Search

Recent studies have highlighted divergent change as a more common outcome of language contact than previously thought. While convergent change is often attributed to bilingual cognitive pressures, divergent change has usually been explained by appealing to sociocultural factors. We argue that the effects of social pressures on linguistic systems must nevertheless be realized in how language is processed in the individual bilingual speaker and, therefore, that divergent change is also ultimately rooted in bilingual cognition. Since lexical forms are most susceptible to contact-induced divergent change we focus on their production. We begin by developing a cognitive model that combines Grosjean’s language mode with a later output-monitoring stage. The parameters to the model are then fit to the results of an experiment in which bilinguals are seen to avoid shared lexical items. These best-fit parameters form the basis of a series of multi-agent simulations that show rapid divergence in the lexica of languages with large proportions of bilinguals. We consider the implications of these findings for the psycholinguistic study of bilingual lexical selection, the construction of phylogenies, and the reconstruction of language family histories.

The reconstruction of genealogical relationships between languages is traditionally performed through lexical comparison and the establishment of regular sound changes. The historical analysis of other aspects of linguistic structure, like syntactic patterns or the function of grammatical elements, is normally understood to depend on a previously established thorough understanding of the genealogical structure of the family. In this article we show that it is possible to reconstruct historical changes in morphosyntactic function without assuming detailed knowledge about the genealogical developments of the languages involved. Even more surprisingly, we are able to accurately reconstruct the genealogical structure of a language family using only a limited amount of morphosyntactic variation. As a case study, this article focuses on the nonspatial usage of spatial case marking in the Tsezic languages, a subgroup of Nakh-Daghestanian, spoken in the Caucasus. A new semantic-map-like visualization is developed to represent functional differences in case marking between the various Tsezic languages. Using MAXIMUM PARSIMONY , a reconstruction is proposed for the historical development of the case marking, and the same visualization is used to present the reconstructed historical developments in an insightful manner. Besides various new insights regarding the development of Tsezic case marking, the approach used in this article presents a generally applicable method for the reconstruction of morphosyntactic function.

Using various methods derived from evolutionary biology, including maximum parsimony and Bayesian phylogenetic analysis, we tackle the question of the relationships among a group of Papuan isolate languages that have hitherto resisted accepted attempts at demonstration of interrelatedness. Instead of using existing vocabulary-based methods, which cannot be applied to these languages due to the paucity of shared lexemes, we created a database of STRUCTURAL FEATURES — abstract phonological and grammatical features apart from their form. The methods are first tested on the closely related Oceanic languages spoken in the same region as the Papuan languages in question. We find that using biological methods on structural features can recapitulate the results of the comparative method tree for the Oceanic languages, thus showing that structural features can be a valid way of extracting linguistic history. Application of the same methods to the otherwise unrelatable Papuan languages is therefore likely to be similarly valid. Because languages that have been in contact for protracted periods may also converge, we outline additional methods for distinguishing convergence from inherited relatedness. Full text after 2-year embargo. PAVA

This short report investigates the relationship between population size and phoneme inventory size, and finds a surprisingly robust correlation between the two. The more speakers a language has, the bigger its phoneme inventory is likely to be. We show that this holds for both vowel inventories and consonant inventories. It is not an artifact of language family.

The study of the native languages of North and South America has recently developed into a major research area for academics. This new bibliography will assist scholars in this burgeoning area of inquiry. The author has meticulously compiled citations to over 1,600 dissertations and master's theses-from American, Canadian, and British institutions-that cover tribal groups in the entire western hemisphere. He made a special effort to locate master's theses, an oft-neglected source of useful information. The bibliography is divided according to language family and contains a section devoted to general sources. Author, language, dialect, and tribe indexes are provided. This valuable resource is a natural complement to all Native American ethnographic collections and, more broadly, academic collections supporting anthropological linguistics, cultural anthropology, and Mesoamerican studies.

A grammar of almost any Bantu language will attest a morpheme a in a variety of constructions involving association, usually of a preceding noun with a following noun or pronoun. In many Bantu languages a second morpheme, with the shape ka or something similar, is used in some similar constructions. These morphemes have frequently been labelled 'possessive', with reference to one of their more obvious uses, or genitive, with the implication that more than literal possession may be involved; the variety of constructions in which they are found makes the more neutral term 'associative' preferable. In the history of efforts to establish and define the relationship of the Bantu languages with most of the languages of West Africa, it has not been widely noted that striking parallels can be found in a number of unique morphological details of such a type that borrowing or other influence is most improbable, thus strongly reinforcing the arguments for recognizing a genetically related NigerCongo language family. It is the purpose of this article to point out some reflexes of the Bantu associative a and ka in some widely divergent non-Bantu languages of West Africa, in most of the same uses and with significantly parallel restrictions. A comprehensive treatment is impossible at present for lack of sufficient evidence; the evidence that is available, however, will establish that these morphemes can be reconstructed for proto-Niger-Congo. It is hoped that this will also stimulate further investigation of comparable phenomena in other NigerCongo languages. The treatment accorded here to these morphemes in the Bantu languages themselves will seem sketchy and elementary to a Bantuist. He is sufficiently familiar with the material, and needs little reminder of the varieties and ramifications of these constructions in Bantu. Others, however, will find a brief sampling of the uses of the associative a and ka in a few Bantu languages necessary andit is hoped-adequate as a background for the non-Bantu evidence. The more restricted and subtle evidence of these morphemes in non-Bantu Niger-Congo languages, on the other hand, will require more detailed treatment irrespective of one's language background.

that his work in this field is of considerable importance.3 But most of those who are quite willing to admit this do so on indirect evidence: since Bloomfield's other work proves him a sound scholar, his Algonquian studies must be sound too. Algonquian, after all, is an out-of-the-way language family, and few have concerned themselves with it. In view, particularly, of Bloomfield's endeavors in this field, this neglect is unfortunate. To the writer the following points seem beyond dispute: (1) careful study of Algonquian as Bloomfield has described it can be a fascinating, enlightening, and rewarding experience even for established comparatists and historical linguists; (2) for the newcomer to linguistics, a reading of Bloomfield's Algonquian works is one of the finest indoctrinations into the best of linguistic method.

A linguistic relationship between Dravidian and Uralian has been suspected for many years.l Yet, after the early work of Caldwell, Schrader, von Hevesy, and others, the problem failed to interest linguists until the publication of Burrow 1943. Even then, little interest was generated. Sebeok questioned some of Burrow's correspondences and argued that comparison between Dravidian and Uralian was premature. In this he was repeating the words of Caldwell (1913:62), who observed that the relation between Dravidian and Uralian could 'never be definitely solved without previously ascertaining, by a careful intercomparison of dialects, what were the most ancient grammatical forms and the most essential characteristics of the Dravidian languages and of the various families of languages included in the Scythian group respectively.'2 But with the publication of the Dravidian Etymological Dictionary (Burrow & Emeneau 1961, hereafter DED) and the comparative work of Collinder (1955, 1957, 1960), at least a minimum of the conditions noted by both Caldwell and Sebeok have been fulfilled. It is the purpose of this paper to provide further evidence of a genetic relationship between Dravidian and Uralian. This evidence consists of a list of 153 proto-forms related by systematic phonemic correspondences. Borrowing seems unlikely as an explanation for these correspondences. Many of the correspondences are so complex that they can only be explained as the result of a series of historical changes in each language family, and a fair number involve words for items of everyday use ('basic vocabulary') that are generally felt to be resistant to replacement. It is also significant that, of the 72 items in Collinder's list of Uralic-Altaic correspondences in the Fenno-Ugric Vocabulary

Austronesian: This includes the languages spoken in all the islands of Malaysia, Polynesia, and Melanesia, except Papuan, Andamanese, and Nicobarese. Austroasiatic: 1. Mon-Khmer 1.1. Mon-Khmer proper 1.101. Mon (or Talaing) 1.102. Khmer (or Cambodian) 1.103. Bahnar 1.104. Stieng 1.105. Rangao 1.106. Moi 1.107. Kha 1.108. Kuoi (about 4 dialects) 1.109. Chong 1.110. Pear 1.111. Penong 1.2. Eastern