Comparative methodology for distant relationships in North and South American languages

Abstract

Comparative linguistics has been an indispensable tool for classifying languages for the last couple of centuries. The method has been successfully used for grouping of languages with obvious relationships; it is also used, though less successfully, for identifying more distant relationships. An example is the placing of Hittite with the Indo-European languages. Languages with close relationships show a good deal of regularity in their reflexes from former states. More distant relationships exhibit fewer and fewer regularities, and thus comparative methodology is less secure. I propose that there are other linguistic features that can be observed in the application of comparative methodology to distant relationships. For example, the phonetic variants of the languages may show patterns of language change which are at the phonemic level in other languages. Another feature to observe is the pattern of fluctuations which occur between phonemes, as well as between phonetic variants. Still another structural feature which can maintain parallels between related families is the distribution pattern — phonemes within morphemes and within words, and the potential consonant and vowel clusters. One might also study “loanwords” (not always easily identifiable), to see if they exhibit patterns that reflect borrowings between related languages. At the semantic level, one can study the various meanings within cognate sets — if the same set of meanings occur in another group of languages, it may reflect common history. Finally, one can study the patterns of reflexes of the obviously related languages. If a proto form has been reconstructed, in addition, one must study the actualizations in the various languages. Proto forms 2 can obscure useful identification markers, especially if they have been wrongly reconstructed. I maintain caution in proposing proto forms for distantly related languages. 2 I am using “proto” as a free form, to eliminate punctuation that is superfluous. This is similar to the use of “emic,” which now occrus widely as a free form.