature.
(l) 'To1!i water-mountain'.
The distribution
of this roan transration fits

But in south America, cavinca (Kcy 1963) and sirion (schcrmair t957) appcar to,havc the
cquivalent of 'blood-road' for
.vein'.
'Comparc
South American Cashibo (Shcll 1965), whcrc
.mourh,
and.edgc,arc rctatcd.
I
sec rhc discusion rn Brown.&.wrtkowrkr rgEr of 'pcoprc, -
,drgrt,
mcrphors. Thcy frnd two
of23 North Amcricrn languages lo havc rtrc,tumb'
-
,"oiilr'in,nnger,
-
,ch[d,issoclatloni
tn south America, one of rcn ranguages has tre formii,-r;;;;i ;"il" r",i.'wl]i',i'iii
conrtruction is pcrheps a bit more spccrfic as
.'not,.rl"r,iri
oiian', ttresc caiii'";l;;;;;;;
in mind in cvaluatng 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),
4
VOluta
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 semantic
connections derive from the physical character 0fthe animal. Eng. porcupine
is ultimately from 'pig' + 'thorn'; Spanish forms such as puerco espn'pig
thorn' and zorro espln'fox thorn' attest recnt formations, Perhaps, then, this
feature is to be given less credibility areally, even though its distribution is
appropriate for such an interpretation.
Taken as a group, these calques constitute strong evidence ofdlffusion within
and 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 question
mark means that available evidence suggests the plus or minus given, but does
not demonstrate it conclusively. Parentheses indicate that the language has the
trait as indicated, but perhaps not in its canonical pattern-i.e. perhaps with
occurence limited to certain constructions or particular dialects. A blank
means that no information is available in the sources consulted (listed in the
key 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 in
MA; We now hopc to com to somo conclusions. Many of the circumstantialist
featurcs have turned out not to meet our tight constraints for defining a LA:
they were either too restricted in their distribution, or were amply attested
beyond 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. The
comparative evidence for several other language families is also suflicient to
determine borrowing in individual cases, as discussed above.
After careful scrutiny, five features are found to encompass the traditional
MA area so conventionally defined by both linguists and anthropologists. These
are:
Nominal possession (of the type his-dog the man).
'
Relational nouns.
/
Non-verb-final basic word order, to which absence of switch-reference X
is correlated.
(e) Several widespread semantic calques. /
ln effoct, these five ieogtoses coincidc at the bordcrs of MA-cxcept for
vigesimal numbering, which cxtcnds a bit bcyond, For somc scholarg, a single
shared trait would havc been suflicient to define a LA, ln our study, five
isoglosses enclose the area and bundle at its borders. This constitutes extremely
strong evidence for, and confirmation of, MA as a LA.
Su?vo ?o'.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
\i
"--L-,
ii i
o
+
+
- {+)
T6tE
-
SOV-
-
Mfrtib + sov
m
hv.
Geyol
Bnt i
::
+ov
+ SOY
-
sov
lr
a
o
tt,
F
o
v,
r
z
o
r
-
o
Tre 2. Numbccd coluos rtGr to thc foltowing fcaturcs:
l. Nominal pocscssioa ('hir-N rhc N')
2. Rclational nouns
3. Vigcsimat trumcral systces
4. Basic word ordcn no SOV ordcrs
5. Abscncc of swirch-rcfcrcocc
16.
Inalicnablc posscssoof body-part and kin tcrms
7. I-ocativcs dcrivcd oo body parts
E. Abolutivc aominal rixsc
9. Abscncc or limid osrcoe of 'plural' markcs oo nolns
-10.
Numcral classifics
tt. Noua iacorporarioa
12. Body-paf incorpontE
i3. Vcrbal dirccrional afircs
t4.'Aspcct' morc impoilrhan'tensc'
lJ. Iclusivc vs. cxcluvc
xmrinal
forms
16. 'Zcro'copula
17. Pronominal copular coasrrrctions witi a6xcs
lE. Abscncc ofa vcr'totyc'
19. Fnal dcvoiciog of soooraats
20. Voicing of obstrucnrs .frcr nasals
21. Vowcfharmooy
22. Prescocc ofthc strrssrxlc: V+ / a(v)*
23. Coatrastivc voicd stopc
2,1. Contrastivc voicd fricativcs
25. Prcscacc of thc hrcrd rfticatc (rI)
26. Prcscocc of uvulao (q ctc.)
27. Pescrcc ofaspir..d sto?s atd atricetcs
2E. Pr,csccc of gtottalizd
consonanr
29. Contrastivc tonc
30. Prcsccc of rctrollced&icativcs (and affricat6)
31. Prcscnc of a ccntral vowcl (tl
ot lC)
{
558 LANGUAOE, VOLUME 62, NUMBER 3 (986)
However, if we look at MA in a more conventional way-without the strong
distributional restrictions which we imposed above-then MA has much mori
support as a LA. That is, typical LA's such as south Asia and thg Balkans
(considered
below) are charactcrized by different sorts ofdiffusion. Some are
restricted locally, and do not extend throughout the area; some reach beyond
the borders of the area; some overlap, or show criss-crossing.isoglosses irom
other LA's. Having established the legitimacy of MA as a LA on rhe bases of
strict 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 that
they have been diffused acroes languagc boundarios. The aggrcgato of
guch
features in fact corosponds to the situation in other egtbtiitc LA's. wc
suqgest that the following trait lted in Table 2 lend supplementary support
to MA as a LA, either becaus they appear demonstrably diffused in sme
instances 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 languages
also share traits that are perhaps better considered part of an ethnography of
communication 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
(ct
Ocuilteco, Pipil, Xincari, all Mayan languages, Mixe.Zoquean); whis-tle speech
(Mazatec, some Zapotec varietics, Mopn, some Nahuatl dialects, Totonac
dialeci.s); reverential or polite vs. familiar contrast for 2nd person address (Na.
huatl,
Quich, Sipacapeo, Mam, Aguacatec, Ixil, Mixtei).
Also, since we have taken LA's to be characterized by diffused structural
traits, as most arealists do (cf. Klagstad 19631180), we have totally neglected
any mention of lexical borrowing. However, the existence of such borrowing
is quite natural within LA's. lf we include Trubetzkoy's (1928:18) notion that
LA's offer 'eine grosse Anzahl gemeinsamer Kulturwrter' as part of their
defining characteristics, then MA fares well. For studies of widispread loan
words in MA, cf Campbell t976, t978b, Campbell & Kaufman 1976, Justeson
et al. t985, and Kaufman 1976, 1980. Thus Sprcchbund features and widespread
loan words circumstantially strengthen our faith in MA as a LA.
This conclusion that MA is a 'strong' LA reflects our approach to defining
LA's in terms of their strength, determined by the number and weight of shared
traits. 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 in
the literature,
i.e. the Balkans and South Asia. Obviously a detailed treatment
of these two areas is far beyond the scope of this paper; nevertheless, some
consideration is important in order to see
just
how strong MA is as a LA,
6. CoupensoN wtu THE Bn-xeNs aNo Souru Ase. Thc languages which
belong 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, the
Geg (northern) dialect shares fewer Balkan areal traits than the Tosk (southern)
MESO.AMERCA AS A LINGUISTIC AREA 559
dialect. serbo-croatian is controversial, in that some include it here, but others
hold it to be a non-member (cf. Joseph, l3l, 147; Comrie l9gt'l9g). Thus
Klagstad (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, wth tno same thre
rvhich'restaient a la priphrie'. schaller (197i:lOi) lists Greek and serbo.
croatian not as 'first level', but rather as 'second level' Balkan languages, with
Turkish at a third level. Birnbaum (1965:20) includes serbo-croatian olyi.on-
ditlonally', cholar gcnerally malntaln that serblan has morc BElka char.
ctcristics than croatlan. Acnova (19?7:29) and sarah rhomason
tp.c.l ol
the Torlak dialects of serbian to be genuine .oir s.il
"n.
rrr. ioiliitri i..-
tures, usually aicepted as characteristic of the Balkan area, are scruti-nized
like 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
"
nonlngt
"o*.t in the following syllable; othcrwis it stays o; Alb, u ) /l and a > ,-with I in
thc post'stessed
syllable; Bulgarian shows an alternation between ly"l
"no- /e/ under similar conditions). These changes are sufliciently onerent ninese
Ianguages, and are natural and widespread enough, to allw independent in-
novation to compete with the proposed areal expianation,
'
(c) svNcnrrsM oF DATVE AND o'Nrrrv,. rn Burgarian, Arbanian, Rumanian,
and Greek, the dative and genitive have fused in frm and function. while thi
i generally considered a strong areat feature, such syncretism is not unusual.
For example,-many languages have possessive constructions where genitive
and locative functions alternate-e.g. 'John's bicycle is' or
.To/at
lJhn is a
bicycle' for'John has a bicycle' (cf. ltan). As Josiph (241) puts it,
.ttre
oative/
genitive
qerqcr... surely must be viewed within the contexi of a general drift
within-lndo-European
away from highly developert synthetic carJ syrt"*r_
vie.wed from such a perspective, th cbnuerg"nce is perhaps roriln"i l.rt
slriking.'
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 is
not unique; cf. the Scandinavian tanguages.
(e) PrnrrHusrrc FUruRE. Balkan languages have periphrastic futures with
an auxiliary verb corresponding to 'wantt or
ihave'.
such a feature could evolve
independently without difliculty, as it did in English ('future' from a verb that
meant 'to want') and Vulgar Latin (from habere.to have').
(f) Penrngnesrrc pERFEcr.
Except for Burgarian (and Macedonan?), Barkan
languages.have a periphrastic perfect with an auxiiiary verb correspnding to
'have'. Historical evidence suggests that this is a boriowing in crr ana-Al-
!'anian,
probably
from
Latin. This same construction has diffused throughout
much of Europe. superficial similarity between Macedonian and Albania per.
i1
560
LANGUAOE, VOLUME 62, NUMBER 3 (1986)
fects formed wth the verb.,have'have
long been pointed
out; however,
,these
rorms funcrion in an entirerv dssimirar;;;i;
ihe hie;;i;i;.r
".i"ri.r"r,
of verbal categories in theii respectve rangu-uge'systems,
with the resurt that
the forms are superficiary comjarabreuui
i."rvrt*s are not,(Joseph,24r).
(g) No rxrNrrrve.
Barkan raniuages .r. r"i1oi".r infinitives, i,""ri'e il J"d
constructions
with finite verb_iorms,
".g.
'l *anitt at r go; r"i'i *",it'i"
a",.
This is considered a strong Barkan art i.;;;. Nevertheress,
,the
Barkan
languages differ rather dra-atica[y ""irri
"ii.rito
which they show the ross
of the.infinitive' (Joseph,242).
Maedonililk;
it,
";;,
", ;;ili",
a productive
remnant in ro-perfects.
ln uig"rian, too, it is basicary absent,
though the 'short' form.ortte eaierinfilil'h
used in restricted contexts
(Joseph,
243). The situation in Arbanian, iuruniui, and serbo-croatian
is more
complicared.
In Arbanin, the originar i.r,.iti";1;,
been repraced; of the two
principal
diarects-, Geg has an nfin'itive;hi.r,-
orr'not orerrap with finite forms
at all' while Tosk shows re-emergence
of the infinitive-though
the category
may have additional finite functins (oseph,
li, oo, Z1.-n-rr""l*,iii"-
grap.hically
separated diarects oner, iso--iuii"n
of
yugosravia
maintains
the infinitives
,to
a wide exrent' (Joseph
, i)i:O, The dara on Arumanian,
spoken in parts
of Grecce, Albania,
"nb
vr".u'ooni;,;;";;i;;ir'tiiiil"r
infinirive seems to function a:
"
;;ir;t-i",r"'ri
r rr"J
-r"il;iiiil;;,
instances (Joeph,
t7 4-5, lg6).Th" ;filit;;'a
recognizea category in Daco-
Rumanian (of
Rumania a,nd Motdavial, u"tlu* i;li;;;il:;;
i,,
16l); it.is lacking from
{.ee_l-e9-numn"n,si"
tn an area of Macedonian
and Bulgaria (Joseph,
r77). whire t s orten'uroaaiy reported that croatian has
infinitives,
and that serbian racks them,'ihe i;;';r not so simpre, onry the
Torlak dialects show comptete ausenc; oilnnii"., rvale i
-anut';i
;i;.
Yugoslav-Rumanian
bordr, Othcrwisc, ."ririn'J"rc"ts
vary greatly,
ranging
to comparativcly wide use in rhc standaid
L"le.r;gi.
Thc wcstcrn diarcct grup
has thc infinitive to a greater
extent. Infiniiive-reptacement
is an on-going
pt9::ls,
spreading from east to west (cf. Joseph, li}_l),
(h) Pleoxesuc usE oF
pERsoNAL pnoHouNs.
Balkan lnguages employ per.
sonal pronouns
in sentences with animate ou."tr, ttrus iar-[inj-rir-t,*t
twice; e'g. Rum. I'an s*is rui ton 'l wrii
rioilot n', rit.
.to.him
I wrote him
John', i- 'dative singular'.
(i) Ipexrrry oF LocArrvE AND DREcroNAL ExpREssroNs. Greek, Rurnanian,
and Bulgarian do not distinguish-
formarty u"i*rin stationary rocativcs and
directionals (with
motion),
"f.
Ol.: ,,i idli:intio) Greece,, ri ,y"...tiri
is. clear in Greek at reast, wh-erc historicafly1r,.tiruo*
distinct. The rack of
distinction
bereen cases of location ur.' oton p"rh"pr;;;i];;;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
E: ,;;;
and without motion)' Moreover,_to quote Joseph (2qr),
'ihc quer*,iiiir.l
lo.cative merger among Barkan
lanjuages.rrirg!t'*tr"
it is viewed in terms
of the morphosyntactic
alternationi ,.1"t o* i.r.l there is-such ;;;;i;
Greek, at another rever the dative and i"""iiri
"."
kept distinct from one
another,'
: MESO.AMERICA AS A LINOUISTIC AREA
56I
(i) Nur'rBens ll-19. Except for Greek, the Balkan languages count il to I9
with 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 ;;*,
:,1!_:l
plryutar. impacr on rhe grammatical
raUic of the laneuae!.
iii'e
vrgerma
ystem is much.more profound; it required ewitchin! rrm itc uasc-
five or base-ten svstems that hisioricafiv i"v u"irno trc numirinJ,viiliir
,many
of these languages.)
' In summary, few Balkan isoglosses bundle at the LA,s borders; some fail
to reach all the Barkan tanguages, whire orhers extena beyond. oiil
-iir"e*t
PIklI
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-crotian's- Balkan
status, loss either cxtends beyond the L ro se-verar seruian oaiecir; ;l;il,
to reach other diarccrs wrthin the LA. The concepi of an ari"i
"i,
rii"
"iiit
isoglossls expand outward (Masica,
IZO-Zi; lorlpn, ZlSl u."rnrlnap;;;il;i,
,for
the Balkans. The ranguage witi the gr"tusiirrud.
or
"*"i-i.iirl",
i,
'Rumanian,
on rhe norrhein or"iriir.-";;i
Macedonian, rhe tanuare
considered mol! typica[y Balkan (Hamp
tez;28,r; h.;;l ir,J.**r
Iralls' rn sum,'I'raits (a)-(c)
are strong areal indicators, but are not shared by
all Batkan languages. Traits (d)-(f)
riay 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"i"
i{_o_r1n9!lon,
sec Asenova-t972, ernstjr iioa, rnU"u* lgos, rIe, ;.
l9El:197-.20t,
Georglev t9?7, G-oteb.t959, riar'pliZz, H""ianoi.-r-q, il;;;;
:t983,
p_ol6k
1923, endfeld 1930, chattci llZJ, rcginU tg2),
.
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. Frst,
the isoglosses do not bundle, or center around some definable .";r.il;;;
distributed much like Balkan or MA traits: ,or"
"ii.n
far beyond South Asia,
while others hardly cross the boundaries or n.ilnori"g r.d*g." T"'
Masica (170-7t),
'--'e-ovvr
'v Yuvr
'The "trit corc- area" may or m.y not bc crcar, but thcrc is typicaly a graduar ettrition at
thc pcriph?rv
of rhc distdburion.,., one- crassic cxamplc of thii ir rr,, g,".ni i., poripo.
sitions to. prcpoition
,., (found,
c.8,, bctwren Inda and-rran, in eth-iopia, anli;'chr;rj.
Anothcr ls thc grsdicnt
bcrwccn prcporcd an posrpoiirtrlUurr"c
"4.irt"x
iiff;:,
in Europe and thc Meditqrrsnean, and ag"in ln'Bu;.), A rf,rA ln"otrll itrl ;ili;;-;;
phenomcnon
.'. changrng as we movc rough rqiik
"nJu.urr
to rngu"gcslo.c'icmoic
from 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-ior
South Asia shows varied distributioni. fo, c*u*iir, retroflex consonants are
found not oly in India, but arso in Iranian i"ngr"g.r, in severar srno.riueian
lllt_l*::"t,rytuding.
Chinese), and in some Suiu"rt nsian tanluag;. lh;
aosence of prefixes does not characterize the Munda famiry (withi In-dia); but
562 LANCUACE, VOLUME 62, NUMBER 3 (t966)
it lakes in Altaic, many Tibeto-llurman languages, Eastern lranian, and some
others outside the lndian subcontinent (Masica,-r gg). pouble
roots i, p*rrr"l
pronoun
are also absent in-Munda, but are quite general in Indo-European
languages outside India.
.Morphorogicar
cauiativei are found r"i urirna
India-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 -oii.i^
'still, also, and, definite' is.in Indo-Aryan and Dravidian, but
"6t
lr"irr-
noau 1974). The dative subject constructlon occurs also in l"neu"g., oiiisi.*
Europe, Georgian, etc. Thi absence of a verb
jhve'(cf.
r"ui"i, rr"trr!-iirt
characterizes Altaic, uraric, Russian, Arabic, Eastern lranian et. irre sv
basic word order is arso found in many ranguages to the east
"n
*crt oitniu
(e.g. most Uralic, fibeto-Burman etc.) Coniering other featuri;,
";.;;;-
bundling of isoglosses in India, Emeneau has sai:
'ln thc carlicr work on thc Indian linguistic arca a numbcr of typological fcaturcs wcrc ruggesled
as fulfilling rhr firsr rcquircmnr, viz. that thcy wcrc pan-tnic an at rr,.,"r" tir. ioi".i1-
Indlc ... sornc, as it rurncd out, wor ferrurcs rhet wcrc found onry rn romc p"rt oitr,c'lijin
aree c.9., thc fcaturc of a complcx rct of numcrrl clasillcr was found t rne in*ryn
languagco of rhc casrcrn end of thc oanges vrfley (c.g. Bcnger, Asram*c) rnJ in-r.rir"r
Dravidian.end Munda ranguagcs incruded gcograpiicatly n rtr-at p".t rr*,i rnJo.ry*
".""
(c.g. Dravidian Kurux and Marro, Munda santali and rrwa), bui r,. rrngur8.. wiith" b.it
parallcls ... arc the ranguagcs of southcast Asia, of scverar famirics, and-thc-.urr.*"igi,
v&llcy is i'tcrprctcd as marginal to southest Asia ,.. Another nrrrginal rcgion in *rr.lt
turncd out that somc Indian ranguagcs showed features connccting dcm witi *
"rto.in" linguistic arca is rhc northwcstern bordc bctween tndo.Aryan and lranlan, which contains
also thc Dravidian Brahui languagc and the solatc Burushaiki ,.., (t9S0:3j)
'unfortunately, I know of no demonstration of such a bundling of isoglosscs. In fact, whcn
in [Emcneau r9i6] I trcsted lndia as a tinguistc arc, I madc-no attcinpt to cmonsinic
"
bundling of lsoglosrcs, but t rethcr dicusrd i numbcr of trit! thet cros; f"mlfi oul"J.,
in India and I wag conccrncd ,., to d.monrrrro th
,.tndlanlzatron';
oinolrili,l,c.'io
demonstr6tc thst Indo-Aryan et varlou! pcrlodr rhowr trrht that orlglnto 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 arattrt, ii; 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*riiirii.,
tamilics. Muh wirler distribution .,, ir scen ln the lsogloicr lhat icprcsent lhc occuricnce of
rctroflexcs and thc occurrcncc of non-finitc vcrb forms ... wht ii of pr*cnt int.rcsr ,,. t
thc furthcr cxrcnsion of this isogloss .,. to includc somc of the lranian languagcr,'(tl96ibl
1980:128)
'Thc sccond pan-Indic sogloss ... is ... non-finitc verb forms (gcrunds, abrotutivcs, or whatvcr
thcy arc callcd) ,.. lt is ccrrainly almoet pan.lndic, alttroug it may alro bc elmoi unlvcrsl
in Eurasia ..,' (tl965bl t980:130)
'Anothcr isoglol*,.., wa! concerncd wlth classificrs or quantiliers, Thl mc thc iloSlocs llnr
includs pa ofnorthcrn and northestern Id,a but failsio coincldc with rt c artorn 6ounaary
of thc lndlan subcontincnt ,,. In fect, though this isoglors is an cxccllert one to usc in dcm-
onstratng that a trait ir shared by perts of thc mqior familics of tndia, it faih lamcntably ln
dcmonstrating that India is a linguistic arca and may bc intcrprcrcd ar ihowing thrt thcrc arc
linguistic traits that occur in common in lndia and ihc rcst oi Aia.' (l965bl'i9E0:l3l)
while few would doubt India's status as a LA, these quotes make it clear
that its isoglosses fail to bundle. They are distributed widely beyond south
Asia in some cases, and narrowly within it in others; they fail to hav 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 and
the Balkans-the clcarest LA's in the literature-with rspect to number, kind,
and distribution of areal featurcs. Furthermore, the MA rea displays five ex.
clusive features which bundle approximatety at its traditional boiders. The
conclusion is that MA is indeed established as a valid LA; in fact, it turns out
to be among the very strongest that are known.
.
REFERENCE
Alexexoen, Rurx Mrnfr. 1980. G_ramtica mixtccadc Atatlahuca. (scric de gramticas
de lenggas indfgenas,dc Mxlco, 2.) Mcxico: Instituto Ling0lsiico c V-eranJ.
--
A*uoxsz, Epr.eru . lg56..Guaymlerqmmar and dictionaryith somo cthloieical
.
notcs. (Smithonlan
Instituton, BAE Bulletin 162.) Wasington, DCI GpO.
-
-
Au,rpon HBnxxonz, Mlnrsceu. 1976. Gramtica del niazahua di san-entJnio itcuto
Nuevo. Mxico: Ecucla Nacionar dc hntroporogra c uistoria, iiccniiitJ;s itiriJ.
Asexorr, ParvA', 1977. La notion dc I'intcrfrcncc ei I'union lingistique uatianique.
Linguistique Balkaniquc ZO.23-31.
Aulte,II' w-l-tn, and EvBr.vxlil, oAuure. 1978. Diccionarioch'ol-espaol, cspaol-
ch'ol. (serie dc vocabularios y diccionarios indfgenas 'Mariano sirva
i aievei',
y
2l')Mxico:InstitutoLingfsticodeVerano.\
Bemrolouew, Dons. 1983. yntactic contrasts between otomangucan and Mixe- )o/ -.., Y
Zoqucan- Paper prcsented at thc annual mceting of thc America 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
Modcneo.
-,
1929, La norma neolinguistica dell'area maggiore. Revista dc Filologia c di Is-
truzione Classica 57,313-45,
-.
1933a. Le norme ncolinguistichc c l loro utilit per la storia dei tinguaggi e dei
costumi. Atti della sociera Iraliana per il
progress
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,Srammticl skc-tchca,cd. by_Ronald W, Langackcr, {et-1, (sU" puU.
lication 57.) Arlington: Unlvcrsity of Tcxa,
Brcxrn, HBNRrk, 1948. Dcr Sprachbund. Leipzigt HumboldhBcherei Gerhard Mindt.
Benxrerx, s. B. 196E. Lcs langues tuqucs de l pninsul des Balkans ct
.l'union
dei
langucs balkaniqucs'. Actci des tdes Balkaniques l96g:73-9.
Brnroxr, Gruro. l9l l. A proposito di gcografia linguiitica. (Atti e Mcmorie della Reale
Dcpu-tazione di Storia Pil{q p.. l
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, Hexnx. 1965. Balkanslawisch und sdslawisch. Zcitschrift fr 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,rrrxo.
1e45. o;;;:J#.,ii'ii,ierr,c
method. word r.83_e4,
-;l?il;*i
neotinguisric position (a repty ro Hall,s criticism of neolinsuistics).
Ls.
'*?!:il3;,,1||:i. l
9]r', A linguistic skctch or Jicattepec' Mixtcc. (srl pubrication
o-,","1dffi
:i,i.Tfl }:l,lHlxf s:liiiT:lf "..,",;;,.1;;;:;';,,,.
];,iii1"1$;:i,*,,,;|lT;l,;1,;i,*,[ft,,J;,8:,1n, Mouron,
v;;;r;;-;?i:ift
l"r;;;;;;,i:";i:!rf
l.,T.Sill?5?,lil,j:lf

Bnowx, cecrl, and sr,rxler wrxowsxr.

I9gr. Figurative ranguage in a universarist
-
perspecriv_e,
American Ethnologisi a.s96_ll
j.'"-'"
DUTLER' rNEz M' rgg0. Gramtica zapoteca: Zapoteco de
yatzachi
er B4io, (serie
de
ffgX:"r
de lenguas indfgenas'd;
M;tr;:.j xico: rnstituro Lingfstico de
Crupeur, Lyw. 1971. H!grl:-"f linguistics and
euichean ,inguisric prehistory.
Los Angeres: universitv
"r
caririnia"Jisffi;;;.jffir;rJ'iiJi"',irllljii,iiiX-.
films, Ann Arbor, ir{l.l
-'
1976, Thc ringuistic niehistory of the sourhern Mesoamercan perrphcry.
Frontcras
1".,ffi:::f:'a'
t 4; M e s a ;;; ; i;r:'s;:'e,ii-
Mii li'i'i'.
-'
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;I;;;r;i-,i]i."n,r,r, paris,
52.5e5_605,
-'
r97Eb,
Quchcan orehistory:
_l_inguir,=.
Jr'brii"i.._papers
in Mayan tinguistics,
ioo;,roJr:.
c. Egtand, zi_sj. Zr,iri.,'ijlpil"r
erthropotogy,
unvirsity or
Middle American-languages..The
languages of Native Amcrica: Historical
and compararive assessment,-ed.by
Lyle C",pUiii 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
histor-car-ig;irii;;;;
distanr genetic rerarionship:
Getring
jr
srraishr. American t;p"iiiri"is.ilz.
-'
and MenrrNxr Mrrrur. rsst. svniaci-i.*rtru.io", prorities
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
ir.iil.i"i,iisliMxico:
rnstituto Lineur,-stic
-,
and Nonux Nonper_r. 19g4. Texistepec vocabulary. To appear, Mxico: Instituto
Ling{lfstico dc Vcrano.
-,
and Nexcy Drvro o Cuenr..l960. popoluca_castellano,
castellano_Dopoluca:
Diatecro de sayuta. veracruz.
{scri; Jc ;;;;-ut;;;'ilf;;;.-.H;#""5Ti;;1;
Accves', 4.) Mxico: tnsrituro
Li"gurrr"oii".
I
counrr' Bexrno. t98r. Language *rlii"iir.iJi"
rvporogy: svntax and mor.
^.
- ?hgtoey.Shicago;
Unive'rs
"i
ct ""e i;;;. ""'"'
r.r^Lyr JoHN p,
1973, A
qencrativc
syntax of
peles
Mixfec. (SIL publication
42,) Norman, oK: Summr lnstirutc i i-insri;]'""
.'
MESO.AMERCA
AS A LINOUSTC AREA
565
-:
]97.7,
Mixteco: Sanf a Marfa
peoles,
Oaxaca. t/
^
uexco, Lj'iiiIo,'b.nro
de rnv_e_srigacin
,d.t['l'#-*Jg.n8uas
indlgenas de
DenNeLr,
Recxr, and Jou Su_enzrn. lS7l,-Areai lnsuirt. studies in North America:
,, *,g1::fi,T'iffi
:':e'
u l ii .d :;s."
Ye' ' " !
ffi ti,"{".i ll'
;::i, #:}:T:,,iTH:fl
f; :i:nl#;iJ:?,lif"',1;1i*j;
-iS"OZ;lll3,
New linguistic families in California. American Anthropologist
Ecxeoov or'lsor' AnrEursr, !r-r.. rg7g, Luccs contemporanca
dcr otomr Gr.
,":ffi ,"i,lllT,tiltil'l'.Tf;
li",lti:l,iilti#:[.],H,.,:f,.]]:"#;,,
,,,ii{l$!"ti_il:llr,:lt*rj,,,f
tii*i}"nm:1il",*;ffi
"
neau 1980:105_25,I
:;,,""f.ir.li{{i:t1,"!,:l$:i{rJ,H,'J:yl.;1lx."T1lt%1iJ_,}iAmerican
phi,.
-.
r962b. The position.or_srati
i'n'-t orlriir"'r.rry.
Brahui and Drvidian
_?[ff lliiifrlix.:ik'Jfi;fi
i,i'Iii;i,t'ff
;ffi :r:rti",H'i'Jt'
-'
t962c' Iranian and ino'ew"n
innuin"i .iiii"i. Brahui and Dravidian com-
ffift,,;,r"'5il1:ar.(ucpL,
2i, i:i,: r;;ri.'i"y"to,
e,iiiii,.
iii;;ff; #".
-.
1965a, Diffusion'and
grammar_(Depariililo;'I'iHli3,'*,Tfr',flffii1;
linguistics. India and historical
-;lr:llr
r,!iiilii'p'i"r
"'i;,i,,iii;t,;'-llJ24'
Annamarainagar:
An'
-'
rvoJo' rndla and rnouislis-e.s.
tndia and tristoricaiirammar (Department
of Linguistics, pubticatio-n
J), zi-zl. iriiiriiiliffi:
annamatai Universiry.
[Re. pll.!:d
in
Emeneau I
ggo;
i iO-66.1-'
-"ir-!!re'sr'ss
-;'.ill'.11?;l'"',',:":1lltlifJJil, lij,Jttil !lt,l,ii:i,x,::ffiffiit#,p,x
in Emeneau I9g0:i67_9
-,
1974, The Indian lincuisiic areaevisited.
International Journar of Dravidian Lin_
-;:!iilf."',;1,*,11',4,[l1,?:ffi
,5r,'i:;,,,*1ffi
,,;":::#"
ducrion nd conttnuation, ; ;;;;;'io l"- I ti'
-'
1980' Language and ringustic
"r"".
snro.,'rvcrsrry press.
u*:?tL)r"ii.c..
te83. A grammar
or uam, a r,rava; ilils;;rsrin:
University
Escrrx*
Henx^xoez. Rosnro,
1962, Ercuitlateco.
Mxico: Instituto Nacionar de Antropologfa
e Historia.
Fenx^xoezpeMrnxo^.
MenfaTenese.
Ig6t. Diccionario ixcateco. (Direccin
de In-
ffi:lfffi:*'
entrporliiai,
il Mil;;i'iiiiii'
N".onur dc Anrroporogra e
Fosren, Menv L. t969. Thc Tarascan lno[ooo ftttlDr <t \ b--r--t
universiry or c"riro."Blxrfan
language. (ucPL,
56.) Berkeley & Los Angcles:
*ri1fl,?i:?"r"":;,Hlflr,i,:b,:'trr1|;,'fl53.;::.ri;J,."Ti,[';3,:"
rnstitution,
{
Fnreonrcu, prur.
t97t. Ttc.iarasian
s,;fr":;_iff#;e
spacc: Meaning and mor-
.^,"',}^ff
:tlffi :nm*:,n:rr,ll,,,:#ffi
*llltfi lii.#i,,;
GeonorEv, Vuourn I. 1977
cherches. Lineuistiquc ira,t'.Tfl I;.Hi!i:*
balkaniqucr L'tt acluel dcs re'
t
t
,6
L^NOUAOE,
voLUME
62, NUMBER
3 (t986)
Crr_lrnox,
Jules, and M
**v*#}*#g*r*r*$-rn,'roffi
:"'ii',i}i.;',i';rr",{',;,,i'i,,li#*;*tiu*ijir*H,;m
::.i['1.fil:,S1::fl;#Ji:'A-ff[i.der
A.reartvporogie:
Die Probrcmatik
der curo-
H^^s, M^Ry R. 1969, Th
57) Te u"gu", pro,lio|rehistory
of languages. (Janua
Linguarum,
scrils minor,
liiillt'"YJir'rf,r:1':?j"
ringuistic area' In Langdon & s,ver, 347-ie.
rRe.
t*,'ilL'.-ffi;s#,ttili!:'i!ri|;ffi
i",$H::.iy,::,
=*A,t*f*q1;*;[.*iri#:i'i'ffi
ff ffi {lifu
m:,^rr
"*l'jtffi,x^slrilffix},,,il'"r,",1';:.*rlx":liI;,j3ll;?iixliii,".i?l.i
-_
Aceves', 23.) Mxico: r,ft,!!;
it;,,;fiiJotl"ffil"nr.
u^sLER, Juex A. t959, Una lingufstica;is;-;"";.;;;
vsta de la universidal ;;;;;;"--''i:,:cncana.-La_parabra
y el Hombre (Re.
'^it,,:;#,ffi
#H?,##f:J.:Ji"{'ip,ni.:ffi
:ilffi
:;':,
netic sciences,if-ir-.]l"ed"i;
[:',11jJJi,i,lXl,lternational
coneress of Pho.
"*fl,"k
'f. 3l: Sltl'.;;.'r*:'i'::Tr,r."i; !il'iJIcs.rl'
ed' bv Eric P' Hamp
genorirl
u;
j"X.Y'-YyInu
srammar' BIuelields,. Nicaragua.
;,,:i:fi:,_"*,j,f
i::*3i:ili:?,i"',1",?lJ.::i:iH!:#l".lnd
morpho,ogica,
#i:"#,#,i;';,ii:::5;fl
j1,,,lJ3:i:ii",:[fi
f ,T:IHI$"t"H:X:
*
j,tfli,:,T#$j,f,,1*i'iif
,,r,"".,i,,'trtif
,l,:5x,'"':.:'imii:l
-:id:t{::*mi!,^"*,,;u:l.r:t:ff
r;r::T,1ll-i.:,fi
:i,:;,H:
-_
ccdad Mexicana dc Antropologfa
Hooosu,loer,
Sernl-. t9g4
l"*l:i
**1,_,ilii":,Hlit,
H:;; itrl:Ti#Jl:"I,"tjHi,:l#,$*l
,"ttitd
}l.ri:!:r.
1970. Numcral ctassifiers in Tzeltal, Jacaltcc, and Chuj (Mayan).
Jecoasex, WrL_lrr.r
H. 1967. Switch.rcference
in Hokan_C,
rn',':l ;*ulii'u
'ii .',' ' u
v oii i' ii
v,i,., u
"*:fi
ijH":tlf::'fi
i
rrf:+'l;
-.
1980. Inclusive/exclusir
fl ffi n:
jn'"I""r:i:tilff
[r',:#iisixffi
iil:;:]:T,,T:x]
MEO.AMERCA
A A LTNCUISTIC
AREA
567
'^-Tii,tllt.
?l!ry rirdie
Phonorosisc h en sprachb nde. rravaux d u cercre
-i,'3i:
3:ti:JJff.T,1:,'"lT
!li,,,:it
lT[ ffi
..:t[;i.fitili;:Lt1
iilif:ifl
as Appcndix to
princi
"ii.-ii"iiliir;'ilfl',rjl,",ff,ri?l,liaY,il:*,it".r
rr
phonorogicar
associations
_iffi
,[:1",i'=8.*:r'*,tiltlllliaf,
if :ffi ffi liii,ilil,il'f;
i:i'i,']"0ii1,",
*;,'j^f
^iflI1:.
!;' ir.:.t
,"il;iJliiiil'io.iiii:it '
.'"i-
;S*[iri*+fd;;
li,ll]"::,'ff -{hilffi
]:i{i
Jusresox,
Joux; Wruuru I
;ltil;*h;l1ittjfl*$i{;ifiI'trjiilffi
:x:l;r:*:;
;;;$ii$Ift$tp'tritlHilll,:;tif
fi
#:::'r;::tHl;.:;
-riifil't!;:Xi:'i','.:!i-'ir1H:'li"m:',['-urrent
trends in ringuistics,
ed, bv
-i,irri:iycsodmerican
i;;i;;,
l"d,lli.rrr.ia
Brirannica,
r 5rh cdn.,
-;tliiilt#"fi:iiiflH:ifrica'
(seminario
de Integracin
sociar Guatemarreca,
Ii ili;tX**::'l*li'If,:':ffi;r:,iAl:l;.
in Mavarand and associared areas
-.
.t
980.
pre-Corumbian
uo...o*nis'i,iJoiri"ii
iIr,,
-
3;i::ti-'lll'fii',tffJt'il[ii;i:iffiiir','31",';"tT:'1f."[,i'l.l11il"11,"'Lll;
). ]liq:nni,['ii,liilllilil ;:*t*'
(vocabu
rarios borivianos,
4.) co-
firyfft*+;t'fir*frHq-ffi;*'* I(RoEBER,
Alrneo L. 1910. I
aes r e. jn.tea1ffi,Jl"J:;H:fl:[,iiJ,[*gfl;:lr,;:t]:f:.""Hhand rungen
ffii,::'iiri
mfir :ri;'i*iru*tfi**
ffi;,,3,, *r?i
r*,"fr
h,td}:4*rslf*.:#;'#[x,lrl;+:[,*:,,**ill;
-_,ul{s"i"i'"',*i*'?,f1.[:5:iiiniih.';I,fff.*r.:HilJrAJ,%"nference
,#;[i]l:;,:F"r#jiiJi:.;]il,.r.ff
hn,iff
.xi:.i,y":.,,,:ti
Austin: untvcrs,y or r"ilrt
pll".LnBuistics'
ed' bv Mirro s' i]rtitl'io:i"i
568
LANGUAGE, VoLUME
62. NUMBER I (t986)
trr6|"fi:1fl;1920.
Zentrat_America,
t: Die Sprachen Zentrat-Arnerikls.
Bertin:
,
t'n',3x1;:.?,ffi'"ll:;,?3;.1:o''svntax'
(ucPL,76.)
Berkerev & Los Angeres:
("""r:i'i!o';,1**fr,.il'i;frl,fi{i$J'{!lt'${.;{"}}d,,:il:::;;
McMnuox, Aunnosro. ,
de vocabularios
ln
-
glstico
de Verano.
Meceny pre,
Exnro
;^.ifr[1
j-iti*Thd,Trf:ffi
i:'i,i:{:.iil:i*:i-::ffi
:,
-.
1956. Are rhere areas.or allinit grammaticareas
wefl er of nrfittt
^L^-^r-
,
curting acioss-iJri'tic
rangigc.r"ii.,ii;i"i...H,]lii,i:!flfl1j#
!fg!;rt7.
I^',Hr',ill,!:1:'i'd.'3;lI,*
l;,,1,'*lr,;i*uth
Asia. chicago: university
of
MeRnlrrelo,
W.tr R,
,.',"'i,:#[:ffiiTtf
ilff{jliJil{,isiUii,',Tdcrachinan'[ra'
der philosophisch-nsriij*1.-ir"."":'"':,::i:l'Js
rm numnschen,
Denkschriften
-t[ffi
,,#T:il*,'*;$$,"ffi,'t*,**il;,;ffi
social,
,!, ,s^rev;
\,cn(ro oe tnvestigacin para la Integraiin
Moxreo, Susrx, l9gl. D
;+fg:i,IfiiiiyHilir:,;:rJi;i:Bl;:::"*'^'icaperuana,e)yarina'
c-."uu,i'.,-.,.no.sl;;;"";,.","!;'i,1;i,JJ,"i,:li,t
jf
fi ;;iti,!r".r;:
Pevxe, Trouas E. 19g2. Subject in Guaymf. Estudios
,
. co.t" J
iiiirc,-e,r,"J.."iii,e'riJ;:rili:::fi11)fr#1;:t:.3::
._. _parrameiro
de Lingfsri:a. d. t" rr.irjri.il
ort. ni... rENsNoER,
Bnexor J. Isz. Diccionaii;r-l_il;;ol,
espaol_mixteco, (Serie
de
^
L,,'f,:'fffi
;,1,,1f 'J
:,,i:Hl
il r;'
:il;;ia;
tir
",
v ".,i,
;,'
ii.i lli ,-
'''.i"T.u,lltt
f,1.118ffi,,1:,il:;,1::ilili,?."1i'i;,,!1i[lii,:"r:,,;[,,H:
-
cin.Social del Esrado de Oaxaia.,'
i"'1i;J;i'"ri;r131'r.fllif,:cdanken
bsr dic Entstohun
dc brkanichen
sprach.
*-rih:ir#i:i"J:,1'tL,lT*i::It"'p,.:"fl,f,iiFJ:{::,[Hlrd*:.f;
fldian lXneuaees,
ed.
rf
i':.i':ffi
3i,[fi i',,,#:ji!q',f
,',lffi l,,liii{rr.n:i,,*.,,,*,,:;
Reuexu.rlH,
A. K., and C
;,{,*j'fr
#i,*;,*'tlfl*i*i,tHfff
-ii:",,:,::**.,":Xy
MESO-AMERICA
AS A LINOUTIC AREA
569
Jurez, puebta.
(serie
dc vocaburarios y diccionarios indfgenas
.Mariano
sirva y
"
-..1::":!"
I 7. ) Mxicu lnstituto iinguL";;;"v;.",o.
KENScH' L:^LVN' Ig7g. Typorogical
and genetic
.onsiJ.tionr in the otomanuean , tansuases. Intcrnarionai
9o-"g.;..
-f
i;;;";"il 42 :4.623_33, paris.
llii"lii:Ul'*S'.***m-J'*ir',:'-r:r*l*"u:il"r,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.ii'.iri.i'iiili
-
:
xarrtunin,-iz-zli.
iu,6, ;r;;,';ii:;;:"::,;,1"#ti"Ltliil;1,
Frances
Ruee, JouH. 19E0, Chinantcco: S.n u"n [.l. b;;:,
de Mxico, 9.) Mxico: c..rii il'"Jl"i*:,:'::'l'li"juw
sE rc.nguas rmlgenas
s*"*i*iiii#":.,'fi
ili"ijti"?inuui#'}[,,*i.,i$1Hi,l',iliii3""
,^,,I':H|;:iiif,iir"t
Liigui,ritu"
dfi;l}l, iiip"i;-ch;H."'\vvrev,r
-
I ican Anrhropologist
,d:t$:fr:t'o'n
incorporatin
in e'iit'li'"iuages.
Amer'
]"'ili;Tl,tl[lloY;,'i7,'"',3ic
Balkansprachen:
Eine Einrohruns in die Batkanphl.
cHERMATR' Axseluo.
r957. V-ocaburario sirion-castcilano,
Innsbruck; sprachwissen-
^
schaftliches Seminar der Univcrsiilt,
cHMrDr' J'HANNE''
r972,._rie Vcrwandtschaftverhrtnisse
der indogermanischcn
_
Sprachcn. Leipzig: Wermar,
.HoENHALS'
Ar'vlx, and Lo.ure
Q.
scxosxueLs, rg65. vocabulario
mixe dc Totor
.
fiffiftr1'iffsiiil;li$ii:j;iffiiTi'"'1#J"""',
Aceves',,r.r
,,iill, (
cHULrzEJexe,
Leoxeno' tg3g._Indiana ItI: Bei den Aztcken, Mixtcken und Tlapa.
q,uJlitl,:'fll;Sry::
crsur-,on r"riiiiJ. iJi'"1c,'rav'ricrci.-"
e'e
's.,'
il#*{:liiij,J,l*I"Tii,ffi
?ti,:1i"5,1,"ffi
:iy":,H:tX11,#t:fl
m,1l3t;,
::i',.fi
lffi
!ruit:li::i".,,',;lhiflil:#ffi :irn"i:,i;""-;;
-'
and Rrcxenp Bruurx,
^rszz.
eifu riur;; ;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...rl.r"r"g.;.'"q'ld;1tiJI,:'ff..fil[,x1*;;Y3J,1}:*>
.
i
of American-ists,
Manchestei England,'--'-
"'-'"',
ili1k[!;ile'.t;"oJ
I*'tchuchirdt'Brcvier.
Hallc,: Niemcycr.
[2nd cdn., r e2E.l
cronarraiJ;;s;;fx.liT.rE'J',"..F!1iit""",iffi
*rtl,"t,l'i"*1,"#:
r*"oJllffX"l'^'l,Tr"rilvv
Aeivii;, ?4,i';;';I,,liqut"
[inlirirtr-'i;iii'lii?,i'j
:-,ii3.]ffi#:9.#iliil5f#,ffi
,..:ltl?,,I;;tqiffi
:ii;'.hl,
tnoma de Mxico.
swexrox' Josx R' 1g40. Linguitic.materiar
from the tribes of southcrn Tcxas and
_
Northeastern
Mexico.
tsE rtuii, i'ii.j'rriin'ei"n,
apo.
t*!l1l.u4;.?.
n.d. Miskito
srammar. Blu;fietds, icaragua: Board of Chrisrian
Tuoursox, Srnex Gney. and Tnrexce S.. Kruruex, 1975. Toward an adequate dcfi-
,
ll,l"S,::il:lirjlli1i,r."o.'presenred
"r
ti,. ini",l"tonat
conferencc n
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 dc
prasue
4,228-34.
[French iransrrion: Fhonoro_gie ct
ec"g*p-hrir;r]Jii,l] e'r
pendix ro his
principes
de
phonorogie,
343-i. aris: rit,r-Jr.Ji,r.,'l9.1
'
--P
Tunxrn,
paur,
and s'rnr-ev Tunxen. iszi, Drctonrii, ffi;ril'i;'iip;"ir-engish,
Spanish to Chontal. Tucson: University of Arizonl
prcss.
ulrex, Russpr-u 1979, Toward a typorogy or suustaniivl pssession, universals of
human language, cd. bv Josep
-Grenberg
et ar., 4. t r:t: s;6.*"uniriiiii
Prcss,
--_F
v^n"Ij:Tii,,jg"-,lPl:T.1!^,1,:n!,w1-r41o
v-ex Hrns,._1e76. A hiearchicI,
s70 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 62, NUMBER 3 (te86)
Tnorre, Ru,olru c. r98r. subjecr-object concord in coahuirtec. Lg.57.65g-73.
Tnuprrzrov, Nxor- s. lgzE.lrropoiition 16l. Acts orielii-rnt.r'nai"iiclrgr."
of Linguistics, t7-18. Lciden.
sk_etch of Mixc as. spoken in sa.n Jos er
parafso.
iSri-puulicatin.j ir*.r,,:
OK: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
I
,i
THE ORDERINC OF AUXTLIARY NOTTONS IN CUYANESE CREOLE
l
Krx Gssox
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 papcr
show 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
ppromates the standard language and represents nearly complete decreo-
the mesolect is the intermediate variety. The levels I am describing
rrc 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 ordering
TIense-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 analysis
otGuyanese discusses only one item ga-which he considers to be a modal,
rnd which indeed occurs after the past tense category. But the situation is
Euch more complex than he indicates, since some forms with modal meaning
ctur before and after tense, and some aspectuals occur before certain modal
itcms. I will illustrate here the complexity of the situation, and will show that
tme of the forms are best classified as copula verbs, complementizers, and
rdvcs. I conclude that an MTA ordering is superior to TMA.
l. Pnost-eus. One difficulty concerns whether Guyanese hns two aspectual
omorphemes, orjust one. Bickerton 1975 recognizes a single aspectual a which
oligatorily follows modal items, But it is possible for an aspectual a to occur
bcfore some modal items, while another a follows these modal forms.
Bickerton claims there is only one aspectual a: the continuative/iterative a
rhich 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 used
bt thc clsssificetion of thc forms havc bccn eviscd, I would likc to thank my collcague Stevc
'
lobron 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 and
rrolcct arc shown to usc the samc undcrlying catcgorics, A similar position is tkcn by Mufwenc
l9tl (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. Gramtic ch'o. f;; ei"-;ti.", d.
- --.
lenguas indrgenas d_c_lr{!co, 3.) Mxico: Insrituto tirwtit"d ai-v?i]-'
-- w,rrrnuouse, vrour, 1980. chontal de la sierra de oaxaci, (Archivo c Jincuas r
--.
dfgcnas de Mxico, 7,) Mxicor centro de Investigacn p"i" ia intigi*r"..rr.
Weroexo, Gusrev. 1925.
programm
des Balkan-Arcvs.
tgilian-;;;].til;r
Rumnisches Institut.
werxrerc,, unrru. t958. on_the-compatibirity of genetic relationship and convcrgcor
development. Word 14,374-9.
Wu-ueus, Axx, and Esrsen Prnsox. 1950. Diccionario cspaol_popoloca, popoloca-
-_-
espaol, Mxicol 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 Langdo & Siiver.iOS-ZO,
[Received 2 April l9g4;
revision received 8 February lggj:
accepred I July l98j.I
. "
.:iL