1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Linguistics
  4. Volume 7, 2021
  5. Article

Annual Review of Linguistics

Volume 7, 2021

The Classification of South American Languages

Abstract

With some 108 independent genealogical units, South America is the linguistically most diverse region of our planet and presents a particular challenge to linguists seeking to understand the genealogical relationships among human languages. Recent years have seen a resurgence of interest in the internal classification of South American language families, and this article provides a critical overview of research in this very active area, focusing on the seven largest language families of the continent: Arawakan, Cariban, Jê, Panoan, Quechuan, Tukanoan, and Tupian. The strengths and weaknesses of major classification proposals are examined, and directions for future research discussed. Several long-distance relationship proposals that South Americanists are actively debating, including Tupi-Cariban, Pano-Takanan, Quechumaran, TuKaJê, and Macro-Jê, are also examined.

Keyword(s): comparative linguistics, historical linguistics, language classification, South American languages
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030419
2021-01-04
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/7/1/annurev-linguistics-011619-030419.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030419&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Adelaar W. 1986. La relación quechua-aru: perspectivas para la separación del léxico. Rev. Andin. 4:379–426
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Adelaar W. 2000. Propuesta de un nuevo vínculo genético entre dos grupos lingüísticos indígenas de la Amazonía occidental: Harakmbut y Katukina. Actas del I Congreso de Lenguas Indígenas de Sudamérica219–36 Lima, Peru: Univ. Ricardo Palmas
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Adelaar W. 2004. The Languages of the Andes New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  4. Adelaar W. 2007. The Quechua impact in Amuesha, an Arawak language of the Peruvian Amazon. Grammars in Contact: A Cross-Linguistic Typology A Aikhenvald, RMW Dixon 290–312 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Adelaar W. 2008. Relações externas do Macro-Jê: o caso do Chiquitano. Topicalizando Macro-Jê S Telles, AS de Paula 9–28 Recife, Braz: NECTAR
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Adelaar W. 2012a. Historical overview: descriptive and comparative research on South American Indian languages. The Indigenous Languages of South America: A Comprehensive Guide 2 L Campbell, V Grondona 1–58 Boston: Mouton de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Adelaar W. 2012b. Languages of the Middle Andes in areal-typological perspective: emphasis on Quechuan and Aymaran. The Indigenous Languages of South America: A Comprehensive Guide. Vol. 2 L Campbell, V Grondona 575–624 Boston: Mouton de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Adelaar W. 2013. Quechua I y Quechua II: en defensa de una distinción establecida. Rev. Bras. De Linguíst. Antropol. 5:45–65
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Aikhenvald A. 1999a. The Arawak language family. The Amazonian Languages RMW Dixon, A Aikhenvald 65–106 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Aikhenvald A. 1999b. Areal diffusion and language contact in the Içana-Vaupés basin, North West Amazonia. The Amazonian Languages RMW Dixon, A Aikhenvald 385–415 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Aikhenvald A. 2002. Language Contact in Amazonia New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  12. Aikhenvald A. 2012. The Languages of the Amazon New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  13. Barnes J. 1999. Tucano. The Amazonian Languages RMW Dixon, A Aikhenvald 207–26 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Boswood J. 1973. Evidências para a inclusão do Aripaktsá no filo Macro-Jê. Sér. Lingüíst. 1:67–78
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Brinton D. 1891. The American Race: A Linguistic Classification and Ethnographic Description of the Native Tribes of North and South America New York: N.D.C. Hodges
  16. Campbell L. 1995. The Quechumaran hypothesis and lessons for distant genetic comparison. Diachronica 12:157–200
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Campbell L. 1997. American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  18. Campbell L. 2012. Classification of the indigenous languages of South America. The Indigenous Languages of South America: A Comprehensive Guide 2 L Campbell, V Grondona 59–166 Boston: Mouton de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Campbell L, Poser W. 2008. Language Classification: History and Method Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  20. Cerrón-Palomino R. 1987. Lingüística Quechua Cuzco, Peru: Cent. Estud. Rural. Andin. Bartolome de Las Casas
  21. Chacon T. 2014. A revised proposal of Proto-Tukanoan consonants and Tukanoan family classification. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 80:275–322
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Chacon T, List J-M. 2015. Improved computational models of sound change shed light on the history of the Tukanoan languages. J. Lang. Relatsh. 13:177–203
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Chacon T, Michael L. 2018. The evolution of subject-verb agreement in Eastern Tukanoan. J. Hist. Linguist. 8:59–94
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Chamberlain A. 1907. South American linguistic stocks. Congrès International des Américanistes, XVe Session187–204 Québec: Dussault & Prould
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Constenla-Umaña A. 2012. Chibchan languages. The Indigenous Languages of South America: A Comprehensive Guide 2 L Campbell, V Grondona 391–439 Boston: Mouton de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Danielsen S, Dunn M, Muysken P 2011. The role of contact in the spreading of Arawak languages. Ethnicity in Ancient Amazonia: Reconstructing Past Identities from Archaeology, Linguistics, and Ethnohistory A Hornborg, J Hill 173–96 Boulder: Univ. Press Colo.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. D'Ans A-M. 1973. Estudios glotocronológicos sobre nueve hablas pano Doc. Trab. 17 Cent. Investig. Lingüíst. Apl. Lima, Peru: Univ. Nac. Mayor San Marcos
  28. Davis I. 1966. Comparative Jê phonology. Estud. Lingüíst. Rev. Bras. Lingüíst. Teór. Apl. 1:10–24
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Davis I. 1968. Some Macro-Jê relationships. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 34:42–47
     [Google Scholar]
  30. de la Grasserie R. 1894. Langue Puquina Leipzig, Ger: K.F. Koehler
  31. Deshoullière G, Utitiaj Paati S 2019. Acerca de la declaración sobre el cambio de nombre del conjunto Jívaro. J. Soc. Am. 105:167–79
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Derbyshire D. 1999. Carib. The Amazonian Languages RMW Dixon, A Aikhenvald 22–64 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Durbin M. 1977. A survey of the Carib language family. Carib-Speaking Indians: Culture and Society E Basso 23–38 Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Dunn M. 2015. Language phylogenies. The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics C Bowern, B Evans 208–29 London: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Emlen N. 2017. Perspectives on the Quechua–Aymara contact relationship and the lexicon and phonology of Pre-Proto-Aymara. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 83:307–40
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Emlen N, Adelaar W. 2017. Proto-Quechua and Proto-Aymara agropastoral terms. Language Dispersal Beyond Farming M Robbeets, A Savelyev 25–46 Philadelphia: John Benjamins
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Emlen N, Dellert J. 2020. On the polymorphemic genesis of some Proto-Quechuan roots: establishing and interpreting non-random form/meaning correspondences on the basis of a cross-linguistic polysemy network. Diachronica 37:96–145
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Epps P. 2009. Language classification, language contact, and Amazonian prehistory. Lang. Linguist. Compass 3:581–606
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Epps P, Bolaños K. 2017. Reconsidering the “Makú” language family of Northwest Amazonia. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 83:467–507
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Epps P, Michael L. 2017. The areal linguistics of Amazonia. The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics R Hickey 934–63 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Eriksen L. 2011. Nature and culture in prehistoric Amazonia PhD Diss., Lund Univ Lund, Swed:.
  42. Eriksen L, Danielsen S. 2014. The Arawakan matrix. The Native Language of South America: Origins, Development, Typology L O'Connor, P Muysken 152–76 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Facundes S, Brandão AP. 2011. Comparative Arawak linguistics: notes on reconstruction, diffusion and Amazonian prehistory. Ethnicity in Ancient Amazonia: Reconstructing Past Identities from Archaeology, Linguistics, and Ethnohistory A Hornborg, J Hill 197–210 Boulder: Univ. Press Colo.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Fleck D. 2013. American Museum of Natural History Anthropological Papers, Vol. 99: Panoan Languages and Linguistics New York: Am. Mus. Nat. Hist.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Galucio A, Meira S, Birchall J, Moore D, Gabas N Jr. et al. 2015. Genealogical relations and lexical distances within the Tupian linguistic family. Bol. Mus. Para. Emílio Goeldi Ciênc. Hum. 10:229–74
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Galucio A, Nogueira A. 2011. Comparative study of the Tupari branch of the Tupi family: contributions to understanding its historical development and internal classification. Memorias del V Congreso de Idiomas Indígenas de Latinoamérica1–28 Austin: Univ. Tex. Austin
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Gildea S. 2003. The Venezuelan branch of the Cariban language family. Amérindia 28:7–32
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Gildea S. 2012. Linguistic studies in the Cariban family. The Indigenous Languages of South America: A Comprehensive Guide 2 L Campbell, V Grondona 441–94 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Gildea S, Hoff B, Meira S 2010. The story of *ô in the Cariban family. Fieldwork and Linguistic Analysis in Indigenous Languages of the Americas A Berez, D Rosenblum, J Mulder 91–123 Honolulu: Univ. Hawai'i Press
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Girard V. 1971a. Proto-Carib phonology PhD Diss., Univ. Calif Berkeley:
  51. Girard V. 1971b. University of California Publications in Linguistics, Vol. 70: Proto-Takanan Phonology Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ. Calif. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Greenberg J. 1987. Language in the Americas Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
  53. Grimes B. 1985. Language attitudes: identity, distinctiveness, survival in the Vaupes. J. Multiling. Multicult. Dev. 6:389–401
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Guillaume A. 2017. Sistemas complejos de movimiento asociado en las lenguas Takana y Pano: perspectivas descriptiva, tipológica e histórico-comparativa. Amerindia 39:211–61
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Guillaume A. Tacanan. Amazonian Languages: An International Handbook P Epps, L Michael Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Guy G. 2008. Variationist approaches to phonological change. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics B Joseph, R Janda 369–400 Malden, MA: Blackwell
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Haynie H, Bowern C, Epps P, Hill J, McConvell P 2014. Wanderwörter in languages of the Americas and Australia. Ampersand 1:1–18
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Heggarty P. 2005. Enigmas en el orígen de las lenguas andinas: aplicando nuevas técnicas a las incógnitas por resolver. Rev. Andin. 40:9–80
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Hornborg A. 2005. Ethnogenesis, regional interaction, and ecology in prehistoric Amazonia. Curr. Anthropol. 46:589–620
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Jackson J. 1983. The Fish People: Linguistic Exogamy and Tukanoan Identity in Northwest Amazonia Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  61. Jensen C. 1998. Comparative Tupí-Guaraní morphosyntax. Handbook of Amazonian Languages 4 D Derbyshire, G Pullum 489–618 New York: Mouton de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Jolkesky M. 2010. Reconstrução fonológica e lexical do Proto-Jê Meridional MA Thesis, Univ. Estadual de Campinas, Campinas Brazil:
  63. Kaufman T. 1990. Language history in South America: what we know and how to know more. Amazonian Linguistics: Studies in Lowland South American Languages D Payne 13–67 Austin: Univ. Tex. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Kaufman T. 1994. The native languages of South America. Atlas of the World's Languages C Moseley, RE Asher 59–93 London: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Key MR. 1968. Comparative Tacanan Phonology: With Cavineña Phonology and Notes on Pano-Tacanan Relationship The Hague: Mouton
  66. Labov W. 2020. The regularity of regular sound change. Language 96:42–59
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Landerman P. 1991. Quechua dialects and their classification PhD Diss., Univ. Calif Los Angeles:
  68. Lemle M. 1971. Internal classification of the Tupí-Guaraní linguistic family. Tupí Studies I D Bendor-Samuel 107–29 Norman, OK: Summer Inst. Linguist.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Loos E. 1999. Pano. In The Amazonian Languages RMW Dixon, A Aikhenvald 227–49 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Malone T. 1986. Proto-Tucanoan and Tucanoan genetic relationship Work. Pap., Inst. Linguíst. Verano, Lomalinda Colombia:
  71. Mannheim B. 1991. The Language of the Inca since the European Invasion Austin: Univ. Texas Press
  72. Martins A. 2011. Uma avaliação da hipótese de relações genéticas entre o Guató e o tronco Macro-Jê PhD Diss., Univ. Brasília Brasília, Braz:.
  73. Meira S. 2000. A Reconstruction of Proto-Taranoan: Phonology and Morphology Munich: LINCOM Eur.
  74. Meira S. 2005. Cariban languages. Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistic Theory K Brown 199–204 Oxford, UK: Elsevier
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Meira S, Birchall J, Chousou-Polydouri S 2015. A character-based internal classification of the Cariban family Talk presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguisticae Europaea Leiden, Neth: Sept. 4
  76. Meira S, Drude S. 2013. Sobre a origem histórica dos “prefixos relacionais” das línguas Tupí-Guaraní. Cad. Etnolingüíst. 5:1–31
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Meira S, Franchetto B. 2005. The southern Cariban languages and the Cariban family. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 71:127–92
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Meira S, Gildea S, Hoff B 2010. On the origin of ablaut in the Cariban family. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 76:4477–515
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Mello A. 2000. Estudo histórico da família linguística tupí-guaraní: aspectos fonológicos e lexicais PhD Diss., Univ. Fed. Santa Catarina, Florianópolis Braz:.
  80. Mello A. 2002. Evidencias fonológicas e lexicais para o sub-agrupamento interno Tupí-Guaraní. Línguas Indígenas Brasileiras: Fonologia, Gramática e História 1 AS Cabral, A Rodrigues 338–42 Belém, Braz: Editora Univ. UFPA
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Michael L, Chousou‐Polydouri N. 2019. Computational phylogenetics and the classification of South American languages. Lang. Linguist. Compass 13:e12358
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Michael L, Chousou-Polydouri N, Bartholomei K, Donnelly E, Wauters V et al. 2015. A Bayesian phylogenetic classification of Tupí-Guaraní. LIAMES 15:193–221
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Moore D, Galucio A. 1994. Reconstruction of Proto-Tupari consonants and vowels. Report 8: Survey of California and Other Indian Languages: Proceedings of the Meeting of the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas M Langdon, L Hinton 119–37 Berkeley: Univ. Calif., Berkeley
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Nichols J, Peterson D. 1996. The Amerind personal pronouns. Language 72:336–71
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Nichols J, Warnow T. 2008. Tutorial on computational linguistic phylogeny. Lang. Linguist. Compass 2:760–820
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Nikulin A. 2015. On the genetic unity of Jê-Tupí-Karib MA Thesis, Lomonsonov Mosc. State Univ., Moscow Russ:.
  87. Nikulin A. 2016. Historical phonology of Proto-Northern Jê. J. Lang. Relatsh. 14:165–85
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Nikulin A. 2017. A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Cerrado (Jê family). J. Lang. Relatsh. 15:147–80
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Nikulin A, da Silva M 2020. As línguas Maxakalí e Krenák dentro do tronco Macro-Jê. Cad. Etnolingüíst. 8:1–64
     [Google Scholar]
  90. O'Hagan Z, Chousou-Polydouri N, Michael L 2019. Phylogenetic classification supports a Northeastern Amazonian Proto-Tupí-Guaraní homeland. LIAMES 19:1–29
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Oliveira S. 2014. Contribuições para a reconstrução do Proto-Páno PhD Diss., Univ. Brasília, Brasília Braz:.
  92. Orr C, Longacre R. 1968. Proto-Quechumaran. Language 44:528–55
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Pache M. 2016. Pumé (Yaruro) and Chocoan: evidence for a new genealogical link in northern South America. Lang. Dyn. Chang. 6:99–155
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Parker G. 1963. La clasificación genética de los dialectos quechuas. Rev. Mus. Nac. XXXII:241–52
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Parker G. 1969a. Comparative Quechua phonology and grammar I: classification. Univ. Hawaii Work. Pap. Linguist. 1:65–87
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Parker G. 1969b. Comparative Quechua phonology and grammar II: Proto-Quechua phonology and morphology. Univ. Hawaii Work. Pap. Linguist. 1:123–47
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Parker G. 1969c. Comparative Quechua phonology and grammar III: Proto-Quechua lexicon. Univ. Hawaii Work. Pap. Linguist. 1:1–61
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Parker G. 1969d. Comparative Quechua phonology and grammar IV: the evolution of Quechua A. Univ. Hawaii Work. Pap. Linguist. 1:2149–204
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Parker G. 1971. Comparative Quechua phonology and grammar V: the evolution of Quechua B. Univ. Hawaii Work. Pap. Linguist. 3:45–109
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Payne D. 1985. The genetic classification of Resigaro. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 51:222–31
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Payne D. 1991. A classification of Maipuran (Arawakan) languages based on shared lexical retentions. Handbook of Amazonian Languages 3 D Derbyshire, G Pullum 355–499 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Payne D. 2005. Apolista (Lapachu) as a Maipuran Arawakan language. Rev. Latinoam. Estud. Etnolingüíst. 10:239–50
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Pearce A, Heggarty P. 2011.. “ Mining the data” on the Huancayo-Huancavelica Quechua frontier. History and Language in the Andes P Heggarty, A Pearce 87–109 New York: Palgrave Macmillan
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Ramirez H. 2001. Lińguas arawak da Amazônia setentrional: comparação e descrição Manaus, Braz: Editora Univ. Amazon.
  105. Ramirez H, Vegini V, de França M 2015. Koropó, puri, kamakã e outras línguas do Leste Brasileiro. LIAMES 15:223–77
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Rankin R. 2003. The comparative method. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics B Joseph, R Janda 183–212 Malden, MA: Blackwell
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Ribeiro E. 2006. Macro-Jê. Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics 7 K Brown 422–26 Oxford, UK: Elsevier, 2nd. ed.
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Ribeiro E. 2011. Prefixos relacionais como evidência histórico-comparativa: os casos Chiquitano e Jabutí. Línguas Cult. Macro-Jê 2:105–20
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Ribeiro E. 2012a. A grammar of Karajá PhD Diss., Univ. Chicago Chicago, IL:
  110. Ribeiro E. 2012b. Final consonants in Maxakalí and their comparative status. LIAMES 12:189–93
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Ribeiro E, van der Voort H 2010. Nimuendajú was right: the inclusion of the Jabutí language family in the Macro-Jê stock. Int. J. Am. Linguist. 76:517–70
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Ribeiro L. 2006. Uma proposta de classificação interna das línguas da família Pano. Rev. Investig. 19:157–88
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Rodrigues A 1984–1985. Relações internas na família lingüística tupí-guaraní. Rev. Antropol. 27/28:33–53
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Rodrigues A. 1985. Evidence for Tupi-Carib relationships. South American Indian Languages: Retrospect and Prospect HE Manelis Klein, LR Stark 371–404 Austin: Univ. Tex. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Rodrigues A. 1986. Línguas brasileiras: para o conhecimento das línguas indígenas São Paulo, Braz: Loyola
  116. Rodrigues A. 1999. Macro-Jê. The Amazonian Languages RMW Dixon, A Aikhenvald 165–206 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Rodrigues A. 2005. As vogais orais do Proto-Tupí. Novos Estudos Sobre Línguas Indígenas A Rodrigues, AS Cabral 35–46 Brasília, Braz: Editora Univ. Brasilia
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Rodrigues A. 2007. As consoantes do Proto-Tupí. Línguas e Culturas Tupi AS Cabral, A Rodrigues 167–203 Campinas, Braz./Brasília, Braz: Curt Nimuendaju/LALI
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Rodrigues A. 2009. A case of affinity among Tupí, Karíb, and Macro-Jê. Rev. Bras. Linguíst. Antropol. 1:137–62
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Rodrigues A, Cabral AS. 2002. Revendo a classificação interna da família tupí-guaraní. Línguas Indígenas Brasileiras: Fonologia, Gramática e História AS Cabral, A Rodrigues 327–37 Belém, Braz: Editora Univ. UFPA
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Rodrigues A, Cabral AS. 2012. Tupían. The Indigenous Languages of South America: A Comprehensive Guide 2 L Campbell, V Grondona 495–574 Boston: Mouton de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Santana Á 2006. Comparações preliminares entre a língua Chiquitano (Brasil/Bolívia) e o Proto-Jê Paper presented at the Symposium “Advances in Native South American Historical Linguistics” at the Fifty-Second International Congress of Americanists, Seville Spain:
  123. Santos-Granero F. 2002. The Arawakan matrix: ethos, language, and history in native South America. Comparative Arawakan Histories: Rethinking Language Family and Culture Area in Amazonia J Hill, F Santos-Granero 25–50 Urbana: Univ. Ill. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  124. Schleicher C. 1998. Comparative and internal reconstruction of the Tupi-Guarani language family PhD Diss., Univ. Wis Madison:
  125. Seifart F, Echeverri JA. 2015. Proto Bora-Muinane. LIAMES 15:279–311
     [Google Scholar]
  126. Seifart F, Hammarström H. 2017. Language isolates in South America. Language Isolates L Campbell 260–86 New York: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Seki L. 2002. O Krenak (Botocudo/Borum) e as línguas Jê. Línguas Je: Estudos Vários L dos Santos, I Pontes 15–40 Londrina, Braz: Editora UEL
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Shell O. 1965. Pano reconstruction PhD Diss., Univ. Pa Philadelphia:
  129. Sorensen A. 1967. Multilingualism in the Northwest Amazon. Am. Anthropol. 69:670–84
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Stark T. 2018. Caribbean Northern Arawak person marking and alignment: a comparative and diachronic analysis PhD Diss., Univ. Calif Berkeley:
  131. Stenzel K. 2005. Multilingualism in the Northwest Amazon, revisited. Memorias del Congreso de Idiomas Indígenas de Latinoamérica–II1–28 Austin: Univ. Tex. Austin
     [Google Scholar]
  132. Torero A. 1964. Los dialectos quechuas. An. Cient. Univ. Agrar. 2:446–78
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Torero A. 1968. Procedencia geográfica de los dialectos quechuas de Ferreñafe y Cajamarca. An. Cient. Univ. Agrar. 3–4:291–316
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Torero A. 1970. Lingüística e historia de la sociedad andina. An. Cient. Univ. Agrar. 8:231–64
     [Google Scholar]
  135. Torero A. 1983. La familia lingüística quechua. América Latina en sus Lenguas Indígenas B Pottier 61–92 Caracas, Venezuela: Monte Avila Editores
     [Google Scholar]
  136. Valenzuela P. 2017. Armonía transitiva en las lenguas Pano y Takana. Amerindia 39:407–51
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Valenzuela P, Guillaume A 2017. Estudios sincrónicos y diacrónicos sobre lenguas Pano y Takana: una introducción. Amerindia 39:1–49
     [Google Scholar]
  138. Walker R, Ribeiro L. 2011. Bayesian phylogeography of the Arawak expansion in lowland South America. Proc. R. Soc. B 278:2562–67
     [Google Scholar]
  139. Waltz N, Wheeler A. 1972. Proto Tucanoan. In Comparative Studies in Amerindian Language E Matteson, A Wheeler, F Jackson, N Waltz, D Christian 119–49 The Hague: Mouton
     [Google Scholar]
  140. Wise MR. 1976. Apuntes sobre la influencia Inca entre los amuesha: factor que oscurece la clasificación del idioma. Rev. Mus. Nac. XLII:355–66
     [Google Scholar]
  141. Zamponi R. 2017. First-person n and second-person m in Native America: a fresh look. Ital. J. Linguist. 29:189–230
     [Google Scholar]
  142. Zariquiey R. 2017. Construcciones ditransitivas en Pano (y Takana): una aproximación basada en propiedades. Amerindia 29:295–322
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030419
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error