Article published In: Diachronica
Vol. 31:3 (2014) ► pp.407–447
Deep relationships among California languages
Published online: 14 November 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.31.3.04hay
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.31.3.04hay
The Hokan and Penutian language classifications, introduced by Dixon & Kroeber (1913), remain controversial nearly a century after they were first proposed. Recently developed computational methods for identifying historical relationships between languages are promising tools for assessing distant linguistic relationship proposals such as these. This paper uses a variation of the linguistic relatedness metric and multilateral clustering procedure developed by Kessler (1999, 2001) to study California language phylogenetics. The purpose is twofold: to evaluate the utility of this methodology for identifying deep relationships, and to re-examine the evidence for Hokan and Penutian groupings. While this paper illustrates several advantages of the methodology employed, it ultimately fails to provide any additional support for Hokan or Penutian. I conclude that while this result may be influenced by the sensitivity of the methodology to the composition of the input sample, it ultimately casts further doubt on the genealogical nature of the Hokan and Penutian classificatory groups.
References (87)
de Angulo, Jaime & L.S. Freeland. 1930. The Achumawi language. International Journal of American Linguistics 61. 77-120.
. n.d. Jaime de Angulo and L.S. Freeland papers. Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, University of California, Berkeley.
Beckman, Jill N. 1998. Positional faithfulness. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.
Bergsland, Knut & Hans Vogt. 1962. On the validity of glottochronology. Current Anthropology 31. 115-153.
Berman, Howard. 1983. Some California Penutian morphological elements. International Journal of American Linguistics 491. 400-412.
Bethel, Rosalie, Paul V. Kroskrity, Christopher Loether & Gregory A. Reinhardt. 1993. A dictionary of Western Mono, 2nd edn. Unpublished manuscript.
Bolnick, Deborah A. (Weiss), Beth A. (Schultz) Shook, Lyle Campbell & Ives Goddard. 2004. Problematic use of Greenberg’s linguistic classification of the Americas in studies of Native American genetic variation. American Journal of Human Genetics 751. 519-523.
Bright, William & Susan Gehr. 2008. Karuk dictionary (online). [URL].
Broadbent, Sylvia M. & Harvey Pitkin. 1964. A comparison of Miwok and Wintun. In William Bright (ed.), Studies in California linguistics (University of California Publications in Linguistics 34), 19-45. Berkeley: University of California Press.
. 2001. More evidence for Yok-Utian: A reanalysis of the Dixon and Kroeber sets. International Journal of American Linguistics 671. 313-346.
Campbell, Lyle. 1997. American Indian languages: The historical linguistics of Native America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chitoran, Ioana, Louis Goldstein & Dani Byrd. 2002. Gestural overlap and recoverability: Articulatory evidence from Georgian. In Carlos Gussenhoven & Natasha Warner (eds.), Laboratory phonetics, vol. 71, 419-447. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Couro, Ted & Christina Hutcheson. 1973. Dictionary of Mesa Grande Diegueño. Banning CA: Malki Museum Press.
Daley, Jon P. 1989. Tümpisa (Panamint) Shoshone dictionary (University of California Publications in Linguistics 116). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Dixon, Roland B. 1905. The Shasta-Achomawi: A new linguistic stock, with four new dialects. American Anthropologist 7(2). 213-217.
Dixon, Roland B. & A.L. Kroeber. 1913. New linguistic families in California. American Anthropologist 151. 647-655.
. 1919. Linguistic families of California (University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 16). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Dunn, Michael, Angela Terrill, Ger Reesink, Robert A. Foley & Stephen C. Levinson. 2005. Structural phylogenetics and the reconstruction of ancient language history. Science 3091. 2072-2075.
Dyen, Isidore, Joseph B. Kruskal & Paul Black. 1992. An Indoeuropean classification: A lexicostatistical experiment. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 82(5). iii-132.
Felsenstein, J. 2001. PHYLIP: Phylogeny inference package: Version 3.6. Department of Genetics, University of Washington.
Frachtenberg, Leo J. 1918. Comparative studies in Takelman, Kalapuyan and Chinookan lexicography, a preliminary paper. International Journal of American Linguistics 1(2). 175-182.
Gow, David W., Janis Melvold & Sharon Manuel. 1996. How word onsets drive lexical access and segmentation: Evidence from acoustics, phonology and processing. In H. Timothy Bunnell & William Idsardi (eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, 66-69New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
Gursky, Karl-Heinz. 1974. Der Hoka-Sprachstamm. Eine Bestandsaufnahme des lexikalischen Beweismaterials. Orbis 231. 170-215.
Halpern, Abraham M. 1964. A report on a survey of Pomo languages. In William Bright (ed.), Studies in Californian linguistics (University of California Publications in Linguistics 34), 88-93. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Haynie, Hannah J. & Loretta Kelsey. 2007. Southeastern Pomo field notes. Unpublished raw data.
Hill, Kenneth C. (ed.). 1998. Hopi dictionary/Hopìikwa lavàytutuveni: A Hopi-English dictionary of the Third Mesa dialect, with an English-Hopi finder list and a sketch of Hopi grammar. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Jacobsen, William H. 1958. Washo and Karok: An approach to comparative Hokan. International Journal of American Linguistics 24(3). 195-212.
Kaufman, Terrence. 1988. A research program for reconstructing Proto-Hokan: First gropings. In Scott DeLancy (ed.), Papers from the 1988 Hokan-Penutian languages workshop, 50-168. Eugene, Oregon: Department of Linguistics, University of Oregon.
Kessler, Brett. 1999. Estimating the probability of historical connections between languages. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.
Kessler, Brett & Annukka Lehtonen. 2006. Multilateral comparison and significance testing of the Indo-Uralic question. In Peter Forster & Colin Renfrew (eds.), Phylogenetic methods and the prehistory of languages, 33-42. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California (Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin). Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
McLendon, Sally. 1964. Northern Hokan (B) and (C): A comparison of Eastern Pomo and Yana. In William Bright (ed.), Studies in Californian linguistics (University of California Publications in Linguistics 34), 126-144. Berkeley: University of California Press.
McMahon, April & Robert McMahon. 2005. Language classification by numbers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mithun, Marianne. 1999. The languages of Native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moshinsky, Julius. 1965. Julius Moshinsky papers. Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, University of California, Berkeley.
Nichols, Johanna. 1999. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
. 1961. Atsugewi morphology I: Verb inflection. International Journal of American Linguistics 271. 91-113.
Olmsted, D.L. & William Bright. 1959. A Shasta vocabulary. The Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers 20(1). 1-55.
Oswalt, Robert L. 1964. The internal relationships of the Pomo family of languages. In D.F. México (ed.), Actas y memorias del XXXV Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, vol. II1, 413-427. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.
. 1975. Kashaya vocabulary (Kashaya Pomo Language in Culture Project Working Papers 32). Department of Anthropology, California State College, Sonoma.
. n.d. Robert Louis Oswalt papers on Pomoan languages. Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, University of California, Berkeley.
Pitkin, Harvey & William Shipley. 1958. A comparative survey of California Penutian. International Journal of American Linguistics 24(3). 174-188.
Powell, John Wesley. 1891. Indian linguistic families of America, north of Mexico (Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1885-1886). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Ringe, Donald, Tandy Warnow & Ann Taylor. 2002. Indo-European and computational cladistics. Transactions of the Philological Society 1001. 139-151.
Sankoff, David. 1972. Reconstructing the history and geography of an evolutionary tree. American Mathematics Monthly 791. 596-603.
Sapir, Edward. 1917. The position of Yana in the Hokan stock (University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 13). Berkeley: The University of California Press.
. 1921b. A characteristic Penutian form of stem. International Journal of American Linguistics 21. 261-273.
Sapir, Edward & Morris Swadesh. 1960. Yana dictionary (University of California Publications in Linguistics 22). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sawyer, Jesse. n.d. Jesse Sawyer papers. Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, University of California, Berkeley.
. 1980. Penutian among the ruins: A personal assessment. In Bruce R. Caron, Meredith A.B. Hoffman & Marilyn Silva (eds.), Proceedings of the sixth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 437-441. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Silver, Shirley. 1961. Shirley Silver papers. Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, University of California, Berkeley.
. 1964. Shasta and Karok: A binary comparison. In William Bright (ed.), Studies in Californian linguistics (University of California Publications in Linguistics 34), 170-181. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sjoberg, Andrée & Gideon Sjoberg. 1956. Problems in glottochronology. American Anthropologist 581. 296-308.
Starostin, George. 2003. A lexicostatistical approach towards reconstructing Proto-Khoisan. Mother Tongue 81. 81-126.
Swadesh, Morris. 1952. Lexico-statistical dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 961. 453-463.
. 1955. Towards greater accuracy in lexicostatistical dating. International Journal of American Linguistics 211. 121-137.
Uldall, Hans J. & William Shipley. 1966. Nisenan texts and dictionary. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Vihman, Eero. 1970. Eero Vihman papers. Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, University of California, Berkeley.
Voegelin, C.F. & E.W. Voegelin. 1966. Map of North American Indian Languages. New York: American Ethnological Society.
Voegelin, C.F. & F.M. Voegelin. 1973. Recent classifications of genetic relationships. Annual Review of Anthropology 21. 139-151.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Dagostino, Carmen
2025. California isolates. In Investigating Language Isolates [Typological Studies in Language, 135], ► pp. 270 ff.
Emlen, Nicholas Q. & Johannes Dellert
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
